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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 9, 2020 | 讬状讝 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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Shabbat 95

Today’s shiur is sponsored in honour of Rabbanit Yehudit, Judith Levitan, of Sydney Australia, who just received semikha from Yeshivat Maharat. Mazal Tov, may your wisdom, intuition and Torah learning continue to shine and bring inspiration and knowledge to others – from Jordana Hyman. And by Rebecca Schwarzmer in memory of her grandmother Ruth Friedman Cohn, Rachel bat Chaim z”l, whose yartziet is today and her mother, Linda Cohn Brauner, Leah bat Netanel ha’Kohen z”l whose yartziet is tomorrow.聽

One who braids, puts on eye shadow, or a dough like substance to redden the cheeks or gel type substance in the hair – is it forbidden by Torah or rabbinic law and for what melacha? One who milks or prepares cheese for what is one obligated and is it forbidden by Torah or rabbinic law? What about sweeping or puring water on the ground or taking honey off聽 the honeycomb? Is it forbidden to pull out something from a potted plant? Does it matter if the pot has a hole or not. Rabbi Shimon doesn’t distinguish. The gemara questions him and tries to assess if he would change his mind in certain situations. What are the different sizes of holes in earthenware vessels that are significant for various law of purity/impurity?

 

讻讜讞诇转 诪砖讜诐 爪讜讘注转 讙讜讚诇转 讜驻讜拽住转 诪砖讜诐 讘讜谞讛 讜讻讬 讚专讱 讘谞讬谉 讘讻讱 讗讬谉 讻讚讚专砖 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讜讬讘谉 讛壮 讗诇讛讬诐 讗转 讛爪诇注 诪诇诪讚 砖拽讬诇注讛 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诇讞讜讛 讜讛讘讬讗讛 讗爪诇 讗讚诐 砖讻谉 讘讻专讻讬 讛讬诐 拽讜专讬谉 诇拽诇注讬转讗 讘谞讬转讗 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讙讜讚诇转 讻讜讞诇转 讜驻讜拽住转 诇注爪诪讛 驻讟讜专讛 诇讞讘专转讛 讞讬讬讘转 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗砖讛 诇讗 转注讘讬专 住专拽 注诇 驻谞讬讛 诪驻谞讬 砖爪讜讘注转

A woman who applies eye shadow is liable due to dyeing; one who braids her hair and applies blush is liable due to the prohibition against building. The Gemara asks about this: And is that the typical manner of building? The Gemara answers: Yes, braiding one鈥檚 hair is considered building, as Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya taught that the verse states: 鈥淎nd the Lord God built the side that He took from Adam into a woman鈥 (Genesis 2:22), which teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, braided Eve鈥檚 hair and brought her to Adam. From where is it derived that this is the meaning of built? It is because in the islands of the sea they call braiding building. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: With regard to a woman who braids her hair and who applies eye shadow or blush on Shabbat, if she did it for herself, she is exempt; if she did it for another, she is liable. This is because a woman cannot perform these actions for herself in as complete a fashion as she can for someone else. And, so too, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: A woman may not apply rouge to her face on Shabbat because by doing so she is dyeing, which is one of the prohibited labors on Shabbat.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讞讜诇讘 讜讛诪讞讘抓 讜讛诪讙讘谉 讻讙专讜讙专转 讛诪讻讘讚 讜讛诪专讘抓 讜讛专讜讚讛 讞诇讜转 讚讘砖 砖讙讙 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讛讝讬讚 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讜拽讛 讗专讘注讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转

The Sages taught in a baraita: One who milks an animal, and one who sets milk to curdle, and one who makes cheese, in the measure of a dried fig-bulk, and one who sweeps the house, and one who sprinkles water on the floor, and one who removes honeycombs, if he did so unwittingly on Shabbat, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. If he did so intentionally on a Festival, he receives forty lashes; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say: Both this, on Shabbat and that, on a Festival, these actions are only prohibited due to a rabbinic decree, not by Torah law. Therefore, one is neither liable to bring a sin-offering nor to receive lashes for performing those actions.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇谞讛专讚注讗 讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讞讜诇讘 诪砖讜诐 诪讗讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诇讘 诪讞讘抓 诪砖讜诐 诪讗讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪砖讜诐 诪讞讘抓 诪讙讘谉 诪砖讜诐 诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪砖讜诐 诪讙讘谉 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘讱 拽讟讬诇 拽谞讬 讘讗讙诪讗 讛讜讛 讗转讗 砖讗讬诇 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讞讜诇讘 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 诪驻专拽 诪讞讘抓 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讘讜专专 诪讙讘谉 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讘讜谞讛

The Gemara relates: Rav Na岣an bar Gurya happened to come to Neharde鈥檃. The students asked him: For what prohibited labor is one who milks liable? He said to them: For milking. For what prohibited labor is one who sets milk to curdle liable? He said to them: For setting milk to curdle. For what is a person who makes cheese liable? He said to them: For making cheese. They said to him: Your teacher was a reed cutter in a swamp who did not know how to explain the mishna to his students. He came and asked those questions in the study hall. They said to him: One who milks is liable for performing the prohibited labor of extracting, which is a subcategory of threshing, on Shabbat. This is because when one extracts milk from a cow it is similar to the act of threshing, where one removes the desired content from its covering. One who sets milk is liable for the prohibited labor of selecting because part of the milk is separated and made into congealed milk. And one who makes cheese is liable for building because the cheese within the milk assumes a solid form, which is similar to the process of building.

讛诪讻讘讚 讛诪专讘抓 讜讛专讜讚讛 讞诇讜转 讚讘砖 砖讙讙 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讛讝讬讚 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讜拽讛 讗专讘注讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讟讘诇 讗讜转讛 讘讬注专转 讛讚讘砖 讜讻讬 诪讛 注谞讬谉 讬注专 讗爪诇 讚讘砖 讗诇讗 诇讜诪专 诇讱 诪讛 讬注专 讛转讜诇砖 诪诪谞讜 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讗祝 讞诇讜转 讚讘砖 讛专讜讚讛 诪诪谞讜 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转

The baraita cited above taught: With regard to one who sweeps the house, and one who sprinkles water on the floor, and one who removes honeycombs, if he did so unwittingly on Shabbat, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. If he did so intentionally on a Festival, he receives forty lashes; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Elazar said: What is the rationale for the statement of Rabbi Eliezer? His rationale is as it is written: 鈥淎nd he put forth the end of the rod that was in his hand and dipped it in the honeycomb [yarat hadevash]鈥 (i Samuel 14:27). The Gemara wonders: What does a forest [ya鈥檃r] have to do with honey [devash]? Rather, it comes to tell you: Just as with regard to a forest, one who picks from a tree on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering, so too, with regard to a honeycomb, one who removes honey from it on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering.

讗诪讬诪专 砖专讗 讝讬诇讞讗 讘诪讞讜讝讗 讗诪专 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗砖讜讬讬 讙讜诪讜转 讛讻讗 诇讬讻讗 讙讜诪讜转 专讘讗 转讜住驻讗讛 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘讬谞讗 讚拽讗 诪爪讟注专 诪讛讘诇讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诪专 拽砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讚拽讗 诪爪讟注专 诪讛讘诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 诪专 诇讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛专讜爪讛 诇专讘抓 讗转 讘讬转讜 讘砖讘转 诪讘讬讗 注专讬讘讛 诪诇讗讛 诪讬诐 讜专讜讞抓 驻谞讬讜 讘讝讜讬转 讝讜 讬讚讬讜 讘讝讜讬转 讝讜 专讙诇讬讜 讘讝讜讬转 讝讜 讜谞诪爪讗 讛讘讬转 诪转专讘抓 诪讗诇讬讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讗讚注转讗讬

The Gemara relates: Ameimar permitted sprinkling water in the city of Me岣za. He said: What is the reason that the Rabbis said it is prohibited to sprinkle water? It was due to concern lest one come to smooth out holes in an unpaved floor. Here, in Me岣za, there are no holes in the floor because all the houses have stone floors. The Gemara also relates: Rava Tosfa鈥檃, an expert on the Tosefta, found that Ravina was suffering on Shabbat from the dusty hot air in the house. And some say that Mar Kashisha, son of Rava, found that Rav Ashi was suffering from the dusty hot air. Mar Kashisha said to Rav Ashi: And does my Master not hold in accordance with this halakha that was taught in a baraita: One who wishes to sprinkle water on the floor of his house on Shabbat, where it is otherwise prohibited, brings a large basin full of water, and washes his face in this corner, then moves the basin and washes his hands in this corner, his feet in this corner, and it will eventuate that the floor of the entire house is sprinkled by itself from the water that splashed in a backhanded manner? Rav Ashi said to him: It did not enter my mind to employ that method.

转谞讗 讗砖讛 讞讻诪讛 诪专讘爪转 讘讬转讛 讘砖讘转 讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚住讘讬专讗 诇谉 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛:

One of the Sages taught: A wise woman sprinkles water on the floor of her house on Shabbat by washing different vessels in different parts of the house. And now that we hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that it is permitted to perform an unintentional act on Shabbat, it is permitted to sweep and sprinkle water on the floor of a house on Shabbat even ab initio, because one鈥檚 intention is not to smooth the holes in the floor.

诪转谞讬壮 讛转讜诇砖 诪注爪讬抓 谞拽讜讘 讞讬讬讘 讜砖讗讬谞讜 谞拽讜讘 驻讟讜专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 讘讝讛 讜讘讝讛:

MISHNA: One who severs a leaf or a fruit from a plant growing in a perforated flowerpot on Shabbat is liable, as a plant in a flowerpot with holes in it has the legal status of a plant connected to the ground. Picking from it is prohibited due to reaping. And one who picks from an imperforated pot is exempt, but it is prohibited to do so ab initio. And Rabbi Shimon deems one who does so exempt in both this, the case of the perforated flowerpot, and that, the case of the imperforated flowerpot.

讙诪壮 专诪讬 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 诇专讘 转谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 讘讝讛 讜讘讝讛 讗诇诪讗 谞拽讜讘 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻砖讗讬谞讜 谞拽讜讘 诪砖讜讬 诇讬讛 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 谞拽讜讘 诇砖讗讬谞讜 谞拽讜讘

GEMARA: Abaye raised a contradiction before Rava, and some say it was Rabbi 岣yya bar Rav who raised the contradiction before Rav: On the one hand, we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Shimon deems one exempt in both this case and that case. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon equates a perforated pot with an imperforated pot. And they raised a contradiction: Rabbi Shimon says: The only difference between a perforated pot and an imperforated pot

讗诇讗 诇讛讻砖讬专 讝专注讬诐 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讻诇 诪讬诇讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻转诇讜砖 诪砖讜讬 诇讬讛 讜砖讗谞讬 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讛转讜专讛 专讬讘转讛 讟讛专讛 讗爪诇 讝专注讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 注诇 讻诇 讝专注 讝专讜注 讗砖专 讬讝专注

is with regard to rendering seeds capable of becoming ritually impure. Seeds that are in a perforated pot have the legal status of seeds planted in the ground and, as such, cannot become ritually impure. Seeds that are in an imperforated pot are considered detached from the ground and can become ritually impure. Apparently, in other areas of halakha, Rabbi Shimon holds that a plant in a perforated pot has the legal status of a plant in the ground (Me鈥檌ri). He said to him: With regard to all matters of halakha, Rabbi Shimon equates the status of a perforated pot with that of being detached. However, the matter of impurity is different, as the Torah amplified purity with regard to seeds, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd if anything falls from their carcasses upon any sowing seed that is sown, it is pure鈥 (Leviticus 11:37). The repetitive language: 鈥淎ny sowing seed that is sown鈥 teaches that any seed that can be characterized as sowing, including one growing in a perforated pot, remains pure. However, in other areas of halakha, the status of a perforated pot is equal to that of an imperforated pot.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 诪专讘讬 讝讬专讗 砖讜专砖 讻谞讙讚 谞拽讘 诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬砖转讬拽 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讝讬诪谞讗 讞讚讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讚讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讗诐 谞讬拽讘 讘讻讚讬 讟讛专转讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 砖讜专砖 讻谞讙讚 谞拽讘 讘注讗讬 诪讬谞讱 讜诇讗 讗诪专转 诇讬 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 谞讬拽讘 讘讻讚讬 讟讛专转讜 诪讬讘注讬讗

A certain Elder raised a dilemma before Rabbi Zeira: In a case where the root of a plant in a perforated pot is opposite the hole, what would Rabbi Shimon say in terms of whether or not it is considered attached to the ground? He was silent and did not say anything to him. The Gemara relates that once the same Elder found Rabbi Zeira, who was sitting and saying: And Rabbi Shimon agrees that if the hole in the flowerpot is large enough to render it ritually pure, i.e., unable to hold olives, it is considered attached to the earth with regard to Shabbat. He said to him: Now, I raised a dilemma before you as to Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 ruling in a case where the root is opposite the hole, and you did not say anything to me. With regard to a case where the root is not actually opposite the hole, but its hole is large enough to render it pure, do you need to tell me that the dilemma whether or not it is considered detached is unresolved? Rather, this must certainly be understood differently.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 诇讛讗 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗讬转诪专 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讗诐 谞讬拽讘 诇诪讟讛 诪专讘讬注讬转

Abaye said: And if the statement of Rabbi Zeira that Rabbi Shimon holds that a perforated pot is considered attached to the ground, was stated, it was stated as follows: And Rabbi Shimon agrees that if the pot was perforated below the level where it could hold a quarter of a log, it is no longer considered a vessel, and the plants are considered attached to the ground.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讞诪砖 诪讚讜转 讘讻诇讬 讞专住 谞讬拽讘 讻诪讜爪讬讗 诪砖拽讛 讟讛讜专 诪诇讟诪讗 讙讬住讟专讗 讜注讚讬讬谉 讻诇讬 讛讜讗 诇拽讚砖 讘讜 诪讬 讞讟讗转 谞讬拽讘 讻讻讜谞住 诪砖拽讛 讟讛讜专 诪诇拽讚砖 讘讜 诪讬 讞讟讗转 讜注讚讬讬谉 讻诇讬 讛讜讗 诇讛讻砖讬专 讘讜 讝专注讬诐 谞讬拽讘 讻砖讜专砖 拽讟谉 讟讛讜专 诪诇讛讻砖讬专 讘讜 讝专注讬诐 讜注讚讬讬谉 讻诇讬 讛讜讗 诇拽讘诇 讘讜 讝讬转讬诐 谞讬拽讘 讻诪讜爪讬讗 讝讬转讬诐 讟讛讜专 诪诇拽讘诇 讘讜 讝讬转讬诐 讜注讚讬讬谉 讻诇讬 讛讜讗 诇拽讘诇 讘讜 专讬诪讜谞讬诐 谞讬拽讘 讻诪讜爪讬讗 专讬诪讜谞讬诐 讟讛讜专 诪讻诇讜诐 讜讗诐 讛讜拽祝 爪诪讬讚 驻转讬诇 注讚 砖讬驻讞转 专讜讘讜

Apropos the purification of an earthenware vessel, the Gemara cites that Rava said: Five measures were stated with regard to holes in an earthenware vessel: If it was perforated with a small hole from which liquid seeps, it is no longer a vessel and is ritually pure in terms of the impurity of a shard. Certain shards of impure earthenware vessels remain impure if they can still be used. If it has a hole, even a small one that liquids can flow through, it can no longer transmit ritual impurity. However, it remains a complete vessel in which to sanctify the purification waters of the red heifer, which require a whole vessel. And if it was perforated with a hole large enough to enable liquid to enter the vessel, it is ritually pure in terms of sanctifying the purification waters in it, but it remains a vessel in terms of rendering seeds in it capable of becoming ritually impure. And if it was perforated with a hole the size of a small root, it is ritually pure in terms of rendering seeds in it capable of becoming ritually impure, but it remains a vessel that can become ritually impure in terms of holding olives. And if it was perforated with a hole large enough to enable olives to go out, it is pure in terms of the impurity of all other vessels that can hold olives, but it remains a vessel in terms of holding pomegranates. If the vessel is designated for use in holding pomegranates, it can become ritually impure because it is suitable for that use. If it was perforated with a hole large enough to enable pomegranates to go out, it is ritually pure from any type of impurity. And if the mouth of an earthenware vessel that is in a room with a corpse is surrounded by a sealed cover, it does not become ritually pure, even if its hole was large enough to enable a pomegranate to go out. It protects whatever is inside the vessel from contracting impurity, unless the majority of the vessel is broken.

讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 砖诪注转讬 讻诇讬 讞专住 砖讬注讜专讜 讻诪讜爪讬讗 专讬诪讜谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 砖诪讗 诇讗 砖诪注转 讗诇讗 讘诪讜拽祝 爪诪讬讚 驻转讬诇 讜讛讗 专讘讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诪讜拽祝 爪诪讬讚 驻转讬诇 注讚 砖讬驻讞转 专讜讘讜 诇讗 拽砖讬讗

Rav Asi said: I heard that with regard to an earthenware vessel, the measure of the hole that renders it unable to become ritually impure is large enough to enable a pomegranate to go out. Rava said to him: Perhaps you only heard this when its mouth is surrounded by a sealed cover, but an ordinary earthenware vessel becomes ritually pure with a hole big enough to enable an olive to go out. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 Rava himself the one who said that an earthenware vessel that is surrounded by a sealed cover protects whatever is inside the vessel from contracting impurity unless the majority of the vessel is broken? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult.

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 Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

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....
Weaving Wisdom

Weaving Sounds Dangerous!

In Shabbat Daf 96, we hear a lot about weavers throwing needles and shuttles (the tool that holds the thread...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 95: God Created Eve from the Rib of Adam

Wait, how is braiding your hair the same as building? The Gemara makes sense of exactly this. Plus: Slice of...

Shabbat 95

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 95

讻讜讞诇转 诪砖讜诐 爪讜讘注转 讙讜讚诇转 讜驻讜拽住转 诪砖讜诐 讘讜谞讛 讜讻讬 讚专讱 讘谞讬谉 讘讻讱 讗讬谉 讻讚讚专砖 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讜讬讘谉 讛壮 讗诇讛讬诐 讗转 讛爪诇注 诪诇诪讚 砖拽讬诇注讛 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诇讞讜讛 讜讛讘讬讗讛 讗爪诇 讗讚诐 砖讻谉 讘讻专讻讬 讛讬诐 拽讜专讬谉 诇拽诇注讬转讗 讘谞讬转讗 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讙讜讚诇转 讻讜讞诇转 讜驻讜拽住转 诇注爪诪讛 驻讟讜专讛 诇讞讘专转讛 讞讬讬讘转 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗砖讛 诇讗 转注讘讬专 住专拽 注诇 驻谞讬讛 诪驻谞讬 砖爪讜讘注转

A woman who applies eye shadow is liable due to dyeing; one who braids her hair and applies blush is liable due to the prohibition against building. The Gemara asks about this: And is that the typical manner of building? The Gemara answers: Yes, braiding one鈥檚 hair is considered building, as Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya taught that the verse states: 鈥淎nd the Lord God built the side that He took from Adam into a woman鈥 (Genesis 2:22), which teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, braided Eve鈥檚 hair and brought her to Adam. From where is it derived that this is the meaning of built? It is because in the islands of the sea they call braiding building. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: With regard to a woman who braids her hair and who applies eye shadow or blush on Shabbat, if she did it for herself, she is exempt; if she did it for another, she is liable. This is because a woman cannot perform these actions for herself in as complete a fashion as she can for someone else. And, so too, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: A woman may not apply rouge to her face on Shabbat because by doing so she is dyeing, which is one of the prohibited labors on Shabbat.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讞讜诇讘 讜讛诪讞讘抓 讜讛诪讙讘谉 讻讙专讜讙专转 讛诪讻讘讚 讜讛诪专讘抓 讜讛专讜讚讛 讞诇讜转 讚讘砖 砖讙讙 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讛讝讬讚 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讜拽讛 讗专讘注讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转

The Sages taught in a baraita: One who milks an animal, and one who sets milk to curdle, and one who makes cheese, in the measure of a dried fig-bulk, and one who sweeps the house, and one who sprinkles water on the floor, and one who removes honeycombs, if he did so unwittingly on Shabbat, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. If he did so intentionally on a Festival, he receives forty lashes; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say: Both this, on Shabbat and that, on a Festival, these actions are only prohibited due to a rabbinic decree, not by Torah law. Therefore, one is neither liable to bring a sin-offering nor to receive lashes for performing those actions.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇谞讛专讚注讗 讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讞讜诇讘 诪砖讜诐 诪讗讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诇讘 诪讞讘抓 诪砖讜诐 诪讗讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪砖讜诐 诪讞讘抓 诪讙讘谉 诪砖讜诐 诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪砖讜诐 诪讙讘谉 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘讱 拽讟讬诇 拽谞讬 讘讗讙诪讗 讛讜讛 讗转讗 砖讗讬诇 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讞讜诇讘 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 诪驻专拽 诪讞讘抓 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讘讜专专 诪讙讘谉 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讘讜谞讛

The Gemara relates: Rav Na岣an bar Gurya happened to come to Neharde鈥檃. The students asked him: For what prohibited labor is one who milks liable? He said to them: For milking. For what prohibited labor is one who sets milk to curdle liable? He said to them: For setting milk to curdle. For what is a person who makes cheese liable? He said to them: For making cheese. They said to him: Your teacher was a reed cutter in a swamp who did not know how to explain the mishna to his students. He came and asked those questions in the study hall. They said to him: One who milks is liable for performing the prohibited labor of extracting, which is a subcategory of threshing, on Shabbat. This is because when one extracts milk from a cow it is similar to the act of threshing, where one removes the desired content from its covering. One who sets milk is liable for the prohibited labor of selecting because part of the milk is separated and made into congealed milk. And one who makes cheese is liable for building because the cheese within the milk assumes a solid form, which is similar to the process of building.

讛诪讻讘讚 讛诪专讘抓 讜讛专讜讚讛 讞诇讜转 讚讘砖 砖讙讙 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讛讝讬讚 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讜拽讛 讗专讘注讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讟讘诇 讗讜转讛 讘讬注专转 讛讚讘砖 讜讻讬 诪讛 注谞讬谉 讬注专 讗爪诇 讚讘砖 讗诇讗 诇讜诪专 诇讱 诪讛 讬注专 讛转讜诇砖 诪诪谞讜 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讗祝 讞诇讜转 讚讘砖 讛专讜讚讛 诪诪谞讜 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转

The baraita cited above taught: With regard to one who sweeps the house, and one who sprinkles water on the floor, and one who removes honeycombs, if he did so unwittingly on Shabbat, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. If he did so intentionally on a Festival, he receives forty lashes; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Elazar said: What is the rationale for the statement of Rabbi Eliezer? His rationale is as it is written: 鈥淎nd he put forth the end of the rod that was in his hand and dipped it in the honeycomb [yarat hadevash]鈥 (i Samuel 14:27). The Gemara wonders: What does a forest [ya鈥檃r] have to do with honey [devash]? Rather, it comes to tell you: Just as with regard to a forest, one who picks from a tree on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering, so too, with regard to a honeycomb, one who removes honey from it on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering.

讗诪讬诪专 砖专讗 讝讬诇讞讗 讘诪讞讜讝讗 讗诪专 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗砖讜讬讬 讙讜诪讜转 讛讻讗 诇讬讻讗 讙讜诪讜转 专讘讗 转讜住驻讗讛 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘讬谞讗 讚拽讗 诪爪讟注专 诪讛讘诇讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诪专 拽砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讚拽讗 诪爪讟注专 诪讛讘诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 诪专 诇讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛专讜爪讛 诇专讘抓 讗转 讘讬转讜 讘砖讘转 诪讘讬讗 注专讬讘讛 诪诇讗讛 诪讬诐 讜专讜讞抓 驻谞讬讜 讘讝讜讬转 讝讜 讬讚讬讜 讘讝讜讬转 讝讜 专讙诇讬讜 讘讝讜讬转 讝讜 讜谞诪爪讗 讛讘讬转 诪转专讘抓 诪讗诇讬讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讗讚注转讗讬

The Gemara relates: Ameimar permitted sprinkling water in the city of Me岣za. He said: What is the reason that the Rabbis said it is prohibited to sprinkle water? It was due to concern lest one come to smooth out holes in an unpaved floor. Here, in Me岣za, there are no holes in the floor because all the houses have stone floors. The Gemara also relates: Rava Tosfa鈥檃, an expert on the Tosefta, found that Ravina was suffering on Shabbat from the dusty hot air in the house. And some say that Mar Kashisha, son of Rava, found that Rav Ashi was suffering from the dusty hot air. Mar Kashisha said to Rav Ashi: And does my Master not hold in accordance with this halakha that was taught in a baraita: One who wishes to sprinkle water on the floor of his house on Shabbat, where it is otherwise prohibited, brings a large basin full of water, and washes his face in this corner, then moves the basin and washes his hands in this corner, his feet in this corner, and it will eventuate that the floor of the entire house is sprinkled by itself from the water that splashed in a backhanded manner? Rav Ashi said to him: It did not enter my mind to employ that method.

转谞讗 讗砖讛 讞讻诪讛 诪专讘爪转 讘讬转讛 讘砖讘转 讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚住讘讬专讗 诇谉 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛:

One of the Sages taught: A wise woman sprinkles water on the floor of her house on Shabbat by washing different vessels in different parts of the house. And now that we hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that it is permitted to perform an unintentional act on Shabbat, it is permitted to sweep and sprinkle water on the floor of a house on Shabbat even ab initio, because one鈥檚 intention is not to smooth the holes in the floor.

诪转谞讬壮 讛转讜诇砖 诪注爪讬抓 谞拽讜讘 讞讬讬讘 讜砖讗讬谞讜 谞拽讜讘 驻讟讜专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 讘讝讛 讜讘讝讛:

MISHNA: One who severs a leaf or a fruit from a plant growing in a perforated flowerpot on Shabbat is liable, as a plant in a flowerpot with holes in it has the legal status of a plant connected to the ground. Picking from it is prohibited due to reaping. And one who picks from an imperforated pot is exempt, but it is prohibited to do so ab initio. And Rabbi Shimon deems one who does so exempt in both this, the case of the perforated flowerpot, and that, the case of the imperforated flowerpot.

讙诪壮 专诪讬 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 诇专讘 转谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 讘讝讛 讜讘讝讛 讗诇诪讗 谞拽讜讘 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻砖讗讬谞讜 谞拽讜讘 诪砖讜讬 诇讬讛 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 谞拽讜讘 诇砖讗讬谞讜 谞拽讜讘

GEMARA: Abaye raised a contradiction before Rava, and some say it was Rabbi 岣yya bar Rav who raised the contradiction before Rav: On the one hand, we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Shimon deems one exempt in both this case and that case. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon equates a perforated pot with an imperforated pot. And they raised a contradiction: Rabbi Shimon says: The only difference between a perforated pot and an imperforated pot

讗诇讗 诇讛讻砖讬专 讝专注讬诐 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讻诇 诪讬诇讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻转诇讜砖 诪砖讜讬 诇讬讛 讜砖讗谞讬 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讛转讜专讛 专讬讘转讛 讟讛专讛 讗爪诇 讝专注讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 注诇 讻诇 讝专注 讝专讜注 讗砖专 讬讝专注

is with regard to rendering seeds capable of becoming ritually impure. Seeds that are in a perforated pot have the legal status of seeds planted in the ground and, as such, cannot become ritually impure. Seeds that are in an imperforated pot are considered detached from the ground and can become ritually impure. Apparently, in other areas of halakha, Rabbi Shimon holds that a plant in a perforated pot has the legal status of a plant in the ground (Me鈥檌ri). He said to him: With regard to all matters of halakha, Rabbi Shimon equates the status of a perforated pot with that of being detached. However, the matter of impurity is different, as the Torah amplified purity with regard to seeds, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd if anything falls from their carcasses upon any sowing seed that is sown, it is pure鈥 (Leviticus 11:37). The repetitive language: 鈥淎ny sowing seed that is sown鈥 teaches that any seed that can be characterized as sowing, including one growing in a perforated pot, remains pure. However, in other areas of halakha, the status of a perforated pot is equal to that of an imperforated pot.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 诪专讘讬 讝讬专讗 砖讜专砖 讻谞讙讚 谞拽讘 诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬砖转讬拽 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讝讬诪谞讗 讞讚讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讚讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讗诐 谞讬拽讘 讘讻讚讬 讟讛专转讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 砖讜专砖 讻谞讙讚 谞拽讘 讘注讗讬 诪讬谞讱 讜诇讗 讗诪专转 诇讬 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 谞讬拽讘 讘讻讚讬 讟讛专转讜 诪讬讘注讬讗

A certain Elder raised a dilemma before Rabbi Zeira: In a case where the root of a plant in a perforated pot is opposite the hole, what would Rabbi Shimon say in terms of whether or not it is considered attached to the ground? He was silent and did not say anything to him. The Gemara relates that once the same Elder found Rabbi Zeira, who was sitting and saying: And Rabbi Shimon agrees that if the hole in the flowerpot is large enough to render it ritually pure, i.e., unable to hold olives, it is considered attached to the earth with regard to Shabbat. He said to him: Now, I raised a dilemma before you as to Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 ruling in a case where the root is opposite the hole, and you did not say anything to me. With regard to a case where the root is not actually opposite the hole, but its hole is large enough to render it pure, do you need to tell me that the dilemma whether or not it is considered detached is unresolved? Rather, this must certainly be understood differently.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 诇讛讗 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗讬转诪专 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讗诐 谞讬拽讘 诇诪讟讛 诪专讘讬注讬转

Abaye said: And if the statement of Rabbi Zeira that Rabbi Shimon holds that a perforated pot is considered attached to the ground, was stated, it was stated as follows: And Rabbi Shimon agrees that if the pot was perforated below the level where it could hold a quarter of a log, it is no longer considered a vessel, and the plants are considered attached to the ground.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讞诪砖 诪讚讜转 讘讻诇讬 讞专住 谞讬拽讘 讻诪讜爪讬讗 诪砖拽讛 讟讛讜专 诪诇讟诪讗 讙讬住讟专讗 讜注讚讬讬谉 讻诇讬 讛讜讗 诇拽讚砖 讘讜 诪讬 讞讟讗转 谞讬拽讘 讻讻讜谞住 诪砖拽讛 讟讛讜专 诪诇拽讚砖 讘讜 诪讬 讞讟讗转 讜注讚讬讬谉 讻诇讬 讛讜讗 诇讛讻砖讬专 讘讜 讝专注讬诐 谞讬拽讘 讻砖讜专砖 拽讟谉 讟讛讜专 诪诇讛讻砖讬专 讘讜 讝专注讬诐 讜注讚讬讬谉 讻诇讬 讛讜讗 诇拽讘诇 讘讜 讝讬转讬诐 谞讬拽讘 讻诪讜爪讬讗 讝讬转讬诐 讟讛讜专 诪诇拽讘诇 讘讜 讝讬转讬诐 讜注讚讬讬谉 讻诇讬 讛讜讗 诇拽讘诇 讘讜 专讬诪讜谞讬诐 谞讬拽讘 讻诪讜爪讬讗 专讬诪讜谞讬诐 讟讛讜专 诪讻诇讜诐 讜讗诐 讛讜拽祝 爪诪讬讚 驻转讬诇 注讚 砖讬驻讞转 专讜讘讜

Apropos the purification of an earthenware vessel, the Gemara cites that Rava said: Five measures were stated with regard to holes in an earthenware vessel: If it was perforated with a small hole from which liquid seeps, it is no longer a vessel and is ritually pure in terms of the impurity of a shard. Certain shards of impure earthenware vessels remain impure if they can still be used. If it has a hole, even a small one that liquids can flow through, it can no longer transmit ritual impurity. However, it remains a complete vessel in which to sanctify the purification waters of the red heifer, which require a whole vessel. And if it was perforated with a hole large enough to enable liquid to enter the vessel, it is ritually pure in terms of sanctifying the purification waters in it, but it remains a vessel in terms of rendering seeds in it capable of becoming ritually impure. And if it was perforated with a hole the size of a small root, it is ritually pure in terms of rendering seeds in it capable of becoming ritually impure, but it remains a vessel that can become ritually impure in terms of holding olives. And if it was perforated with a hole large enough to enable olives to go out, it is pure in terms of the impurity of all other vessels that can hold olives, but it remains a vessel in terms of holding pomegranates. If the vessel is designated for use in holding pomegranates, it can become ritually impure because it is suitable for that use. If it was perforated with a hole large enough to enable pomegranates to go out, it is ritually pure from any type of impurity. And if the mouth of an earthenware vessel that is in a room with a corpse is surrounded by a sealed cover, it does not become ritually pure, even if its hole was large enough to enable a pomegranate to go out. It protects whatever is inside the vessel from contracting impurity, unless the majority of the vessel is broken.

讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 砖诪注转讬 讻诇讬 讞专住 砖讬注讜专讜 讻诪讜爪讬讗 专讬诪讜谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 砖诪讗 诇讗 砖诪注转 讗诇讗 讘诪讜拽祝 爪诪讬讚 驻转讬诇 讜讛讗 专讘讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诪讜拽祝 爪诪讬讚 驻转讬诇 注讚 砖讬驻讞转 专讜讘讜 诇讗 拽砖讬讗

Rav Asi said: I heard that with regard to an earthenware vessel, the measure of the hole that renders it unable to become ritually impure is large enough to enable a pomegranate to go out. Rava said to him: Perhaps you only heard this when its mouth is surrounded by a sealed cover, but an ordinary earthenware vessel becomes ritually pure with a hole big enough to enable an olive to go out. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 Rava himself the one who said that an earthenware vessel that is surrounded by a sealed cover protects whatever is inside the vessel from contracting impurity unless the majority of the vessel is broken? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult.

Scroll To Top