Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 26, 2020 | ב׳ באייר תש״פ

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.

Shabbat 51

Today’s shiur is dedicated by the Raye and Cohen families in memory of Elisabeth Maybaum,  Elisheva bat Yehuda z”l and by Fredda Cohen in honor of Dr. Gary Zeitlin, infectious disease doctor at White Plains Hospital, who has saved many lives over the past few months, and whose spirit has been lifted by the study of Talmud and this podcast.

What situations are allowed regarding insulation on Shabbat? Can one uncover and recover and insulated pot on Shabbat? Can one insulate cold items? Can one swap an insulated item with a different material even if it may keep in the heat better? Can one insulate something that was moved out of the utensil it was cooking in (a kli sheni)? Do leaders need to hold themselves to a higher standard to set an example for others? In what way can one melt ice or snow on Shabbat to use? In what way is it forbidden? The fifth chapter discusses items that an animal is or is not allowed to carry from one domain to another. Why is it an issue for animals to carry and what criteria are used in determining whether or not this is permitted?

לא משום כלאים ולא משום שביעית ולא משום מעשר וניטלין בשבת תיובתא:

due to diverse kinds, i.e., that he violated the prohibition of planting food crops in a vineyard, as he did not commit an act of planting; nor due to concern that he violated the prohibition against working the land during the Sabbatical Year; nor due to tithes, i.e., that it would be considered as if he picked it from the ground and would be obligated to tithe it; and they may be taken from the ground on Shabbat. Even if most of the turnip or radish is underground, it is permitted to pull it from the ground on Shabbat. One need not be concerned about causing the earth to move. Apparently, this contradicts the opinions of Rav Huna and Shmuel, who were concerned about causing earth to move on Shabbat. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is a conclusive refutation of the opinions of Rav Huna and Shmuel.

מתני׳ לא כסהו מבעוד יום לא יכסנו משתחשך כסהו ונתגלה מותר לכסותו ממלא את הקיתון ונותן לתחת הכר או תחת הכסת:

MISHNA: If one did not cover a pot of cooked food on Shabbat eve while it was still day, he may not cover it after dark. However, if one covered it while it was still day and it was uncovered on Shabbat, he is permitted to cover it even on Shabbat. One may fill a jug with cold water on Shabbat and place it beneath a pillow or a cushion to prevent it from getting warm.

גמ׳ אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מותר להטמין את הצונן אמר רב יוסף מאי קמשמע לן תנינא ממלא אדם קיתון ונותן תחת הכר או תחת הכסת

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is permitted to insulate the cold food on Shabbat to keep it cold. There is no concern that this will lead one to insulate hot food on Shabbat to keep it hot. Rav Yosef said: What is Shmuel teaching us with this statement? We already learned in our mishna: One may fill a jug with cold water on Shabbat and place it beneath a pillow or a mattress to prevent it from getting warm.

אמר ליה אביי טובא קמשמע לן דאי ממתני׳ הוה אמינא הני מילי דבר שאין דרכו להטמין אבל דבר שדרכו להטמין לא קמשמע לן

Abaye said to him: He teaches us a great deal. As, if it had been learned from the mishna alone, I would have said that the ruling that one is permitted to insulate cold food applies only to something that is not ordinarily insulated when it is hot. However, something that is commonly insulated when it is hot, no, it may not be insulated even when it is cold. Therefore, Shmuel teaches us that this is allowed even in the case of something which is commonly insulated when it is hot.

אמר רב הונא (אמר רב) אסור להטמין את הצונן והתניא רבי התיר להטמין את הצונן לא קשיא הא מקמיה דלישמעיה מרבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי הא לבתר דלישמעיה כי הא דיתיב רבי ואמר אסור להטמין את הצונן אמר לפניו רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי אבא התיר להטמין את הצונן אמר כבר הורה זקן

Rav Huna said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: It is prohibited to insulate cold food on Shabbat to keep it cold. The Gemara raises an objection: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted cold food to be insulated on Shabbat? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This statement was made before he heard the ruling of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei; that statement in the baraita was made after he heard it. As in that incident where Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sat and said: It is prohibited to insulate cold food on Shabbat to keep it cold, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said before him: Father permitted insulating cold food on Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: I retract my previous statement, as the Elder, Rabbi Yosei, has already issued a ruling on this topic, and I defer to his ruling.

אמר רב פפא בא וראה כמה מחבבין זה את זה שאילו רבי יוסי קיים היה כפוף ויושב לפני רבי דהא רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי דממלא מקום אבותיו הוה וכפוף ויושב לפני רבי וקאמר כבר הורה זקן

Rav Pappa said: Come and see how much they loved each other. Had Rabbi Yosei still been alive, he would have been subordinate to and sitting before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi as his student, as Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, who took his father’s place and was as great a Torah scholar as his father, was subordinate to and sitting before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi as his student. And, nevertheless, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The Elder has already issued a ruling on this topic, and he deferred to Rabbi Yosei’s ruling.

אמר ליה רב נחמן לדרו עבדיה אטמין לי צונן ואייתי לי מיא דאחים קפילא ארמאה שמע רבי אמי ואיקפד אמר רב יוסף מאי טעמא איקפד כרבוותיה עביד חדא כרב וחדא כשמואל

Rav Naḥman said to Daru, his slave: Insulate cold food for me on Shabbat, so that it will not become warm, and bring me water that a gentile cook [kappeila] heated on a weekday, as the prohibition to eat food cooked by a gentile does not apply to water. When Rabbi Ami heard this, he became angry. Rav Yosef said: What is the reason that Rabbi Ami become angry? Rav Naḥman acted in accordance with the rulings of his teachers; in one matter in accordance with the ruling of Rav, and in one matter in accordance with the ruling of Shmuel.

כשמואל דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מותר להטמין את הצונן כרב דאמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק אמר רב כל שהוא נאכל כמות שהוא חי אין בו משום בשולי גוים

The Gemara explains: In one matter in accordance with the ruling of Shmuel, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is permitted to insulate cold food on Shabbat to keep it cold. In one matter in accordance with the ruling of Rav, as Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said that Rav said: Anything that is eaten as it is, raw, and cooking it is unnecessary, even if it was cooked it is not subject to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles. Since water is commonly drunk uncooked, one may drink it even if it was boiled by a gentile.

(הוא) סבר אדם חשוב שאני:

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ami became angry because he held that an important person is different. A distinguished person like Rav Naḥman should be stringent and distance himself from conduct that could be perceived, even mistakenly, as a prohibited act.

תנו רבנן אף על פי שאמרו אין טומנין אפילו בדבר שאינו מוסיף הבל משחשכה אם בא להוסיף מוסיף כיצד הוא עושה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר נוטל את הסדינין ומניח את הגלופקרין או נוטל את הגלופקרין ומניח את הסדינין

The Sages taught in the Tosefta: Although the Sages said that one may not insulate hot food, even in something that does not add heat after nightfall on Shabbat, if he comes to add to the material in which he insulated the food on Shabbat eve, he may add to it even on Shabbat. How should he do it? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: He takes the sheets with which he insulated a pot and places the heavy blankets, which provide better insulation, in their place. Or, if he is concerned about excessive heat, he takes the heavy blankets in which the pot had been insulated and places the lighter sheets in their place.

וכן היה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר לא אסרו אלא אותו מיחם אבל פינה ממיחם למיחם מותר השתא אקורי קא מקיר לה ארתוחי קא מירתח לה

And likewise, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, in teaching an additional leniency, said: They prohibited insulating a pot on Shabbat to keep its contents warm when the food remains only in the same urn in which the water was boiled. However, if one emptied the water from that urn into another urn, it is permitted to insulate the second urn to keep the water warm. The reason for the ruling of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is: It is prohibited to insulate a pot on Shabbat, due to concern lest one heat the food beforehand. Now that he has already taken steps to cool the water by pouring it from one urn to another, is there concern that he will boil it again on Shabbat?

טמן וכיסה בדבר הניטל בשבת או טמן בדבר שאינו ניטל בשבת וכיסה בדבר הניטל בשבת הרי זה נוטל ומחזיר

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: If he insulated the pot and covered it with something that may be moved on Shabbat, or if he insulated it with something that may not be moved on Shabbat because it is set-aside and covered it with something that may be moved on Shabbat, he may take the pot to remove food and return it to its place and not be concerned.

טמן וכיסה בדבר שאינו ניטל בשבת או שטמן בדבר הניטל בשבת וכיסה בדבר שאינו ניטל בשבת אם היה מגולה מקצתו נוטל ומחזיר ואם לאו

However, if he both insulated it and covered it with something that may not be moved on Shabbat, or if he insulated it in something that may be moved on Shabbat and covered it with something that may not be moved on Shabbat, if the pot was partially exposed, he may remove the pot and the cover will fall on its own and then return it to its place. And if the pot was not partially exposed,

אינו נוטל ומחזיר

he may not remove the pot and then return it to its place.

רבי יהודה אומר נעורת של פשתן דקה הרי היא כזבל

Rabbi Yehuda says: The chaff of fine flax is like manure. Therefore, one may not insulate food in it even on Shabbat eve.

מניחין מיחם על גבי מיחם וקדרה על גבי קדרה אבל לא קדרה על גבי מיחם ומיחם על גבי קדרה וטח את פיה בבצק ולא בשביל שיחמו אלא בשביל שיהיו משומרים

One may place a copper urn upon a copper urn, and one may place an earthenware pot upon an earthenware pot because the lower utensil will not heat the upper one. However, one may not place an earthenware pot upon a copper urn, or a copper urn upon an earthenware pot, as in that case there is concern that the upper utensil will be heated by the lower one. And one may seal the mouth of a pot with dough. All of the above may not be undertaken in order to heat the water, but only so that its heat will be maintained and it will not cool down.

וכשם שאין טומנין את החמין כך אין טומנין את הצונן רבי התיר להטמין את הצונן

And just as one may not insulate hot food to keep it warm, so too, one may not insulate cold food to keep it cold. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted insulating cold food on Shabbat.

ואין מרזקין לא את השלג ולא את הברד בשבת בשביל שיזובו מימיו אבל נותן הוא לתוך הכוס או לתוך הקערה ואינו חושש:

And one may neither crush snow nor hail on Shabbat so that its water will flow and he will be able to drink it. That act involves creation of a new entity, water from ice, on Shabbat, which is prohibited. However, he may place the snow or the hail into a cup or a dish and allow it to melt on its own, and he need not be concerned.

הדרן עלך במה טומנין

 

מתני׳ במה בהמה יוצאה ובמה אינה יוצאה יוצא הגמל באפסר ונאקה בחטם ולובדקים בפרומביא וסוס בשיר

Due to the mitzva to rest one’s animals on Shabbat, one’s animal may not go out into the public domain bearing a burden. However, an object designated to protect the animal or to prevent it from fleeing is not considered a burden; therefore, an animal bearing objects that serve that purpose may go out into the public domain.

MISHNA: The mishna asks: With what may an animal go out into the public domain on Shabbat and with what may it not go out? A camel may go out on Shabbat with an afsar, and a naka may go out with a ḥatam, and a luvdekim may go out with a perumbiya. All these terms will be defined in the Gemara. And a horse may go out with a chain around its neck.

וכל בעלי השיר יוצאין בשיר ונמשכין בשיר

And, in general, all animals that typically have a chain around their necks when they go out to the public domain may go out with a chain on Shabbat and may be pulled by the chain.

ומזין עליהן וטובלן במקומן:

If these chains contracted ritual impurity, one may sprinkle waters of purification on them and immerse them in their place on the animal, and they need not first be removed.

גמ׳ מאי נאקה בחטם אמר רבה בר בר חנה נאקתא חיורתי בזממא דפרזלא: ולובדקים בפרומביא: אמר רב הונא חמרא לובא בפגי דפרזלא

GEMARA: Several terms in the mishna were not clear to the Sages, and the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of naka with a ḥatam? Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: A white female camel (ge’onim) with an iron nose ring. And what is the meaning of luvdekim with a perumbiya? Rav Huna said: A Libyan donkey with an iron halter.

לוי שדר זוזי לבי חוזאי למיזבן ליה חמרא לובא צרו שדרו ליה שערי למימר דניגרי דחמרא שערי

Having mentioned a Libyan donkey, the Gemara relates that Levi once sent money to Bei Ḥozai to procure for himself a Libyan donkey, which is reputed to be of superior quality. They bound his money, returned it, and sent him barley, to say that the strides of a donkey depend on the barley that it eats. If one provides his donkey with better feed, its performance will be as good as that of a Libyan donkey.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מחליפין לפני רבי של זו בזו מהו

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The students switched the details in the mishna before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and asked: What is the halakha with regard to this animal going out into the public domain with that which is permitted for that animal? For example, may a white female camel go out with a bit or a camel with an iron nose ring?

נאקה באפסר לא תיבעי לך כיון דלא מינטרא ביה משאוי הוא כי תיבעי לך גמל בחטם מאי כיון דסגי ליה באפסר משאוי הוא או דילמא נטירותא יתירתא לא אמרינן משאוי הוא

The Gemara explains: The case of a white female camel going out with a bit should not be a dilemma for you; since it is not sufficiently secured by a bit, it is regarded as a burden with which the animal may not go out. The case where there should be a dilemma for you is that of a camel going out to the public domain with a nose ring. What is the halakha in that case? The Gemara explains the dilemma: Is the halakha that since a bit alone suffices to secure a camel, an iron nose ring is considered a burden? Or, is the halakha perhaps that with regard to a device that provides excessive security we do not say that it is a burden?

אמר לפניו רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי כך אמר אבא ארבע בהמות יוצאות באפסר הסוס והפרד והגמל והחמור למעוטי מאי לאו למעוטי גמל בחטם לא למעוטי נאקה באפסר

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that so said father, Rabbi Yosei: Four animals may go out with a bit: The horse, and the mule, and the camel, and the donkey. What does this list come to exclude? Is it not coming to exclude a camel going out with a nose ring? Apparently, the dilemma is resolved. The camel may go out only with a bit. The Gemara rejects this proof: No, the list comes to exclude a white female camel going out with a bit.

במתניתא תנא לובדקים וגמל יוצאין באפסר כתנאי אין חיה יוצאה בסוגר חנניה אומר יוצאה בסוגר ובכל דבר המשתמר

It was taught in a baraita: A Libyan donkey and a camel may go out with a bit. The Gemara notes that the question whether or not an animal may go out into the public domain with excessive security is parallel to a dispute between the tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: A non-domesticated animal may not go out with a collar. Ḥananya says: It may go out with a collar and with anything that secures it.

במאי עסקינן אילימא בחיה גדולה מי סגי לה סוגר ואלא בחיה קטנה מי לא סגי לה סוגר

The Gemara clarifies the case: With what are we dealing here? If you say that we are dealing with a large non-domesticated animal, does a collar suffice for it? Since it does not sufficiently secure the animal, it is considered a burden, and it is prohibited for the animal to go out with it on Shabbat. Rather, it must be dealing with a small non-domesticated animal. In that case, doesn’t a collar suffice for it? Why then does the anonymous first tanna hold that the animal may not go out with it?

אלא לאו חתול איכא בינייהו תנא קמא סבר כיון דסגי לה במיתנא בעלמא משאוי הוא וחנניה סבר כל נטירותא יתירתא לא אמרינן משאוי הוא אמר רב הונא בר חייא אמר שמואל הלכה כחנניה

Rather, is it not that the practical difference between their opinions is with regard to a cat? The anonymous first tanna of the baraita holds that since a small rope suffices for the cat, a collar is considered a burden with which the cat may not go out into the public domain. And Ḥananya holds that with regard to a device that provides excessive security, we do not say that it is a burden. The tanna’im disagree whether or not a device that provides excessive security is considered a burden. The Gemara concludes: Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya. A device that provides excessive security is not considered a burden.

לוי בריה דרב הונא בר חייא ורבה בר רב הונא הוו קאזלי באורחא קדמיה חמרא דלוי לחמרא דרבה בר רב הונא חלש דעתיה דרבה בר רב הונא אמר אימא ליה מילתא כי היכי

The Gemara relates that Levi, son of Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya, and Rabba bar Rav Huna were once going together on a road. Levi’s donkey on its own initiative went ahead of the donkey of Rabba bar Rav Huna. Rabba bar Rav Huna was offended because he was the greater Torah scholar, and he thought that Levi went first to assert that he considered himself the greater scholar. Levi said to himself: I will say something to him, so that

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.

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.  An...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 51: Herding Cats

Can you insulate to keep things cold? R. Yehudah HaNasi contradicts himself - until Abaye resolves the contradiction. Also, a...

Shabbat 51

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 51

לא משום כלאים ולא משום שביעית ולא משום מעשר וניטלין בשבת תיובתא:

due to diverse kinds, i.e., that he violated the prohibition of planting food crops in a vineyard, as he did not commit an act of planting; nor due to concern that he violated the prohibition against working the land during the Sabbatical Year; nor due to tithes, i.e., that it would be considered as if he picked it from the ground and would be obligated to tithe it; and they may be taken from the ground on Shabbat. Even if most of the turnip or radish is underground, it is permitted to pull it from the ground on Shabbat. One need not be concerned about causing the earth to move. Apparently, this contradicts the opinions of Rav Huna and Shmuel, who were concerned about causing earth to move on Shabbat. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is a conclusive refutation of the opinions of Rav Huna and Shmuel.

מתני׳ לא כסהו מבעוד יום לא יכסנו משתחשך כסהו ונתגלה מותר לכסותו ממלא את הקיתון ונותן לתחת הכר או תחת הכסת:

MISHNA: If one did not cover a pot of cooked food on Shabbat eve while it was still day, he may not cover it after dark. However, if one covered it while it was still day and it was uncovered on Shabbat, he is permitted to cover it even on Shabbat. One may fill a jug with cold water on Shabbat and place it beneath a pillow or a cushion to prevent it from getting warm.

גמ׳ אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מותר להטמין את הצונן אמר רב יוסף מאי קמשמע לן תנינא ממלא אדם קיתון ונותן תחת הכר או תחת הכסת

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is permitted to insulate the cold food on Shabbat to keep it cold. There is no concern that this will lead one to insulate hot food on Shabbat to keep it hot. Rav Yosef said: What is Shmuel teaching us with this statement? We already learned in our mishna: One may fill a jug with cold water on Shabbat and place it beneath a pillow or a mattress to prevent it from getting warm.

אמר ליה אביי טובא קמשמע לן דאי ממתני׳ הוה אמינא הני מילי דבר שאין דרכו להטמין אבל דבר שדרכו להטמין לא קמשמע לן

Abaye said to him: He teaches us a great deal. As, if it had been learned from the mishna alone, I would have said that the ruling that one is permitted to insulate cold food applies only to something that is not ordinarily insulated when it is hot. However, something that is commonly insulated when it is hot, no, it may not be insulated even when it is cold. Therefore, Shmuel teaches us that this is allowed even in the case of something which is commonly insulated when it is hot.

אמר רב הונא (אמר רב) אסור להטמין את הצונן והתניא רבי התיר להטמין את הצונן לא קשיא הא מקמיה דלישמעיה מרבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי הא לבתר דלישמעיה כי הא דיתיב רבי ואמר אסור להטמין את הצונן אמר לפניו רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי אבא התיר להטמין את הצונן אמר כבר הורה זקן

Rav Huna said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: It is prohibited to insulate cold food on Shabbat to keep it cold. The Gemara raises an objection: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted cold food to be insulated on Shabbat? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This statement was made before he heard the ruling of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei; that statement in the baraita was made after he heard it. As in that incident where Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sat and said: It is prohibited to insulate cold food on Shabbat to keep it cold, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said before him: Father permitted insulating cold food on Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: I retract my previous statement, as the Elder, Rabbi Yosei, has already issued a ruling on this topic, and I defer to his ruling.

אמר רב פפא בא וראה כמה מחבבין זה את זה שאילו רבי יוסי קיים היה כפוף ויושב לפני רבי דהא רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי דממלא מקום אבותיו הוה וכפוף ויושב לפני רבי וקאמר כבר הורה זקן

Rav Pappa said: Come and see how much they loved each other. Had Rabbi Yosei still been alive, he would have been subordinate to and sitting before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi as his student, as Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, who took his father’s place and was as great a Torah scholar as his father, was subordinate to and sitting before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi as his student. And, nevertheless, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The Elder has already issued a ruling on this topic, and he deferred to Rabbi Yosei’s ruling.

אמר ליה רב נחמן לדרו עבדיה אטמין לי צונן ואייתי לי מיא דאחים קפילא ארמאה שמע רבי אמי ואיקפד אמר רב יוסף מאי טעמא איקפד כרבוותיה עביד חדא כרב וחדא כשמואל

Rav Naḥman said to Daru, his slave: Insulate cold food for me on Shabbat, so that it will not become warm, and bring me water that a gentile cook [kappeila] heated on a weekday, as the prohibition to eat food cooked by a gentile does not apply to water. When Rabbi Ami heard this, he became angry. Rav Yosef said: What is the reason that Rabbi Ami become angry? Rav Naḥman acted in accordance with the rulings of his teachers; in one matter in accordance with the ruling of Rav, and in one matter in accordance with the ruling of Shmuel.

כשמואל דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מותר להטמין את הצונן כרב דאמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק אמר רב כל שהוא נאכל כמות שהוא חי אין בו משום בשולי גוים

The Gemara explains: In one matter in accordance with the ruling of Shmuel, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is permitted to insulate cold food on Shabbat to keep it cold. In one matter in accordance with the ruling of Rav, as Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said that Rav said: Anything that is eaten as it is, raw, and cooking it is unnecessary, even if it was cooked it is not subject to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles. Since water is commonly drunk uncooked, one may drink it even if it was boiled by a gentile.

(הוא) סבר אדם חשוב שאני:

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ami became angry because he held that an important person is different. A distinguished person like Rav Naḥman should be stringent and distance himself from conduct that could be perceived, even mistakenly, as a prohibited act.

תנו רבנן אף על פי שאמרו אין טומנין אפילו בדבר שאינו מוסיף הבל משחשכה אם בא להוסיף מוסיף כיצד הוא עושה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר נוטל את הסדינין ומניח את הגלופקרין או נוטל את הגלופקרין ומניח את הסדינין

The Sages taught in the Tosefta: Although the Sages said that one may not insulate hot food, even in something that does not add heat after nightfall on Shabbat, if he comes to add to the material in which he insulated the food on Shabbat eve, he may add to it even on Shabbat. How should he do it? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: He takes the sheets with which he insulated a pot and places the heavy blankets, which provide better insulation, in their place. Or, if he is concerned about excessive heat, he takes the heavy blankets in which the pot had been insulated and places the lighter sheets in their place.

וכן היה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר לא אסרו אלא אותו מיחם אבל פינה ממיחם למיחם מותר השתא אקורי קא מקיר לה ארתוחי קא מירתח לה

And likewise, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, in teaching an additional leniency, said: They prohibited insulating a pot on Shabbat to keep its contents warm when the food remains only in the same urn in which the water was boiled. However, if one emptied the water from that urn into another urn, it is permitted to insulate the second urn to keep the water warm. The reason for the ruling of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is: It is prohibited to insulate a pot on Shabbat, due to concern lest one heat the food beforehand. Now that he has already taken steps to cool the water by pouring it from one urn to another, is there concern that he will boil it again on Shabbat?

טמן וכיסה בדבר הניטל בשבת או טמן בדבר שאינו ניטל בשבת וכיסה בדבר הניטל בשבת הרי זה נוטל ומחזיר

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: If he insulated the pot and covered it with something that may be moved on Shabbat, or if he insulated it with something that may not be moved on Shabbat because it is set-aside and covered it with something that may be moved on Shabbat, he may take the pot to remove food and return it to its place and not be concerned.

טמן וכיסה בדבר שאינו ניטל בשבת או שטמן בדבר הניטל בשבת וכיסה בדבר שאינו ניטל בשבת אם היה מגולה מקצתו נוטל ומחזיר ואם לאו

However, if he both insulated it and covered it with something that may not be moved on Shabbat, or if he insulated it in something that may be moved on Shabbat and covered it with something that may not be moved on Shabbat, if the pot was partially exposed, he may remove the pot and the cover will fall on its own and then return it to its place. And if the pot was not partially exposed,

אינו נוטל ומחזיר

he may not remove the pot and then return it to its place.

רבי יהודה אומר נעורת של פשתן דקה הרי היא כזבל

Rabbi Yehuda says: The chaff of fine flax is like manure. Therefore, one may not insulate food in it even on Shabbat eve.

מניחין מיחם על גבי מיחם וקדרה על גבי קדרה אבל לא קדרה על גבי מיחם ומיחם על גבי קדרה וטח את פיה בבצק ולא בשביל שיחמו אלא בשביל שיהיו משומרים

One may place a copper urn upon a copper urn, and one may place an earthenware pot upon an earthenware pot because the lower utensil will not heat the upper one. However, one may not place an earthenware pot upon a copper urn, or a copper urn upon an earthenware pot, as in that case there is concern that the upper utensil will be heated by the lower one. And one may seal the mouth of a pot with dough. All of the above may not be undertaken in order to heat the water, but only so that its heat will be maintained and it will not cool down.

וכשם שאין טומנין את החמין כך אין טומנין את הצונן רבי התיר להטמין את הצונן

And just as one may not insulate hot food to keep it warm, so too, one may not insulate cold food to keep it cold. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted insulating cold food on Shabbat.

ואין מרזקין לא את השלג ולא את הברד בשבת בשביל שיזובו מימיו אבל נותן הוא לתוך הכוס או לתוך הקערה ואינו חושש:

And one may neither crush snow nor hail on Shabbat so that its water will flow and he will be able to drink it. That act involves creation of a new entity, water from ice, on Shabbat, which is prohibited. However, he may place the snow or the hail into a cup or a dish and allow it to melt on its own, and he need not be concerned.

הדרן עלך במה טומנין

 

מתני׳ במה בהמה יוצאה ובמה אינה יוצאה יוצא הגמל באפסר ונאקה בחטם ולובדקים בפרומביא וסוס בשיר

Due to the mitzva to rest one’s animals on Shabbat, one’s animal may not go out into the public domain bearing a burden. However, an object designated to protect the animal or to prevent it from fleeing is not considered a burden; therefore, an animal bearing objects that serve that purpose may go out into the public domain.

MISHNA: The mishna asks: With what may an animal go out into the public domain on Shabbat and with what may it not go out? A camel may go out on Shabbat with an afsar, and a naka may go out with a ḥatam, and a luvdekim may go out with a perumbiya. All these terms will be defined in the Gemara. And a horse may go out with a chain around its neck.

וכל בעלי השיר יוצאין בשיר ונמשכין בשיר

And, in general, all animals that typically have a chain around their necks when they go out to the public domain may go out with a chain on Shabbat and may be pulled by the chain.

ומזין עליהן וטובלן במקומן:

If these chains contracted ritual impurity, one may sprinkle waters of purification on them and immerse them in their place on the animal, and they need not first be removed.

גמ׳ מאי נאקה בחטם אמר רבה בר בר חנה נאקתא חיורתי בזממא דפרזלא: ולובדקים בפרומביא: אמר רב הונא חמרא לובא בפגי דפרזלא

GEMARA: Several terms in the mishna were not clear to the Sages, and the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of naka with a ḥatam? Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: A white female camel (ge’onim) with an iron nose ring. And what is the meaning of luvdekim with a perumbiya? Rav Huna said: A Libyan donkey with an iron halter.

לוי שדר זוזי לבי חוזאי למיזבן ליה חמרא לובא צרו שדרו ליה שערי למימר דניגרי דחמרא שערי

Having mentioned a Libyan donkey, the Gemara relates that Levi once sent money to Bei Ḥozai to procure for himself a Libyan donkey, which is reputed to be of superior quality. They bound his money, returned it, and sent him barley, to say that the strides of a donkey depend on the barley that it eats. If one provides his donkey with better feed, its performance will be as good as that of a Libyan donkey.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מחליפין לפני רבי של זו בזו מהו

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The students switched the details in the mishna before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and asked: What is the halakha with regard to this animal going out into the public domain with that which is permitted for that animal? For example, may a white female camel go out with a bit or a camel with an iron nose ring?

נאקה באפסר לא תיבעי לך כיון דלא מינטרא ביה משאוי הוא כי תיבעי לך גמל בחטם מאי כיון דסגי ליה באפסר משאוי הוא או דילמא נטירותא יתירתא לא אמרינן משאוי הוא

The Gemara explains: The case of a white female camel going out with a bit should not be a dilemma for you; since it is not sufficiently secured by a bit, it is regarded as a burden with which the animal may not go out. The case where there should be a dilemma for you is that of a camel going out to the public domain with a nose ring. What is the halakha in that case? The Gemara explains the dilemma: Is the halakha that since a bit alone suffices to secure a camel, an iron nose ring is considered a burden? Or, is the halakha perhaps that with regard to a device that provides excessive security we do not say that it is a burden?

אמר לפניו רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי כך אמר אבא ארבע בהמות יוצאות באפסר הסוס והפרד והגמל והחמור למעוטי מאי לאו למעוטי גמל בחטם לא למעוטי נאקה באפסר

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that so said father, Rabbi Yosei: Four animals may go out with a bit: The horse, and the mule, and the camel, and the donkey. What does this list come to exclude? Is it not coming to exclude a camel going out with a nose ring? Apparently, the dilemma is resolved. The camel may go out only with a bit. The Gemara rejects this proof: No, the list comes to exclude a white female camel going out with a bit.

במתניתא תנא לובדקים וגמל יוצאין באפסר כתנאי אין חיה יוצאה בסוגר חנניה אומר יוצאה בסוגר ובכל דבר המשתמר

It was taught in a baraita: A Libyan donkey and a camel may go out with a bit. The Gemara notes that the question whether or not an animal may go out into the public domain with excessive security is parallel to a dispute between the tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: A non-domesticated animal may not go out with a collar. Ḥananya says: It may go out with a collar and with anything that secures it.

במאי עסקינן אילימא בחיה גדולה מי סגי לה סוגר ואלא בחיה קטנה מי לא סגי לה סוגר

The Gemara clarifies the case: With what are we dealing here? If you say that we are dealing with a large non-domesticated animal, does a collar suffice for it? Since it does not sufficiently secure the animal, it is considered a burden, and it is prohibited for the animal to go out with it on Shabbat. Rather, it must be dealing with a small non-domesticated animal. In that case, doesn’t a collar suffice for it? Why then does the anonymous first tanna hold that the animal may not go out with it?

אלא לאו חתול איכא בינייהו תנא קמא סבר כיון דסגי לה במיתנא בעלמא משאוי הוא וחנניה סבר כל נטירותא יתירתא לא אמרינן משאוי הוא אמר רב הונא בר חייא אמר שמואל הלכה כחנניה

Rather, is it not that the practical difference between their opinions is with regard to a cat? The anonymous first tanna of the baraita holds that since a small rope suffices for the cat, a collar is considered a burden with which the cat may not go out into the public domain. And Ḥananya holds that with regard to a device that provides excessive security, we do not say that it is a burden. The tanna’im disagree whether or not a device that provides excessive security is considered a burden. The Gemara concludes: Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya. A device that provides excessive security is not considered a burden.

לוי בריה דרב הונא בר חייא ורבה בר רב הונא הוו קאזלי באורחא קדמיה חמרא דלוי לחמרא דרבה בר רב הונא חלש דעתיה דרבה בר רב הונא אמר אימא ליה מילתא כי היכי

The Gemara relates that Levi, son of Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya, and Rabba bar Rav Huna were once going together on a road. Levi’s donkey on its own initiative went ahead of the donkey of Rabba bar Rav Huna. Rabba bar Rav Huna was offended because he was the greater Torah scholar, and he thought that Levi went first to assert that he considered himself the greater scholar. Levi said to himself: I will say something to him, so that

More Ways to Learn with Hadran

Join Hadran Communities! Connect with women learning in your area.

Scroll To Top