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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 8, 2020 | 讟状讝 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 94

Today’s daf is dedicated in memory of Dvora bat Moshe vRachel z”l by Josh Kirsch and by Michael Lawrence in honor of his wife, Lisa’s on her birthday. He is very proud of your dedication to learning daf yomi and wishes you many more years of continued learning “ad meah v’esrim.”

If one carries out an item less than the requisite amount in a utensil or a live person on a bed, the utensil/bed is considered insignificant compare to the item/person and one is therefore not obligated for carrying it out as the item is less than the requisite amount and one is not obligated for carrying a live person as the person can carry him/herself. If one carries out a part of a dead body or impure item, if the amount was the amount that causes impurity in that item, Rabbi Shimon and tana kama (Rabbi Yehuda) debate if one would be obligated as this is a melacha sheaina tzricha legufa. Rashi and Tosafot disagree regarding the definition of melacha sheaina tzricha legufa. According to the braitia, one who removes a food in a utensil and has intent also to remove the utiensil is olbigated for both – how can this be – shouldn’t one only need to bring one sin offering for carrying? Rav Sheshet and Rav Ashi bring different answers. A live person/animal who can carry themselves – is one obligated for carrying them or not? Rabbi Natan and the rabbis disagree in the case of animals – do they also disagree regarding humans? In which cases does Rabbi Shimon hold that one is exempt for melacha sheaina tzricha legufa.聽One who removes haris from a leprous mark is obligated – how many hairs? Does it depend how many were there in the first place? Does doing a partial act count as on its way to a whole act and therefore deemed significant or not? One who bites or picks off one’s nails on Shabbat or pulls out hairs – Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis debate whether or not they are obligated by Torah law. Does it depend if one did with a utensil or by hand? Does it depend if the nail was already coming off?

砖砖讙讙 注诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜讛讝讬讚 注诇 讛讻诇讬 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛讗 讗祝 注诇 讛讻诇讬 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讙讜谉 砖砖讙讙 讘讝讛 讜讘讝讛 讜谞讜讚注 诇讜 讜讞讝专 讜谞讜讚注 诇讜 讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖:

one acted unwittingly with regard to the food and intentionally with regard to the vessel. He is liable to bring a sin-offering for the food and to receive karet for the vessel. Rav Ashi strongly objects to this. Didn鈥檛 the baraita teach: He is liable even for the vessel? Apparently, the liability for the food and the liability for the vessel are identical. Rather, Rav Ashi said: This is referring to a case where one acted unwittingly both with regard to this, the food, and with regard to that, the vessel. And he became aware of one transgression, and then he became aware of the other transgression. And the ruling is dependent upon the dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish cited above, with regard to the question whether or not one who unwittingly performed a single transgression twice and became aware of each separately is liable to bring two sin-offerings.

讗转 讛讞讬 讘诪讟讛 驻讟讜专 讗祝 注诇 讛诪讟讛: 诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 谞转谉 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讘讛诪讛 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘讬谉 讞讬讬谉 讜讘讬谉 砖讞讜讟讬谉 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 注诇 砖讞讜讟讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讜注诇 讞讬讬谉 驻讟讜专 砖讛讞讬 谞讜砖讗 讗转 注爪诪讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 谞转谉 讗诇讗 讘讘讛诪讛 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讚诪砖专讘讟讬 谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 讗讘诇 讗讚诐 讞讬 讚谞讜砖讗 讗转 注爪诪讜 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诪讜讚讜

We learned in the mishna: One who carries out a living person on a bed is exempt even for carrying out the bed. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan and not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as it was taught in a baraita: One who carries out a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, and fowl into the public domain on Shabbat is liable whether they are alive or whether they are slaughtered. Rabbi Natan says: For carrying out slaughtered animals, he is liable, and for carrying out live animals, he is exempt, because a living being carries itself. A living being attempts to lighten the load of the person carrying it and thereby participates in the act of carrying. Rava said: The mishna can be understood even if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Natan only as far as the case of a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, and fowl is concerned because they deaden their weight in an attempt to free themselves from the one carrying them. However, with regard to the fact that a live person carries himself, even the Rabbis agree. Therefore, one who carries a live person out is exempt.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诇专讘讗 讜讛讗 讚转谞谉 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 诪转讬专 讘住讜住 讜转谞讬讗 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 诪转讬专 讘住讜住 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 讘讜 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讞讟讗转 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讜专讘讬 谞转谉 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讚诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 谞转谉 讗诇讗 讘讘讛诪讛 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 诪砖讜诐 讚诪砖专讘讟讬 谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讜专讘讬 谞转谉 讜讛讗诪专转 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诪讜讚讜 讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘住讜住 讛诪讬讜讞讚 诇注讜驻讜转 讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 住讜住 讛诪讬讜讞讚 诇注讜驻讜转 讗讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讚讘讬 讜讬讬讗讚谉

Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rava: And with regard to that which we learned in a mishna that it is prohibited to sell work animals to gentiles, to prevent a situation where animals still belonging to a Jew would be lent to a gentile who would perform labor with them on Shabbat, but ben Beteira permits selling a horse to a gentile. And it was taught in a baraita: Ben Beteira permits selling a horse for riding because the horse is performing an act for which one is not liable to bring a sin-offering, as riding a horse is not actually a prohibited labor. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Ben Beteira and Rabbi Natan said one, the same, thing. They both hold that an animal with a rider on its back is not considered to be bearing a burden. And if you say that the Rabbis only argue with Rabbi Natan with regard to a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, and fowl because they deaden their weight in an attempt to free themselves, why did Rabbi Yo岣nan say specifically that ben Beteira and Rabbi Natan agree? Didn鈥檛 you say that in the case of a person riding a horse even the Rabbis agree? The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Yo岣nan said that ben Beteira and Rabbi Natan said the same thing, he was referring to a horse designated specifically for carrying fowl. The Gemara asks: And is there a horse designated for carrying fowl? The Gemara answers: Yes, there is the horse for carrying a hunter鈥檚 falcons [devei vayadan].

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 谞转谉 讘讻驻讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讛 诇讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 讛谞讬 驻专住讗讬 讚讻诪讗谉 讚讻驻讬转讬 讚诪讜 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讜专讘讬 谞转谉 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚 讛转诐 专诪讜转 专讜讞讗 讛讜讗 讚谞拽讬讟 诇讛讜 讚讛讛讜讗 驻专讚砖讻讗 讚专转讞 诪诇讻讗 注讬诇讜讬讛 讜专讛讬讟 转诇转讗 驻专住讬 讘讻专注讬讛:

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: And Rabbi Natan agrees in the case of a person who is bound because he is unable to lighten the load of the person carrying him. Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Abaye: And what of those Persians who are considered as if they were bound because they don heavy armor and always ride horses, and nevertheless Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Ben Beteira and Rabbi Natan said one thing and permitted selling horses even to Persians? The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the Persians, it is not that they are unable to dismount their horses. It is arrogance that keeps them from dismounting their horses. As proof, the Gemara relates: There was that Persian officer [pardashka] at whom the king was angry, and he ran three parasangs on foot. Apparently, even Persian horsemen are not considered bound and are capable of walking without their horses.

讗转 讛诪转 讘诪讟讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讻谉 讻讝讬转 诪谉 讛诪转 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 驻讜讟专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

We learned in the mishna that according to the first tanna: One who carries out a corpse on a bed is liable. And similarly, one who carries out an olive-bulk of a corpse, or an olive-bulk of an animal carcass, or a lentil-bulk of a creeping animal is liable. Rabbi Shimon deems him exempt. Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said, and Rav Yosef said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Rabbi Shimon would deem exempt

讗祝 讘诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛诪转 诇拽讜讘专讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘诪专 诇讞驻讜专 讘讜 讜住驻专 转讜专讛 诇拽专讜转 讘讜 讚讞讬讬讘 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讗讬 讛讗 谞诪讬 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇讙讜驻讛 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 诪诇讗讻讛 砖爪专讬讻讛 诇讙讜驻讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 诇讙讜驻讜 讜诇讙讜驻讛 讻讙讜谉 诪专 诇注砖讜转 诇讜 讟住 讜诇讞驻讜专 住驻专 转讜专讛 诇讛讙讬讛 讜诇拽专讜转 讘讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

even one who carries out a corpse to bury it. Rava said: And Rabbi Shimon agrees that one who carries out a hoe on Shabbat with which to dig or a Torah scroll from which to read is liable. The Gemara asks: This is obvious, as if those acts of carrying out are also in the category of a prohibited labor not necessary for its own sake because the carrier鈥檚 intention is to dig or to read, if so, according to Rabbi Shimon, how can you find an act of carrying that would be considered a prohibited labor necessary for its own sake? The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, there is a novel element in Rava鈥檚 statement. Lest you say that Rabbi Shimon deems one liable only in a case where one carries out an object for the sake of the one carrying it, as well as for its own sake, for example, in a case where one carried out a hoe for its own sake, in order to sharpen its blade, and for the sake of the one carrying it, in order to dig with it, or one carried out a Torah scroll for its own sake, in order to emend it, and for the sake of the one carrying it, in order to read from it; therefore, Rava teaches us that Rabbi Shimon deems one liable for carrying out an object even when it is carried only for his own sake and not for the sake of the object.

讛讛讜讗 砖讻讘讗 讚讛讜讛 讘讚专讜拽专讗 砖专讗 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇讗驻讜拽讬讛 诇讻专诪诇讬转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讞讜讛 讚诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘谞讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬诪专 讚驻讟专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讞讬讜讘 讞讟讗转 讗讬住讜专讗 讚专讘谞谉 诪讬讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗诇讛讬诐 讚注讬讬诇转 讘讬讛 讗转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 (砖专讬) 讚诪讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讻专诪诇讬转 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讙讚讜诇 讻讘讜讚 讛讘专讬讜转 砖讚讜讞讛 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讘转讜专讛

The Gemara relates: There was a corpse in the city of Derokera and Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k permitted carrying it out into a karmelit on Shabbat because, for some reason, it could not remain where it was. Rabbi Yo岣nan, brother of Mar, son of Rabbana, said to Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k: In accordance with whose opinion did you permit moving the corpse to the karmelit? If it was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, say that in that case Rabbi Shimon exempted one from the obligation to bring a sin-offering. However, there remains a rabbinic prohibition. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said to him: By God, have you entered into an understanding of the matter? Even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda it is permitted to carry out the corpse, as did I say they may carry it out to the public domain? I said that it may be carried out into a karmelit, which is only prohibited by rabbinic law. With regard to prohibitions by rabbinic law, the principle states: Great is human dignity, as it overrides a prohibition in the Torah: 鈥淵ou shall not deviate from that which they tell you to the right or to the left鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:11).

转谞谉 讛转诐 讛转讜诇砖 住讬诪谞讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讛讻讜讛 讛诪讞讬讛 注讜讘专 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 讗讬转诪专 讗讞转 诪砖转讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讗讞转 诪砖诇砖 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讗讛谞讬 诪注砖讬讜 讚讗讬 诪砖转拽诇讗 讞讚讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讗讝诇讛 诇讛 讟讜诪讗讛 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛转 讛讗 讗讬转讗 诇讟讜诪讗讛

We learned there in a mishna discussing the halakhot of leprosy: One who plucks white hairs that are signs of impurity, and similarly one who burned the unaffected skin in the midst of a leprous sore in an attempt to purify himself, violates a prohibition, as it is stated: 鈥淭ake heed [hishamer] in the plague of leprosy鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:8). This ruling is based on the principle that the term hishamer indicates a prohibition. On this topic, it was stated: With regard to one who plucks one of two white hairs, everyone agrees that he is liable because a single hair remains, which is less than the measure that determines impurity, i.e., two hairs. It is with regard to one who plucks one of three white hairs that there is a dispute between the amora鈥檌m. Rav Na岣an said: He is liable. Rav Sheshet said: He is exempt. The Gemara elaborates. Rav Na岣an said: He is liable because his actions were effective, as if another hair is removed, the impurity would cease. He thereby hastened his purification and is in violation of the prohibition. Rav Sheshet said: He is exempt because his actions were ineffective, as now, in any case, the impurity is intact even after he removed one hair. His act is ineffective, and therefore he does not violate the prohibition.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞谉 讜讻谉 讻讝讬转 诪谉 讛诪转 讜讻讝讬转 诪谉 讛谞讘讬诇讛 讞讬讬讘 讛讗 讞爪讬 讝讬转 驻讟讜专 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞爪讬 讝讬转 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讞讬讬讘 讚讗驻讬拽 讞爪讬 讝讬转 诪讻讝讬转 讜讛讗 讚转谞谉 驻讟讜专 讚讗驻讬拽 讞爪讬 讝讬转 诪讻讝讬转 讜诪讞爪讛 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讞讬讬讘 讜讛讗 讚转谞谉 驻讟讜专 讚讗驻讬拽 讞爪讬 讝讬转 诪诪转 讙讚讜诇:

Rav Sheshet said: From where do I derive and state my opinion? I derive it as we learned in the mishna: And similarly, one who carries out an olive-bulk of a corpse and an olive-bulk of an animal carcass is liable. The Gemara elaborates: By inference, one who carries out half an olive-bulk is exempt. What, is it not taught in a baraita: One who carries out half an olive-bulk of a corpse is liable? Is it not that the contradiction is resolved as follows? That which was taught in the baraita: He is liable, is referring to a case where one carried out half an olive-bulk from an olive-bulk. Because less than an olive-bulk of the corpse remained, it is no longer a source of ritual impurity. And that which we learned in the mishna: He is exempt, is referring to a case where one carried out half an olive-bulk from an olive-bulk and a half. Since an entire olive-bulk remains, the source of impurity remains intact. And Rav Na岣an explains it differently. Both this, the one who carried out half an olive-bulk from an olive-bulk, and that, the one who carried out half an olive-bulk from an olive-bulk and a half, are liable. And that which we learned in the mishna: He is exempt, is referring to a case where one carried out half an olive-bulk from a large corpse. In that case, even Rav Na岣an agrees that his action was ineffective. Since he did not carry out a measure that determines liability, he is exempt.

诪转谞讬壮 讛谞讜讟诇 爪驻专谞讬讜 讝讜 讘讝讜 讗讜 讘砖讬谞讬讜 讜讻谉 砖注专讜 讜讻谉 砖驻诪讜 讜讻谉 讝拽谞讜 讜讻谉 讛讙讜讚诇转 讜讻谉 讛讻讜讞诇转 讜讻谉 讛驻讜拽住转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转:

MISHNA: With regard to one who removes his fingernails with one another on Shabbat without scissors, or with his teeth, and the same is true with regard to one who removes his hair with his hands, and the same is true with regard to his mustache, and the same is true with regard to his beard, and the same is true with regard to a woman who braids her hair, and the same is true with regard to one who applies blue eye shadow, and the same is true with regard to one who applies blush, Rabbi Eliezer deems them all liable, as they each performed a labor prohibited by Torah law. And the Rabbis prohibited performing all of these actions due to rabbinic decree. None of the actions constitute prohibited labors.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讬讚 讗讘诇 讘讻诇讬 讞讬讬讘 驻砖讬讟讗 讝讜 讘讝讜 转谞谉 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讘讻诇讬 谞诪讬 驻讟专讬 讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讝讜 讘讝讜 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

GEMARA: Rabbi Elazar said: The dispute is specifically with regard to a case where one removes his fingernails by hand; however, everyone agrees that one is liable if he removes them with a utensil. The Gemara asks: This is obvious. We explicitly learned the phrase: With one another, in the mishna. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the Rabbis also exempt one who removes his fingernail with a utensil, i.e., because one is not interested in the removed nail, he did not perform the prohibited labor of shearing, and that which was taught in the mishna: With one another, is intended to convey the far-reaching nature of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 statement that one is liable even in a case where he removed his fingernails with one another; therefore, Rabbi Elazar teaches us that this is not so.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讞诇讜拽转 诇注爪诪讜 讗讘诇 诇讞讘讬专讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻讟讜专 驻砖讬讟讗 爪驻专谞讬讜 转谞谉 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讞讘讬专讜 谞诪讬 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 爪驻专谞讬讜 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚专讘谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:

And Rabbi Elazar said: The dispute is specifically with regard to one who removes fingernails for himself; however, with regard to one removing fingernails for another, everyone agrees that he is exempt. The Gemara asks: That is obvious. We explicitly learned the phrase: His fingernails, in the mishna. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that Rabbi Eliezer deems one liable for cutting another鈥檚 fingernails as well, and that which was taught in the mishna: His fingernails, is intended to convey the far-reaching nature of the statement of the Rabbis that one is exempt even in a case where he removes his own nails, and all the more so in a case where he removes another鈥檚; therefore, Rabbi Elazar teaches us that everyone agrees that he is exempt when removing another鈥檚 nails.

讜讻谉 砖注专讜 讻讜壮: 转谞讗 讛谞讜讟诇 诪诇讗 驻讬 讛讝讜讙 讞讬讬讘 讜讻诪讛 诪诇讗 驻讬 讛讝讜讙 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖转讬诐 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜诇拽专讞讛 砖转讬诐 讗讬诪讗 讜讻谉 诇拽专讞讛 砖转讬诐

We learned in the mishna: And the same is true with regard to one who removes his hair with his hands; Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable and the Rabbis deem him exempt. One of the Sages taught in the Tosefta: One who removes enough of his hair to fill the opening of the scissors on Shabbat is liable. And how much is enough to fill the opening of the scissors? Rav Yehuda said: Two hairs. The Gemara asks: But was it not taught later in that baraita: And with regard to the Torah prohibition against removing one鈥檚 hair and causing baldness as an expression of mourning the dead: 鈥淣or make any baldness between your eyes for the dead鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:1), one who removes two hairs is liable? Apparently, enough to fill the opening of a scissors is a different amount of hairs. The Gemara answers: Say that these are not two different measures. The baraita is saying: And the same is true for baldness, two is the measure.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讛谞讜讟诇 诪诇讗 驻讬 讛讝讜讙 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讜讻诪讛 诪诇讗 驻讬 讛讝讜讙 砖转讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讞转 讜诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘诪诇拽讟 诇讘谞讜转 诪转讜讱 砖讞讜专讜转 砖讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞转 讞讬讬讘 讜讚讘专 讝讛 讗祝 讘讞讜诇 讗住讜专 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬诇讘砖 讙讘专 砖诪诇转 讗砖讛

That was also taught in a baraita: One who removes enough of his hair to fill the opening of the scissors on Shabbat is liable. And how much is enough to fill the opening of the scissors? It is two hairs. Rabbi Eliezer says: One is liable for removing even one hair. And the Sages agree with Rabbi Eliezer that one who collects and plucks white hairs from among black ones is liable even if he removed a single hair. His actions indicate that one hair is significant for him. And this matter of plucking white hairs is prohibited for men even on weekdays, as it is stated: 鈥淎 woman shall not don a man鈥檚 clothes, and a man shall not wear a woman鈥檚 garment鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:5). The Sages derive that any action typically performed by women for beautification is prohibited for men.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 爪驻讜专谉 砖驻讬专砖 专讜讘讛 讜爪讬爪讬谉 砖驻专砖讜 专讜讘谉 讘讬讚 诪讜转专 讘讻诇讬 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讘讻诇讬 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讜讘讬讚 诪讜转专 诇讻转讞诇讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 驻讬专砖讜 专讜讘谉 讘讬讚 诪讜转专 讘讻诇讬 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 诇讗 驻讬专砖讜 专讜讘谉 讘讬讚 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讘讻诇讬 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讛讜讗 砖驻专砖讜 讻诇驻讬 诪注诇讛 讜诪爪注专讜转 讗讜转讜:

It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: With regard to a fingernail, the majority of which has been severed, and it is only connected to the finger by a small piece; and with regard to shreds of skin, the majority of which have been severed from the body; by hand, one is permitted to completely remove them on Shabbat. If he removes them with a utensil, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. The Gemara wonders: Is there any matter where one who performs an action with a utensil is liable to bring a sin-offering, and if he performs that action by hand, it is permitted ab initio, and it is not even prohibited by rabbinic decree? The Gemara answers: This is what Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar meant to say: If the majority has been severed, removing the rest by hand is permitted. If he removes the rest with a utensil he is exempt, but it is prohibited to do so ab initio. And if the majority has not yet been severed, if he removes the rest by hand he is exempt, but it is prohibited to do so ab initio. If he did so with a utensil, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. Rav Yehuda said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar in this matter. Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: And that is if the partially severed portions of the fingernail were severed facing upward near the nail and cause him pain; in that case one may remove them ab initio.

讜讻谉 讛讙讜讚诇转 讻讜壮: 讙讜讚诇转 讻讜讞诇转 讜驻讜拽住转 诪砖讜诐 诪讗讬 诪讞讬讬讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讙讜讚诇转 诪砖讜诐 讗讜专讙转 讻讜讞诇转 诪砖讜诐 讻讜转讘转 驻讜拽住转 诪砖讜诐 讟讜讜讛 讗诪专讜 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讜讻讬 讚专讱 讗专讬讙讛 讘讻讱 讜讻讬 讚专讱 讻转讬讘讛 讘讻讱 讜讻讬 讚专讱 讟讜讬讛 讘讻讱 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 诪驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗

We learned in the mishna: And the same is true with regard to a woman who braids her hair, and one who applies blue eye shadow, and one who applies blush; Rabbi Eliezer deems them liable by Torah law. The Gemara asks: For performance of what prohibited labor is a woman who braids her hair, or who applies blue eye shadow, or who applies blush on Shabbat liable? Rabbi Avin said that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: A woman who braids her hair is liable due to weaving, as braiding and weaving are similar actions. A woman who applies blue eye shadow is liable due to writing. A woman who applies blush is liable due to spinning. Women would make a string from a doughy substance and pass it over their faces to redden their complexion. The Rabbis said before Rabbi Abbahu: And is that the typical manner of weaving, and is that the typical manner of writing, and is that the typical manner of spinning? Rabbi Eliezer would certainly agree that one who performs a prohibited labor in an atypical manner is exempt. Rather, Rabbi Abbahu said: This matter was explained to me by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, himself.

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Daf Yomi One Week at a Time – Shabbat 89-95

https://youtu.be/uRqRSVp0l6s Join Rabbanit Dr. Tamara Spitz each week as she reviews the key topics of the previous week鈥檚 seven pages....
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 94: We Are Very Hygienic Today

Can a Jew lend a horse to a non-Jew for use on Shabbat? Ben Beteira says yes, even despite the...

Shabbat 94

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 94

砖砖讙讙 注诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜讛讝讬讚 注诇 讛讻诇讬 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛讗 讗祝 注诇 讛讻诇讬 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讙讜谉 砖砖讙讙 讘讝讛 讜讘讝讛 讜谞讜讚注 诇讜 讜讞讝专 讜谞讜讚注 诇讜 讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖:

one acted unwittingly with regard to the food and intentionally with regard to the vessel. He is liable to bring a sin-offering for the food and to receive karet for the vessel. Rav Ashi strongly objects to this. Didn鈥檛 the baraita teach: He is liable even for the vessel? Apparently, the liability for the food and the liability for the vessel are identical. Rather, Rav Ashi said: This is referring to a case where one acted unwittingly both with regard to this, the food, and with regard to that, the vessel. And he became aware of one transgression, and then he became aware of the other transgression. And the ruling is dependent upon the dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish cited above, with regard to the question whether or not one who unwittingly performed a single transgression twice and became aware of each separately is liable to bring two sin-offerings.

讗转 讛讞讬 讘诪讟讛 驻讟讜专 讗祝 注诇 讛诪讟讛: 诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 谞转谉 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讘讛诪讛 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘讬谉 讞讬讬谉 讜讘讬谉 砖讞讜讟讬谉 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 注诇 砖讞讜讟讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讜注诇 讞讬讬谉 驻讟讜专 砖讛讞讬 谞讜砖讗 讗转 注爪诪讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 谞转谉 讗诇讗 讘讘讛诪讛 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讚诪砖专讘讟讬 谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 讗讘诇 讗讚诐 讞讬 讚谞讜砖讗 讗转 注爪诪讜 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诪讜讚讜

We learned in the mishna: One who carries out a living person on a bed is exempt even for carrying out the bed. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan and not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as it was taught in a baraita: One who carries out a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, and fowl into the public domain on Shabbat is liable whether they are alive or whether they are slaughtered. Rabbi Natan says: For carrying out slaughtered animals, he is liable, and for carrying out live animals, he is exempt, because a living being carries itself. A living being attempts to lighten the load of the person carrying it and thereby participates in the act of carrying. Rava said: The mishna can be understood even if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Natan only as far as the case of a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, and fowl is concerned because they deaden their weight in an attempt to free themselves from the one carrying them. However, with regard to the fact that a live person carries himself, even the Rabbis agree. Therefore, one who carries a live person out is exempt.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诇专讘讗 讜讛讗 讚转谞谉 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 诪转讬专 讘住讜住 讜转谞讬讗 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 诪转讬专 讘住讜住 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 讘讜 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讞讟讗转 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讜专讘讬 谞转谉 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讚诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 谞转谉 讗诇讗 讘讘讛诪讛 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 诪砖讜诐 讚诪砖专讘讟讬 谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讜专讘讬 谞转谉 讜讛讗诪专转 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诪讜讚讜 讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘住讜住 讛诪讬讜讞讚 诇注讜驻讜转 讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 住讜住 讛诪讬讜讞讚 诇注讜驻讜转 讗讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讚讘讬 讜讬讬讗讚谉

Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rava: And with regard to that which we learned in a mishna that it is prohibited to sell work animals to gentiles, to prevent a situation where animals still belonging to a Jew would be lent to a gentile who would perform labor with them on Shabbat, but ben Beteira permits selling a horse to a gentile. And it was taught in a baraita: Ben Beteira permits selling a horse for riding because the horse is performing an act for which one is not liable to bring a sin-offering, as riding a horse is not actually a prohibited labor. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Ben Beteira and Rabbi Natan said one, the same, thing. They both hold that an animal with a rider on its back is not considered to be bearing a burden. And if you say that the Rabbis only argue with Rabbi Natan with regard to a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, and fowl because they deaden their weight in an attempt to free themselves, why did Rabbi Yo岣nan say specifically that ben Beteira and Rabbi Natan agree? Didn鈥檛 you say that in the case of a person riding a horse even the Rabbis agree? The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Yo岣nan said that ben Beteira and Rabbi Natan said the same thing, he was referring to a horse designated specifically for carrying fowl. The Gemara asks: And is there a horse designated for carrying fowl? The Gemara answers: Yes, there is the horse for carrying a hunter鈥檚 falcons [devei vayadan].

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 谞转谉 讘讻驻讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讛 诇讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 讛谞讬 驻专住讗讬 讚讻诪讗谉 讚讻驻讬转讬 讚诪讜 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讜专讘讬 谞转谉 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚 讛转诐 专诪讜转 专讜讞讗 讛讜讗 讚谞拽讬讟 诇讛讜 讚讛讛讜讗 驻专讚砖讻讗 讚专转讞 诪诇讻讗 注讬诇讜讬讛 讜专讛讬讟 转诇转讗 驻专住讬 讘讻专注讬讛:

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: And Rabbi Natan agrees in the case of a person who is bound because he is unable to lighten the load of the person carrying him. Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Abaye: And what of those Persians who are considered as if they were bound because they don heavy armor and always ride horses, and nevertheless Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Ben Beteira and Rabbi Natan said one thing and permitted selling horses even to Persians? The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the Persians, it is not that they are unable to dismount their horses. It is arrogance that keeps them from dismounting their horses. As proof, the Gemara relates: There was that Persian officer [pardashka] at whom the king was angry, and he ran three parasangs on foot. Apparently, even Persian horsemen are not considered bound and are capable of walking without their horses.

讗转 讛诪转 讘诪讟讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讻谉 讻讝讬转 诪谉 讛诪转 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 驻讜讟专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

We learned in the mishna that according to the first tanna: One who carries out a corpse on a bed is liable. And similarly, one who carries out an olive-bulk of a corpse, or an olive-bulk of an animal carcass, or a lentil-bulk of a creeping animal is liable. Rabbi Shimon deems him exempt. Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said, and Rav Yosef said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Rabbi Shimon would deem exempt

讗祝 讘诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛诪转 诇拽讜讘专讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘诪专 诇讞驻讜专 讘讜 讜住驻专 转讜专讛 诇拽专讜转 讘讜 讚讞讬讬讘 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讗讬 讛讗 谞诪讬 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇讙讜驻讛 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 诪诇讗讻讛 砖爪专讬讻讛 诇讙讜驻讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 诇讙讜驻讜 讜诇讙讜驻讛 讻讙讜谉 诪专 诇注砖讜转 诇讜 讟住 讜诇讞驻讜专 住驻专 转讜专讛 诇讛讙讬讛 讜诇拽专讜转 讘讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

even one who carries out a corpse to bury it. Rava said: And Rabbi Shimon agrees that one who carries out a hoe on Shabbat with which to dig or a Torah scroll from which to read is liable. The Gemara asks: This is obvious, as if those acts of carrying out are also in the category of a prohibited labor not necessary for its own sake because the carrier鈥檚 intention is to dig or to read, if so, according to Rabbi Shimon, how can you find an act of carrying that would be considered a prohibited labor necessary for its own sake? The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, there is a novel element in Rava鈥檚 statement. Lest you say that Rabbi Shimon deems one liable only in a case where one carries out an object for the sake of the one carrying it, as well as for its own sake, for example, in a case where one carried out a hoe for its own sake, in order to sharpen its blade, and for the sake of the one carrying it, in order to dig with it, or one carried out a Torah scroll for its own sake, in order to emend it, and for the sake of the one carrying it, in order to read from it; therefore, Rava teaches us that Rabbi Shimon deems one liable for carrying out an object even when it is carried only for his own sake and not for the sake of the object.

讛讛讜讗 砖讻讘讗 讚讛讜讛 讘讚专讜拽专讗 砖专讗 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇讗驻讜拽讬讛 诇讻专诪诇讬转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讞讜讛 讚诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘谞讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬诪专 讚驻讟专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讞讬讜讘 讞讟讗转 讗讬住讜专讗 讚专讘谞谉 诪讬讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗诇讛讬诐 讚注讬讬诇转 讘讬讛 讗转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 (砖专讬) 讚诪讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讻专诪诇讬转 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讙讚讜诇 讻讘讜讚 讛讘专讬讜转 砖讚讜讞讛 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讘转讜专讛

The Gemara relates: There was a corpse in the city of Derokera and Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k permitted carrying it out into a karmelit on Shabbat because, for some reason, it could not remain where it was. Rabbi Yo岣nan, brother of Mar, son of Rabbana, said to Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k: In accordance with whose opinion did you permit moving the corpse to the karmelit? If it was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, say that in that case Rabbi Shimon exempted one from the obligation to bring a sin-offering. However, there remains a rabbinic prohibition. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said to him: By God, have you entered into an understanding of the matter? Even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda it is permitted to carry out the corpse, as did I say they may carry it out to the public domain? I said that it may be carried out into a karmelit, which is only prohibited by rabbinic law. With regard to prohibitions by rabbinic law, the principle states: Great is human dignity, as it overrides a prohibition in the Torah: 鈥淵ou shall not deviate from that which they tell you to the right or to the left鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:11).

转谞谉 讛转诐 讛转讜诇砖 住讬诪谞讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讛讻讜讛 讛诪讞讬讛 注讜讘专 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 讗讬转诪专 讗讞转 诪砖转讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讗讞转 诪砖诇砖 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讗讛谞讬 诪注砖讬讜 讚讗讬 诪砖转拽诇讗 讞讚讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讗讝诇讛 诇讛 讟讜诪讗讛 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛转 讛讗 讗讬转讗 诇讟讜诪讗讛

We learned there in a mishna discussing the halakhot of leprosy: One who plucks white hairs that are signs of impurity, and similarly one who burned the unaffected skin in the midst of a leprous sore in an attempt to purify himself, violates a prohibition, as it is stated: 鈥淭ake heed [hishamer] in the plague of leprosy鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:8). This ruling is based on the principle that the term hishamer indicates a prohibition. On this topic, it was stated: With regard to one who plucks one of two white hairs, everyone agrees that he is liable because a single hair remains, which is less than the measure that determines impurity, i.e., two hairs. It is with regard to one who plucks one of three white hairs that there is a dispute between the amora鈥檌m. Rav Na岣an said: He is liable. Rav Sheshet said: He is exempt. The Gemara elaborates. Rav Na岣an said: He is liable because his actions were effective, as if another hair is removed, the impurity would cease. He thereby hastened his purification and is in violation of the prohibition. Rav Sheshet said: He is exempt because his actions were ineffective, as now, in any case, the impurity is intact even after he removed one hair. His act is ineffective, and therefore he does not violate the prohibition.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞谉 讜讻谉 讻讝讬转 诪谉 讛诪转 讜讻讝讬转 诪谉 讛谞讘讬诇讛 讞讬讬讘 讛讗 讞爪讬 讝讬转 驻讟讜专 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞爪讬 讝讬转 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讞讬讬讘 讚讗驻讬拽 讞爪讬 讝讬转 诪讻讝讬转 讜讛讗 讚转谞谉 驻讟讜专 讚讗驻讬拽 讞爪讬 讝讬转 诪讻讝讬转 讜诪讞爪讛 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讞讬讬讘 讜讛讗 讚转谞谉 驻讟讜专 讚讗驻讬拽 讞爪讬 讝讬转 诪诪转 讙讚讜诇:

Rav Sheshet said: From where do I derive and state my opinion? I derive it as we learned in the mishna: And similarly, one who carries out an olive-bulk of a corpse and an olive-bulk of an animal carcass is liable. The Gemara elaborates: By inference, one who carries out half an olive-bulk is exempt. What, is it not taught in a baraita: One who carries out half an olive-bulk of a corpse is liable? Is it not that the contradiction is resolved as follows? That which was taught in the baraita: He is liable, is referring to a case where one carried out half an olive-bulk from an olive-bulk. Because less than an olive-bulk of the corpse remained, it is no longer a source of ritual impurity. And that which we learned in the mishna: He is exempt, is referring to a case where one carried out half an olive-bulk from an olive-bulk and a half. Since an entire olive-bulk remains, the source of impurity remains intact. And Rav Na岣an explains it differently. Both this, the one who carried out half an olive-bulk from an olive-bulk, and that, the one who carried out half an olive-bulk from an olive-bulk and a half, are liable. And that which we learned in the mishna: He is exempt, is referring to a case where one carried out half an olive-bulk from a large corpse. In that case, even Rav Na岣an agrees that his action was ineffective. Since he did not carry out a measure that determines liability, he is exempt.

诪转谞讬壮 讛谞讜讟诇 爪驻专谞讬讜 讝讜 讘讝讜 讗讜 讘砖讬谞讬讜 讜讻谉 砖注专讜 讜讻谉 砖驻诪讜 讜讻谉 讝拽谞讜 讜讻谉 讛讙讜讚诇转 讜讻谉 讛讻讜讞诇转 讜讻谉 讛驻讜拽住转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转:

MISHNA: With regard to one who removes his fingernails with one another on Shabbat without scissors, or with his teeth, and the same is true with regard to one who removes his hair with his hands, and the same is true with regard to his mustache, and the same is true with regard to his beard, and the same is true with regard to a woman who braids her hair, and the same is true with regard to one who applies blue eye shadow, and the same is true with regard to one who applies blush, Rabbi Eliezer deems them all liable, as they each performed a labor prohibited by Torah law. And the Rabbis prohibited performing all of these actions due to rabbinic decree. None of the actions constitute prohibited labors.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讬讚 讗讘诇 讘讻诇讬 讞讬讬讘 驻砖讬讟讗 讝讜 讘讝讜 转谞谉 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讘讻诇讬 谞诪讬 驻讟专讬 讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讝讜 讘讝讜 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

GEMARA: Rabbi Elazar said: The dispute is specifically with regard to a case where one removes his fingernails by hand; however, everyone agrees that one is liable if he removes them with a utensil. The Gemara asks: This is obvious. We explicitly learned the phrase: With one another, in the mishna. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the Rabbis also exempt one who removes his fingernail with a utensil, i.e., because one is not interested in the removed nail, he did not perform the prohibited labor of shearing, and that which was taught in the mishna: With one another, is intended to convey the far-reaching nature of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 statement that one is liable even in a case where he removed his fingernails with one another; therefore, Rabbi Elazar teaches us that this is not so.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讞诇讜拽转 诇注爪诪讜 讗讘诇 诇讞讘讬专讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻讟讜专 驻砖讬讟讗 爪驻专谞讬讜 转谞谉 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讞讘讬专讜 谞诪讬 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 爪驻专谞讬讜 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚专讘谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:

And Rabbi Elazar said: The dispute is specifically with regard to one who removes fingernails for himself; however, with regard to one removing fingernails for another, everyone agrees that he is exempt. The Gemara asks: That is obvious. We explicitly learned the phrase: His fingernails, in the mishna. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that Rabbi Eliezer deems one liable for cutting another鈥檚 fingernails as well, and that which was taught in the mishna: His fingernails, is intended to convey the far-reaching nature of the statement of the Rabbis that one is exempt even in a case where he removes his own nails, and all the more so in a case where he removes another鈥檚; therefore, Rabbi Elazar teaches us that everyone agrees that he is exempt when removing another鈥檚 nails.

讜讻谉 砖注专讜 讻讜壮: 转谞讗 讛谞讜讟诇 诪诇讗 驻讬 讛讝讜讙 讞讬讬讘 讜讻诪讛 诪诇讗 驻讬 讛讝讜讙 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖转讬诐 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜诇拽专讞讛 砖转讬诐 讗讬诪讗 讜讻谉 诇拽专讞讛 砖转讬诐

We learned in the mishna: And the same is true with regard to one who removes his hair with his hands; Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable and the Rabbis deem him exempt. One of the Sages taught in the Tosefta: One who removes enough of his hair to fill the opening of the scissors on Shabbat is liable. And how much is enough to fill the opening of the scissors? Rav Yehuda said: Two hairs. The Gemara asks: But was it not taught later in that baraita: And with regard to the Torah prohibition against removing one鈥檚 hair and causing baldness as an expression of mourning the dead: 鈥淣or make any baldness between your eyes for the dead鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:1), one who removes two hairs is liable? Apparently, enough to fill the opening of a scissors is a different amount of hairs. The Gemara answers: Say that these are not two different measures. The baraita is saying: And the same is true for baldness, two is the measure.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讛谞讜讟诇 诪诇讗 驻讬 讛讝讜讙 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讜讻诪讛 诪诇讗 驻讬 讛讝讜讙 砖转讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讞转 讜诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘诪诇拽讟 诇讘谞讜转 诪转讜讱 砖讞讜专讜转 砖讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞转 讞讬讬讘 讜讚讘专 讝讛 讗祝 讘讞讜诇 讗住讜专 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬诇讘砖 讙讘专 砖诪诇转 讗砖讛

That was also taught in a baraita: One who removes enough of his hair to fill the opening of the scissors on Shabbat is liable. And how much is enough to fill the opening of the scissors? It is two hairs. Rabbi Eliezer says: One is liable for removing even one hair. And the Sages agree with Rabbi Eliezer that one who collects and plucks white hairs from among black ones is liable even if he removed a single hair. His actions indicate that one hair is significant for him. And this matter of plucking white hairs is prohibited for men even on weekdays, as it is stated: 鈥淎 woman shall not don a man鈥檚 clothes, and a man shall not wear a woman鈥檚 garment鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:5). The Sages derive that any action typically performed by women for beautification is prohibited for men.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 爪驻讜专谉 砖驻讬专砖 专讜讘讛 讜爪讬爪讬谉 砖驻专砖讜 专讜讘谉 讘讬讚 诪讜转专 讘讻诇讬 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讘讻诇讬 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讜讘讬讚 诪讜转专 诇讻转讞诇讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 驻讬专砖讜 专讜讘谉 讘讬讚 诪讜转专 讘讻诇讬 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 诇讗 驻讬专砖讜 专讜讘谉 讘讬讚 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讘讻诇讬 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讛讜讗 砖驻专砖讜 讻诇驻讬 诪注诇讛 讜诪爪注专讜转 讗讜转讜:

It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: With regard to a fingernail, the majority of which has been severed, and it is only connected to the finger by a small piece; and with regard to shreds of skin, the majority of which have been severed from the body; by hand, one is permitted to completely remove them on Shabbat. If he removes them with a utensil, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. The Gemara wonders: Is there any matter where one who performs an action with a utensil is liable to bring a sin-offering, and if he performs that action by hand, it is permitted ab initio, and it is not even prohibited by rabbinic decree? The Gemara answers: This is what Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar meant to say: If the majority has been severed, removing the rest by hand is permitted. If he removes the rest with a utensil he is exempt, but it is prohibited to do so ab initio. And if the majority has not yet been severed, if he removes the rest by hand he is exempt, but it is prohibited to do so ab initio. If he did so with a utensil, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. Rav Yehuda said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar in this matter. Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: And that is if the partially severed portions of the fingernail were severed facing upward near the nail and cause him pain; in that case one may remove them ab initio.

讜讻谉 讛讙讜讚诇转 讻讜壮: 讙讜讚诇转 讻讜讞诇转 讜驻讜拽住转 诪砖讜诐 诪讗讬 诪讞讬讬讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讙讜讚诇转 诪砖讜诐 讗讜专讙转 讻讜讞诇转 诪砖讜诐 讻讜转讘转 驻讜拽住转 诪砖讜诐 讟讜讜讛 讗诪专讜 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讜讻讬 讚专讱 讗专讬讙讛 讘讻讱 讜讻讬 讚专讱 讻转讬讘讛 讘讻讱 讜讻讬 讚专讱 讟讜讬讛 讘讻讱 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 诪驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗

We learned in the mishna: And the same is true with regard to a woman who braids her hair, and one who applies blue eye shadow, and one who applies blush; Rabbi Eliezer deems them liable by Torah law. The Gemara asks: For performance of what prohibited labor is a woman who braids her hair, or who applies blue eye shadow, or who applies blush on Shabbat liable? Rabbi Avin said that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: A woman who braids her hair is liable due to weaving, as braiding and weaving are similar actions. A woman who applies blue eye shadow is liable due to writing. A woman who applies blush is liable due to spinning. Women would make a string from a doughy substance and pass it over their faces to redden their complexion. The Rabbis said before Rabbi Abbahu: And is that the typical manner of weaving, and is that the typical manner of writing, and is that the typical manner of spinning? Rabbi Eliezer would certainly agree that one who performs a prohibited labor in an atypical manner is exempt. Rather, Rabbi Abbahu said: This matter was explained to me by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, himself.

Scroll To Top