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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 25, 2020 | 讗壮 讘讗讬讬专 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 50

The month of Iyar is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in memory of their fathers Yosef ben Zvi HaKohen, Dr. Joseph Kahane and Yehuda Aryeh Leib ben Yisachar Dov Barash, Ari Adler zichronam l’vracha.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Susan Handelman in loving memory of her mother Miriam bat Shmuel HaCohen. A friend wrote when she was niftar: “You were blessed to have聽 a mother whose love you always felt , and about whom him you can can truly say ‘Immi Morati’ [“my Mother, my Teacher”]. She was indeed聽 my best teacher, and epitomized the verse, “She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the Torah of kindness is on her tongue.” And by David & Judy Gilberg in memory of Judy’s mother, Elsie Cohn – Eshka Bat Aryeh Leib v鈥機haya Zissel z”l, by Francine Shraga in memory of her father Dov Ber ben Yosef HaCohen z”l and by Ilene Strauss in memory of Leah bat Yaakov v’Yittel z”l.

Muktze is dependent on intent of the owner of the item. Is one’s intent viewed as stronger if showed by actions or if one had intent in one’s mind? If actions, what type of action is needed? The gemara brings several opinions. What if no action would be revelant for a given item? The gemara gets off on a tangent regarding the prohibition of smoothing something on Shabbat during the process of washing or also causing hair to fall out by washing with certain substances. The gemara explains the debate at the end of mishna regarding removing items that were insulated in a basket – how can one do it if it is insulated in soemthing muktze? Some other issues relating to muktze are discussed.

谞讜讟诇 讗转 讛讻讬住讜讬 讜讛谉 谞讜驻诇讜转

He lifts the cover, which he is permitted to move, and the wool fleece falls by itself. Contrary to Rava鈥檚 statement, even wool fleece in which a person insulated food may not be moved on Shabbat.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 讬讞讚谉 诇讛讟诪谞讛 讗讘诇 讬讞讚谉 诇讛讟诪谞讛 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉

Rather, if it was stated, it was stated as follows: Rava said: This halakha that wool fleece may not be moved on Shabbat applies only in a case where one did not designate it for insulating food. However, if he designated it for insulating food, one may move it, as in that case, it is no longer set-aside.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 讬讞讚谉 诇讛讟诪谞讛 讗讘诇 讬讞讚谉 诇讛讟诪谞讛 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉

It was also stated that when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov said that Rabbi Asi ben Shaul said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: This halakha that wool fleece may not be moved on Shabbat applies only in a case where one did not designate it for insulating food. However, if one designated it for insulating food, he may move it.

专讘讬谞讗 讗讜诪专 讘砖诇 讛驻转拽 砖谞讜 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讙讬讝讬 爪诪专 砖诇 讛驻转拽 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讜讗诐 讛转拽讬谞谉 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诇讛砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉

Ravina said: In fact, Rava鈥檚 statement can be understood as it was originally understood, i.e., one who insulated food in wool fleece may move it because it is considered designated for insulating food. In the mishna that indicates otherwise they taught about wool fleece taken from a merchant鈥檚 shelves [heftek]. That wool was certainly not designated for insulating food. It will be returned to those shelves to be sold. Therefore, it is set-aside for that purpose and may not be moved on Shabbat, even if it is used to insulate food. That was also taught in a baraita: With regard to wool fleece taken from a merchant鈥檚 shelves, one may not move it on Shabbat. And if a homeowner prepared the fleece to use it, one may move it.

转谞讗 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞专讬讜转 砖诇 讚拽诇 砖讙讚专谉 诇注爪讬诐 讜谞诪诇讱 注诇讬讛谉 诇讬砖讬讘讛 爪专讬讱 诇拽砖专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇拽砖专 讛讜讗 转谞讬 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

With regard to the question of what can be done to permit use of items ordinarily set-aside on Shabbat, Rabba bar bar 岣na taught the following baraita before Rav: With regard to hard branches of a palm tree that one cut for fire wood or for construction, and then he reconsidered their designation and decided to use them for sitting, he must tie the branches together on Shabbat eve. This allows him to move them on Shabbat like any other household utensil. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He need not tie them together and, nevertheless, he is permitted to move them. Rabba bar bar 岣na taught the baraita, and he said about it that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

讗讬转诪专 专讘 讗诪专 拽讜砖专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讞讜砖讘 讜专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 讬讜砖讘 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 拽讬砖专 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讞讬砖讘

On that same topic, it was stated that Rav said: He ties the branches together on Shabbat eve. And Shmuel said: If he merely has in mind on Shabbat eve that he wishes to sit on them on Shabbat, he need not tie them together. And Rav Asi said: If he even briefly sits on them on Shabbat eve, sitting on the branches is permitted the next day, even though he did not tie them together and even though he did not have that in mind.

讘砖诇诪讗 专讘 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻转谞讗 拽诪讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 谞诪讬 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诇讗 专讘 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 讻诪讗谉

The Gemara comments: Granted, Rav, he stated his opinion in accordance with the unattributed opinion of the first tanna of the baraita, and Shmuel, too, he stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. However, in accordance with whose opinion did Rav Asi state his opinion? Apparently, he disagrees with both tanna鈥檌m who expressed an opinion on the issue.

讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘驻拽讜专讬谉 讜讘爪讬驻讗 讘讝诪谉 砖爪讘注谉 讘砖诪谉 讜讻专讻谉 讘诪砖讬讞讛 诇讗 爪讘注谉 讘砖诪谉 讜诇讗 讻专讻谉 讘诪砖讬讞讛 讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讛诐 讜讗诐 讬爪讗 讘讛谉 砖注讛 讗讞转 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 爪讘注 讜诇讗 讻专讻谉 讘诪砖讬讞讛 诪讜转专 诇爪讗转 讘讛谉

The Gemara explains: Rav Asi stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it was taught in the Tosefta: One may go out into a public domain on Shabbat with combed flax [pakorin] or combed wool covering a wound, when he previously dipped them in oil and tied them to the wound with twine. If he did not dip them in oil or tie them with twine, he may not go out into the public domain with them. And if he went out with them for a brief period on Shabbat eve while it was still day, even if he did not dip them in oil or tie them with twine, he is permitted to go out with them on Shabbat. Apparently, there is a tanna who maintains that using an item before Shabbat enables one to use it on Shabbat as well. No additional steps are necessary.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讛拽砖 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讟讛 诇讗 讬谞注谞注讜 讘讬讚讜 讗讘诇 诪谞注谞注讜 讘讙讜驻讜 讗讘诇 讗诐 讛讬讛 (注诇讬讜) 诪讗讻诇 讘讛诪讛 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 注诇讬讜 讻专 讗讜 住讚讬谉 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 诪谞注谞注讜 讘讬讚讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav Ashi said: We too have also learned in a mishna: Straw that is piled on a bed to be used for fuel or mixed with clay is set aside for that purpose and may not be moved. Therefore, one who seeks to lie on the bed may not move the straw with his hand, but he may move it with his body, as this is not the typical way of moving straw. However, if that straw had been designated as animal feed, or if there was a pillow or sheet spread over it on Shabbat eve while it was still day and he lay on it before Shabbat, he may move it with his hand. Apparently, even brief use before Shabbat suffices to permit use on Shabbat as well. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that there is a tannaitic opinion in accordance with which Rav Asi stated his opinion.

讜诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 注拽讬讘讗 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 驻注诐 讗讞转 讛诇讱 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 注拽讬讘讗 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讜诪爪讗 讞专讬讜转 砖诇 讚拽诇 砖讙讚专讜诐 诇砖讜诐 注爪讬诐 讜讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇转诇诪讬讚讬讜 爪讗讜 讜讞砖讘讜 讻讚讬 砖谞砖讘 注诇讬讛谉 诇诪讞专 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讗讬 讘讬转 讛诪砖转讛 讛讜讛 讗讬 讘讬转 讛讗讘诇 讛讜讛

The Gemara asks: And who is the unnamed tanna who disagrees with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the baraita cited above? He holds that in order to use palm branches for sitting, one must perform an action, e.g., tie them together, before Shabbat? The Gemara answers: It is Rabbi 岣nina ben Akiva, as when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Ze鈥檌ri said that Rabbi 岣nina said: Rabbi 岣nina ben Akiva once went to a certain place on Shabbat eve and found there hard branches of a palm tree that they had cut for fire wood. And he said to his disciples: Go out and have in mind that you will use them so that we will be permitted to sit on them tomorrow, on Shabbat. And, Ze鈥檌ri added, I do not know if the house where Rabbi 岣nina ben Akiva went was the house of a wedding feast or if it was the house of mourning.

诪讚拽讗诪专 讗讬 讘讬转 讛诪砖转讛 讛讜讛 讗讬 讘讬转 讛讗讘诇 讛讜讛 讚讜拽讗 讘讬转 讛讗讘诇 讗讜 讘讬转 讛诪砖转讛 讚讟专讬讚讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 拽砖专 讗讬谉 诇讗 拽砖专 诇讗

The Gemara explains: From the fact that Ze鈥檌ri said: I do not know whether it was the house of a wedding feast or the house of mourning, it may be inferred that this halakha applies specifically to the house of mourning or the house of a feast because they are preoccupied with other matters and do not have time to tie the wood. However, here, in ordinary circumstances, if he tied the branches together, yes, it is permitted to sit on them on Shabbat; if he did not tie them together, no, it is not permitted.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻谞讬住 讗讚诐 诪诇讗 拽讜驻转讜 注驻专 讜注讜砖讛 讘讛 讻诇 爪专讻讜 讚专砖 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚诪专 讝讜讟专讗 专讘讛 讜讛讜讗 砖讬讞讚 诇讜 拽专谉 讝讜讬转

Rav Yehuda said: A person may bring a basket full of earth into his house on Shabbat eve, pour it on the floor, and use it for all his needs on Shabbat, e.g., to cover excrement. Mar Zutra taught in the name of Mar Zutra Rabba: That applies only if he designated a specific corner in his house for the earth.

讗诪专讜 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗讬 讻专讘谞谉 讛讗诪专讬 讘注讬谞谉 诪注砖讛

The Sages said before Rav Pappa: In accordance with whose opinion was this last ruling taught, that designating a place for the earth is sufficient to permit its use on Shabbat? It must have been taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with respect to palm branches, as if it was taught in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, didn鈥檛 they say that in order to permit use of an object that is set-aside on Shabbat, we require an action, e.g., tying the palm branches together? Thought alone is insufficient.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 驻驻讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讚讘注讬谞谉 诪注砖讛 讗诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讘专 注讘讬讚讗 讘讬讛 诪注砖讛 讗讘诇 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 讘专 诪讬注讘讚讗 讘讬讛 诪注砖讛 诇讗

Rav Pappa said to them: Even if you say that the halakha was taught in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the Rabbis stated their opinion that we require an action, only with regard to something with which it is possible to perform a preparatory action. However, with regard to something with which it is not possible to perform a preparatory action, no, they did not require an action. Since it is not possible to perform a preparatory action with the earth, one is permitted to use the earth by means of thought alone.

谞讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讘讻诇 讞驻讬谉 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 讞讜抓 诪讻诇讬 讻住祝 讘讙专转拽讜谉 讛讗 谞转专 讜讞讜诇 诪讜转专

The Gemara asks: Let us say that this issue, whether or not an action is required in that case, is parallel to a dispute among the tanna鈥檌m. As it was taught in one baraita: One may clean utensils on Shabbat with any type of cleaning agent, except for silver utensils with cream of tartar [gartekon], as that not only polishes the silver, but also smooths it. By inference: Cleaning with natron and sand is permitted.

讜讛转谞讬讗 谞转专 讜讞讜诇 讗住讜专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讘注讬谞谉 诪注砖讛 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 诪注砖讛

Wasn鈥檛 it taught in the Tosefta: Cleaning with natron and sand is prohibited on Shabbat? What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this following point? That one Sage, who prohibits use of sand on Shabbat, holds that an action is required in order to permit the use of items that would otherwise be set-aside on Shabbat. Since it is impossible to perform an action with sand, its use is prohibited. And the other Sage, who permits use of sand, holds that an action is not required.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 诪注砖讛 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 (讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉)

The Gemara rejects this argument: No, everyone agrees that an action is not required; and, nevertheless, it is not difficult. This baraita, which prohibits use of sand and natron, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda; that baraita, which permits their use, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讗住讜专 讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 诪讜转专

The Gemara elaborates: This baraita, which prohibits use of sand and natron, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said with regard to the laws of Shabbat in general that an unintentional act is prohibited. It is prohibited to perform an otherwise permitted action from which an unintended prohibited labor ensues. Therefore, cleaning a silver utensil with sand or natron is prohibited because he thereby unintentionally smooths the utensil, which is prohibited on Shabbat. That baraita, which permits the use of sand and natron, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said that an unintentional act is permitted.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 诇讛讗 讚砖专讬 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 诇讗 讬讞讜祝 讘讛诐 砖注专讜 讜讗讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪砖专讗 拽砖专讬 讚转谞谉

The Gemara raises an objection: In what manner did you establish that baraita, which permits the use of sand and natron? You established it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. If so, say the latter clause of that same baraita: However, one may not wash his hair with them on Shabbat. And, if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, he permits doing so. As we learned in a mishna:

谞讝讬专 讞讜驻祝 讜诪驻住驻住 讗讘诇 诇讗 住讜专拽

A nazirite, for whom it is prohibited to cut his hair, may wash his hair with sand and natron and separate it with his fingers; however, he may not comb it, as combing will certainly cause hair to fall out. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon permits washing hair even in a case where it is prohibited to cause hair to fall out; in his opinion, the fact that washing one鈥檚 hair might inadvertently cause that to happen is not a source of concern.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜转专讬 转谞讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讙专讬专 讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇讗 讙专讬专

Rather, both this baraita and that baraita, which disagree with regard to cleaning silver utensils with sand and natron, are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that an unintentional act is prohibited. And there are two tanna鈥檌m in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. They disagree with regard to Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion. This tanna, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that sand and natron scrape and smooth the utensils. Therefore, their use on Shabbat is prohibited. And that tanna, also in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that sand and natron do not scrape and smooth the utensils. Therefore, their use on Shabbat is permitted.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 驻谞讬讜 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 诪讜转专 讛讗 诪注讘专 砖讬注专

The Gemara raises an objection: How did you establish that baraita? It was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. If so, say the latter clause of the baraita: But his face, his hands, and his feet, it is permitted to wash with sand and natron. Doesn鈥檛 he thereby cause hair to fall out? It should be prohibited according to Rabbi Yehuda.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘拽讟谉 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讗砖讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘住专讬住

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the permission to wash one鈥檚 face with sand and natron refers to a child; and if you wish, say instead that it refers to a woman; and if you wish, say instead that it refers to a eunuch. All of them have no facial hair, and that is why there is no concern that use of sand and natron to clean their faces will cause hair to fall out.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 注驻专 诇讘讬谞转讗 砖专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻讜住驻讗 讚讬住诪讬谉 砖专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 注驻专 驻诇驻诇讬 砖专讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讘专讚讗 砖专讬

The Gemara continues: Rav Yehuda said: Washing one鈥檚 face with powdered frankincense (Rav Hai Gaon) is permitted on Shabbat, even if he has a beard, as it does not cause hair to fall out. Rav Yosef said: Washing with the solid residue of jasmine from which its fragrant oil was squeezed is permitted. Rava said: Washing with ground pepper is permitted. Rav Sheshet said: Washing with berada is permitted on Shabbat.

诪讗讬 讘专讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 转讬诇转讗 讗讛诇讗 讜转讬诇转讗 讗住讗 讜转讬诇转讗 住讬讙诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪讬讛 讘专 讬讜住祝 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 专讜讘讗 讗讛诇讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

The Gemara asks: What is berada? Rav Yosef said: It is a mixture of one-third aloe, one-third myrtle, and one-third violets. Rav Ne岣mya bar Yosef said: Everywhere that there is a mixture with no majority of aloe, it may well be used. Even if the mixture contains more than a third aloe, as long as it constitutes less than a majority, it does not cause hair to fall out.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 砖砖转 诪讛讜 诇驻爪讜注 讝讬转讬诐 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜讻讬 讘讞讜诇 诪讬 讛转讬专讜 拽住讘专 诪砖讜诐 讛驻住讚 讗讜讻诇讬谉

The Sages raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: What is the halakha with regard to splitting olives on a rock on Shabbat in order to wash with the oil that oozes from them (ge鈥檕nim)? He said to them: And did they permit doing so on a weekday? Rav Sheshet holds that crushing olives in that manner is prohibited even during the week because it involves ruining food. After the olives are split in that manner, they are no longer fit for consumption.

诇讬诪讗 驻诇讬讙讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注讜砖讛 讗讚诐 讻诇 爪讜专讻讜 讘驻转 讗诪专讬 驻转 诇讗 诪讗讬住讗 讛谞讬 诪讗讬住讬

The Gemara comments: Let us say that Rav Sheshet disagrees with the opinion of Shmuel. As Shmuel said: A person may perform all his needs with bread, and he need not be concerned that it might be ruined. The Sages said in response: Rav Sheshet does not necessarily disagree with Shmuel. Using bread does not render it disgusting and inedible; splitting these olives renders them disgusting and inedible.

讗诪讬诪专 讜诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讜专讘 讗砖讬 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 讗讬讬转讜 诇拽诪讬讬讛讜 讘专讚讗 讗诪讬诪专 讜专讘 讗砖讬 诪砖讜 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诇讗 诪砖讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 诪专 诇讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讘专讚讗 砖专讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 诪专讚讻讬 讘专 诪讬谞讬讛 讚诪专 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讜诇 谞诪讬 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara relates that Ameimar, Mar Zutra, and Rav Ashi were sitting on Shabbat, and they brought berada before them for washing. Ameimar and Rav Ashi washed with it; Mar Zutra did not wash. They said to him: Doesn鈥檛 the Master hold in accordance with that which Rav Sheshet said: Washing with berada is permitted on Shabbat? Rav Mordekhai, who was also there, said to them: Except for him, the Master; i.e., do not draw conclusions from Mar Zutra, as he does not hold that one is permitted to use berada, even on a weekday.

住讘专 诇讛 讻讬 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪讙专专 讗讚诐 讙诇讚讬 爪讜讗讛 讜讙诇讚讬 诪讻讛 砖注诇 讘砖专讜 讘砖讘讬诇 爪注专讜 讗诐 讘砖讘讬诇 诇讬驻讜转 讗住讜专

Mar Zutra holds in accordance with that which was taught in a baraita: A person may scrape off dried excrement crusts and scabs of a wound that are on his flesh because of the pain that they are causing him. However, if he does so in order to clean and beautify himself, it is prohibited. According to the tanna of this baraita, it is prohibited to adorn or beautify oneself, as the verse: 鈥淣either shall a man put on a woman鈥檚 garment鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:5) prohibits dressing or conducting oneself in the manner of women.

讜讗讬谞讛讜 讻诪讗谉 住讘专讜讛 讻讬 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讜讞抓 讗讚诐 驻谞讬讜 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讘砖讘讬诇 拽讜谞讜 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讻诇 驻注诇 讛壮 诇诪注谞讛讜:

The Gemara asks: And Ameimar and Rav Ashi, who permit use of berada, in accordance with whose opinion do they hold? They hold in accordance with that which was taught in a baraita: A person must wash his face, his hands, and his feet every day for the sake of his Maker, as it is stated: 鈥淭he Lord has made everything for His own purpose鈥 (Proverbs 16:4). Every beautiful thing that exists in the world sings the praise of God Who created beautiful things. Therefore, it is appropriate for one to beautify himself in praise of God.

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 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 (讗诪专 专讘) 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讗诐 谞转拽诇拽诇讛 讛讙讜诪讗 砖讗住讜专 诇讛讞讝讬专

We learned in the mishna: 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 of the pot, and takes the pot. Otherwise, there is room for concern lest the wool collapse when he lifts the pot from the basket. Then he will be unable to replace the pot. It is prohibited to move the fleece to make room for the pot, since the fleece is set-aside. However, the Rabbis disagree and say: He may lift the pot and afterward replace it. Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi 岣yya bar Ashi said that Rav said: Everyone agrees, even the Rabbis, that if the cavity in which the pot had been placed was destroyed, its walls having collapsed inward, it is prohibited to return the pot to the basket.

转谞谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讜讟诇 讜诪讞讝讬专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讗 谞转拽诇拽诇讛 讛讙讜诪讗 砖驻讬专 拽讗 讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讚谞转拽诇拽诇讛 讛讙讜诪讗

The Gemara asks, based on what we learned in the mishna. And the Rabbis say: He may lift the pot and afterward replace it. The Gemara elaborates: What are the circumstances? If the cavity in which the pot had been placed was not destroyed, the Rabbis say fittingly that it is permitted to replace the pot; why would Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya prohibit the practice? Rather, is it not that the Rabbis permit returning the pot even though the cavity was destroyed? Apparently, that is the subject of the dispute in the mishna.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚诇讗 谞转拽诇拽诇讛 讜讛讻讗 讘讞讜砖砖讬谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 谞转拽诇拽诇讛 讛讙讜诪讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉

The Gemara rejects this: No, actually, everyone agrees that if the cavity was destroyed, it is prohibited to return the pot to the basket. The mishna is dealing with a case where the cavity was not destroyed, and here the tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to whether or not one need be concerned lest, if one is allowed to remove the pot from the basket without tilting it to the side, the cavity be destroyed and he will come to return the pot to the basket anyway. One Sage, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, holds that one need be concerned lest the cavity be destroyed and he return the pot anyway; and the other Sage, a reference to the Rabbis, holds that one need not be concerned about that.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讗讬 住诇讬拽讜住转讗 讚爪讛 砖诇驻讛 讜讛讚专 讚爪讛 砖专讬讗 讜讗讬 诇讗讜 讗住讬专

The Gemara records several rulings with regard to placing an object into another object that is set-aside. Rav Huna said: With regard to this fragrant daffodil branch that was kept in a pot of moist earth in the house; if on Shabbat eve one inserted it into the earth, then pulled it out, and then inserted it again into the earth, it is permitted to pull it out again on Shabbat. By inserting it and then pulling it out, he has already widened the cavity in which the branch was placed. There is no room for concern that when he pulls it out again on Shabbat he will cause earth to shift from its place. And if he did not do so on Shabbat eve, it is prohibited to pull it out on Shabbat.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗讬 住讻讬谞讗 讚讘讬谞讬 讗讜专讘讬 讚爪讛 砖诇驻讛 讜讛讚专 讚爪讛 砖专讬 讜讗讬 诇讗讜 讗住讬专

Shmuel said: This knife that is stored between bricks; if one stuck it between the bricks on Shabbat eve, pulled it out, and then stuck it between the bricks, it is permitted to pull it out on Shabbat. And if he did not do so on Shabbat eve, it is prohibited to pull it out on Shabbat.

诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讘讙讜专讚讬转讗 讚拽谞讬 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

Mar Zutra, and some say Rav Ashi, said: Placing a knife between the branches of a hedge of reeds (ge鈥檕nim) may well be done and there is no concern lest one come to cut the reeds when he removes it.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诪专讚讻讬 诇专讘讗 诪转讬讘 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 转讬讜讘转讗 讛讟讜诪谉 诇驻转 讜爪谞讜谞讜转 转讞转 讛讙驻谉 讗诐 讛讬讛 诪拽爪转 注诇讬讜 诪讙讜诇讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖

Rav Mordekhai said to Rava: Rav Ketina raised a conclusive refutation of the opinions of Rav Huna and Shmuel from that which we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who conceals a turnip or radish in the ground beneath a vine for safekeeping, if some of its leaves were showing, allowing access to pull the turnip or the radish from the ground, he need neither be concerned;

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 50: Washing Your Face in the Service of God

Again, the overlap of hatmanah and muktzah, and again, the importance of intent, as we set items aside... for use...

Shabbat 50

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 50

谞讜讟诇 讗转 讛讻讬住讜讬 讜讛谉 谞讜驻诇讜转

He lifts the cover, which he is permitted to move, and the wool fleece falls by itself. Contrary to Rava鈥檚 statement, even wool fleece in which a person insulated food may not be moved on Shabbat.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 讬讞讚谉 诇讛讟诪谞讛 讗讘诇 讬讞讚谉 诇讛讟诪谞讛 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉

Rather, if it was stated, it was stated as follows: Rava said: This halakha that wool fleece may not be moved on Shabbat applies only in a case where one did not designate it for insulating food. However, if he designated it for insulating food, one may move it, as in that case, it is no longer set-aside.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 讬讞讚谉 诇讛讟诪谞讛 讗讘诇 讬讞讚谉 诇讛讟诪谞讛 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉

It was also stated that when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov said that Rabbi Asi ben Shaul said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: This halakha that wool fleece may not be moved on Shabbat applies only in a case where one did not designate it for insulating food. However, if one designated it for insulating food, he may move it.

专讘讬谞讗 讗讜诪专 讘砖诇 讛驻转拽 砖谞讜 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讙讬讝讬 爪诪专 砖诇 讛驻转拽 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讜讗诐 讛转拽讬谞谉 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诇讛砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉

Ravina said: In fact, Rava鈥檚 statement can be understood as it was originally understood, i.e., one who insulated food in wool fleece may move it because it is considered designated for insulating food. In the mishna that indicates otherwise they taught about wool fleece taken from a merchant鈥檚 shelves [heftek]. That wool was certainly not designated for insulating food. It will be returned to those shelves to be sold. Therefore, it is set-aside for that purpose and may not be moved on Shabbat, even if it is used to insulate food. That was also taught in a baraita: With regard to wool fleece taken from a merchant鈥檚 shelves, one may not move it on Shabbat. And if a homeowner prepared the fleece to use it, one may move it.

转谞讗 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞专讬讜转 砖诇 讚拽诇 砖讙讚专谉 诇注爪讬诐 讜谞诪诇讱 注诇讬讛谉 诇讬砖讬讘讛 爪专讬讱 诇拽砖专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇拽砖专 讛讜讗 转谞讬 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

With regard to the question of what can be done to permit use of items ordinarily set-aside on Shabbat, Rabba bar bar 岣na taught the following baraita before Rav: With regard to hard branches of a palm tree that one cut for fire wood or for construction, and then he reconsidered their designation and decided to use them for sitting, he must tie the branches together on Shabbat eve. This allows him to move them on Shabbat like any other household utensil. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He need not tie them together and, nevertheless, he is permitted to move them. Rabba bar bar 岣na taught the baraita, and he said about it that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

讗讬转诪专 专讘 讗诪专 拽讜砖专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讞讜砖讘 讜专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 讬讜砖讘 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 拽讬砖专 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讞讬砖讘

On that same topic, it was stated that Rav said: He ties the branches together on Shabbat eve. And Shmuel said: If he merely has in mind on Shabbat eve that he wishes to sit on them on Shabbat, he need not tie them together. And Rav Asi said: If he even briefly sits on them on Shabbat eve, sitting on the branches is permitted the next day, even though he did not tie them together and even though he did not have that in mind.

讘砖诇诪讗 专讘 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻转谞讗 拽诪讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 谞诪讬 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诇讗 专讘 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 讻诪讗谉

The Gemara comments: Granted, Rav, he stated his opinion in accordance with the unattributed opinion of the first tanna of the baraita, and Shmuel, too, he stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. However, in accordance with whose opinion did Rav Asi state his opinion? Apparently, he disagrees with both tanna鈥檌m who expressed an opinion on the issue.

讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘驻拽讜专讬谉 讜讘爪讬驻讗 讘讝诪谉 砖爪讘注谉 讘砖诪谉 讜讻专讻谉 讘诪砖讬讞讛 诇讗 爪讘注谉 讘砖诪谉 讜诇讗 讻专讻谉 讘诪砖讬讞讛 讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讛诐 讜讗诐 讬爪讗 讘讛谉 砖注讛 讗讞转 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 爪讘注 讜诇讗 讻专讻谉 讘诪砖讬讞讛 诪讜转专 诇爪讗转 讘讛谉

The Gemara explains: Rav Asi stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it was taught in the Tosefta: One may go out into a public domain on Shabbat with combed flax [pakorin] or combed wool covering a wound, when he previously dipped them in oil and tied them to the wound with twine. If he did not dip them in oil or tie them with twine, he may not go out into the public domain with them. And if he went out with them for a brief period on Shabbat eve while it was still day, even if he did not dip them in oil or tie them with twine, he is permitted to go out with them on Shabbat. Apparently, there is a tanna who maintains that using an item before Shabbat enables one to use it on Shabbat as well. No additional steps are necessary.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讛拽砖 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讟讛 诇讗 讬谞注谞注讜 讘讬讚讜 讗讘诇 诪谞注谞注讜 讘讙讜驻讜 讗讘诇 讗诐 讛讬讛 (注诇讬讜) 诪讗讻诇 讘讛诪讛 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 注诇讬讜 讻专 讗讜 住讚讬谉 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 诪谞注谞注讜 讘讬讚讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav Ashi said: We too have also learned in a mishna: Straw that is piled on a bed to be used for fuel or mixed with clay is set aside for that purpose and may not be moved. Therefore, one who seeks to lie on the bed may not move the straw with his hand, but he may move it with his body, as this is not the typical way of moving straw. However, if that straw had been designated as animal feed, or if there was a pillow or sheet spread over it on Shabbat eve while it was still day and he lay on it before Shabbat, he may move it with his hand. Apparently, even brief use before Shabbat suffices to permit use on Shabbat as well. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that there is a tannaitic opinion in accordance with which Rav Asi stated his opinion.

讜诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 注拽讬讘讗 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 驻注诐 讗讞转 讛诇讱 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 注拽讬讘讗 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讜诪爪讗 讞专讬讜转 砖诇 讚拽诇 砖讙讚专讜诐 诇砖讜诐 注爪讬诐 讜讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇转诇诪讬讚讬讜 爪讗讜 讜讞砖讘讜 讻讚讬 砖谞砖讘 注诇讬讛谉 诇诪讞专 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讗讬 讘讬转 讛诪砖转讛 讛讜讛 讗讬 讘讬转 讛讗讘诇 讛讜讛

The Gemara asks: And who is the unnamed tanna who disagrees with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the baraita cited above? He holds that in order to use palm branches for sitting, one must perform an action, e.g., tie them together, before Shabbat? The Gemara answers: It is Rabbi 岣nina ben Akiva, as when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Ze鈥檌ri said that Rabbi 岣nina said: Rabbi 岣nina ben Akiva once went to a certain place on Shabbat eve and found there hard branches of a palm tree that they had cut for fire wood. And he said to his disciples: Go out and have in mind that you will use them so that we will be permitted to sit on them tomorrow, on Shabbat. And, Ze鈥檌ri added, I do not know if the house where Rabbi 岣nina ben Akiva went was the house of a wedding feast or if it was the house of mourning.

诪讚拽讗诪专 讗讬 讘讬转 讛诪砖转讛 讛讜讛 讗讬 讘讬转 讛讗讘诇 讛讜讛 讚讜拽讗 讘讬转 讛讗讘诇 讗讜 讘讬转 讛诪砖转讛 讚讟专讬讚讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 拽砖专 讗讬谉 诇讗 拽砖专 诇讗

The Gemara explains: From the fact that Ze鈥檌ri said: I do not know whether it was the house of a wedding feast or the house of mourning, it may be inferred that this halakha applies specifically to the house of mourning or the house of a feast because they are preoccupied with other matters and do not have time to tie the wood. However, here, in ordinary circumstances, if he tied the branches together, yes, it is permitted to sit on them on Shabbat; if he did not tie them together, no, it is not permitted.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻谞讬住 讗讚诐 诪诇讗 拽讜驻转讜 注驻专 讜注讜砖讛 讘讛 讻诇 爪专讻讜 讚专砖 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚诪专 讝讜讟专讗 专讘讛 讜讛讜讗 砖讬讞讚 诇讜 拽专谉 讝讜讬转

Rav Yehuda said: A person may bring a basket full of earth into his house on Shabbat eve, pour it on the floor, and use it for all his needs on Shabbat, e.g., to cover excrement. Mar Zutra taught in the name of Mar Zutra Rabba: That applies only if he designated a specific corner in his house for the earth.

讗诪专讜 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗讬 讻专讘谞谉 讛讗诪专讬 讘注讬谞谉 诪注砖讛

The Sages said before Rav Pappa: In accordance with whose opinion was this last ruling taught, that designating a place for the earth is sufficient to permit its use on Shabbat? It must have been taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with respect to palm branches, as if it was taught in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, didn鈥檛 they say that in order to permit use of an object that is set-aside on Shabbat, we require an action, e.g., tying the palm branches together? Thought alone is insufficient.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 驻驻讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讚讘注讬谞谉 诪注砖讛 讗诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讘专 注讘讬讚讗 讘讬讛 诪注砖讛 讗讘诇 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 讘专 诪讬注讘讚讗 讘讬讛 诪注砖讛 诇讗

Rav Pappa said to them: Even if you say that the halakha was taught in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the Rabbis stated their opinion that we require an action, only with regard to something with which it is possible to perform a preparatory action. However, with regard to something with which it is not possible to perform a preparatory action, no, they did not require an action. Since it is not possible to perform a preparatory action with the earth, one is permitted to use the earth by means of thought alone.

谞讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讘讻诇 讞驻讬谉 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 讞讜抓 诪讻诇讬 讻住祝 讘讙专转拽讜谉 讛讗 谞转专 讜讞讜诇 诪讜转专

The Gemara asks: Let us say that this issue, whether or not an action is required in that case, is parallel to a dispute among the tanna鈥檌m. As it was taught in one baraita: One may clean utensils on Shabbat with any type of cleaning agent, except for silver utensils with cream of tartar [gartekon], as that not only polishes the silver, but also smooths it. By inference: Cleaning with natron and sand is permitted.

讜讛转谞讬讗 谞转专 讜讞讜诇 讗住讜专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讘注讬谞谉 诪注砖讛 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 诪注砖讛

Wasn鈥檛 it taught in the Tosefta: Cleaning with natron and sand is prohibited on Shabbat? What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this following point? That one Sage, who prohibits use of sand on Shabbat, holds that an action is required in order to permit the use of items that would otherwise be set-aside on Shabbat. Since it is impossible to perform an action with sand, its use is prohibited. And the other Sage, who permits use of sand, holds that an action is not required.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 诪注砖讛 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 (讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉)

The Gemara rejects this argument: No, everyone agrees that an action is not required; and, nevertheless, it is not difficult. This baraita, which prohibits use of sand and natron, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda; that baraita, which permits their use, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讗住讜专 讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 诪讜转专

The Gemara elaborates: This baraita, which prohibits use of sand and natron, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said with regard to the laws of Shabbat in general that an unintentional act is prohibited. It is prohibited to perform an otherwise permitted action from which an unintended prohibited labor ensues. Therefore, cleaning a silver utensil with sand or natron is prohibited because he thereby unintentionally smooths the utensil, which is prohibited on Shabbat. That baraita, which permits the use of sand and natron, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said that an unintentional act is permitted.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 诇讛讗 讚砖专讬 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 诇讗 讬讞讜祝 讘讛诐 砖注专讜 讜讗讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪砖专讗 拽砖专讬 讚转谞谉

The Gemara raises an objection: In what manner did you establish that baraita, which permits the use of sand and natron? You established it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. If so, say the latter clause of that same baraita: However, one may not wash his hair with them on Shabbat. And, if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, he permits doing so. As we learned in a mishna:

谞讝讬专 讞讜驻祝 讜诪驻住驻住 讗讘诇 诇讗 住讜专拽

A nazirite, for whom it is prohibited to cut his hair, may wash his hair with sand and natron and separate it with his fingers; however, he may not comb it, as combing will certainly cause hair to fall out. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon permits washing hair even in a case where it is prohibited to cause hair to fall out; in his opinion, the fact that washing one鈥檚 hair might inadvertently cause that to happen is not a source of concern.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜转专讬 转谞讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讙专讬专 讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇讗 讙专讬专

Rather, both this baraita and that baraita, which disagree with regard to cleaning silver utensils with sand and natron, are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that an unintentional act is prohibited. And there are two tanna鈥檌m in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. They disagree with regard to Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion. This tanna, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that sand and natron scrape and smooth the utensils. Therefore, their use on Shabbat is prohibited. And that tanna, also in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that sand and natron do not scrape and smooth the utensils. Therefore, their use on Shabbat is permitted.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 驻谞讬讜 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 诪讜转专 讛讗 诪注讘专 砖讬注专

The Gemara raises an objection: How did you establish that baraita? It was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. If so, say the latter clause of the baraita: But his face, his hands, and his feet, it is permitted to wash with sand and natron. Doesn鈥檛 he thereby cause hair to fall out? It should be prohibited according to Rabbi Yehuda.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘拽讟谉 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讗砖讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘住专讬住

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the permission to wash one鈥檚 face with sand and natron refers to a child; and if you wish, say instead that it refers to a woman; and if you wish, say instead that it refers to a eunuch. All of them have no facial hair, and that is why there is no concern that use of sand and natron to clean their faces will cause hair to fall out.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 注驻专 诇讘讬谞转讗 砖专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻讜住驻讗 讚讬住诪讬谉 砖专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 注驻专 驻诇驻诇讬 砖专讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讘专讚讗 砖专讬

The Gemara continues: Rav Yehuda said: Washing one鈥檚 face with powdered frankincense (Rav Hai Gaon) is permitted on Shabbat, even if he has a beard, as it does not cause hair to fall out. Rav Yosef said: Washing with the solid residue of jasmine from which its fragrant oil was squeezed is permitted. Rava said: Washing with ground pepper is permitted. Rav Sheshet said: Washing with berada is permitted on Shabbat.

诪讗讬 讘专讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 转讬诇转讗 讗讛诇讗 讜转讬诇转讗 讗住讗 讜转讬诇转讗 住讬讙诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪讬讛 讘专 讬讜住祝 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 专讜讘讗 讗讛诇讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

The Gemara asks: What is berada? Rav Yosef said: It is a mixture of one-third aloe, one-third myrtle, and one-third violets. Rav Ne岣mya bar Yosef said: Everywhere that there is a mixture with no majority of aloe, it may well be used. Even if the mixture contains more than a third aloe, as long as it constitutes less than a majority, it does not cause hair to fall out.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 砖砖转 诪讛讜 诇驻爪讜注 讝讬转讬诐 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜讻讬 讘讞讜诇 诪讬 讛转讬专讜 拽住讘专 诪砖讜诐 讛驻住讚 讗讜讻诇讬谉

The Sages raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: What is the halakha with regard to splitting olives on a rock on Shabbat in order to wash with the oil that oozes from them (ge鈥檕nim)? He said to them: And did they permit doing so on a weekday? Rav Sheshet holds that crushing olives in that manner is prohibited even during the week because it involves ruining food. After the olives are split in that manner, they are no longer fit for consumption.

诇讬诪讗 驻诇讬讙讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注讜砖讛 讗讚诐 讻诇 爪讜专讻讜 讘驻转 讗诪专讬 驻转 诇讗 诪讗讬住讗 讛谞讬 诪讗讬住讬

The Gemara comments: Let us say that Rav Sheshet disagrees with the opinion of Shmuel. As Shmuel said: A person may perform all his needs with bread, and he need not be concerned that it might be ruined. The Sages said in response: Rav Sheshet does not necessarily disagree with Shmuel. Using bread does not render it disgusting and inedible; splitting these olives renders them disgusting and inedible.

讗诪讬诪专 讜诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讜专讘 讗砖讬 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 讗讬讬转讜 诇拽诪讬讬讛讜 讘专讚讗 讗诪讬诪专 讜专讘 讗砖讬 诪砖讜 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诇讗 诪砖讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 诪专 诇讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讘专讚讗 砖专讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 诪专讚讻讬 讘专 诪讬谞讬讛 讚诪专 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讜诇 谞诪讬 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara relates that Ameimar, Mar Zutra, and Rav Ashi were sitting on Shabbat, and they brought berada before them for washing. Ameimar and Rav Ashi washed with it; Mar Zutra did not wash. They said to him: Doesn鈥檛 the Master hold in accordance with that which Rav Sheshet said: Washing with berada is permitted on Shabbat? Rav Mordekhai, who was also there, said to them: Except for him, the Master; i.e., do not draw conclusions from Mar Zutra, as he does not hold that one is permitted to use berada, even on a weekday.

住讘专 诇讛 讻讬 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪讙专专 讗讚诐 讙诇讚讬 爪讜讗讛 讜讙诇讚讬 诪讻讛 砖注诇 讘砖专讜 讘砖讘讬诇 爪注专讜 讗诐 讘砖讘讬诇 诇讬驻讜转 讗住讜专

Mar Zutra holds in accordance with that which was taught in a baraita: A person may scrape off dried excrement crusts and scabs of a wound that are on his flesh because of the pain that they are causing him. However, if he does so in order to clean and beautify himself, it is prohibited. According to the tanna of this baraita, it is prohibited to adorn or beautify oneself, as the verse: 鈥淣either shall a man put on a woman鈥檚 garment鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:5) prohibits dressing or conducting oneself in the manner of women.

讜讗讬谞讛讜 讻诪讗谉 住讘专讜讛 讻讬 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讜讞抓 讗讚诐 驻谞讬讜 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讘砖讘讬诇 拽讜谞讜 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讻诇 驻注诇 讛壮 诇诪注谞讛讜:

The Gemara asks: And Ameimar and Rav Ashi, who permit use of berada, in accordance with whose opinion do they hold? They hold in accordance with that which was taught in a baraita: A person must wash his face, his hands, and his feet every day for the sake of his Maker, as it is stated: 鈥淭he Lord has made everything for His own purpose鈥 (Proverbs 16:4). Every beautiful thing that exists in the world sings the praise of God Who created beautiful things. Therefore, it is appropriate for one to beautify himself in praise of God.

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 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 (讗诪专 专讘) 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讗诐 谞转拽诇拽诇讛 讛讙讜诪讗 砖讗住讜专 诇讛讞讝讬专

We learned in the mishna: 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 of the pot, and takes the pot. Otherwise, there is room for concern lest the wool collapse when he lifts the pot from the basket. Then he will be unable to replace the pot. It is prohibited to move the fleece to make room for the pot, since the fleece is set-aside. However, the Rabbis disagree and say: He may lift the pot and afterward replace it. Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi 岣yya bar Ashi said that Rav said: Everyone agrees, even the Rabbis, that if the cavity in which the pot had been placed was destroyed, its walls having collapsed inward, it is prohibited to return the pot to the basket.

转谞谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讜讟诇 讜诪讞讝讬专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讗 谞转拽诇拽诇讛 讛讙讜诪讗 砖驻讬专 拽讗 讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讚谞转拽诇拽诇讛 讛讙讜诪讗

The Gemara asks, based on what we learned in the mishna. And the Rabbis say: He may lift the pot and afterward replace it. The Gemara elaborates: What are the circumstances? If the cavity in which the pot had been placed was not destroyed, the Rabbis say fittingly that it is permitted to replace the pot; why would Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya prohibit the practice? Rather, is it not that the Rabbis permit returning the pot even though the cavity was destroyed? Apparently, that is the subject of the dispute in the mishna.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚诇讗 谞转拽诇拽诇讛 讜讛讻讗 讘讞讜砖砖讬谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 谞转拽诇拽诇讛 讛讙讜诪讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉

The Gemara rejects this: No, actually, everyone agrees that if the cavity was destroyed, it is prohibited to return the pot to the basket. The mishna is dealing with a case where the cavity was not destroyed, and here the tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to whether or not one need be concerned lest, if one is allowed to remove the pot from the basket without tilting it to the side, the cavity be destroyed and he will come to return the pot to the basket anyway. One Sage, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, holds that one need be concerned lest the cavity be destroyed and he return the pot anyway; and the other Sage, a reference to the Rabbis, holds that one need not be concerned about that.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讗讬 住诇讬拽讜住转讗 讚爪讛 砖诇驻讛 讜讛讚专 讚爪讛 砖专讬讗 讜讗讬 诇讗讜 讗住讬专

The Gemara records several rulings with regard to placing an object into another object that is set-aside. Rav Huna said: With regard to this fragrant daffodil branch that was kept in a pot of moist earth in the house; if on Shabbat eve one inserted it into the earth, then pulled it out, and then inserted it again into the earth, it is permitted to pull it out again on Shabbat. By inserting it and then pulling it out, he has already widened the cavity in which the branch was placed. There is no room for concern that when he pulls it out again on Shabbat he will cause earth to shift from its place. And if he did not do so on Shabbat eve, it is prohibited to pull it out on Shabbat.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗讬 住讻讬谞讗 讚讘讬谞讬 讗讜专讘讬 讚爪讛 砖诇驻讛 讜讛讚专 讚爪讛 砖专讬 讜讗讬 诇讗讜 讗住讬专

Shmuel said: This knife that is stored between bricks; if one stuck it between the bricks on Shabbat eve, pulled it out, and then stuck it between the bricks, it is permitted to pull it out on Shabbat. And if he did not do so on Shabbat eve, it is prohibited to pull it out on Shabbat.

诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讘讙讜专讚讬转讗 讚拽谞讬 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

Mar Zutra, and some say Rav Ashi, said: Placing a knife between the branches of a hedge of reeds (ge鈥檕nim) may well be done and there is no concern lest one come to cut the reeds when he removes it.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诪专讚讻讬 诇专讘讗 诪转讬讘 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 转讬讜讘转讗 讛讟讜诪谉 诇驻转 讜爪谞讜谞讜转 转讞转 讛讙驻谉 讗诐 讛讬讛 诪拽爪转 注诇讬讜 诪讙讜诇讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖

Rav Mordekhai said to Rava: Rav Ketina raised a conclusive refutation of the opinions of Rav Huna and Shmuel from that which we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who conceals a turnip or radish in the ground beneath a vine for safekeeping, if some of its leaves were showing, allowing access to pull the turnip or the radish from the ground, he need neither be concerned;

Scroll To Top