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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 24, 2020 | 讗壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖状驻

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

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

Shabbat 79

Today’s daf is sponsored by Leslie Glassberg Nadel in memory of her mother, Tova Bat Zvi Hirsch z”l and by an anonymous donor in loving memory of Emuna Bracha Esther and in honor of the incredible women in her life (both mentors and students) who are learning daf yomi.聽

The gemara brings four explanations regearding the debate between Rabbi Yehuda and Tana Kama about one who takes out a promissory note on Shabbat – if it is after it was paid back, is one obligated? Is it still a useful item? What is the basis for the debate and what exactly are the circumstances? Rava asks Rav Nachman about the requisite amount for taking out the hide of an animal at different stages – before it was processed, once it was processed, etc. Rav Nachman says it is the same for all. The gemara raises several questions on this from other cases where we distinguish between an item before it is processed and after. The mishna gave a size for parchment for tefillin. But in a braita a different amount appears in the context of tefillin and mezuza. The gemara distinguishes between tefillin and mezuza. However it is difficult as tefillin is generally made of klaf and mezuza on duchsustos and the braita mentioned both in relation to tefillin. The gemara rereads the braita to line up each type of parchment with what it can be used for. Rav says that one can use duchtostos for tefillin. The gemara raises several questions on this and also tries to bring a potential proof but ultimately concludes that Rav’s statement was the reverse -that one can use klaf for mezuza.

注讚 砖讬讗诪专 诇讜讛 驻专注转讬 讜诇讗 驻专注转讬

It means: Until the debtor says: I repaid the debt, or, I did not repay the debt. If the debtor says: I repaid the debt in the promissory note and there are no witnesses to ratify the document in court, the document has no value. That is the opinion of the Rabbis who hold that an unratified document cannot force a debtor to pay. According to Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that a document need not be ratified, the debtor鈥檚 claim that he repaid the debt is not accepted and the creditor can collect his debt with the unratified promissory note.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讜讚讛 讘砖讟专 砖讻转讘讜 砖爪专讬讱 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讜讛讻讗 讘讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖爪专讬讱 诇讛专讗讜转讜 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖谞讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讝讬 讙讘专讗 讚驻专注 讗谞讗:

Rava said: Everyone agrees that when a debtor admits that he wrote a promissory note, the creditor must ratify it in court. And here, it is with regard to the question whether or not one writes a receipt that they disagree. The first tanna holds: One writes a receipt for a promissory note that was repaid. Since the debtor has the receipt in his possession, the creditor may keep the note and use it as paper. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: One does not write a receipt. Therefore, the creditor is required to return the note to the debtor immediately upon repayment of the debt. It is in the interest of the debtor to destroy the document, and he has no reason to keep it. Rav Ashi said: The dispute is with regard to a case where the debtor carried out the promissory note into the public domain. Rabbi Yehuda said he is liable because he needs the repaid document to show it to a second creditor, as he says to him: Look, I am a man who repays his debts.

注讜专 讻讚讬 诇注砖讜转 讻讜壮: 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诪讜爪讬讗 注讜专 讘讻诪讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讚转谞谉 注讜专 讻讚讬 诇注砖讜转 拽诪讬注 [讛诪注讘讚讜 讘讻诪讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖谞讗] 诇注讘讚讜 讘讻诪讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖谞讗

We learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out animal hide is equivalent to that which is used to make an amulet. Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Na岣an: With regard to one who carries out animal hide, how much must he carry out on Shabbat in order to be liable? He said to him, it is as we learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out animal hide is equivalent to that which is used to make an amulet. He raised another dilemma: With regard to one who tans that hide, how much must he tan in order to be liable? He said to him: It is no different, the same measure. He raised another dilemma: With regard to one who carries out animal hide to tan it, how much must he carry out on Shabbat in order to be liable? He said to him: It is no different.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讻讚转谞谉 讛诪诇讘谉 讜讛诪谞驻抓 讜讛爪讜讘注 讜讛讟讜讜讛 砖讬注讜专讜 讻诪诇讗 专讜讞讘 讛住讬讟 讻驻讜诇 讜讛讗讜专讙 砖谞讬 讞讜讟讬谉 砖讬注讜专讜 讻诪诇讗 专讜讞讘 讛住讬讟 (讻驻讜诇) 讗诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讟讜讬讬讛 拽讗讬 砖讬注讜专讗 讻讟讜讜讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇注讘讚讜 拽讗讬 砖讬注讜专讜 讻诪注讜讘讚 讜砖诇讗 诇注讘讚讜 讘讻诪讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖谞讗

And from where do you derive and say that there is no difference whether or not the hide one carries out is tanned? As we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who whitens, and one who combs, and one who dyes, and one who spins, the measure of wool for which one is liable in performing those prohibited labors is double the full width of the distance between the forefinger and the middle finger. And the measure that determines liability for one who weaves two threads is double the full width of the distance between the forefinger and the middle finger. Apparently, since the wool is designated for spinning, the measure for which one is liable for whitening, combing, and dyeing is equal to the measure for which one is liable for weaving that spun thread. Here too, since it is designated for tanning, its measure that determines liability for carrying it out into the public domain is equal to the measure that determines liability for carrying out tanned hides. Rava raised another dilemma: With regard to one who carries out animal hide and has no intention to tan it, how much must he carry out on Shabbat in order to be liable? He said to him: It is no different.

讜诇讗 砖谞讬 讘讬谉 诪注讜讘讚 诇砖讗讬谞讜 诪注讜讘讚 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讛诪讜爪讬讗 住诪谞讬谉 砖专讜讬谉 讻讚讬 诇爪讘讜注 讘讛谉 讚讜讙诪讗 诇讗讬专讗 讜讗讬诇讜 讘住诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谞谉 砖专讜讬谉 转谞谉 拽诇讬驻讬 讗讙讜讝讬诐 讜拽诇讬驻讬 专诪讜谞讬谉 住讟讬住 讜驻讜讗讛 讻讚讬 诇爪讘讜注 讘讛谉 讘讙讚 拽讟谉 [诇驻讬] 住讘讻讛 讛讗 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讟讜专讞 诇砖专讜转 住诪谞讬谉 诇爪讘讜注 讘讛谉 讚讜讙诪讗 诇讗讬专讗

Rava asked: And is there no halakhic difference between carrying out tanned hides and carrying out hides that are not tanned? He raised an objection to him based on a baraita: One who carries out herbs that were soaked in water and ready for use as a dye is liable if he carried out a measure equivalent to that which is used to dye a sample the size of a stopper for the shuttle of a loom. While with regard to herbs that were not soaked, we learned in a mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out nutshells, and pomegranate peels, and for carrying out safflower, and madder, which are herbs used as dyes, is equivalent to that which is used to dye a small cloth to cover the opening of a woman鈥檚 hair net. Apparently, the measure for which one is liable for carrying out raw materials is greater than the measure for which one is liable for carrying out prepared dyes. The Gemara answers: But wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to that mishna that Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: Because a person does not go to the trouble to soak herbs just to dye a sample for the shuttle of a loom? As a rule, there is no distinction between finished and unfinished products. The case of dye is different, as people do not typically prepare dyes in amounts that small. Therefore, even though that size is significant in and of itself, he is exempt for carrying them out.

讜讛专讬 讝专注讜谞讬 讙讬谞讛 讚诪拽诪讬 讚讝专注讬谞讛讜 转谞谉 讝专注讜谞讬 讙讬谞讛 驻讞讜转 诪讻讙专讜讙专转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 讞诪砖讛 讜讗讬诇讜 讘转专 讚讝专注讬谞讛讜 转谞谉 讝讘诇 讜讞讜诇 讛讚拽 讻讚讬 诇讝讘诇 讘讜 拽诇讞 砖诇 讻专讜讘 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻讚讬 诇讝讘诇 讻专讬砖讗 讛讗 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗 讚讝专讬注 讛讗 讚诇讗 讝专讬注 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讟讜专讞 诇讛讜爪讬讗 谞讬诪讗 讗讞转 诇讝专讬注讛

He asked further: And with regard to seeds of garden plants before one sowed them, we learned in a mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out seeds of garden plants is less than a dried fig-bulk. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: He is liable if he carries out five seeds. While with regard to carrying out seeds after he sowed them, we learned in a mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out manure or fine sand is equivalent to that which is used to fertilize one stalk of cabbage with it; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis say: The measure that determines liability for carrying it out is equivalent to that which is used to fertilize a leek. Apparently, after the seed was sown, the measure for liability is one plant. Before it is sown, the measure is at least five. The Gemara answers: As a rule, there is no distinction between an object that was processed and one that was not. However, this case is different. Wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to that halakha that there is a distinction between this, where one is liable for carrying out one plant, and the mishna is referring to a case where it is already sown; and that, where one is only liable for carrying out at least five, and the mishna is referring to a case where it is not yet sown, because a person does not go to the trouble to carry out just one seed for sowing?

讜讛专讬 讟讬讟 讚诪拽诪讬 讚诇讬讙讘诇讬讛 转谞讬讗 诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘诪讜爪讬讗 砖讜驻讻讬谉 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 砖砖讬注讜专谉 讘专讘讬注讬转 讜讛讜讬谞谉 [讘讛] 砖讜驻讻讬谉 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讜 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇讙讘诇 讘讛谉 讗转 讛讟讬讟 讜讗讬诇讜 讘转专 讚讙讘诇讬讛 转谞讬讗 讟讬讟 讻讚讬 诇注砖讜转 讘讛谉 驻讬 讻讜专 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讻讚讗诪专谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讟讜专讞 (讘讛谉) 诇讙讘诇 讗转 讛讟讬讟 诇注砖讜转 讘讜 驻讬 讻讜专

He asked further: And with regard to clay before one kneads it, it was taught in a baraita: And the Rabbis agree with Rabbi Shimon with regard to one who carries out waste water to the public domain, that the measure that determines liability is a quarter of a log. And we discussed this question: For what use is waste water fit? Rabbi Yirmeya said: It is used to knead clay. Apparently, the measure that determines liability for the raw material is the amount kneaded with a quarter of a log of waste water to form clay. While with regard to clay after one kneads it, it was taught in a baraita: With regard to clay, the measure for liability is equivalent to that which is used to make an opening for the bellows to be placed in a crucible, which is a small amount. The Gemara answers: There too, it is as we stated: Because a person does not go to the trouble of kneading clay just to make an opening for the bellows to be placed in a crucible.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 砖诇砖讛 注讜专讜转 讛谉 诪爪讛 讜讞讬驻讛 讜讚讬驻转专讗 诪爪讛 讻诪砖诪注讜 讚诇讗 诪诇讬讞 讜讚诇讗 拽诪讬讞 讜讚诇讗 注驻讬抓 讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专讜 转谞讬 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讚讬 诇爪讜专 讘讜 诪砖拽讜诇转 拽讟谞讛 讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讬讘注讗 讚专讬讘注讗 讚驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗

In order to resolve the dilemma with regard to the measure that determines liability for carrying out an animal hide on Shabbat, the Gemara states: Come and hear a halakha that Rabbi 岣yya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: There are three hides, i.e., three stages in the process of tanning hides, and at each stage it is known by a different name: Matza, and 岣fa, and diftera. Matza, as per its plain meaning, with no additives. It is not salted, and not treated with flour, and not treated with gallnuts. And how much is the measure that determines liability for carrying out that hide on Shabbat? Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda taught: It is equivalent to that which is used to wrap around a small weight. And how big is this small weight? Abaye said: A quarter of a quarter of a litra in the system of weights in use in Pumbedita.

讞讬驻讛 讚诪诇讬讞 讜诇讗 拽诪讬讞 讜诇讗 注驻讬抓 讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专讜 讻讚转谞谉 注讜专 讻讚讬 诇注砖讜转 拽诪讬注 讚讬驻转专讗 讚诪诇讬讞 讜拽诪讬讞 讜诇讗 注驻讬抓 讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专讜 讻讚讬 诇讻转讜讘 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讙讟 拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讻讚讬 诇爪讜专 讘讜 诪砖拽讜诇转 拽讟谞讛 讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讬讘注讗 讚专讬讘注讗 讚驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讛转诐 讘讘讬砖讜诇讗

岣fa is hide that is salted, and not treated with flour, and not treated with gallnuts. And how much is the measure that determines liability for carrying out that hide on Shabbat? As we learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out animal hide is equivalent to that which is used to make an amulet. Diftera is hide that is salted, and treated with flour, and not treated with gallnuts. And how much is the measure that determines liability for carrying out that hide on Shabbat? The measure that determines liability for carrying it out is equivalent to the amount which is used to write a bill of divorce on it. In any case, it was taught that before it is tanned the measure for liability is equivalent to that which is used to wrap around a small weight. And Abaye said: A quarter of a quarter of a litra in the system of weights in use in Pumbedita. That is not the same as the measure that determines liability for a tanned hide, which is equivalent to that which is used to make an amulet. The Gemara answers: There, it is referring to wet hide just flayed that was left out to dry in the sun and is suitable only for wrapping around a weight (Rabbeinu 岣nanel). However, for carrying out hide that is tanned, his measure for liability is equivalent to that which is used to make an amulet.

讜讛转谞谉 讛讘讙讚 砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 诇诪讚专住 讛砖拽 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讛注讜专 讞诪砖讛 注诇 讞诪砖讛 诪驻抓 砖砖讛 注诇 砖砖讛 讘讬谉 诇诪讚专住 讘讬谉 诇诪转 讜转讗谞讬 注诇讛 讛讘讙讚 讜讛砖拽 讜讛注讜专 讻砖讬注讜专 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讻讱 砖讬注讜专 诇讛讜爪讗讛 讛讛讜讗 讘拽讜专讟讜讘诇讗:

The Gemara raises another difficulty: And didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: The garment must be at least three by three handbreadths to become impure with ritual impurity imparted by treading? And the sack made from goat 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. Those are the minimum measures for becoming a primary source of ritual impurity by means of both ritual impurity imparted by treading and ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. And it was taught in the Tosefta with regard to that mishna: With regard to the garment and the sack and the hide; like the measure for ritual impurity, so too is the measure for carrying out on Shabbat. That is significantly larger than the measure for liability cited in the mishna for carrying out hide. The Gemara answers: That Tosefta is referring to kortovela, which is hide that was tanned in a manner that rendered it unfit for writing or wrapping. It is used for covering vessels and other similar uses (Rambam).

拽诇祝 讻讚讬 诇讻转讜讘 注诇讬讜 驻专砖讛 拽讟谞讛: 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 拽诇祝 讜讚讜讻住讜住讟讜住 讻讚讬 诇讻转讜讘 注诇讬讜 诪讝讜讝讛 诪讗讬 诪讝讜讝讛 诪讝讜讝讛 砖讘转驻讬诇讬谉 讜拽专讬 诇讛讜 诇转驻讬诇讬谉 诪讝讜讝讛 讗讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 专爪讜注讜转 转驻讬诇讬谉 注诐 讛转驻讬诇讬谉 诪讟诪讗讜转 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讜转 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛谞讜讙注 讘专爪讜注讛 讟讛讜专 注讚 砖讬讙注 讘拽爪讬爪讛 专讘讬 讝讻讗讬 诪砖诪讜 讗讜诪专 讟讛讜专 注讚 砖讬讙注 讘诪讝讜讝讛 注爪诪讛

We learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out parchment is equivalent to that which is used to write the shortest portion in the phylacteries. And the Gemara raised a contradiction from that which was taught: The measure that determines liability for carrying out parchment and dokhsostos is equivalent to that which is used to write a mezuza on it. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of mezuza in this context? It means those Torah portions of the mezuza that also appear in the phylacteries. The Gemara asks: And are the phylacteries called mezuza? The Gemara answers: Yes, as it was taught in a baraita: The straps of the phylacteries, when they are with the phylacteries, render the hands ritually impure as is the case with regard to contact with any sacred texts. When they are on their own, they do not render the hands ritually impure. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: One who touches the strap of the phylacteries remains ritually pure even if it is attached to the phylacteries, unless he touches the actual box of the phylacteries. Rabbi Zakkai says in Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 name: One remains ritually pure until he touches the mezuza itself. Apparently the Torah portions in phylacteries are called mezuza.

讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 拽诇祝 讻讚讬 诇讻转讜讘 注诇讬讜 驻专砖讛 拽讟谞讛 砖讘转驻讬诇讬谉 砖讛讬讗 砖诪注 讬砖专讗诇 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 讘诪讝讜讝讛 注爪诪讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 拽诇祝 讜讚讜讻住讜住讟讜住 砖讬注讜专谉 讘讻诪讛 讚讜讻住讜住讟讜住 讻讚讬 诇讻转讜讘 注诇讬讜 诪讝讜讝讛 拽诇祝 讻讚讬 诇讻转讜讘 注诇讬讜 驻专砖讛 拽讟谞讛 砖讘转驻讬诇讬谉 砖讛讬讗 砖诪注 讬砖专讗诇:

The Gemara asks: And from the fact that the latter clause of the mishna teaches: The measure that determines liability for carrying out parchment is equivalent to that which is used to write the shortest portion in the phylacteries, which is the portion of Shema Yisrael, by inference, in the first clause of the mishna we are dealing with a mezuza itself. Rather, this is what it teaches: With regard to parchment and dokhsostos, how much is the measure that determines liability for carrying them out? The measure that determines liability for carrying out dokhsostos is equivalent to that which one uses to write a mezuza on it. The measure that determines liability for carrying out parchment is equivalent to that which one uses to write on it the shortest passage that is in the phylacteries, which is Shema Yisrael.

讗诪专 专讘 讚讜讻住讜住讟讜住 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻拽诇祝 诪讛 拽诇祝 讻讜转讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 转驻讬诇讬谉 讗祝 讚讜讻住讜住讟讜住 讻讜转讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 转驻讬诇讬谉 转谞谉 拽诇祝 讻讚讬 诇讻转讜讘 驻专砖讛 拽讟谞讛 砖讘转驻讬诇讬谉 砖讛讬讗 砖诪注 讬砖专讗诇 (拽诇祝 讗讬谉 讚讜讻住讜住讟讜住 诇讗) 诇诪爪讜讛 转讗 砖诪注 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 转驻讬诇讬谉 注诇 讛拽诇祝 讜诪讝讜讝讛 注诇 讚讜讻住讜住讟讜住 拽诇祝 讘诪拽讜诐 讘砖专 讚讜讻住讜住讟讜住 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬注专 诇诪爪讜讛

Rav said: Dokhsostos has the same legal status as parchment: Just as one may write the portions of the phylacteries on parchment, so too, one may write the portions of the phylacteries on dokhsostos. The Gemara asks, we learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out parchment is equivalent to that which is used to write the shortest portion in the phylacteries, which is the portion of Shema Yisrael. By inference: Parchment, yes, the portions of the phylacteries may be written on it. Dokhsostos, no, the portions of the phylacteries may not be written on it. The Gemara answers: That is no proof, as the mishna is referring to the optimal manner in which to fulfill the mitzva, i.e., writing the portions of the phylacteries on parchment. However, one fulfills the mitzva by writing on dokhsostos as well. Come and hear that which was taught in a baraita: It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that the portions of the phylacteries are written on parchment, and a mezuza is written on dokhsostos. When writing on parchment, one writes on the side of the hide that faced the flesh; on dokhsostos, one writes on the side of the hide on which there was hair. This contradicts the opinion of Rav, who said that phylacteries may be written on dokhsostos. The Gemara answers: The baraita is also referring to the optimal manner in which to fulfill the mitzva.

讜讛转谞讬讗 砖讬谞讛 驻住讜诇 讗诪讝讜讝讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 砖讬谞讛 讘讝讛 讜讘讝讛 驻住讜诇 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讗诪讝讜讝讛 讜讛讗 讚讻转讘讬谞讛讜 讗拽诇祝 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬注专 讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讚讜讻住讜住讟讜住 讘诪拽讜诐 讘砖专 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖讬谞讛 讘讝讛 讜讘讝讛 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖讬谞讛 讘讝讛 讜讘讝讛 驻住讜诇 专讘讬 讗讞讗 诪讻砖讬专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗讞讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 讻转谞讗 讚讘讬 诪谞砖讛 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 诪谞砖讛 讻转讘讛 注诇 讛谞讬讬专 讜注诇 讛诪讟诇讬转 驻住讜诇讛 注诇 讛拽诇祝 讜注诇 讛讙讜讬诇 讜注诇 讚讜讻住讜住讟讜住 讻砖专讛

The Gemara asks: And wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that if one deviated and wrote on something else it is invalid, indicating that the portions of the phylacteries may not be written on anything other than parchment? The Gemara rejects this: This baraita is referring to a mezuza, which is invalid if written on parchment. The Gemara asks: But was it not taught in a different baraita: If one deviated in this, phylacteries, and that, mezuza, it is invalid? The Gemara rejects this: Both this and that are referring to a mezuza, and this additional invalidation is in a case where one deviated and wrote it on parchment, on the side that faced the hair; or, alternatively, where he deviated and wrote it on dokhsostos, on the side that faced the flesh. And, if you wish, say instead: Actually, this and that are referring to phylacteries and a mezuza. However, the halakha with regard to a case where one deviated in this and that is subject to a tannaitic dispute, as it was taught in a baraita: If one deviated in this and that it is invalid. Rabbi A岣 deems it valid in the name of Rabbi A岣i bar 岣nina, and some say in the name of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, son of Rabbi 岣nina. Rav Pappa said: Rav said his statement in accordance with the opinion of the tanna from the school of Menashe. As it was taught in the school of Menashe: If one wrote it on paper or on a cloth it is invalid. However, if one wrote it on parchment or on a hide that was treated with gallnuts [gevil] or on dokhsostos it is valid.

讻转讘讛 诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讝讜讝讛 诪讝讜讝讛 讗拽诇祝 诪讬 讻转讘讬谞谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 转驻讬诇讬谉 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 转驻讬诇讬谉 讗讙讜讬诇 诪讬 讻转讘讬谞谉 [讗诇讗] 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讘住驻专 转讜专讛 诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 转驻讬诇讬谉 砖讘诇讜 讜住驻专 转讜专讛 砖讘诇讛 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诪讛谉 诪讝讜讝讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 诪拽讚讜砖讛 讞诪讜专讛 诇拽讚讜砖讛 拽诇讛

The Gemara elaborates: If he wrote it; wrote what? If you say that it is referring to a mezuza, do we write a mezuza on parchment? Rather, isn鈥檛 it referring to phylacteries? Apparently, as Rav said, there are Sages who hold that the portions of the phylacteries may be written on dokhsostos. The Gemara rejects this: And according to your reasoning, do we write phylacteries on gevil? Rather, that baraita was taught with regard to a Torah scroll. The Gemara comments: Let us say that the following supports the opinion of Rav: Similarly, phylacteries that became tattered and a Torah scroll that became tattered, one may not make them into a mezuza, despite the fact that identical Torah portions appear in all three. This is prohibited because one does not downgrade from a level of greater sanctity, i.e., a Torah scroll or phylacteries, to a level of lesser sanctity, i.e., a mezuza.

讟注诪讗 讚讗讬谉 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 讛讗 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讚讻转讬讘讗 讗诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讻转讬讘讗 讗讚讜讻住讜住讟讜住 诇讗 讚讻转讬讘讗 注诇 讛拽诇祝 讜诪讝讜讝讛 讗拽诇祝 诪讬 讻转讘讬谞谉 讗讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻转讘讛 注诇 讛拽诇祝 注诇 讛谞讬讬专 讜注诇 讛诪讟诇讬转 驻住讜诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讛 讻讜转讘讛 注诇 讛拽诇祝 诪驻谞讬 砖诪砖转诪专转 讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 诇专讘 谞诪讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讚讜讻住讜住讟讜住 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻拽诇祝 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 拽诇祝 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讚讜讻住讜住讟讜住 诪讛 讚讜讻住讜住讟讜住 讻讜转讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪讝讜讝讛 讗祝 拽诇祝 讻讜转讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪讝讜讝讛:

The Gemara infers: The reason that one may not do so is because one does not downgrade. However, if the halakha were that one does downgrade, one would make a mezuza from phylacteries. The Gemara elaborates: On what is the portion of the phylacteries written? Isn鈥檛 it written on dokhsostos? This supports the opinion of Rav. The Gemara answers: No, the portion of the phylacteries is written on parchment. The Gemara asks: If so, how could a mezuza be made from it? Do we write a mezuza on parchment? The Gemara answers: Yes, as it was taught in a baraita: If one wrote a mezuza on parchment, or on paper, or on a cloth, it is invalid. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Rabbi Meir would write it on parchment, as it is thereby better preserved. Apparently, even a mezuza may be written on parchment, and there is no proof from the previous baraita. In reaction to the previous baraita, the Gemara comments: Now that you have arrived at this opinion that a mezuza may be written on both dokhsostos and parchment, according to Rav, as well, do not say: Dokhsostos has the same legal status as parchment with regard to phylacteries; rather, say: Parchment has the same legal status as dokhsostos. Just as on dokhsostos, one may write a mezuza, so too, on parchment, one may write a mezuza, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

讚讬讜 讻讚讬 诇讻转讜讘:

We learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out ink is equivalent to that which is used to write two letters.

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

daf yomi One week at a time (1)

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 79: Recycling Sifrei Torah (No)

When carrying becomes a topic of documents and of receipts or promissory notes, it's only logical that the discussion would...

Shabbat 79

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 79

注讚 砖讬讗诪专 诇讜讛 驻专注转讬 讜诇讗 驻专注转讬

It means: Until the debtor says: I repaid the debt, or, I did not repay the debt. If the debtor says: I repaid the debt in the promissory note and there are no witnesses to ratify the document in court, the document has no value. That is the opinion of the Rabbis who hold that an unratified document cannot force a debtor to pay. According to Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that a document need not be ratified, the debtor鈥檚 claim that he repaid the debt is not accepted and the creditor can collect his debt with the unratified promissory note.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讜讚讛 讘砖讟专 砖讻转讘讜 砖爪专讬讱 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讜讛讻讗 讘讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖爪专讬讱 诇讛专讗讜转讜 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖谞讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讝讬 讙讘专讗 讚驻专注 讗谞讗:

Rava said: Everyone agrees that when a debtor admits that he wrote a promissory note, the creditor must ratify it in court. And here, it is with regard to the question whether or not one writes a receipt that they disagree. The first tanna holds: One writes a receipt for a promissory note that was repaid. Since the debtor has the receipt in his possession, the creditor may keep the note and use it as paper. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: One does not write a receipt. Therefore, the creditor is required to return the note to the debtor immediately upon repayment of the debt. It is in the interest of the debtor to destroy the document, and he has no reason to keep it. Rav Ashi said: The dispute is with regard to a case where the debtor carried out the promissory note into the public domain. Rabbi Yehuda said he is liable because he needs the repaid document to show it to a second creditor, as he says to him: Look, I am a man who repays his debts.

注讜专 讻讚讬 诇注砖讜转 讻讜壮: 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诪讜爪讬讗 注讜专 讘讻诪讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讚转谞谉 注讜专 讻讚讬 诇注砖讜转 拽诪讬注 [讛诪注讘讚讜 讘讻诪讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖谞讗] 诇注讘讚讜 讘讻诪讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖谞讗

We learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out animal hide is equivalent to that which is used to make an amulet. Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Na岣an: With regard to one who carries out animal hide, how much must he carry out on Shabbat in order to be liable? He said to him, it is as we learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out animal hide is equivalent to that which is used to make an amulet. He raised another dilemma: With regard to one who tans that hide, how much must he tan in order to be liable? He said to him: It is no different, the same measure. He raised another dilemma: With regard to one who carries out animal hide to tan it, how much must he carry out on Shabbat in order to be liable? He said to him: It is no different.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讻讚转谞谉 讛诪诇讘谉 讜讛诪谞驻抓 讜讛爪讜讘注 讜讛讟讜讜讛 砖讬注讜专讜 讻诪诇讗 专讜讞讘 讛住讬讟 讻驻讜诇 讜讛讗讜专讙 砖谞讬 讞讜讟讬谉 砖讬注讜专讜 讻诪诇讗 专讜讞讘 讛住讬讟 (讻驻讜诇) 讗诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讟讜讬讬讛 拽讗讬 砖讬注讜专讗 讻讟讜讜讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇注讘讚讜 拽讗讬 砖讬注讜专讜 讻诪注讜讘讚 讜砖诇讗 诇注讘讚讜 讘讻诪讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖谞讗

And from where do you derive and say that there is no difference whether or not the hide one carries out is tanned? As we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who whitens, and one who combs, and one who dyes, and one who spins, the measure of wool for which one is liable in performing those prohibited labors is double the full width of the distance between the forefinger and the middle finger. And the measure that determines liability for one who weaves two threads is double the full width of the distance between the forefinger and the middle finger. Apparently, since the wool is designated for spinning, the measure for which one is liable for whitening, combing, and dyeing is equal to the measure for which one is liable for weaving that spun thread. Here too, since it is designated for tanning, its measure that determines liability for carrying it out into the public domain is equal to the measure that determines liability for carrying out tanned hides. Rava raised another dilemma: With regard to one who carries out animal hide and has no intention to tan it, how much must he carry out on Shabbat in order to be liable? He said to him: It is no different.

讜诇讗 砖谞讬 讘讬谉 诪注讜讘讚 诇砖讗讬谞讜 诪注讜讘讚 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讛诪讜爪讬讗 住诪谞讬谉 砖专讜讬谉 讻讚讬 诇爪讘讜注 讘讛谉 讚讜讙诪讗 诇讗讬专讗 讜讗讬诇讜 讘住诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谞谉 砖专讜讬谉 转谞谉 拽诇讬驻讬 讗讙讜讝讬诐 讜拽诇讬驻讬 专诪讜谞讬谉 住讟讬住 讜驻讜讗讛 讻讚讬 诇爪讘讜注 讘讛谉 讘讙讚 拽讟谉 [诇驻讬] 住讘讻讛 讛讗 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讟讜专讞 诇砖专讜转 住诪谞讬谉 诇爪讘讜注 讘讛谉 讚讜讙诪讗 诇讗讬专讗

Rava asked: And is there no halakhic difference between carrying out tanned hides and carrying out hides that are not tanned? He raised an objection to him based on a baraita: One who carries out herbs that were soaked in water and ready for use as a dye is liable if he carried out a measure equivalent to that which is used to dye a sample the size of a stopper for the shuttle of a loom. While with regard to herbs that were not soaked, we learned in a mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out nutshells, and pomegranate peels, and for carrying out safflower, and madder, which are herbs used as dyes, is equivalent to that which is used to dye a small cloth to cover the opening of a woman鈥檚 hair net. Apparently, the measure for which one is liable for carrying out raw materials is greater than the measure for which one is liable for carrying out prepared dyes. The Gemara answers: But wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to that mishna that Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: Because a person does not go to the trouble to soak herbs just to dye a sample for the shuttle of a loom? As a rule, there is no distinction between finished and unfinished products. The case of dye is different, as people do not typically prepare dyes in amounts that small. Therefore, even though that size is significant in and of itself, he is exempt for carrying them out.

讜讛专讬 讝专注讜谞讬 讙讬谞讛 讚诪拽诪讬 讚讝专注讬谞讛讜 转谞谉 讝专注讜谞讬 讙讬谞讛 驻讞讜转 诪讻讙专讜讙专转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 讞诪砖讛 讜讗讬诇讜 讘转专 讚讝专注讬谞讛讜 转谞谉 讝讘诇 讜讞讜诇 讛讚拽 讻讚讬 诇讝讘诇 讘讜 拽诇讞 砖诇 讻专讜讘 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻讚讬 诇讝讘诇 讻专讬砖讗 讛讗 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗 讚讝专讬注 讛讗 讚诇讗 讝专讬注 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讟讜专讞 诇讛讜爪讬讗 谞讬诪讗 讗讞转 诇讝专讬注讛

He asked further: And with regard to seeds of garden plants before one sowed them, we learned in a mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out seeds of garden plants is less than a dried fig-bulk. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: He is liable if he carries out five seeds. While with regard to carrying out seeds after he sowed them, we learned in a mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out manure or fine sand is equivalent to that which is used to fertilize one stalk of cabbage with it; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis say: The measure that determines liability for carrying it out is equivalent to that which is used to fertilize a leek. Apparently, after the seed was sown, the measure for liability is one plant. Before it is sown, the measure is at least five. The Gemara answers: As a rule, there is no distinction between an object that was processed and one that was not. However, this case is different. Wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to that halakha that there is a distinction between this, where one is liable for carrying out one plant, and the mishna is referring to a case where it is already sown; and that, where one is only liable for carrying out at least five, and the mishna is referring to a case where it is not yet sown, because a person does not go to the trouble to carry out just one seed for sowing?

讜讛专讬 讟讬讟 讚诪拽诪讬 讚诇讬讙讘诇讬讛 转谞讬讗 诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘诪讜爪讬讗 砖讜驻讻讬谉 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 砖砖讬注讜专谉 讘专讘讬注讬转 讜讛讜讬谞谉 [讘讛] 砖讜驻讻讬谉 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讜 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇讙讘诇 讘讛谉 讗转 讛讟讬讟 讜讗讬诇讜 讘转专 讚讙讘诇讬讛 转谞讬讗 讟讬讟 讻讚讬 诇注砖讜转 讘讛谉 驻讬 讻讜专 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讻讚讗诪专谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讟讜专讞 (讘讛谉) 诇讙讘诇 讗转 讛讟讬讟 诇注砖讜转 讘讜 驻讬 讻讜专

He asked further: And with regard to clay before one kneads it, it was taught in a baraita: And the Rabbis agree with Rabbi Shimon with regard to one who carries out waste water to the public domain, that the measure that determines liability is a quarter of a log. And we discussed this question: For what use is waste water fit? Rabbi Yirmeya said: It is used to knead clay. Apparently, the measure that determines liability for the raw material is the amount kneaded with a quarter of a log of waste water to form clay. While with regard to clay after one kneads it, it was taught in a baraita: With regard to clay, the measure for liability is equivalent to that which is used to make an opening for the bellows to be placed in a crucible, which is a small amount. The Gemara answers: There too, it is as we stated: Because a person does not go to the trouble of kneading clay just to make an opening for the bellows to be placed in a crucible.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 砖诇砖讛 注讜专讜转 讛谉 诪爪讛 讜讞讬驻讛 讜讚讬驻转专讗 诪爪讛 讻诪砖诪注讜 讚诇讗 诪诇讬讞 讜讚诇讗 拽诪讬讞 讜讚诇讗 注驻讬抓 讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专讜 转谞讬 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讚讬 诇爪讜专 讘讜 诪砖拽讜诇转 拽讟谞讛 讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讬讘注讗 讚专讬讘注讗 讚驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗

In order to resolve the dilemma with regard to the measure that determines liability for carrying out an animal hide on Shabbat, the Gemara states: Come and hear a halakha that Rabbi 岣yya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: There are three hides, i.e., three stages in the process of tanning hides, and at each stage it is known by a different name: Matza, and 岣fa, and diftera. Matza, as per its plain meaning, with no additives. It is not salted, and not treated with flour, and not treated with gallnuts. And how much is the measure that determines liability for carrying out that hide on Shabbat? Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda taught: It is equivalent to that which is used to wrap around a small weight. And how big is this small weight? Abaye said: A quarter of a quarter of a litra in the system of weights in use in Pumbedita.

讞讬驻讛 讚诪诇讬讞 讜诇讗 拽诪讬讞 讜诇讗 注驻讬抓 讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专讜 讻讚转谞谉 注讜专 讻讚讬 诇注砖讜转 拽诪讬注 讚讬驻转专讗 讚诪诇讬讞 讜拽诪讬讞 讜诇讗 注驻讬抓 讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专讜 讻讚讬 诇讻转讜讘 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讙讟 拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讻讚讬 诇爪讜专 讘讜 诪砖拽讜诇转 拽讟谞讛 讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讬讘注讗 讚专讬讘注讗 讚驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讛转诐 讘讘讬砖讜诇讗

岣fa is hide that is salted, and not treated with flour, and not treated with gallnuts. And how much is the measure that determines liability for carrying out that hide on Shabbat? As we learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out animal hide is equivalent to that which is used to make an amulet. Diftera is hide that is salted, and treated with flour, and not treated with gallnuts. And how much is the measure that determines liability for carrying out that hide on Shabbat? The measure that determines liability for carrying it out is equivalent to the amount which is used to write a bill of divorce on it. In any case, it was taught that before it is tanned the measure for liability is equivalent to that which is used to wrap around a small weight. And Abaye said: A quarter of a quarter of a litra in the system of weights in use in Pumbedita. That is not the same as the measure that determines liability for a tanned hide, which is equivalent to that which is used to make an amulet. The Gemara answers: There, it is referring to wet hide just flayed that was left out to dry in the sun and is suitable only for wrapping around a weight (Rabbeinu 岣nanel). However, for carrying out hide that is tanned, his measure for liability is equivalent to that which is used to make an amulet.

讜讛转谞谉 讛讘讙讚 砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 诇诪讚专住 讛砖拽 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讛注讜专 讞诪砖讛 注诇 讞诪砖讛 诪驻抓 砖砖讛 注诇 砖砖讛 讘讬谉 诇诪讚专住 讘讬谉 诇诪转 讜转讗谞讬 注诇讛 讛讘讙讚 讜讛砖拽 讜讛注讜专 讻砖讬注讜专 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讻讱 砖讬注讜专 诇讛讜爪讗讛 讛讛讜讗 讘拽讜专讟讜讘诇讗:

The Gemara raises another difficulty: And didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: The garment must be at least three by three handbreadths to become impure with ritual impurity imparted by treading? And the sack made from goat 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. Those are the minimum measures for becoming a primary source of ritual impurity by means of both ritual impurity imparted by treading and ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. And it was taught in the Tosefta with regard to that mishna: With regard to the garment and the sack and the hide; like the measure for ritual impurity, so too is the measure for carrying out on Shabbat. That is significantly larger than the measure for liability cited in the mishna for carrying out hide. The Gemara answers: That Tosefta is referring to kortovela, which is hide that was tanned in a manner that rendered it unfit for writing or wrapping. It is used for covering vessels and other similar uses (Rambam).

拽诇祝 讻讚讬 诇讻转讜讘 注诇讬讜 驻专砖讛 拽讟谞讛: 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 拽诇祝 讜讚讜讻住讜住讟讜住 讻讚讬 诇讻转讜讘 注诇讬讜 诪讝讜讝讛 诪讗讬 诪讝讜讝讛 诪讝讜讝讛 砖讘转驻讬诇讬谉 讜拽专讬 诇讛讜 诇转驻讬诇讬谉 诪讝讜讝讛 讗讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 专爪讜注讜转 转驻讬诇讬谉 注诐 讛转驻讬诇讬谉 诪讟诪讗讜转 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讜转 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛谞讜讙注 讘专爪讜注讛 讟讛讜专 注讚 砖讬讙注 讘拽爪讬爪讛 专讘讬 讝讻讗讬 诪砖诪讜 讗讜诪专 讟讛讜专 注讚 砖讬讙注 讘诪讝讜讝讛 注爪诪讛

We learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out parchment is equivalent to that which is used to write the shortest portion in the phylacteries. And the Gemara raised a contradiction from that which was taught: The measure that determines liability for carrying out parchment and dokhsostos is equivalent to that which is used to write a mezuza on it. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of mezuza in this context? It means those Torah portions of the mezuza that also appear in the phylacteries. The Gemara asks: And are the phylacteries called mezuza? The Gemara answers: Yes, as it was taught in a baraita: The straps of the phylacteries, when they are with the phylacteries, render the hands ritually impure as is the case with regard to contact with any sacred texts. When they are on their own, they do not render the hands ritually impure. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: One who touches the strap of the phylacteries remains ritually pure even if it is attached to the phylacteries, unless he touches the actual box of the phylacteries. Rabbi Zakkai says in Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 name: One remains ritually pure until he touches the mezuza itself. Apparently the Torah portions in phylacteries are called mezuza.

讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 拽诇祝 讻讚讬 诇讻转讜讘 注诇讬讜 驻专砖讛 拽讟谞讛 砖讘转驻讬诇讬谉 砖讛讬讗 砖诪注 讬砖专讗诇 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 讘诪讝讜讝讛 注爪诪讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 拽诇祝 讜讚讜讻住讜住讟讜住 砖讬注讜专谉 讘讻诪讛 讚讜讻住讜住讟讜住 讻讚讬 诇讻转讜讘 注诇讬讜 诪讝讜讝讛 拽诇祝 讻讚讬 诇讻转讜讘 注诇讬讜 驻专砖讛 拽讟谞讛 砖讘转驻讬诇讬谉 砖讛讬讗 砖诪注 讬砖专讗诇:

The Gemara asks: And from the fact that the latter clause of the mishna teaches: The measure that determines liability for carrying out parchment is equivalent to that which is used to write the shortest portion in the phylacteries, which is the portion of Shema Yisrael, by inference, in the first clause of the mishna we are dealing with a mezuza itself. Rather, this is what it teaches: With regard to parchment and dokhsostos, how much is the measure that determines liability for carrying them out? The measure that determines liability for carrying out dokhsostos is equivalent to that which one uses to write a mezuza on it. The measure that determines liability for carrying out parchment is equivalent to that which one uses to write on it the shortest passage that is in the phylacteries, which is Shema Yisrael.

讗诪专 专讘 讚讜讻住讜住讟讜住 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻拽诇祝 诪讛 拽诇祝 讻讜转讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 转驻讬诇讬谉 讗祝 讚讜讻住讜住讟讜住 讻讜转讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 转驻讬诇讬谉 转谞谉 拽诇祝 讻讚讬 诇讻转讜讘 驻专砖讛 拽讟谞讛 砖讘转驻讬诇讬谉 砖讛讬讗 砖诪注 讬砖专讗诇 (拽诇祝 讗讬谉 讚讜讻住讜住讟讜住 诇讗) 诇诪爪讜讛 转讗 砖诪注 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 转驻讬诇讬谉 注诇 讛拽诇祝 讜诪讝讜讝讛 注诇 讚讜讻住讜住讟讜住 拽诇祝 讘诪拽讜诐 讘砖专 讚讜讻住讜住讟讜住 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬注专 诇诪爪讜讛

Rav said: Dokhsostos has the same legal status as parchment: Just as one may write the portions of the phylacteries on parchment, so too, one may write the portions of the phylacteries on dokhsostos. The Gemara asks, we learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out parchment is equivalent to that which is used to write the shortest portion in the phylacteries, which is the portion of Shema Yisrael. By inference: Parchment, yes, the portions of the phylacteries may be written on it. Dokhsostos, no, the portions of the phylacteries may not be written on it. The Gemara answers: That is no proof, as the mishna is referring to the optimal manner in which to fulfill the mitzva, i.e., writing the portions of the phylacteries on parchment. However, one fulfills the mitzva by writing on dokhsostos as well. Come and hear that which was taught in a baraita: It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that the portions of the phylacteries are written on parchment, and a mezuza is written on dokhsostos. When writing on parchment, one writes on the side of the hide that faced the flesh; on dokhsostos, one writes on the side of the hide on which there was hair. This contradicts the opinion of Rav, who said that phylacteries may be written on dokhsostos. The Gemara answers: The baraita is also referring to the optimal manner in which to fulfill the mitzva.

讜讛转谞讬讗 砖讬谞讛 驻住讜诇 讗诪讝讜讝讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 砖讬谞讛 讘讝讛 讜讘讝讛 驻住讜诇 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讗诪讝讜讝讛 讜讛讗 讚讻转讘讬谞讛讜 讗拽诇祝 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬注专 讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讚讜讻住讜住讟讜住 讘诪拽讜诐 讘砖专 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖讬谞讛 讘讝讛 讜讘讝讛 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖讬谞讛 讘讝讛 讜讘讝讛 驻住讜诇 专讘讬 讗讞讗 诪讻砖讬专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗讞讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 讻转谞讗 讚讘讬 诪谞砖讛 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 诪谞砖讛 讻转讘讛 注诇 讛谞讬讬专 讜注诇 讛诪讟诇讬转 驻住讜诇讛 注诇 讛拽诇祝 讜注诇 讛讙讜讬诇 讜注诇 讚讜讻住讜住讟讜住 讻砖专讛

The Gemara asks: And wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that if one deviated and wrote on something else it is invalid, indicating that the portions of the phylacteries may not be written on anything other than parchment? The Gemara rejects this: This baraita is referring to a mezuza, which is invalid if written on parchment. The Gemara asks: But was it not taught in a different baraita: If one deviated in this, phylacteries, and that, mezuza, it is invalid? The Gemara rejects this: Both this and that are referring to a mezuza, and this additional invalidation is in a case where one deviated and wrote it on parchment, on the side that faced the hair; or, alternatively, where he deviated and wrote it on dokhsostos, on the side that faced the flesh. And, if you wish, say instead: Actually, this and that are referring to phylacteries and a mezuza. However, the halakha with regard to a case where one deviated in this and that is subject to a tannaitic dispute, as it was taught in a baraita: If one deviated in this and that it is invalid. Rabbi A岣 deems it valid in the name of Rabbi A岣i bar 岣nina, and some say in the name of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, son of Rabbi 岣nina. Rav Pappa said: Rav said his statement in accordance with the opinion of the tanna from the school of Menashe. As it was taught in the school of Menashe: If one wrote it on paper or on a cloth it is invalid. However, if one wrote it on parchment or on a hide that was treated with gallnuts [gevil] or on dokhsostos it is valid.

讻转讘讛 诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讝讜讝讛 诪讝讜讝讛 讗拽诇祝 诪讬 讻转讘讬谞谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 转驻讬诇讬谉 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 转驻讬诇讬谉 讗讙讜讬诇 诪讬 讻转讘讬谞谉 [讗诇讗] 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讘住驻专 转讜专讛 诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 转驻讬诇讬谉 砖讘诇讜 讜住驻专 转讜专讛 砖讘诇讛 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诪讛谉 诪讝讜讝讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 诪拽讚讜砖讛 讞诪讜专讛 诇拽讚讜砖讛 拽诇讛

The Gemara elaborates: If he wrote it; wrote what? If you say that it is referring to a mezuza, do we write a mezuza on parchment? Rather, isn鈥檛 it referring to phylacteries? Apparently, as Rav said, there are Sages who hold that the portions of the phylacteries may be written on dokhsostos. The Gemara rejects this: And according to your reasoning, do we write phylacteries on gevil? Rather, that baraita was taught with regard to a Torah scroll. The Gemara comments: Let us say that the following supports the opinion of Rav: Similarly, phylacteries that became tattered and a Torah scroll that became tattered, one may not make them into a mezuza, despite the fact that identical Torah portions appear in all three. This is prohibited because one does not downgrade from a level of greater sanctity, i.e., a Torah scroll or phylacteries, to a level of lesser sanctity, i.e., a mezuza.

讟注诪讗 讚讗讬谉 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 讛讗 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讚讻转讬讘讗 讗诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讻转讬讘讗 讗讚讜讻住讜住讟讜住 诇讗 讚讻转讬讘讗 注诇 讛拽诇祝 讜诪讝讜讝讛 讗拽诇祝 诪讬 讻转讘讬谞谉 讗讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻转讘讛 注诇 讛拽诇祝 注诇 讛谞讬讬专 讜注诇 讛诪讟诇讬转 驻住讜诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讛 讻讜转讘讛 注诇 讛拽诇祝 诪驻谞讬 砖诪砖转诪专转 讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 诇专讘 谞诪讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讚讜讻住讜住讟讜住 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻拽诇祝 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 拽诇祝 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讚讜讻住讜住讟讜住 诪讛 讚讜讻住讜住讟讜住 讻讜转讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪讝讜讝讛 讗祝 拽诇祝 讻讜转讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪讝讜讝讛:

The Gemara infers: The reason that one may not do so is because one does not downgrade. However, if the halakha were that one does downgrade, one would make a mezuza from phylacteries. The Gemara elaborates: On what is the portion of the phylacteries written? Isn鈥檛 it written on dokhsostos? This supports the opinion of Rav. The Gemara answers: No, the portion of the phylacteries is written on parchment. The Gemara asks: If so, how could a mezuza be made from it? Do we write a mezuza on parchment? The Gemara answers: Yes, as it was taught in a baraita: If one wrote a mezuza on parchment, or on paper, or on a cloth, it is invalid. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Rabbi Meir would write it on parchment, as it is thereby better preserved. Apparently, even a mezuza may be written on parchment, and there is no proof from the previous baraita. In reaction to the previous baraita, the Gemara comments: Now that you have arrived at this opinion that a mezuza may be written on both dokhsostos and parchment, according to Rav, as well, do not say: Dokhsostos has the same legal status as parchment with regard to phylacteries; rather, say: Parchment has the same legal status as dokhsostos. Just as on dokhsostos, one may write a mezuza, so too, on parchment, one may write a mezuza, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

讚讬讜 讻讚讬 诇讻转讜讘:

We learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out ink is equivalent to that which is used to write two letters.

Scroll To Top