Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 21, 2020 | כ״ז 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 76

If one takes out an object from one domain to another, one is obligated only if it is an item that is important. How is significance of an item determined? Is it subjective? Does it depend on what use you are intending for it? Does past behavior play a role? The mishna lists food for animals – what amount of each food item would obligated you? Each food is intended for different animals who each eat different amounts so the amount depends on the particular food. What if you take food for one animal to feed a different type of animal – what amount would be needed to obligate one? Can different food items combine to get to a requisite amount? For food for humans, what is the amount? Can different foods combine? What about parts of the food that are inedible? What is the requisite amount for drinks?

אמר רבי אלעזר הא דלא כרבי שמעון בן אלעזר דתניא כלל אמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר כל שאינו כשר להצניע ואין מצניעין כמוהו והוכשר לזה והצניעו ובא אחר והוציאו נתחייב זה במחשבה של זה:

Rabbi Elazar said: This is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar stated a principle: Anything that is not fit to be stored and people do not typically store items like it, but it was deemed fit to be stored by this person and he stored it, and another person came and carried out the object that was stored, that person who carried it out is rendered liable by the thought of this person who stored it. Once one person deemed it significant by means of thought and action, it is considered significant for all people. According to our mishna, however, only the person who stored the object is liable for carrying it out.

מתני׳ המוציא תבן כמלא פי פרה עצה כמלא פי גמל עמיר כמלא פי טלה עשבים כמלא פי גדי עלי שום ועלי בצלים לחים כגרוגרת יבשים כמלא פי גדי ואין מצטרפין זה עם זה מפני שלא שוו בשיעוריהן:

MISHNA: The mishna lists the measures in which various substances are significant and generally stored. One who carries out straw in a measure equivalent to a cow’s mouthful is liable. The measure that determines liability for etza is equivalent to a camel’s mouthful. Because it is a coarser food, he must carry out a greater amount in order to be liable. The measure that determines liability for ears of grain is equivalent to a lamb’s mouthful. The measure that determines liability for grass is equivalent to a goat’s mouthful, which is smaller than that of a lamb. The measure that determines liability for garlic leaves and onion leaves, if they are moist and fit for human consumption, is equivalent to a dried fig-bulk. A dried fig-bulk is the standard measure for human food. If the garlic leaves and onion leaves are dry, the measure for liability is equivalent to a goat’s mouthful. And none of these substances join together with one another to constitute a measure for liability because they are not equal in their measures.

גמ׳ מאי עצה אמר רב יהודה תבן של מיני קטנית כי אתא רב דימי אמר המוציא תבן כמלא פי פרה לגמל רבי יוחנן אמר חייב רבי שמעון בן לקיש אמר פטור באורתא אמר רבי יוחנן הכי לצפרא הדר ביה אמר רב יוסף שפיר עבד דהדר דהא לא חזי לגמל אמר ליה אביי אדרבה כדמעיקרא מסתברא דהא חזי לפרה

GEMARA: The Gemara first asks: What is etza mentioned in the mishna? Rav Yehuda said: It is straw of types of legumes. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: In the case of one who carries out a measure of straw equivalent to a cow’s mouthful for a camel, for which it is an insignificant measure, is his liability determined based on the measure that he carried out or based on the objective for which he carried it out? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He is liable. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: He is exempt. In the evening, Rabbi Yoḥanan said that; however, in the morning, he reversed his opinion and agreed with Reish Lakish. Rav Yosef said: He did well to reverse his opinion, since that amount is not suitable for a camel. There is no liability for carrying out less than a camel’s mouthful for a camel. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: On the contrary, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s original statement that he is liable is reasonable, as it is suitable for a cow. He carried out a significant measure that is fit for use, and he is liable for carrying it out even though it is insignificant for a camel.

אלא כי אתא רבין אמר המוציא תבן כמלא פי פרה לגמל דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דחייב כי פליגי במוציא עצה כמלא פי פרה לפרה

Rather, when Ravin later came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he transmitted a revised version of the dispute and said: With regard to one who carries out a measure equivalent to a cow’s mouthful of straw for a camel, everyone agrees that he is liable. Where they disagree is in a case of one who carries out a measure of etza, which cows do not typically eat, equivalent to a cow’s mouthful for the purpose of feeding a cow. Here the question is more difficult. Clearly, if one were to carry out that measure for a camel, or for no particular purpose, he would be exempt. However, since he designated the food for a cow, for which it is a significant amount, perhaps he should be liable for carrying out.

ואיפכא איתמר רבי יוחנן אמר פטור ריש לקיש אמר חייב רבי יוחנן אמר פטור אכילה על ידי הדחק לא שמה אכילה ריש לקיש אמר חייב אכילה על ידי הדחק שמה אכילה:

And the opposite was stated in the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He is exempt. Reish Lakish said: He is liable. The Gemara elaborates: Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He is exempt because he holds that eating under duress, i.e., food that is not typically eaten but could be eaten if necessary, such as a cow eating etza, is not considered eating. Reish Lakish said: He is liable because he holds that eating under duress is considered eating.

עמיר כמלא פי טלה: והתניא כגרוגרת אידי ואידי חד שיעורא הוא:

We learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for an ear of grain is equivalent to a lamb’s mouthful. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Its measure for liability is equivalent to a dried fig-bulk? The Gemara explains: This, a lamb’s mouthful, and that, a dried fig-bulk, are one, the same, measure.

עלי שום ועלי בצלים לחים כגרוגרת ויבשים כמלא פי הגדי ואין מצטרפין זה עם זה מפני שלא שוו בשיעוריהן: אמר רבי יוסי בר חנינא אין מצטרפין לחמור שבהן אבל מצטרפין לקל שבהן

We learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for one who carries out garlic leaves and onion leaves, if they are moist, is equivalent to a dried fig-bulk. If the garlic leaves and onion leaves are dry, the measure for liability is equivalent to a goat’s mouthful. And none of these substances join together with one another to constitute an amount for which one would be liable because they are not equal in their measures. Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: Substances that have a more lenient legal status and have a greater measure for liability do not join together with the substances among them whose legal status is more stringent and whose measure for liability is smaller. For example, one who carries out a goat’s mouthful of a mixture of straw, which is more lenient, and grass, which is more stringent, is exempt. However, substances whose status is more stringent, like grass, join together with the substances among them whose status is more lenient, like an ear of grain. One who carries out a lamb’s mouthful of a mixture of grass, which is more stringent, and an ear of grain, which is more lenient, is liable.

וכל דלא שוו בשיעורייהו מי מצטרפין והתנן הבגד שלשה על שלשה והשק ארבעה על ארבעה והעור חמשה על חמשה מפץ ששה על ששה ותני עלה הבגד והשק השק והעור העור והמפץ מצטרפין זה עם זה ואמר רבי שמעון מה טעם מפני שראויין ליטמא מושב טעמא דראויין ליטמא מושב אבל אין ראוי ליטמא מושב לא

The Gemara questions this principle: And do any items that are not equal in their measures join together? Don’t their fundamental differences preclude any combination? Didn’t we learn in a mishna that the opposite is true? The garment must be at least three by three handbreadths in order to become a primary source of ritual impurity by means of ritual impurity imparted by treading of a zav. And the sack made from goats’ hair must be at least four by four handbreadths. And the animal hide must be five by five, and a mat must be six by six. And a baraita was taught about the mishna: The garment and the sack, the sack and the hide, and the hide and the mat join together with one another. And Rabbi Shimon said: What is the reason that they join together? Because all the component materials are fit to become ritually impure through the ritual impurity imparted to a seat upon which a zav sits, as they can each be used to patch a saddle or saddlecloth. Since they are all suitable for the same use, they join together with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity. By inference: The reason they can combine is because they are fit to become ritually impure through the ritual impurity imparted to a seat. However, in a case where the combination is of several items not fit to become ritually impure through the ritual impurity imparted to a seat, no, they do not join together even to the more lenient, larger measure. Apparently, in general, items with different measures do not join together.

אמר רבא

Rava said:

הכא נמי חזיא לדוגמא:

Here too, since these substances are suited to be piled together in the sample of a merchant seeking to sell them, they join together with regard to carrying out on Shabbat as well.

מתני׳ המוציא אוכלים כגרוגרת חייב ומצטרפין זה עם זה מפני ששוו בשיעוריהן חוץ מקליפתן וגרעיניהן ועוקציהן וסובן ומורסנן רבי יהודה אומר חוץ מקליפי עדשין שמתבשלות עמהן:

MISHNA: One who carries out a measure of foods fit for human consumption equivalent to a dried fig-bulk into a domain where carrying is prohibited on Shabbat is liable. And all those foods join together with one another to constitute that amount because they are equal in their measures. This amount is calculated without their shells, and their seeds, and their stems, and their bran, the husk that comes off of the wheat kernel when pounded, and their coarse bran that remains in the flour. Rabbi Yehuda says: None of the shells are calculated, except for the shells of lentils, which join together with the lentils to comprise the measure for liability because they are cooked and eaten with them.

גמ׳ וסובן ומורסנן לא מצטרפין והתנן חמשת רבעים קמח ועוד חייבין בחלה הן וסובן ומורסנן אמר אביי שכן עני אוכל פתו בעיסה בלוסה:

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And do the bran and coarse bran of cereals not join together? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: Dough made from five-quarters of a log of flour and a bit more obligates one to separate ḥalla? That amount includes them, the flour, and their bran, and their coarse bran. Apparently, bran and coarse bran join together with the flour to constitute the requisite measure. Abaye said: Bran joins together with the flour with regard to ḥalla and the making of bread, since a pauper eats his loaf made from dough mixed with bran. However, with regard to carrying out on Shabbat, the food items in question must be suitable for all people, since the measures are small and are calculated by their significance.

רבי יהודה אומר חוץ מקליפי עדשים המתבשלות עמהן: עדשים אין פולין לא והתניא רבי יהודה אומר חוץ מקליפי פולין ועדשים לא קשיא הא בחדתי הא בעתיקי עתיקי מאי טעמא לא אמר רבי אבהו מפני שנראין כזבובין בקערה:

We learned in the mishna that shells do not join together to constitute the measure of food. Rabbi Yehuda says: Except for the shells of lentils because they are cooked and eaten with them. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that with lentils, yes, the shells do join together; but with beans, no, they do not? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: Except for the shells of beans and lentils? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: This baraita, which teaches that, according to Rabbi Yehuda, shells of beans join together with the beans, is referring to new, fresh beans. That mishna, which teaches that, according to Rabbi Yehuda, shells of beans do not join together with the beans, is referring to old beans. The Gemara asks: Why do the shells of old beans not join together? Rabbi Abbahu said: Because their shell fragments look like flies in the dish; people are repulsed by those shell fragments, they do not eat them and discard them.

הדרן עלך כלל גדול

 

מתני׳ המוציא יין כדי מזיגת הכוס חלב כדי גמיעה דבש כדי ליתן על הכתית שמן כדי לסוך אבר קטן מים כדי לשוף בהם את הקילור ושאר כל המשקין ברביעית וכל השופכין ברביעית רבי שמעון אומר כולן ברביעית ולא נאמרו כל השיעורין הללו אלא למצניעיהן:

MISHNA: One who carries out undiluted wine from a private domain to a public domain or vice versa is liable only for a measure equivalent to the wine typically diluted in a cup. Pure wine was diluted with water. The measure that determines liability for carrying out wine is a measure suitable to be diluted for a significant cup of wine. The measure that determines liability for carrying out milk is equivalent to that which is swallowed in one gulp. The measure that determines liability for carrying out honey is equivalent to that which is used to place on a sore caused by chafing. The measure that determines liability for carrying out oil is equivalent to that which is used to spread on a small limb. The measure that determines liability for carrying out water is equivalent to that which is used to rub and spread on an eye bandage. And the measure that determines liability for carrying out all other liquids is a quarter of a log. And the measure that determines liability for carrying out all waste water is a quarter of a log. Rabbi Shimon says: The measure that determines liability for all liquids is a quarter of a log. He further stated: And all these measures were only stated with regard to those who store them. One indicates that he considers these liquids significant by storing them. One is only liable for carrying out an object that is significant to him. Others, for whom these measures are insignificant, are not liable for carrying them out.

גמ׳ תנא כדי מזיגת כוס יפה ומאי כוס יפה כוס של ברכה אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה כוס של ברכה צריך שיהא בו רובע רביעית כדי שימזגנו ויעמוד על רביעית

GEMARA: It was taught in a Tosefta: The measure that determines liability for carrying out wine is equivalent to the wine diluted for a significant cup of wine. The Gemara explains: And what is the significant cup of wine to which the Tosefta referred? It is a cup of blessing. And Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: A cup of blessing must have a quarter of a quarter of a log of undiluted wine in it, so that one will dilute it with water, and the cup will contain a quarter of a log. The ratio of dilution is typically three parts water to one part wine.

אמר רבא אף אנן נמי

Rava said: We too

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)

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...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 76: Food for a Cow, Food for a Camel, and Luggage Weight Limits

Where what you value has impact on what is: namely, is the amount for which one is held accountable an...

Shabbat 76

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 76

אמר רבי אלעזר הא דלא כרבי שמעון בן אלעזר דתניא כלל אמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר כל שאינו כשר להצניע ואין מצניעין כמוהו והוכשר לזה והצניעו ובא אחר והוציאו נתחייב זה במחשבה של זה:

Rabbi Elazar said: This is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar stated a principle: Anything that is not fit to be stored and people do not typically store items like it, but it was deemed fit to be stored by this person and he stored it, and another person came and carried out the object that was stored, that person who carried it out is rendered liable by the thought of this person who stored it. Once one person deemed it significant by means of thought and action, it is considered significant for all people. According to our mishna, however, only the person who stored the object is liable for carrying it out.

מתני׳ המוציא תבן כמלא פי פרה עצה כמלא פי גמל עמיר כמלא פי טלה עשבים כמלא פי גדי עלי שום ועלי בצלים לחים כגרוגרת יבשים כמלא פי גדי ואין מצטרפין זה עם זה מפני שלא שוו בשיעוריהן:

MISHNA: The mishna lists the measures in which various substances are significant and generally stored. One who carries out straw in a measure equivalent to a cow’s mouthful is liable. The measure that determines liability for etza is equivalent to a camel’s mouthful. Because it is a coarser food, he must carry out a greater amount in order to be liable. The measure that determines liability for ears of grain is equivalent to a lamb’s mouthful. The measure that determines liability for grass is equivalent to a goat’s mouthful, which is smaller than that of a lamb. The measure that determines liability for garlic leaves and onion leaves, if they are moist and fit for human consumption, is equivalent to a dried fig-bulk. A dried fig-bulk is the standard measure for human food. If the garlic leaves and onion leaves are dry, the measure for liability is equivalent to a goat’s mouthful. And none of these substances join together with one another to constitute a measure for liability because they are not equal in their measures.

גמ׳ מאי עצה אמר רב יהודה תבן של מיני קטנית כי אתא רב דימי אמר המוציא תבן כמלא פי פרה לגמל רבי יוחנן אמר חייב רבי שמעון בן לקיש אמר פטור באורתא אמר רבי יוחנן הכי לצפרא הדר ביה אמר רב יוסף שפיר עבד דהדר דהא לא חזי לגמל אמר ליה אביי אדרבה כדמעיקרא מסתברא דהא חזי לפרה

GEMARA: The Gemara first asks: What is etza mentioned in the mishna? Rav Yehuda said: It is straw of types of legumes. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: In the case of one who carries out a measure of straw equivalent to a cow’s mouthful for a camel, for which it is an insignificant measure, is his liability determined based on the measure that he carried out or based on the objective for which he carried it out? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He is liable. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: He is exempt. In the evening, Rabbi Yoḥanan said that; however, in the morning, he reversed his opinion and agreed with Reish Lakish. Rav Yosef said: He did well to reverse his opinion, since that amount is not suitable for a camel. There is no liability for carrying out less than a camel’s mouthful for a camel. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: On the contrary, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s original statement that he is liable is reasonable, as it is suitable for a cow. He carried out a significant measure that is fit for use, and he is liable for carrying it out even though it is insignificant for a camel.

אלא כי אתא רבין אמר המוציא תבן כמלא פי פרה לגמל דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דחייב כי פליגי במוציא עצה כמלא פי פרה לפרה

Rather, when Ravin later came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he transmitted a revised version of the dispute and said: With regard to one who carries out a measure equivalent to a cow’s mouthful of straw for a camel, everyone agrees that he is liable. Where they disagree is in a case of one who carries out a measure of etza, which cows do not typically eat, equivalent to a cow’s mouthful for the purpose of feeding a cow. Here the question is more difficult. Clearly, if one were to carry out that measure for a camel, or for no particular purpose, he would be exempt. However, since he designated the food for a cow, for which it is a significant amount, perhaps he should be liable for carrying out.

ואיפכא איתמר רבי יוחנן אמר פטור ריש לקיש אמר חייב רבי יוחנן אמר פטור אכילה על ידי הדחק לא שמה אכילה ריש לקיש אמר חייב אכילה על ידי הדחק שמה אכילה:

And the opposite was stated in the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He is exempt. Reish Lakish said: He is liable. The Gemara elaborates: Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He is exempt because he holds that eating under duress, i.e., food that is not typically eaten but could be eaten if necessary, such as a cow eating etza, is not considered eating. Reish Lakish said: He is liable because he holds that eating under duress is considered eating.

עמיר כמלא פי טלה: והתניא כגרוגרת אידי ואידי חד שיעורא הוא:

We learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for an ear of grain is equivalent to a lamb’s mouthful. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Its measure for liability is equivalent to a dried fig-bulk? The Gemara explains: This, a lamb’s mouthful, and that, a dried fig-bulk, are one, the same, measure.

עלי שום ועלי בצלים לחים כגרוגרת ויבשים כמלא פי הגדי ואין מצטרפין זה עם זה מפני שלא שוו בשיעוריהן: אמר רבי יוסי בר חנינא אין מצטרפין לחמור שבהן אבל מצטרפין לקל שבהן

We learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for one who carries out garlic leaves and onion leaves, if they are moist, is equivalent to a dried fig-bulk. If the garlic leaves and onion leaves are dry, the measure for liability is equivalent to a goat’s mouthful. And none of these substances join together with one another to constitute an amount for which one would be liable because they are not equal in their measures. Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: Substances that have a more lenient legal status and have a greater measure for liability do not join together with the substances among them whose legal status is more stringent and whose measure for liability is smaller. For example, one who carries out a goat’s mouthful of a mixture of straw, which is more lenient, and grass, which is more stringent, is exempt. However, substances whose status is more stringent, like grass, join together with the substances among them whose status is more lenient, like an ear of grain. One who carries out a lamb’s mouthful of a mixture of grass, which is more stringent, and an ear of grain, which is more lenient, is liable.

וכל דלא שוו בשיעורייהו מי מצטרפין והתנן הבגד שלשה על שלשה והשק ארבעה על ארבעה והעור חמשה על חמשה מפץ ששה על ששה ותני עלה הבגד והשק השק והעור העור והמפץ מצטרפין זה עם זה ואמר רבי שמעון מה טעם מפני שראויין ליטמא מושב טעמא דראויין ליטמא מושב אבל אין ראוי ליטמא מושב לא

The Gemara questions this principle: And do any items that are not equal in their measures join together? Don’t their fundamental differences preclude any combination? Didn’t we learn in a mishna that the opposite is true? The garment must be at least three by three handbreadths in order to become a primary source of ritual impurity by means of ritual impurity imparted by treading of a zav. And the sack made from goats’ hair must be at least four by four handbreadths. And the animal hide must be five by five, and a mat must be six by six. And a baraita was taught about the mishna: The garment and the sack, the sack and the hide, and the hide and the mat join together with one another. And Rabbi Shimon said: What is the reason that they join together? Because all the component materials are fit to become ritually impure through the ritual impurity imparted to a seat upon which a zav sits, as they can each be used to patch a saddle or saddlecloth. Since they are all suitable for the same use, they join together with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity. By inference: The reason they can combine is because they are fit to become ritually impure through the ritual impurity imparted to a seat. However, in a case where the combination is of several items not fit to become ritually impure through the ritual impurity imparted to a seat, no, they do not join together even to the more lenient, larger measure. Apparently, in general, items with different measures do not join together.

אמר רבא

Rava said:

הכא נמי חזיא לדוגמא:

Here too, since these substances are suited to be piled together in the sample of a merchant seeking to sell them, they join together with regard to carrying out on Shabbat as well.

מתני׳ המוציא אוכלים כגרוגרת חייב ומצטרפין זה עם זה מפני ששוו בשיעוריהן חוץ מקליפתן וגרעיניהן ועוקציהן וסובן ומורסנן רבי יהודה אומר חוץ מקליפי עדשין שמתבשלות עמהן:

MISHNA: One who carries out a measure of foods fit for human consumption equivalent to a dried fig-bulk into a domain where carrying is prohibited on Shabbat is liable. And all those foods join together with one another to constitute that amount because they are equal in their measures. This amount is calculated without their shells, and their seeds, and their stems, and their bran, the husk that comes off of the wheat kernel when pounded, and their coarse bran that remains in the flour. Rabbi Yehuda says: None of the shells are calculated, except for the shells of lentils, which join together with the lentils to comprise the measure for liability because they are cooked and eaten with them.

גמ׳ וסובן ומורסנן לא מצטרפין והתנן חמשת רבעים קמח ועוד חייבין בחלה הן וסובן ומורסנן אמר אביי שכן עני אוכל פתו בעיסה בלוסה:

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And do the bran and coarse bran of cereals not join together? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: Dough made from five-quarters of a log of flour and a bit more obligates one to separate ḥalla? That amount includes them, the flour, and their bran, and their coarse bran. Apparently, bran and coarse bran join together with the flour to constitute the requisite measure. Abaye said: Bran joins together with the flour with regard to ḥalla and the making of bread, since a pauper eats his loaf made from dough mixed with bran. However, with regard to carrying out on Shabbat, the food items in question must be suitable for all people, since the measures are small and are calculated by their significance.

רבי יהודה אומר חוץ מקליפי עדשים המתבשלות עמהן: עדשים אין פולין לא והתניא רבי יהודה אומר חוץ מקליפי פולין ועדשים לא קשיא הא בחדתי הא בעתיקי עתיקי מאי טעמא לא אמר רבי אבהו מפני שנראין כזבובין בקערה:

We learned in the mishna that shells do not join together to constitute the measure of food. Rabbi Yehuda says: Except for the shells of lentils because they are cooked and eaten with them. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that with lentils, yes, the shells do join together; but with beans, no, they do not? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: Except for the shells of beans and lentils? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: This baraita, which teaches that, according to Rabbi Yehuda, shells of beans join together with the beans, is referring to new, fresh beans. That mishna, which teaches that, according to Rabbi Yehuda, shells of beans do not join together with the beans, is referring to old beans. The Gemara asks: Why do the shells of old beans not join together? Rabbi Abbahu said: Because their shell fragments look like flies in the dish; people are repulsed by those shell fragments, they do not eat them and discard them.

הדרן עלך כלל גדול

 

מתני׳ המוציא יין כדי מזיגת הכוס חלב כדי גמיעה דבש כדי ליתן על הכתית שמן כדי לסוך אבר קטן מים כדי לשוף בהם את הקילור ושאר כל המשקין ברביעית וכל השופכין ברביעית רבי שמעון אומר כולן ברביעית ולא נאמרו כל השיעורין הללו אלא למצניעיהן:

MISHNA: One who carries out undiluted wine from a private domain to a public domain or vice versa is liable only for a measure equivalent to the wine typically diluted in a cup. Pure wine was diluted with water. The measure that determines liability for carrying out wine is a measure suitable to be diluted for a significant cup of wine. The measure that determines liability for carrying out milk is equivalent to that which is swallowed in one gulp. The measure that determines liability for carrying out honey is equivalent to that which is used to place on a sore caused by chafing. The measure that determines liability for carrying out oil is equivalent to that which is used to spread on a small limb. The measure that determines liability for carrying out water is equivalent to that which is used to rub and spread on an eye bandage. And the measure that determines liability for carrying out all other liquids is a quarter of a log. And the measure that determines liability for carrying out all waste water is a quarter of a log. Rabbi Shimon says: The measure that determines liability for all liquids is a quarter of a log. He further stated: And all these measures were only stated with regard to those who store them. One indicates that he considers these liquids significant by storing them. One is only liable for carrying out an object that is significant to him. Others, for whom these measures are insignificant, are not liable for carrying them out.

גמ׳ תנא כדי מזיגת כוס יפה ומאי כוס יפה כוס של ברכה אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה כוס של ברכה צריך שיהא בו רובע רביעית כדי שימזגנו ויעמוד על רביעית

GEMARA: It was taught in a Tosefta: The measure that determines liability for carrying out wine is equivalent to the wine diluted for a significant cup of wine. The Gemara explains: And what is the significant cup of wine to which the Tosefta referred? It is a cup of blessing. And Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: A cup of blessing must have a quarter of a quarter of a log of undiluted wine in it, so that one will dilute it with water, and the cup will contain a quarter of a log. The ratio of dilution is typically three parts water to one part wine.

אמר רבא אף אנן נמי

Rava said: We too

More Ways to Learn with Hadran

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

Scroll To Top