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

May 26, 2022 | 讻状讛 讘讗讬讬专 转砖驻状讘 | TODAY'S DAF: Yevamot 80

Today's Daf Yomi

March 15, 2020 | 讬状讟 讘讗讚专 转砖状驻

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

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Yad Binyamin ladies for the refuah shleima of Asher ben Devorah Fayga.

    This month's learning is sponsored by Bracha Rutner in loving memory of her mother, Anna Rutner, Sarah bat Yom Tov and Rachel, on her 5th yahrzeit.

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Leora & Jonathan Kukin and Cynthia & Abe Steinberger in honor of Rella Feldman and Curtiss Pulitzer.

Shabbat 9

Today’s shiur is sponsored by Paul Gompers and Jody Dushay in honor of Ruth Leah Kahan for years of friendship and inspiration.聽

The Tosefta brings the opinion of Acherim, Rabbi Meir, who holds that the status of the threshold depends on whether the door os open or closed. The gemara asks how this could be even without a lechi? The gemara brings two answers – in each answer there is some sort of beam above and it is either for an alley or for a house. It is based upon a law that explains that one can view a beam as if it comes down and creates an imaginary wall. However that will only work upon certain conditions. If the threshold itself is private, one cannot carry from the house to there as the rabbis forbade carrying from one private domain to another. The next mishna discusses things one cannot do just before the time for mincha arrives as one may get distracted and forget to daven mincha. Which mincha are we referring to – gedola or ketana? If one started, one doesn’t need to stop – what is considered “started”?

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讚专讱 注诇讬讜 讞讬讬讘 讛转诐 诇讗 谞讞 讛讻讗 谞讞:

via the airspace above it, i.e., he raised the object more than ten handbreadths above the ground of the public domain, which is an exempt domain, still he is liable for carrying in the public domain. On the other hand, in the Tosefta it says that if the object passed through an exempt domain, he is exempt by Torah law from punishment for passing it from domain to domain. The Gemara rejects that refutation as there is room to distinguish between the cases: There, in the halakha stated by Rava, the object did not come to rest in an exempt domain; it merely passed through its airspace. However, here, when transferred via the threshold, the object came to rest in an exempt domain, and as a result, the act of carrying out was divided into two separate actions, neither of which involves a Torah prohibition.

讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗住拽讜驻讛 诪砖诪砖转 砖转讬 专砖讜讬讜转 讘讝诪谉 砖讛驻转讞 驻转讜讞 讻诇驻谞讬诐 驻转讞 谞注讜诇 讻诇讞讜抓

Later in the Tosefta, A岣rim say: Depending on the circumstances, a threshold serves two domains: When the entrance is open, the threshold is subsumed within the house and it is considered to be a private domain like the inside of the house. And when the entrance is locked, the threshold is not subsumed within the house, and it is considered to be a public domain like the outside.

讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇讞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 转讜讱 讛驻转讞 爪专讬讱 诇讞讬 讗讞专 诇讛转讬专讜

The Gemara wonders: When the entrance is open the threshold is considered to be like a private domain, and is this so even though it does not have a post on its side? Didn鈥檛 Rav 岣ma bar Gurya say that Rav said: The opening in the wall, i.e., the doorway, requires another post in order to permit carrying there? A symbolic partition must be established at the side of the opening for that doorway to be considered closed and render carrying within it permissible like a full-fledged private domain. In the Tosefta, no mention was made of the need for a post of that kind.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 转讜讱 讛驻转讞 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 爪专讬讱 诇讞讬 讗讞专 诇讛转讬专讜

And if you say that the Tosefta is referring to a threshold that does not have an area of four by four handbreadths, which is not considered an independent area and therefore does not require a post, didn鈥檛 Rav 岣ma bar Gurya say that Rav said explicitly: The opening, even though it does not have an area of four by four handbreadths, requires another post in order to permit carrying there?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讗 讘讗讬住拽讜驻转 诪讘讜讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讞爪讬讜 诪拽讜专讛 讜讞爪讬讜 砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽讜专讛 讜拽讬专讜讬讜 讻诇驻讬 驻谞讬诐 驻转讞 驻转讜讞 讻诇驻谞讬诐 驻转讞 谞注讜诇 讻诇讞讜抓

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Here we are dealing with the threshold of an alleyway open to the public domain on only one side. Although, by Torah law, it is considered a private domain, the Sages required him to establish a fourth symbolic partition on the side open to the public domain. This alleyway was covered, and this covering extended to part of the threshold in a manner that half of it is covered and half of it is not covered, and the covering is over the part of the threshold toward the inside. In that case, if the entrance is open, its legal status is like that of the inside, as it is considered as if there were a partition extending from the edge of the roofing above to below, based on the halakhic principle: Lower the partition. The opening of the alleyway is thereby sealed, rendering it a private domain. However, when the entrance is locked, it is no longer possible to consider the covering as a partition, and therefore the part of the threshold that is beyond the locked door of the alleyway is considered like the outside, i.e., like a public domain.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讘讗讬住拽讜驻转 讘讬转 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讻讙讜谉 砖拽讬专讛 讘砖转讬 拽讜专讜转 砖讗讬谉 讘讝讜 讗专讘注讛 讜讗讬谉 讘讝讜 讗专讘注讛 讜讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讝讜 诇讝讜 砖诇砖讛 讜讚诇转 讘讗诪爪注 驻转讞 驻转讜讞 讻诇驻谞讬诐 驻转讞 谞注讜诇 讻诇讞讜抓:

Rav Ashi said: Actually, we can say that we are dealing with the threshold of a house, and in a special circumstance, a case where he covered the threshold with two beams. Furthermore, neither this beam is four handbreadths wide, nor is that beam four handbreadths wide, and there is not a gap of three handbreadths between this one and that one, and there is a door between the two beams. In this case, when the entrance is open, since there is a space of less than three handbreadths between the beams and, based on the principle of lavud, any space less than three handbreadths is considered non-existent, the two beams are considered to be one wide beam. It is considered as if there were a partition extending from the edge of the roofing above to below, based on the halakhic principle: Lower the partition. The threshold is thereby sealed and considered a full-fledged private domain like the inside. However, when the entrance is locked, the two beams do not join together to become one anymore. Since the door creates a separation between them and the outer beam is less than four handbreadths wide, it is not considered a roof from which a partition extends to the ground, and the area under this beam is considered to be a public domain like the outside.

讜讗诐 讛讬转讛 讗讬住拽讜驻讛 讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘讛 讗专讘注讛 讛专讬 讝讜 专砖讜转 诇注爪诪讛 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 砖转讬 专砖讜讬讜转 讜讛谉 专砖讜转 讗讞转 讻讙讜谉 注诪讜讚 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘 讗专讘注讛 讗住讜专 诇讻转祝 注诇讬讜 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 转诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐:

The Sage also said in the Tosefta that if the threshold was ten handbreadths high and four by four handbreadths wide, it is an independent domain, even if it was inside a private domain. The Gemara comments: This supports the opinion of Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi, as Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi said that Rabbi Meir used to say: Any place that you find two domains, i.e., two places, each of which is sufficiently distinct to be an independent domain, and even though they are halakhically one domain, i.e., in a case where a pillar that is ten handbreadths high and four by four wide is standing in the private domain, even though the pillar is a private domain based on its measurements, it is prohibited by rabbinic law to adjust a burden on one鈥檚 shoulders upon it and to lift an object from the ground of the private domain and place it atop the pillar, as the pillar is deemed by its measurements to be an independent domain. It is prohibited by a decree issued by the Sages due to a similar situation, the case of a mound of that size in the public domain. In the public domain, lifting an object from the ground and placing it on the mound constitutes a violation of the Torah prohibition of carrying out from the public domain to the private domain. Therefore, the Sages prohibited placing an object on a pillar even in the private domain.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 讬砖讘 讗讚诐 诇驻谞讬 讛住驻专 住诪讜讱 诇诪谞讞讛 注讚 砖讬转驻诇诇 诇讗 讬讻谞住 讗讚诐 诇诪专讞抓 讜诇讗 诇讘讜专住拽讬 讜诇讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讗 诇讚讬谉 讜讗诐 讛转讞讬诇讜 讗讬谉 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 诇拽专讜转 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讜讗讬谉 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 诇转驻诇讛:

MISHNA: After having dealt with the limited and defined topic of the halakhot of carrying out on Shabbat, the mishna begins to deal with the halakhot of Shabbat chronologically, beginning with activities that one may not perform prior to the onset of Shabbat. With regard to one鈥檚 daily conduct, the mishna says: A person may not sit before the barber adjacent to the time of min岣 until he recites the afternoon prayer. And a person may not enter the bathhouse and may not enter to work in a tannery [burseki]. And he may neither begin to eat a meal nor to sit in judgment until he prays. And however, if they already began engaging in those activities, they need not stop and recite the Amida prayer. The tanna articulated a principle: One stops engaging in all of these activities to recite Shema and one does not stop to recite the Amida prayer.

讙诪壮 讛讬 住诪讜讱 诇诪谞讞讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇诪谞讞讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讛讗讬讻讗 砖讛讜转 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘讗 讗诇讗 住诪讜讱 诇诪谞讞讛 拽讟谞讛

GEMARA: First, the Gemara seeks to clarify: Which 鈥渁djacent to min岣,鈥 in other words, adjacent to which min岣 is the mishna referring? There is a difference between the time of greater min岣 [min岣 gedola], which begins approximately a half hour after noon, and the time of lesser min岣 [min岣 ketana], which begins approximately two and a half hours before sunset. The Gemara elaborates: If you say that it is prohibited to perform all of these activities adjacent to min岣 gedola, why not? Isn鈥檛 there still much time remaining in the day? Rather, the mishna means adjacent to min岣 ketana.

讗诐 讛转讞讬诇讜 讗讬谉 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 谞讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 讝诪谉 转驻诇转 讛诪谞讞讛 讗住讜专 诇讗讚诐 砖讬讟注讜诐 讻诇讜诐 拽讜讚诐 砖讬转驻诇诇 转驻诇转 讛诪谞讞讛

The Gemara asks: In that case, if they started, they need not stop. Let us say that this will be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Once the time of the afternoon prayer has arrived, it is prohibited for a person to taste anything before he recites the afternoon prayer. The implication is that even if one began to eat he must stop.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 住诪讜讱 诇诪谞讞讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讘转住驻讜专转 讘谉 讗诇注砖讛 讜诇讗 诇诪专讞抓 诇讻讜诇讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚诪专讞抓 讜诇讗 诇讘讜专住拽讬 诇讘讜专住拽讬 讙讚讜诇讛 讜诇讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讘住注讜讚讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜诇讗 诇讚讬谉 讘转讞诇转 讚讬谉

Rather, that explanation is rejected and the Gemara says: Actually the mishna is referring to adjacent to min岣 gedola, and the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is dealing with adjacent to min岣 ketana. In response to the question: If the mishna means adjacent to min岣 gedola isn鈥檛 there significant time remaining in the day? The Gemara explains that each of the activities enumerated in the mishna is performed in an especially time-consuming manner. When the mishna said: A person may not sit before the barber, it was referring to a haircut of ben Elasa, whose haircut was very complicated and required several hours to complete. When the mishna said: A person may not go into the bathhouse adjacent to min岣, it was referring to all matters involved in a visit to the bathhouse; not only washing, but also washing one鈥檚 hair, rinsing, and sweating. And he may not enter the tannery adjacent to min岣, the reference is to a large tannery where there are many hides that require tanning and he must initiate the tanning process from the beginning. And he may not enter to eat, the reference is to a big meal, which lasts a long time. And he may not enter to sit in judgment, refers to a judge who enters at the beginning of the trial, and, generally, it will take a long time until a verdict is reached.

专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讘转住驻讜专转 讚讬讚谉 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讬砖讘 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬砖讘专 讛讝讜讙 讜诇讗 诇诪专讞抓 诇讛讝讬注 讘注诇诪讗 诇讻转讞诇讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬转注诇驻讛 讜诇讗 诇讘讜专住拽讬 诇注讬讜谞讬 讘注诇诪讗 诇讻转讞诇讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讞讝讬 驻住讬讚讗 讘讝讘讬谞讬讛 讜诪讟专讬讚 讜诇讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讘住注讜讚讛 拽讟谞讛 诇讻转讞诇讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗诪砖讜讻讬 讜诇讗 诇讚讬谉 讘讙诪专 讛讚讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讞讝讬 讟注诪讗 讜住转专 讚讬谞讗

Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: Indeed the mishna can be explained as referring to min岣 gedola and actually, even our ordinary haircut is prohibited. Ab initio, why may he not sit before the barber adjacent to the time of min岣? Due to a decree lest the scissors break, and considerable time pass until they repair the scissors or obtain others. When the mishna said: A person may not enter the bathhouse adjacent to min岣, it is prohibited even if he is entering just to sweat. Ab initio, why may he not enter? Due to a decree issued by the Sages lest he faint in the bathhouse and considerable time elapse until he recovers. And he may not enter the tannery adjacent to min岣, even if he intends just to examine the skins. Ab initio, why may he not enter? Due to the concern that perhaps he will notice damage to his merchandise and become anxious and come to restore what was ruined. And he may not enter to eat a meal adjacent to the time of min岣 is referring even to a small meal. Ab initio, why may he not enter? There is concern that perhaps he will come to extend his meal for a long time. And he may not enter to sit in judgment adjacent to the time of min岣, the mishna is referring even at the conclusion of the trial. Ab initio, why may he not enter? Due to concern that perhaps he will find a reason, contrary to what he originally thought, and will overturn the verdict completely, necessitating the restart of the trial from the beginning.

诪讗讬诪转讬 讛转讞诇转 转住驻讜专转 讗诪专 专讘 讗讘讬谉 诪砖讬谞讬讞 诪注驻讜专转 砖诇 住驻专讬谉 注诇 讘专讻讬讜 讜诪讗讬诪转讬 讛转讞诇转 诪专讞抓 讗诪专 专讘 讗讘讬谉 诪砖讬注专讛 诪注驻专转讜 讛讬诪谞讜 讜诪讗讬诪转讬 讛转讞诇转 讘讜专住拽讬 诪砖讬拽砖讜专 讘讬谉 讻转讬驻讬讜 讜诪讗讬诪转讬 讛转讞诇转 讗讻讬诇讛 专讘 讗诪专 诪砖讬讟讜诇 讬讚讬讜 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 诪砖讬转讬专 讞讙讜专讛

We learned in the mishna that if he began one of the aforementioned activities, haircut, bath, tannery, meal, and judgment, he is not required to stop. The Gemara asked: From when is it considered the beginning of the haircut? Rav Avin said: From when he places the barber鈥檚 wrap over his knees. And from when is it considered the beginning of the bath? Rav Avin said: From when the one entering the bathhouse to bathe removes his outer wrap, his cloak. And from when is it considered the beginning of his visit to the tannery? From when he ties the leather apron between his shoulders (Me鈥檌ri). And from when is it considered the beginning of eating? Rav said: From when he ritually washes his hands for the meal. And Rabbi 岣nina said: From when he loosens his belt.

讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗 诇谉 讜讛讗 诇讛讜

The Gemara comments: And they do not disagree. Rather this, the statement of Rabbi 岣nina, who said that the beginning of the meal is considered from when he loosens his belt, is for us, for the people of Babylonia, who are accustomed to close their belts tightly, and therefore the beginning of the meal is when one loosens his belt. And that, the statement of Rav, who said that the beginning of the meal is considered from when he ritually washes his hands, is for them, the people of Eretz Yisrael who did not close their belts tightly, and therefore only when one washes his hands does the meal begin.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛谞讬 讞讘专讬谉 讘讘诇讗讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转驻诇转 注专讘讬转 专砖讜转 讻讬讜谉 讚砖专讗 诇讬讛 讛诪讬讬谞讬讛 诇讗 诪讟专讞讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讜讘讛 诪讟专讞讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 转驻诇转 诪谞讞讛 讚诇讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讞讜讘讛 讛讬讗 讜转谞谉 讗诐 讛转讞讬诇讜 讗讬谉 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪砖讬转讬专 讞讙讜专讜

Similarly, Abaye said: Those Babylonian Torah scholars, according to the opinion of the one who said: The evening prayer is voluntary, once one of them loosens his belt, we do not impose upon him to stop his meal and pray. And the Gemara wonders: And according to the opinion of the one who said that the evening prayer is obligatory, we do impose upon him? Doesn鈥檛 everyone agree that the afternoon prayer is obligatory? And we learned in our mishna that if they started eating, they need not stop. And with regard to that halakha, Rabbi 岣nina said: The beginning of the meal is from when he loosens his belt.

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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Yad Binyamin ladies for the refuah shleima of Asher ben Devorah Fayga.

    This month's learning is sponsored by Bracha Rutner in loving memory of her mother, Anna Rutner, Sarah bat Yom Tov and Rachel, on her 5th yahrzeit.

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Leora & Jonathan Kukin and Cynthia & Abe Steinberger in honor of Rella Feldman and Curtiss Pulitzer.

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

Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time- Daf 3-11

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VVV4BSVPlg&t= For audio only:   Join Rabbanit Dr. Tamara Spitz each week as she reviews the key topics...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 9: Get Your Hair Done in the Morning

Finishing off the discussion of space, and moving into one of time. The first is defining that line between the...
Women's Daf Yomi of Alon Shvut

Shabbat Daf 9 Eruvin and Brachot – in Masechet Shabbat

https://youtu.be/rdlhZriRXh8   On Amud Alef of today's daf, we encounter many of the principles found in Eruvin. While on Amud...

Shabbat 9

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 9

讚专讱 注诇讬讜 讞讬讬讘 讛转诐 诇讗 谞讞 讛讻讗 谞讞:

via the airspace above it, i.e., he raised the object more than ten handbreadths above the ground of the public domain, which is an exempt domain, still he is liable for carrying in the public domain. On the other hand, in the Tosefta it says that if the object passed through an exempt domain, he is exempt by Torah law from punishment for passing it from domain to domain. The Gemara rejects that refutation as there is room to distinguish between the cases: There, in the halakha stated by Rava, the object did not come to rest in an exempt domain; it merely passed through its airspace. However, here, when transferred via the threshold, the object came to rest in an exempt domain, and as a result, the act of carrying out was divided into two separate actions, neither of which involves a Torah prohibition.

讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗住拽讜驻讛 诪砖诪砖转 砖转讬 专砖讜讬讜转 讘讝诪谉 砖讛驻转讞 驻转讜讞 讻诇驻谞讬诐 驻转讞 谞注讜诇 讻诇讞讜抓

Later in the Tosefta, A岣rim say: Depending on the circumstances, a threshold serves two domains: When the entrance is open, the threshold is subsumed within the house and it is considered to be a private domain like the inside of the house. And when the entrance is locked, the threshold is not subsumed within the house, and it is considered to be a public domain like the outside.

讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇讞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 转讜讱 讛驻转讞 爪专讬讱 诇讞讬 讗讞专 诇讛转讬专讜

The Gemara wonders: When the entrance is open the threshold is considered to be like a private domain, and is this so even though it does not have a post on its side? Didn鈥檛 Rav 岣ma bar Gurya say that Rav said: The opening in the wall, i.e., the doorway, requires another post in order to permit carrying there? A symbolic partition must be established at the side of the opening for that doorway to be considered closed and render carrying within it permissible like a full-fledged private domain. In the Tosefta, no mention was made of the need for a post of that kind.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 转讜讱 讛驻转讞 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 爪专讬讱 诇讞讬 讗讞专 诇讛转讬专讜

And if you say that the Tosefta is referring to a threshold that does not have an area of four by four handbreadths, which is not considered an independent area and therefore does not require a post, didn鈥檛 Rav 岣ma bar Gurya say that Rav said explicitly: The opening, even though it does not have an area of four by four handbreadths, requires another post in order to permit carrying there?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讗 讘讗讬住拽讜驻转 诪讘讜讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讞爪讬讜 诪拽讜专讛 讜讞爪讬讜 砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽讜专讛 讜拽讬专讜讬讜 讻诇驻讬 驻谞讬诐 驻转讞 驻转讜讞 讻诇驻谞讬诐 驻转讞 谞注讜诇 讻诇讞讜抓

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Here we are dealing with the threshold of an alleyway open to the public domain on only one side. Although, by Torah law, it is considered a private domain, the Sages required him to establish a fourth symbolic partition on the side open to the public domain. This alleyway was covered, and this covering extended to part of the threshold in a manner that half of it is covered and half of it is not covered, and the covering is over the part of the threshold toward the inside. In that case, if the entrance is open, its legal status is like that of the inside, as it is considered as if there were a partition extending from the edge of the roofing above to below, based on the halakhic principle: Lower the partition. The opening of the alleyway is thereby sealed, rendering it a private domain. However, when the entrance is locked, it is no longer possible to consider the covering as a partition, and therefore the part of the threshold that is beyond the locked door of the alleyway is considered like the outside, i.e., like a public domain.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讘讗讬住拽讜驻转 讘讬转 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讻讙讜谉 砖拽讬专讛 讘砖转讬 拽讜专讜转 砖讗讬谉 讘讝讜 讗专讘注讛 讜讗讬谉 讘讝讜 讗专讘注讛 讜讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讝讜 诇讝讜 砖诇砖讛 讜讚诇转 讘讗诪爪注 驻转讞 驻转讜讞 讻诇驻谞讬诐 驻转讞 谞注讜诇 讻诇讞讜抓:

Rav Ashi said: Actually, we can say that we are dealing with the threshold of a house, and in a special circumstance, a case where he covered the threshold with two beams. Furthermore, neither this beam is four handbreadths wide, nor is that beam four handbreadths wide, and there is not a gap of three handbreadths between this one and that one, and there is a door between the two beams. In this case, when the entrance is open, since there is a space of less than three handbreadths between the beams and, based on the principle of lavud, any space less than three handbreadths is considered non-existent, the two beams are considered to be one wide beam. It is considered as if there were a partition extending from the edge of the roofing above to below, based on the halakhic principle: Lower the partition. The threshold is thereby sealed and considered a full-fledged private domain like the inside. However, when the entrance is locked, the two beams do not join together to become one anymore. Since the door creates a separation between them and the outer beam is less than four handbreadths wide, it is not considered a roof from which a partition extends to the ground, and the area under this beam is considered to be a public domain like the outside.

讜讗诐 讛讬转讛 讗讬住拽讜驻讛 讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘讛 讗专讘注讛 讛专讬 讝讜 专砖讜转 诇注爪诪讛 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 砖转讬 专砖讜讬讜转 讜讛谉 专砖讜转 讗讞转 讻讙讜谉 注诪讜讚 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘 讗专讘注讛 讗住讜专 诇讻转祝 注诇讬讜 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 转诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐:

The Sage also said in the Tosefta that if the threshold was ten handbreadths high and four by four handbreadths wide, it is an independent domain, even if it was inside a private domain. The Gemara comments: This supports the opinion of Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi, as Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi said that Rabbi Meir used to say: Any place that you find two domains, i.e., two places, each of which is sufficiently distinct to be an independent domain, and even though they are halakhically one domain, i.e., in a case where a pillar that is ten handbreadths high and four by four wide is standing in the private domain, even though the pillar is a private domain based on its measurements, it is prohibited by rabbinic law to adjust a burden on one鈥檚 shoulders upon it and to lift an object from the ground of the private domain and place it atop the pillar, as the pillar is deemed by its measurements to be an independent domain. It is prohibited by a decree issued by the Sages due to a similar situation, the case of a mound of that size in the public domain. In the public domain, lifting an object from the ground and placing it on the mound constitutes a violation of the Torah prohibition of carrying out from the public domain to the private domain. Therefore, the Sages prohibited placing an object on a pillar even in the private domain.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 讬砖讘 讗讚诐 诇驻谞讬 讛住驻专 住诪讜讱 诇诪谞讞讛 注讚 砖讬转驻诇诇 诇讗 讬讻谞住 讗讚诐 诇诪专讞抓 讜诇讗 诇讘讜专住拽讬 讜诇讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讗 诇讚讬谉 讜讗诐 讛转讞讬诇讜 讗讬谉 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 诇拽专讜转 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讜讗讬谉 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 诇转驻诇讛:

MISHNA: After having dealt with the limited and defined topic of the halakhot of carrying out on Shabbat, the mishna begins to deal with the halakhot of Shabbat chronologically, beginning with activities that one may not perform prior to the onset of Shabbat. With regard to one鈥檚 daily conduct, the mishna says: A person may not sit before the barber adjacent to the time of min岣 until he recites the afternoon prayer. And a person may not enter the bathhouse and may not enter to work in a tannery [burseki]. And he may neither begin to eat a meal nor to sit in judgment until he prays. And however, if they already began engaging in those activities, they need not stop and recite the Amida prayer. The tanna articulated a principle: One stops engaging in all of these activities to recite Shema and one does not stop to recite the Amida prayer.

讙诪壮 讛讬 住诪讜讱 诇诪谞讞讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇诪谞讞讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讛讗讬讻讗 砖讛讜转 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘讗 讗诇讗 住诪讜讱 诇诪谞讞讛 拽讟谞讛

GEMARA: First, the Gemara seeks to clarify: Which 鈥渁djacent to min岣,鈥 in other words, adjacent to which min岣 is the mishna referring? There is a difference between the time of greater min岣 [min岣 gedola], which begins approximately a half hour after noon, and the time of lesser min岣 [min岣 ketana], which begins approximately two and a half hours before sunset. The Gemara elaborates: If you say that it is prohibited to perform all of these activities adjacent to min岣 gedola, why not? Isn鈥檛 there still much time remaining in the day? Rather, the mishna means adjacent to min岣 ketana.

讗诐 讛转讞讬诇讜 讗讬谉 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 谞讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 讝诪谉 转驻诇转 讛诪谞讞讛 讗住讜专 诇讗讚诐 砖讬讟注讜诐 讻诇讜诐 拽讜讚诐 砖讬转驻诇诇 转驻诇转 讛诪谞讞讛

The Gemara asks: In that case, if they started, they need not stop. Let us say that this will be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Once the time of the afternoon prayer has arrived, it is prohibited for a person to taste anything before he recites the afternoon prayer. The implication is that even if one began to eat he must stop.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 住诪讜讱 诇诪谞讞讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讘转住驻讜专转 讘谉 讗诇注砖讛 讜诇讗 诇诪专讞抓 诇讻讜诇讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚诪专讞抓 讜诇讗 诇讘讜专住拽讬 诇讘讜专住拽讬 讙讚讜诇讛 讜诇讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讘住注讜讚讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜诇讗 诇讚讬谉 讘转讞诇转 讚讬谉

Rather, that explanation is rejected and the Gemara says: Actually the mishna is referring to adjacent to min岣 gedola, and the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is dealing with adjacent to min岣 ketana. In response to the question: If the mishna means adjacent to min岣 gedola isn鈥檛 there significant time remaining in the day? The Gemara explains that each of the activities enumerated in the mishna is performed in an especially time-consuming manner. When the mishna said: A person may not sit before the barber, it was referring to a haircut of ben Elasa, whose haircut was very complicated and required several hours to complete. When the mishna said: A person may not go into the bathhouse adjacent to min岣, it was referring to all matters involved in a visit to the bathhouse; not only washing, but also washing one鈥檚 hair, rinsing, and sweating. And he may not enter the tannery adjacent to min岣, the reference is to a large tannery where there are many hides that require tanning and he must initiate the tanning process from the beginning. And he may not enter to eat, the reference is to a big meal, which lasts a long time. And he may not enter to sit in judgment, refers to a judge who enters at the beginning of the trial, and, generally, it will take a long time until a verdict is reached.

专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讘转住驻讜专转 讚讬讚谉 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讬砖讘 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬砖讘专 讛讝讜讙 讜诇讗 诇诪专讞抓 诇讛讝讬注 讘注诇诪讗 诇讻转讞诇讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬转注诇驻讛 讜诇讗 诇讘讜专住拽讬 诇注讬讜谞讬 讘注诇诪讗 诇讻转讞诇讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讞讝讬 驻住讬讚讗 讘讝讘讬谞讬讛 讜诪讟专讬讚 讜诇讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讘住注讜讚讛 拽讟谞讛 诇讻转讞诇讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗诪砖讜讻讬 讜诇讗 诇讚讬谉 讘讙诪专 讛讚讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讞讝讬 讟注诪讗 讜住转专 讚讬谞讗

Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: Indeed the mishna can be explained as referring to min岣 gedola and actually, even our ordinary haircut is prohibited. Ab initio, why may he not sit before the barber adjacent to the time of min岣? Due to a decree lest the scissors break, and considerable time pass until they repair the scissors or obtain others. When the mishna said: A person may not enter the bathhouse adjacent to min岣, it is prohibited even if he is entering just to sweat. Ab initio, why may he not enter? Due to a decree issued by the Sages lest he faint in the bathhouse and considerable time elapse until he recovers. And he may not enter the tannery adjacent to min岣, even if he intends just to examine the skins. Ab initio, why may he not enter? Due to the concern that perhaps he will notice damage to his merchandise and become anxious and come to restore what was ruined. And he may not enter to eat a meal adjacent to the time of min岣 is referring even to a small meal. Ab initio, why may he not enter? There is concern that perhaps he will come to extend his meal for a long time. And he may not enter to sit in judgment adjacent to the time of min岣, the mishna is referring even at the conclusion of the trial. Ab initio, why may he not enter? Due to concern that perhaps he will find a reason, contrary to what he originally thought, and will overturn the verdict completely, necessitating the restart of the trial from the beginning.

诪讗讬诪转讬 讛转讞诇转 转住驻讜专转 讗诪专 专讘 讗讘讬谉 诪砖讬谞讬讞 诪注驻讜专转 砖诇 住驻专讬谉 注诇 讘专讻讬讜 讜诪讗讬诪转讬 讛转讞诇转 诪专讞抓 讗诪专 专讘 讗讘讬谉 诪砖讬注专讛 诪注驻专转讜 讛讬诪谞讜 讜诪讗讬诪转讬 讛转讞诇转 讘讜专住拽讬 诪砖讬拽砖讜专 讘讬谉 讻转讬驻讬讜 讜诪讗讬诪转讬 讛转讞诇转 讗讻讬诇讛 专讘 讗诪专 诪砖讬讟讜诇 讬讚讬讜 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 诪砖讬转讬专 讞讙讜专讛

We learned in the mishna that if he began one of the aforementioned activities, haircut, bath, tannery, meal, and judgment, he is not required to stop. The Gemara asked: From when is it considered the beginning of the haircut? Rav Avin said: From when he places the barber鈥檚 wrap over his knees. And from when is it considered the beginning of the bath? Rav Avin said: From when the one entering the bathhouse to bathe removes his outer wrap, his cloak. And from when is it considered the beginning of his visit to the tannery? From when he ties the leather apron between his shoulders (Me鈥檌ri). And from when is it considered the beginning of eating? Rav said: From when he ritually washes his hands for the meal. And Rabbi 岣nina said: From when he loosens his belt.

讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗 诇谉 讜讛讗 诇讛讜

The Gemara comments: And they do not disagree. Rather this, the statement of Rabbi 岣nina, who said that the beginning of the meal is considered from when he loosens his belt, is for us, for the people of Babylonia, who are accustomed to close their belts tightly, and therefore the beginning of the meal is when one loosens his belt. And that, the statement of Rav, who said that the beginning of the meal is considered from when he ritually washes his hands, is for them, the people of Eretz Yisrael who did not close their belts tightly, and therefore only when one washes his hands does the meal begin.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛谞讬 讞讘专讬谉 讘讘诇讗讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转驻诇转 注专讘讬转 专砖讜转 讻讬讜谉 讚砖专讗 诇讬讛 讛诪讬讬谞讬讛 诇讗 诪讟专讞讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讜讘讛 诪讟专讞讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 转驻诇转 诪谞讞讛 讚诇讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讞讜讘讛 讛讬讗 讜转谞谉 讗诐 讛转讞讬诇讜 讗讬谉 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪砖讬转讬专 讞讙讜专讜

Similarly, Abaye said: Those Babylonian Torah scholars, according to the opinion of the one who said: The evening prayer is voluntary, once one of them loosens his belt, we do not impose upon him to stop his meal and pray. And the Gemara wonders: And according to the opinion of the one who said that the evening prayer is obligatory, we do impose upon him? Doesn鈥檛 everyone agree that the afternoon prayer is obligatory? And we learned in our mishna that if they started eating, they need not stop. And with regard to that halakha, Rabbi 岣nina said: The beginning of the meal is from when he loosens his belt.

Scroll To Top