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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 20, 2020 | 讻状讜 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.

Iyar is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in memory of Yosef ben Zvi HaKohen, Dr. Joseph Kahane z"l and Yehuda Aryeh Leib ben Yisachar Dov Barash, Ari Adler z"l.

  • 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 75

The gemara continues discussing the 39 melachot. Rav Zutra says three halakhot – one connected to sewing and two forbidden learning or associating with a Persian amgosh/priest (two different interpretations what that is) and a Jew who knows how to understand weather and constellations and doesn’t use that knowledge. If one catches snails and opens them up to remove the gland to make techelet dye, for what is one obligated? Is threshing forbidden only in items that grow from the ground? Why wasn’t killing the snail mentioned? Is one who slaughters obligated also by coloring the animal with the blood? Why are both tanning and salting listed – isn’t salting part of the tanning process? Is salting meat an outgrowth of tanning or does tanning not apply to foods? What are outgrowths of smoothing, cutting and the final blow (make be’patish).聽 Is one obligated tfor writing or erasing a large letter that takes up the space of two? The next mishna delves into carrying – for what type/size items is one obligated – is it objective criteria that determine it is an item of importance or is it subjective?

砖讻谉 讬专讬注讛 砖谞驻诇 讘讛 讚专谞讗 拽讜专注讬谉 讘讛 讜转讜驻专讬谉 讗讜转讛

As, when a curtain had a worm which made a tear in it, they would tear the curtain further to lengthen the tear, and that enabled them to then sew it in a manner that obscured the tear.

讗诪专 专讘 讝讜讟专讗 讘专 讟讜讘讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪讜转讞 讞讜讟 砖诇 转驻讬专讛 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讜讛诇讜诪讚 讚讘专 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛诪讙讜砖 讞讬讬讘 诪讬转讛 讜讛讬讜讚注 诇讞砖讘 转拽讜驻讜转 讜诪讝诇讜转 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖讘 讗住讜专 诇住驻专 讛讬诪谞讜

Rav Zutra bar Toviya said that Rav said: One who tightens the thread of a stitch on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering. If two parts of a garment that were sewn together begin to separate, and one pulls the thread to reattach them, it is tantamount to having sewn them. The Gemara cites additional halakhot cited by Rav Zutra in the name of Rav. And one who learns even one matter from a magosh, a Persian priest, is liable to receive the death penalty. And one who knows how to calculate astronomical seasons and the movement of constellations, and does not do so, one may not speak with him because his actions are improper.

诪讙讜砖转讗 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讞讚 讗诪专 讞专砖讬 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讙讚讜驻讬 转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘 讚讗诪专 讙讚讜驻讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讝讜讟专讗 讘专 讟讜讘讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讜诪讚 讚讘专 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛诪讙讜砖 讞讬讬讘 诪讬转讛 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讞专砖讬 讛讻转讬讘 诇讗 转诇诪讚 诇注砖讜转 讗讘诇 讗转讛 诇诪讚 诇讛讘讬谉 讜诇讛讜专讜转 转住转讬讬诐

The Gemara proceeds to discuss the additional halakhot cited by Rav Zutra bar Toviya. With regard to the magosh, Rav and Shmuel disagreed. One said that they are sorcerers, while the other said they are heretics. The Gemara adds: Conclude that Rav is the one who said that they are heretics, as Rav Zutra bar Toviya said that Rav said: One who learns one matter from the magosh is liable to receive the death penalty. As, if it should enter your mind that they are sorcerers, wasn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淲hen you come into the land which the Lord your God gives you, you shall not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one that makes his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, one that uses divination, a soothsayer, or an enchanter, or a sorcerer鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:9鈥10)? And the Sages inferred: You shall not learn to do, but you may learn to understand and to teach the topic of sorcery. Apparently, merely learning about sorcery does not violate a prohibition. Only acting upon that learning is prohibited. Rav, who prohibited learning even a single matter from a magosh, must hold that they are heretics, not merely sorcerers. The Gemara states: Indeed, conclude that Rav is the one who said that they are heretics.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 讻诇 讛讬讜讚注 诇讞砖讘 讘转拽讜驻讜转 讜诪讝诇讜转 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖讘 注诇讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 讗讜诪专 讜讗转 驻注诇 讛壮 诇讗 讬讘讬讟讜 讜诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讜 诇讗 专讗讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪谞讬谉 砖诪爪讜讛 注诇 讛讗讚诐 诇讞砖讘 转拽讜驻讜转 讜诪讝诇讜转 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖诪专转诐 讜注砖讬转诐 讻讬 讛讬讗 讞讻诪转讻诐 讜讘讬谞转讻诐 诇注讬谞讬 讛注诪讬诐 讗讬讝讜 讞讻诪讛 讜讘讬谞讛 砖讛讬讗 诇注讬谞讬 讛注诪讬诐 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讞讬砖讜讘 转拽讜驻讜转 讜诪讝诇讜转:

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of bar Kappara: Anyone who knows how to calculate astronomical seasons and the movement of constellations and does not do so, the verse says about him: 鈥淭hey do not take notice of the work of God, and they do not see His handiwork鈥 (Isaiah 5:12). And Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: From where is it derived that there is a mitzva incumbent upon a person to calculate astronomical seasons and the movement of constellations? As it was stated: 鈥淎nd you shall guard and perform, for it is your wisdom and understanding in the eyes of the nations鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:6). What wisdom and understanding is there in the Torah that is in the eyes of the nations, i.e., appreciated and recognized by all? You must say: This is the calculation of astronomical seasons and the movement of constellations, as the calculation of experts is witnessed by all.

讛爪讚 爪讘讬 讜讻讜壮: 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛爪讚 讞诇讝讜谉 讜讛驻讜爪注讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 驻爪讬注讛 讘讻诇诇 讚讬砖讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 驻爪讬注讛 讘讻诇诇 讚讬砖讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 拽住讘专讬 讗讬谉 讚讬砖讛 讗诇讗 诇讙讚讜诇讬 拽专拽注 讜诇讬讞讬讬讘 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 谞讟讬诇转 谞砖诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖驻爪注讜 诪转

We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who traps a deer or any other living creature. The Sages taught in a Tosefta: One who traps a 岣lazon and breaks its shell to remove its blood for the dye is liable to bring only one sin-offering. He is not liable for breaking the shell. Rabbi Yehuda says: He is liable to bring two, for performing the prohibited labors of trapping and for threshing, as Rabbi Yehuda would say: The breaking of a 岣lazon is included in the primary category of threshing, as its objective is to extract the matter that he desires from the shell that he does not. The Rabbis said to him: Breaking the shell is not included in the primary category of threshing. Rava said: What is the rationale for the opinion of the Rabbis? They hold: Threshing applies only to produce that grows from the ground. One who extracts other materials from their covering is exempt. The Gemara asks: Even if extracting blood is not considered threshing, let him be liable for taking a life as well. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This is referring to a case where he broke its shell after it was dead.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 砖驻爪注讜 讞讬 诪转注住拽 讛讜讗 讗爪诇 谞讟讬诇转 谞砖诪讛 讜讛讗 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘驻住讬拽 专讬砖讗 讜诇讗 讬诪讜转 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讻诪讛 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 谞砖诪讛 讟驻讬 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬爪讬诇 爪讬讘注讬讛:

Rava said: Even if you say that he broke it when it was alive, he is exempt. Since he had no intention of killing the 岣lazon, he is considered as one who is acting unawares with regard to taking a life. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Didn鈥檛 Abaye and Rava both say that Rabbi Shimon, who rules that an unintentional act is permitted, agrees that in a case of: Cut off its head and will it not die, one is liable? One who performs an action that will inevitably result in a prohibited labor cannot claim that he did not intend for his action to lead to that result. Lack of intention is only a valid claim when the result is merely possible, not inevitable. Since one who extracts blood from a 岣lazon inevitably takes its life, how can Rava claim that his action is unintentional? The Gemara answers: Here it is different, as the longer the 岣lazon lives, the better it is for the trapper, so that its dye will become clear. Dye extracted from a live 岣lazon is a higher quality than that which is extracted from a dead one. Rabbi Shimon agrees that one who performs an action with inevitable consequences is liable only in a case where the consequences are not contrary to his interests. Since he prefers that the 岣lazon remain alive as long as possible, he is not liable for the inevitable consequences.

讜讛砖讜讞讟讜: 砖讜讞讟 诪砖讜诐 诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘 专讘 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 爪讜讘注 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 谞讟讬诇转 谞砖诪讛

We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: And one who slaughters an animal on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: As there was no slaughter necessary for construction of the Tabernacle, one who slaughters an animal, due to what prohibited labor is he liable? Rav said: He is liable due to dyeing, as in the course of the slaughter the hide is dyed with blood. And Shmuel said: He is liable due to taking a life.

诪砖讜诐 爪讜讘注 讗讬谉 诪砖讜诐 谞讟讬诇转 谞砖诪讛 诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗祝 诪砖讜诐 爪讜讘注 讗诪专 专讘 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬诪讗 讘讛 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 诇讬转讜 讚专讬 讘转专讗讬 讜诇讬讞讻讜 注诇讬 爪讜讘注 讘诪讗讬 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 谞讬讞讗 讚诇讬转讜讜住 讘讬转 讛砖讞讬讟讛 讚诪讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬讞讝讜讛 讗讬谞砖讬 讜诇讬转讜 诇讬讝讘谞讜 诪讬谞讬讛:

The Gemara wonders: Is that to say according to Rav, that due to dyeing, yes, he is liable; due to taking a life, no, he is exempt? Rather, emend Rav鈥檚 statement and say: He is liable due to dyeing as well. And Rav said: I will say something as an explanation with regard to the statement I said, so that later generations will not come and laugh at me: In what sense is dyeing a desired consequence for him? It is desired that the area of the slaughter will be inundated with blood, so that people will see it freshly dyed and come to purchase fresh meat from him. Therefore, the one slaughtering the animal also wants its neck dyed.

讜讛诪讜诇讞讜 讜讛诪注讘讚讜: 讛讬讬谞讜 诪讜诇讞 讜讛讬讬谞讜 诪注讘讚 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗驻讬拽 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜注讬讬诇 砖讬专讟讜讟 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚诪诇讞 讘讬砖专讗 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 诪注讘讚 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 注讬讘讜讚 讘讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讗诇讗 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讜专讞讗 讗讘诇 诇讘讬转讗 诇讗 诪砖讜讬 讗讬谞讬砖 诪讬讻诇讬讛 注抓:

We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: And one who salts it and one who tans it. The Gemara asks: The prohibited labor of salting is the same as the prohibited labor of tanning, i.e., salting is a stage in the tanning process. Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish both said: Remove one of them and replace it with drafting. In their opinion, the labor of drafting, drawing lines on the hide to indicate where it should be cut, should replace salting in the list of thirty-nine labors. Rabba bar Rav Huna said: One who salts meat on Shabbat to preserve it is liable due to the labor of tanning. Rava said: There is no tanning with regard to food. No action taken with food falls into this category. Rav Ashi said: And even Rabba bar Rav Huna said it falls into the category of tanning only when he needs to pack the meat for a trip and salts it thoroughly. However, to eat in the house, a person does not render his food inedible, tantamount to a piece of wood. In that case, he certainly would not salt the meat to a degree that would approximate tanning.

讜讛诪诪讞拽讜 讜讛诪讞转讻讜: 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讛砖祝 讘讬谉 讛注诪讜讚讬诐 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 诪诪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 住讞 诇讬 专讘 讗砖讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛诪讙专专 专讗砖讬 讻诇讜谞住讜转 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 诪讞转讱 讛诪诪专讞 专讟讬讛 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 诪诪讞拽 讜讛诪住转转 讗转 讛讗讘谉 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 诪讻讛 讘驻讟讬砖 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 拽讬住诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讛爪专 爪讜专讛 讘讻诇讬 讜讛诪谞驻讞 讘讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 诪讻讛 讘驻讟讬砖 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚砖拽讬诇 讗拽讜驻讬 诪讙诇讬诪讬 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 诪讻讛 讘驻讟讬砖 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讬讛讜:

We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: And one who smooths it and one who cuts it. Rabbi A岣 bar 岣nina said: One who rubs the hide between the pillars on Shabbat, i.e., places the skin between pillars made for that purpose (Rav Hai Gaon) and rubs it between them, is liable due to the labor of smoothing. Rav 岣yya bar Abba said: Rav Ashi told me three statements in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: One who planes the tops of posts on Shabbat to make them even is liable due to the labor of cutting, due to his insistence that they all be equal. One who spreads a bandage onto a wound on Shabbat is liable due to the labor of smoothing. And one who chisels a stone on Shabbat is liable due to the labor of striking a blow with a hammer, as he thereby completes work on the stone. Rabbi Shimon ben Kisma said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: One who engraves a figure onto an earthenware vessel and one who blows in order to craft a glass vessel is liable due to the labor of striking a blow with a hammer. Rav Yehuda said: One who removes protruding, irregular threads from a cloak is liable due to the labor of striking a blow with a hammer. And that applies only if he is particular about them and would not wear the garment until all protruding threads are removed. In that case, work on the garment is not complete until the threads are removed.

讜讛讻讜转讘 砖转讬 讗讜转讬讜转: 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻转讘 讗讜转 讗讞转 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讬砖 讘诪拽讜诪讛 诇讻转讜讘 砖转讬诐 驻讟讜专 诪讞拽 讗讜转 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讬砖 讘诪拽讜诪讛 诇讻转讜讘 砖转讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪谞讞诐 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讝讛 讞讜诪专 讘诪讜讞拽 诪讘讻讜转讘:

We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: And one who writes two letters. The Sages taught: One who wrote one large letter, and in its space there is room to write two, is exempt, as he wrote only one letter. However, one who erased one large letter, and in its space there is room to write two, is liable. Rav Mena岣m, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: And that is a greater stricture with regard to erasing than with regard to writing. Although greater stringency is usually accorded to creative acts, here the destructive act of erasing is more stringent. Although he erased only one letter, he made room for two, which is the essence of the prohibited labor.

讛讘讜谞讛 讜讛住讜转专 讛诪讻讘讛 讜讛诪讘注讬专 讜讛诪讻讛 讘驻讟讬砖: 专讘讛 讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻诇 诪讬讚讬 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讙诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 诪讻讛 讘驻讟讬砖:

We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who builds and one who dismantles; one who extinguishes and one who kindles; and one who strikes a blow with a hammer. With regard to the labor of striking a blow with a hammer, it is Rabba and Rabbi Zeira who both stated a principle: One who performs any action on Shabbat that contains an element of completion of work is liable for the labor of striking a blow with a hammer.

讗诇讜 讗讘讜转 诪诇讗讻讜转: 讗诇讜 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚诪讞讬讬讘 注诇 转讜诇讚讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讘 讞住专 讗讞转 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜住讬祝 讗转 讛砖讜讘讟 讜讛诪讚拽讚拽 讗诪专讜 诇讜 砖讜讘讟 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讘讻诇诇 诪讬住讱 诪讚拽讚拽 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讘讻诇诇 讗讜专讙:

The mishna concludes: These are the primary categories of labor. The Gemara explains that the emphasis on the word these, indicating these and no others, comes to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who renders one liable for the performance of a subcategory of prohibited labor when performed together with a primary category under which it is subsumed. Rabbi Eliezer deems one who performs two prohibited labors, a primary category and its subcategory, liable to bring two sin-offerings. In his opinion, one who unwittingly performed all the labors in one lapse of awareness would be liable to bring more than thirty-nine sin-offerings. Therefore, the mishna emphasizes that there are only thirty-nine primary categories of prohibited labor, and one could not possibly be liable to bring a greater number of sacrifices. When the mishna repeats that the labors number forty-less-one, that is to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda added lining up the threads of the warp and beating the threads of the woof to the list of primary categories of labor. They said to him: Lining up is a subcategory subsumed under the primary category of stretching the threads of the warp within the loom, since both involve arranging the threads of the warp. Beating is subsumed under the primary category of weaving. The mishna teaches that there are no more than thirty-nine primary categories of labor.

诪转谞讬壮 讜注讜讚 讻诇诇 讗讞专 讗诪专讜 讻诇 讛讻砖专 诇讛爪谞讬注 讜诪爪谞讬注讬谉 讻诪讜讛讜 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 注诇讬讜 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讻砖专 诇讛爪谞讬注 讜讗讬谉 诪爪谞讬注讬谉 讻诪讜讛讜 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜 讘砖讘转 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讛诪爪谞讬注讜:

MISHNA: And they stated an additional principle with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat. Anything fit to store, in the sense that it is large enough to make it worthwhile to store for future use, and people typically store items like it, and one carried it out into a prohibited domain on Shabbat, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for that action. And anything not fit to store and people typically do not store items like it, since it is too insignificant to warrant storage, and one carried it out on Shabbat, only the one who stores it is liable. By storing the item, one indicates that the item is significant to him, even though it is not significant for the typical person. Therefore, he alone is liable for carrying it out into a prohibited domain.

讙诪壮 讻诇 讛讻砖专 诇讛爪谞讬注 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讗讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讚诐 谞讚讛 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗驻讜拽讬 注爪讬 讗砖专讛 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚诐 谞讚讛 讻诇 砖讻谉 注爪讬 讗砖专讛 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 注爪讬 讗砖专讛 讗讘诇 讚诐 谞讚讛 诪爪谞注 诇讬讛 诇砖讜谞专讗 讜讗讬讚讱 讻讬讜谉 讚讞诇砖讗 诇讗 诪爪谞注 诇讬讛

GEMARA: With regard to the principle in the mishna: Anything fit to store, the Gemara asks: What does it come to exclude? In the opinion of the tanna, what is not fit for storage? Rav Pappa said: It comes to exclude the blood of a menstruating woman. Mar Ukva said: It comes to exclude the wood of a tree designated for idolatry [ashera]. Since one may derive no benefit from a tree designated for idolatry, it has no monetary value. The Gemara explains these opinions: The one who said that blood of a menstruating woman is not fit for storage, all the more so that the wood of an ashera is unfit, as, by Torah law, one is required to destroy it. However, according to the one who said that the wood of an ashera is unfit for storage, the blood of a menstruating woman is fit, as one stores it to feed to the cat. Although it is not typically stored, it does have some use. And the other, who holds that the blood of a menstruating woman is not fit for any use, isn鈥檛 it fit for use as cat food? In his opinion, since feeding a person鈥檚 blood to an animal weakens that person, one does not store it.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗诪专 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讻诇 讛砖讬注讜专讬谉 讛诇诇讜 讗诇讗 诇诪爪谞讬注讬讛谉:

Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina said: All of these objective criteria mentioned in our mishna are not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as, if one would attempt to say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, didn鈥檛 he say: The Sages in the mishna only stated all these fixed measures for items carried out with regard to those who store them? Only one who stores those items is liable for carrying them. However, one who does not store the item, and for whom it is insignificant, is not liable even if that item met the measure for liability delineated in the mishna.

讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讻砖专 诇讛爪谞讬注:

We learned in the mishna: And anything not fit to store, that is too insignificant to warrant storage, only one who stores it is liable for carrying it out.

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.

Iyar is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in memory of Yosef ben Zvi HaKohen, Dr. Joseph Kahane z"l and Yehuda Aryeh Leib ben Yisachar Dov Barash, Ari Adler z"l.

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)

Shabbat 75-81 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we continue learning about the 39 Melachot and focus on the amounts that make us liable for carrying...
Weaving Wisdom

Weaving demonstration

  Here is a short demonstration of weaving. I wanted to show you how threads become...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 75: Killing Is Not in the Spirit of Shabbat

Mazalot - divination vs. astronomy, that which at worst carries a death sentence for those who practice it vs that...
Weaving Wisdom

Melachot relating to spinning, weaving and dyeing

On Daf 73a, we learn about all of the steps for turning wool into garments and textiles (for the Tabernacle...

Shabbat 75

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 75

砖讻谉 讬专讬注讛 砖谞驻诇 讘讛 讚专谞讗 拽讜专注讬谉 讘讛 讜转讜驻专讬谉 讗讜转讛

As, when a curtain had a worm which made a tear in it, they would tear the curtain further to lengthen the tear, and that enabled them to then sew it in a manner that obscured the tear.

讗诪专 专讘 讝讜讟专讗 讘专 讟讜讘讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪讜转讞 讞讜讟 砖诇 转驻讬专讛 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讜讛诇讜诪讚 讚讘专 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛诪讙讜砖 讞讬讬讘 诪讬转讛 讜讛讬讜讚注 诇讞砖讘 转拽讜驻讜转 讜诪讝诇讜转 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖讘 讗住讜专 诇住驻专 讛讬诪谞讜

Rav Zutra bar Toviya said that Rav said: One who tightens the thread of a stitch on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering. If two parts of a garment that were sewn together begin to separate, and one pulls the thread to reattach them, it is tantamount to having sewn them. The Gemara cites additional halakhot cited by Rav Zutra in the name of Rav. And one who learns even one matter from a magosh, a Persian priest, is liable to receive the death penalty. And one who knows how to calculate astronomical seasons and the movement of constellations, and does not do so, one may not speak with him because his actions are improper.

诪讙讜砖转讗 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讞讚 讗诪专 讞专砖讬 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讙讚讜驻讬 转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘 讚讗诪专 讙讚讜驻讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讝讜讟专讗 讘专 讟讜讘讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讜诪讚 讚讘专 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛诪讙讜砖 讞讬讬讘 诪讬转讛 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讞专砖讬 讛讻转讬讘 诇讗 转诇诪讚 诇注砖讜转 讗讘诇 讗转讛 诇诪讚 诇讛讘讬谉 讜诇讛讜专讜转 转住转讬讬诐

The Gemara proceeds to discuss the additional halakhot cited by Rav Zutra bar Toviya. With regard to the magosh, Rav and Shmuel disagreed. One said that they are sorcerers, while the other said they are heretics. The Gemara adds: Conclude that Rav is the one who said that they are heretics, as Rav Zutra bar Toviya said that Rav said: One who learns one matter from the magosh is liable to receive the death penalty. As, if it should enter your mind that they are sorcerers, wasn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淲hen you come into the land which the Lord your God gives you, you shall not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one that makes his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, one that uses divination, a soothsayer, or an enchanter, or a sorcerer鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:9鈥10)? And the Sages inferred: You shall not learn to do, but you may learn to understand and to teach the topic of sorcery. Apparently, merely learning about sorcery does not violate a prohibition. Only acting upon that learning is prohibited. Rav, who prohibited learning even a single matter from a magosh, must hold that they are heretics, not merely sorcerers. The Gemara states: Indeed, conclude that Rav is the one who said that they are heretics.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 讻诇 讛讬讜讚注 诇讞砖讘 讘转拽讜驻讜转 讜诪讝诇讜转 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖讘 注诇讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 讗讜诪专 讜讗转 驻注诇 讛壮 诇讗 讬讘讬讟讜 讜诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讜 诇讗 专讗讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪谞讬谉 砖诪爪讜讛 注诇 讛讗讚诐 诇讞砖讘 转拽讜驻讜转 讜诪讝诇讜转 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖诪专转诐 讜注砖讬转诐 讻讬 讛讬讗 讞讻诪转讻诐 讜讘讬谞转讻诐 诇注讬谞讬 讛注诪讬诐 讗讬讝讜 讞讻诪讛 讜讘讬谞讛 砖讛讬讗 诇注讬谞讬 讛注诪讬诐 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讞讬砖讜讘 转拽讜驻讜转 讜诪讝诇讜转:

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of bar Kappara: Anyone who knows how to calculate astronomical seasons and the movement of constellations and does not do so, the verse says about him: 鈥淭hey do not take notice of the work of God, and they do not see His handiwork鈥 (Isaiah 5:12). And Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: From where is it derived that there is a mitzva incumbent upon a person to calculate astronomical seasons and the movement of constellations? As it was stated: 鈥淎nd you shall guard and perform, for it is your wisdom and understanding in the eyes of the nations鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:6). What wisdom and understanding is there in the Torah that is in the eyes of the nations, i.e., appreciated and recognized by all? You must say: This is the calculation of astronomical seasons and the movement of constellations, as the calculation of experts is witnessed by all.

讛爪讚 爪讘讬 讜讻讜壮: 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛爪讚 讞诇讝讜谉 讜讛驻讜爪注讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 驻爪讬注讛 讘讻诇诇 讚讬砖讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 驻爪讬注讛 讘讻诇诇 讚讬砖讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 拽住讘专讬 讗讬谉 讚讬砖讛 讗诇讗 诇讙讚讜诇讬 拽专拽注 讜诇讬讞讬讬讘 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 谞讟讬诇转 谞砖诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖驻爪注讜 诪转

We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who traps a deer or any other living creature. The Sages taught in a Tosefta: One who traps a 岣lazon and breaks its shell to remove its blood for the dye is liable to bring only one sin-offering. He is not liable for breaking the shell. Rabbi Yehuda says: He is liable to bring two, for performing the prohibited labors of trapping and for threshing, as Rabbi Yehuda would say: The breaking of a 岣lazon is included in the primary category of threshing, as its objective is to extract the matter that he desires from the shell that he does not. The Rabbis said to him: Breaking the shell is not included in the primary category of threshing. Rava said: What is the rationale for the opinion of the Rabbis? They hold: Threshing applies only to produce that grows from the ground. One who extracts other materials from their covering is exempt. The Gemara asks: Even if extracting blood is not considered threshing, let him be liable for taking a life as well. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This is referring to a case where he broke its shell after it was dead.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 砖驻爪注讜 讞讬 诪转注住拽 讛讜讗 讗爪诇 谞讟讬诇转 谞砖诪讛 讜讛讗 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘驻住讬拽 专讬砖讗 讜诇讗 讬诪讜转 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讻诪讛 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 谞砖诪讛 讟驻讬 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬爪讬诇 爪讬讘注讬讛:

Rava said: Even if you say that he broke it when it was alive, he is exempt. Since he had no intention of killing the 岣lazon, he is considered as one who is acting unawares with regard to taking a life. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Didn鈥檛 Abaye and Rava both say that Rabbi Shimon, who rules that an unintentional act is permitted, agrees that in a case of: Cut off its head and will it not die, one is liable? One who performs an action that will inevitably result in a prohibited labor cannot claim that he did not intend for his action to lead to that result. Lack of intention is only a valid claim when the result is merely possible, not inevitable. Since one who extracts blood from a 岣lazon inevitably takes its life, how can Rava claim that his action is unintentional? The Gemara answers: Here it is different, as the longer the 岣lazon lives, the better it is for the trapper, so that its dye will become clear. Dye extracted from a live 岣lazon is a higher quality than that which is extracted from a dead one. Rabbi Shimon agrees that one who performs an action with inevitable consequences is liable only in a case where the consequences are not contrary to his interests. Since he prefers that the 岣lazon remain alive as long as possible, he is not liable for the inevitable consequences.

讜讛砖讜讞讟讜: 砖讜讞讟 诪砖讜诐 诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘 专讘 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 爪讜讘注 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 谞讟讬诇转 谞砖诪讛

We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: And one who slaughters an animal on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: As there was no slaughter necessary for construction of the Tabernacle, one who slaughters an animal, due to what prohibited labor is he liable? Rav said: He is liable due to dyeing, as in the course of the slaughter the hide is dyed with blood. And Shmuel said: He is liable due to taking a life.

诪砖讜诐 爪讜讘注 讗讬谉 诪砖讜诐 谞讟讬诇转 谞砖诪讛 诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗祝 诪砖讜诐 爪讜讘注 讗诪专 专讘 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬诪讗 讘讛 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 诇讬转讜 讚专讬 讘转专讗讬 讜诇讬讞讻讜 注诇讬 爪讜讘注 讘诪讗讬 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 谞讬讞讗 讚诇讬转讜讜住 讘讬转 讛砖讞讬讟讛 讚诪讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬讞讝讜讛 讗讬谞砖讬 讜诇讬转讜 诇讬讝讘谞讜 诪讬谞讬讛:

The Gemara wonders: Is that to say according to Rav, that due to dyeing, yes, he is liable; due to taking a life, no, he is exempt? Rather, emend Rav鈥檚 statement and say: He is liable due to dyeing as well. And Rav said: I will say something as an explanation with regard to the statement I said, so that later generations will not come and laugh at me: In what sense is dyeing a desired consequence for him? It is desired that the area of the slaughter will be inundated with blood, so that people will see it freshly dyed and come to purchase fresh meat from him. Therefore, the one slaughtering the animal also wants its neck dyed.

讜讛诪讜诇讞讜 讜讛诪注讘讚讜: 讛讬讬谞讜 诪讜诇讞 讜讛讬讬谞讜 诪注讘讚 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗驻讬拽 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜注讬讬诇 砖讬专讟讜讟 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚诪诇讞 讘讬砖专讗 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 诪注讘讚 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 注讬讘讜讚 讘讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讗诇讗 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讜专讞讗 讗讘诇 诇讘讬转讗 诇讗 诪砖讜讬 讗讬谞讬砖 诪讬讻诇讬讛 注抓:

We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: And one who salts it and one who tans it. The Gemara asks: The prohibited labor of salting is the same as the prohibited labor of tanning, i.e., salting is a stage in the tanning process. Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish both said: Remove one of them and replace it with drafting. In their opinion, the labor of drafting, drawing lines on the hide to indicate where it should be cut, should replace salting in the list of thirty-nine labors. Rabba bar Rav Huna said: One who salts meat on Shabbat to preserve it is liable due to the labor of tanning. Rava said: There is no tanning with regard to food. No action taken with food falls into this category. Rav Ashi said: And even Rabba bar Rav Huna said it falls into the category of tanning only when he needs to pack the meat for a trip and salts it thoroughly. However, to eat in the house, a person does not render his food inedible, tantamount to a piece of wood. In that case, he certainly would not salt the meat to a degree that would approximate tanning.

讜讛诪诪讞拽讜 讜讛诪讞转讻讜: 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讛砖祝 讘讬谉 讛注诪讜讚讬诐 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 诪诪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 住讞 诇讬 专讘 讗砖讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛诪讙专专 专讗砖讬 讻诇讜谞住讜转 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 诪讞转讱 讛诪诪专讞 专讟讬讛 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 诪诪讞拽 讜讛诪住转转 讗转 讛讗讘谉 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 诪讻讛 讘驻讟讬砖 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 拽讬住诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讛爪专 爪讜专讛 讘讻诇讬 讜讛诪谞驻讞 讘讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 诪讻讛 讘驻讟讬砖 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚砖拽讬诇 讗拽讜驻讬 诪讙诇讬诪讬 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 诪讻讛 讘驻讟讬砖 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讬讛讜:

We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: And one who smooths it and one who cuts it. Rabbi A岣 bar 岣nina said: One who rubs the hide between the pillars on Shabbat, i.e., places the skin between pillars made for that purpose (Rav Hai Gaon) and rubs it between them, is liable due to the labor of smoothing. Rav 岣yya bar Abba said: Rav Ashi told me three statements in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: One who planes the tops of posts on Shabbat to make them even is liable due to the labor of cutting, due to his insistence that they all be equal. One who spreads a bandage onto a wound on Shabbat is liable due to the labor of smoothing. And one who chisels a stone on Shabbat is liable due to the labor of striking a blow with a hammer, as he thereby completes work on the stone. Rabbi Shimon ben Kisma said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: One who engraves a figure onto an earthenware vessel and one who blows in order to craft a glass vessel is liable due to the labor of striking a blow with a hammer. Rav Yehuda said: One who removes protruding, irregular threads from a cloak is liable due to the labor of striking a blow with a hammer. And that applies only if he is particular about them and would not wear the garment until all protruding threads are removed. In that case, work on the garment is not complete until the threads are removed.

讜讛讻讜转讘 砖转讬 讗讜转讬讜转: 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻转讘 讗讜转 讗讞转 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讬砖 讘诪拽讜诪讛 诇讻转讜讘 砖转讬诐 驻讟讜专 诪讞拽 讗讜转 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讬砖 讘诪拽讜诪讛 诇讻转讜讘 砖转讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪谞讞诐 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讝讛 讞讜诪专 讘诪讜讞拽 诪讘讻讜转讘:

We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: And one who writes two letters. The Sages taught: One who wrote one large letter, and in its space there is room to write two, is exempt, as he wrote only one letter. However, one who erased one large letter, and in its space there is room to write two, is liable. Rav Mena岣m, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: And that is a greater stricture with regard to erasing than with regard to writing. Although greater stringency is usually accorded to creative acts, here the destructive act of erasing is more stringent. Although he erased only one letter, he made room for two, which is the essence of the prohibited labor.

讛讘讜谞讛 讜讛住讜转专 讛诪讻讘讛 讜讛诪讘注讬专 讜讛诪讻讛 讘驻讟讬砖: 专讘讛 讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻诇 诪讬讚讬 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讙诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 诪讻讛 讘驻讟讬砖:

We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who builds and one who dismantles; one who extinguishes and one who kindles; and one who strikes a blow with a hammer. With regard to the labor of striking a blow with a hammer, it is Rabba and Rabbi Zeira who both stated a principle: One who performs any action on Shabbat that contains an element of completion of work is liable for the labor of striking a blow with a hammer.

讗诇讜 讗讘讜转 诪诇讗讻讜转: 讗诇讜 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚诪讞讬讬讘 注诇 转讜诇讚讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讘 讞住专 讗讞转 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜住讬祝 讗转 讛砖讜讘讟 讜讛诪讚拽讚拽 讗诪专讜 诇讜 砖讜讘讟 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讘讻诇诇 诪讬住讱 诪讚拽讚拽 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讘讻诇诇 讗讜专讙:

The mishna concludes: These are the primary categories of labor. The Gemara explains that the emphasis on the word these, indicating these and no others, comes to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who renders one liable for the performance of a subcategory of prohibited labor when performed together with a primary category under which it is subsumed. Rabbi Eliezer deems one who performs two prohibited labors, a primary category and its subcategory, liable to bring two sin-offerings. In his opinion, one who unwittingly performed all the labors in one lapse of awareness would be liable to bring more than thirty-nine sin-offerings. Therefore, the mishna emphasizes that there are only thirty-nine primary categories of prohibited labor, and one could not possibly be liable to bring a greater number of sacrifices. When the mishna repeats that the labors number forty-less-one, that is to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda added lining up the threads of the warp and beating the threads of the woof to the list of primary categories of labor. They said to him: Lining up is a subcategory subsumed under the primary category of stretching the threads of the warp within the loom, since both involve arranging the threads of the warp. Beating is subsumed under the primary category of weaving. The mishna teaches that there are no more than thirty-nine primary categories of labor.

诪转谞讬壮 讜注讜讚 讻诇诇 讗讞专 讗诪专讜 讻诇 讛讻砖专 诇讛爪谞讬注 讜诪爪谞讬注讬谉 讻诪讜讛讜 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 注诇讬讜 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讻砖专 诇讛爪谞讬注 讜讗讬谉 诪爪谞讬注讬谉 讻诪讜讛讜 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜 讘砖讘转 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讛诪爪谞讬注讜:

MISHNA: And they stated an additional principle with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat. Anything fit to store, in the sense that it is large enough to make it worthwhile to store for future use, and people typically store items like it, and one carried it out into a prohibited domain on Shabbat, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for that action. And anything not fit to store and people typically do not store items like it, since it is too insignificant to warrant storage, and one carried it out on Shabbat, only the one who stores it is liable. By storing the item, one indicates that the item is significant to him, even though it is not significant for the typical person. Therefore, he alone is liable for carrying it out into a prohibited domain.

讙诪壮 讻诇 讛讻砖专 诇讛爪谞讬注 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讗讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讚诐 谞讚讛 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗驻讜拽讬 注爪讬 讗砖专讛 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚诐 谞讚讛 讻诇 砖讻谉 注爪讬 讗砖专讛 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 注爪讬 讗砖专讛 讗讘诇 讚诐 谞讚讛 诪爪谞注 诇讬讛 诇砖讜谞专讗 讜讗讬讚讱 讻讬讜谉 讚讞诇砖讗 诇讗 诪爪谞注 诇讬讛

GEMARA: With regard to the principle in the mishna: Anything fit to store, the Gemara asks: What does it come to exclude? In the opinion of the tanna, what is not fit for storage? Rav Pappa said: It comes to exclude the blood of a menstruating woman. Mar Ukva said: It comes to exclude the wood of a tree designated for idolatry [ashera]. Since one may derive no benefit from a tree designated for idolatry, it has no monetary value. The Gemara explains these opinions: The one who said that blood of a menstruating woman is not fit for storage, all the more so that the wood of an ashera is unfit, as, by Torah law, one is required to destroy it. However, according to the one who said that the wood of an ashera is unfit for storage, the blood of a menstruating woman is fit, as one stores it to feed to the cat. Although it is not typically stored, it does have some use. And the other, who holds that the blood of a menstruating woman is not fit for any use, isn鈥檛 it fit for use as cat food? In his opinion, since feeding a person鈥檚 blood to an animal weakens that person, one does not store it.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗诪专 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讻诇 讛砖讬注讜专讬谉 讛诇诇讜 讗诇讗 诇诪爪谞讬注讬讛谉:

Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina said: All of these objective criteria mentioned in our mishna are not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as, if one would attempt to say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, didn鈥檛 he say: The Sages in the mishna only stated all these fixed measures for items carried out with regard to those who store them? Only one who stores those items is liable for carrying them. However, one who does not store the item, and for whom it is insignificant, is not liable even if that item met the measure for liability delineated in the mishna.

讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讻砖专 诇讛爪谞讬注:

We learned in the mishna: And anything not fit to store, that is too insignificant to warrant storage, only one who stores it is liable for carrying it out.

Scroll To Top