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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 10, 2020 | 讬状讞 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 96

Today’s daf is sponsored by Audrey and Jake Levant in honour of Audrey鈥檚 mother, Geri Goldstein, who made aliya 10 years ago today.

The gemara finishes the discussion regarding the sizes of holes in earthenware utensils and what the halachic implications are for each size. The eleventh chapter starts with throwing items – from public to private domain or the reverse or from private to private through a public domain. In which cases is one obligated? On what does it depend? What is the source for the prohibition to take an item from a private domain to a public? From where do we learn that one cannot take an item from a public domain and move it into a private domain? Why is it important to categorize actions as Avot (primary categories) or Toladot (sub-categories)? If one throws an item more than four cubits in a public domain and it lands on a wall, if it lands higher than 10 handbreaths, one is not obligated as it landed in an “exempt space.” If it landed lower than 10 handbreaths from the ground, one is obligated for carrying in a public domain. From where is this law derived? When the Jews were in the desert, there was a man accused of gathering wood – what melacha did he transgress? Why is it important to determine that? The gemara explains that it has implications for a statement of Isi ben Yehuda who claims that there is one melacha that one is not obligated by the death penalty. There is a debate about whether this person was Tzelofchad.

讛讗 讘专讘专讘讬 讜讛讗 讘讝讜讟专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 砖讜谞讬谉 讻诇讬 讞专住 砖讬注讜专讜 讘讻讜谞住 诪砖拽讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诪讜爪讬讗 诪砖拽讛 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讙讬住讟专讗 讘诇讘讚 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讘讗 讙讬住讟专讗 诇讙讬住讟专讗

This statement, that a hole must be large enough to enable a pomegranate to go out in order to purify the vessel, is referring to large vessels. And this statement, that teaches that a vessel is purified only when the majority of the vessel is broken, is referring to small vessels. Rav Asi said that they teach this halakha: With regard to an earthenware vessel, the measure of the hole that renders it unable to become ritually impure is large enough to enable liquid to enter it. And they only said: The measure of a small hole from which liquid seeps, with regard to the impurity of a shard [gistera]. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara answers that Mar Zutra, son of Rav Na岣an, said: A shard is used as a plate beneath a perforated earthenware vessel. If the shard is also perforated and leaks, it is no longer of any use. Because one does not say: Bring another shard to seal the leak of a shard, but throws it out immediately.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 转专讬 讗诪讜专讗讬 讘诪注专讘讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讝讘讚讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讻诪讜爪讬讗 专诪讜谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讻砖讜专砖 拽讟谉 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 讗讞讚 讛诪专讘讛 讜讗讞讚 讛诪诪注讬讟 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专 讻讛谞讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻诇讬 讞专住 砖讬注讜专讜 讻诪讜爪讬讗 讝讬转讬诐 讜诪专 拽砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讛 诪住讬讬诐 讘讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讛专讬 讛谉 讻讻诇讬 讙诇诇讬诐 讜讻诇讬 讗讘谞讬诐 讜讻诇讬 讗讚诪讛 砖讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讜诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 讜诇注谞讬谉 爪诪讬讚 驻转讬诇 注讚 砖讬驻讞转 专讜讘讜:

Ulla said: Two amora鈥檌m in the West, Eretz Yisrael, disagree about this topic: They are Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Avin, and Rabbi Yosei bar Zavda. One said: The measure of a hole that purifies an earthenware vessel is large enough to enable a pomegranate to go out. And one said: The size of a small root. And your mnemonic to remember that neither holds that the measure is size of an olive is the expression: Both one who increases and one who decreases. They hold extreme positions in this dispute and eschew the intermediate position. Rav 岣nnana bar Kahana said an intermediate position in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: An earthenware vessel becomes ritually pure with a hole large enough to enable olives to go out. And Mar Kashisha, son of Rabba, concluded this halakha in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: And vessels that have been perforated are like dung vessels, and so too, stone vessels and earth vessels that were not baked in a kiln, which neither become impure by Torah law nor by rabbinic law. And, as far as the matter of an earthenware vessel with a sealed cover in a room with a corpse, it maintains its impurity until the majority of it is broken.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛诪爪谞讬注

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛讝讜专拽 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讞讬讬讘 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘讗诪爪注 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉

MISHNA: One who throws an object on Shabbat from the private domain to the public domain or from the public domain to the private domain is liable. However, one who throws an object from the private domain to the other private domain, and the object passes through the public domain between the two, Rabbi Akiva deems him liable for carrying into the public domain, and the Rabbis deem him exempt.

讻讬爪讚 砖转讬 讙讝讜讝讟专讗讜转 讝讜 讻谞讙讚 讝讜 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛诪讜砖讬讟 讜讛讝讜专拽 诪讝讜 诇讝讜 驻讟讜专 讛讬讜 砖转讬讛谉 讘讚讬讜讟讗 讗讞转 讛诪讜砖讬讟 讞讬讬讘 讜讛讝讜专拽 驻讟讜专 砖讻讱 讛讬转讛 注讘讜讚转 讛诇讜讬诐

How so? If there are two balconies [gezuztra鈥檕t] that are private domains opposite each other on either side of the public domain, one who passes or throws an object from the one on this side to the one on that side is exempt. However, if the balconies were on the same level on the same side of the public thoroughfare, and the public domain separated the two, one who passes from one to the other is liable, and one who throws is exempt, as that method, passing, was the service of the Levites who carried the beams of the Tabernacle.

砖转讬 注讙诇讜转 讝讜 讗讞专 讝讜 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讜砖讬讟讬谉 讛拽专砖讬诐 诪讝讜 诇讝讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 讝讜专拽讬谉:

In the Tabernacle, two wagons along the same level stood behind one another in the public domain, and the Levites passed the beams from one wagon to the other through the public domain on the same side of a thoroughfare. But they did not throw from one wagon to another because the beams were heavy. Passing, which was performed in the Tabernacle, is prohibited. Throwing, which was not performed in the Tabernacle, is not prohibited.

讙诪壮 诪讻讚讬 讝专讬拽讛 转讜诇讚讛 讚讛讜爪讗讛 讛讬讗 讛讜爪讗讛 讙讜驻讛 讛讬讻讗 讻转讬讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬爪讜 诪砖讛 讜讬注讘讬专讜 拽讜诇 讘诪讞谞讛 诪砖讛 讛讬讻谉 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 讘诪讞谞讛 诇讜讬讛 讜诪讞谞讛 诇讜讬讛 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛讜讗讬 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 转驻讬拽讜 讜转讬转讜 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讚讬讚讻讜 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

GEMARA: With regard to the main issue, the Gemara asks: After all, throwing is a subcategory of carrying out. Where is the primary category of prohibited labor of carrying out itself written in the Torah? Isn鈥檛 it necessary to clarify the primary category before discussing the subcategory? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: As the verse said: 鈥淎nd Moses commanded, and they passed a proclamation throughout the camp saying: Neither man nor woman should perform any more work to contribute to the Sanctuary; and the people stopped bringing鈥 (Exodus 36:6). According to Rabbi Yo岣nan, Moses commanded the people to cease bringing contributions in order to prevent them from bringing their contributions on Shabbat. He then explains: Where was Moses sitting? He was in the camp of the Levites, and the Levites鈥 camp was the public domain. And he said to Israel: Do not carry out and bring objects from the private domain, your camp, to the public domain, the camp of the Levites.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚讘砖讘转 拽讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讘讞讜诇 拽讗讬 讜诪砖讜诐 讚砖诇讬诪讗 诇讛 诪诇讗讻讛 讻讚讻转讬讘 讜讛诪诇讗讻讛 讛讬转讛 讚讬诐 讜讙讜壮 讙诪专 讛注讘专讛 讛注讘专讛 诪讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

The Gemara asks: And how do you know that he was standing and commanding the people on Shabbat? Perhaps he was standing during the week, and Moses commanded the cessation of contributions because the labor of the Tabernacle was completed, since all the necessary material was already donated, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the work was sufficient for them for all of the work to perform it, and there was extra鈥 (Exodus 36:7). Rather, derive this by means of a verbal analogy between passing mentioned in this context and passing mentioned with regard to Yom Kippur.

讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讜讬注讘讬专讜 拽讜诇 讘诪讞谞讛 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讜讛注讘专转 砖讜驻专 转专讜注讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘讬讜诐 讗住讜专 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘讬讜诐 讗住讜专

It is written here, with regard to the Tabernacle: 鈥淎nd they passed a proclamation throughout the camp,鈥 and it is written there, with regard to Yom Kippur: 鈥淎nd you shall pass a blast of a shofar on the tenth day of the seventh month, on Yom Kippur you shall sound a shofar throughout your land鈥 (Leviticus 25:9). Just as there, with regard to the shofar of the Jubilee Year, passing is on a day on which it is prohibited to perform labor, so too, here passing is on a day on which it is prohibited to perform labor.

讗砖讻讞谉 讛讜爪讗讛 讛讻谞住讛 诪谞诇谉 住讘专讗 讛讬讗 诪讻讚讬 诪专砖讜转 诇专砖讜转 讛讜讗 诪讛 诇讬 讗驻讜拽讬 讜诪讛 诇讬 注讬讜诇讬 诪讬讛讜 讛讜爪讗讛 讗讘 讛讻谞住讛 转讜诇讚讛

The Gemara asks: We found a source prohibiting carrying out from a private domain into the camp of the Levites. From where do we derive that carrying in is also considered a prohibited labor? The Gemara answers: It is a logical inference. After all, carrying is from one domain to another, so what difference is there to me whether it is carrying out or carrying in? Carrying from one domain to another is prohibited; the direction in which the object is carried makes no difference. However, carrying out is a primary category, while carrying in is a subcategory, as it is not stated explicitly in the biblical text.

讜诪讻讚讬 讗讛讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讜讗讛讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讛 讛讗讬 讗讘 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讛 讛讗讬 转讜诇讚讛

The Gemara now questions the distinction between primary categories and subcategories of labor. After all, one is liable for this, carrying out, and one is liable for that, carrying in. Why is this called a primary category, and why is this called a subcategory? What is the point of the distinction?

谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚讗讬 注讘讬讚 砖转讬 讗讘讜转 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讗讬 谞诪讬 砖转讬 转讜诇讚讜转 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 转专转讬 讜讗讬 注讘讬讚 讗讘 讜转讜诇讚讛 讚讬讚讬讛 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讞讚讗

The Gemara answers: The practical ramification is that if one performs two different primary categories together, or alternatively, if one performs two subcategories of two different primary categories together, he is liable to bring two sin-offerings. And if one performs a primary category of labor together with its own subcategory, he is liable to bring only one sin-offering.

讜诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讗转讜诇讚讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讘 讗诪讗讬 拽专讜 诇讛 讗讘 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讜 诇讛 转讜诇讚讛 讛讱 讚讛讜讗讬 讘诪砖讻谉 讞砖讬讘讗 拽专讬 诇讛 讗讘 讛讱 讚诇讗 讛讜讗讬 讘诪砖讻谉 讞砖讬讘讗 诇讗 拽专讬 诇讛 讗讘 讗讬 谞诪讬 讛讱 讚讻转讬讘讗 拽专讬 讗讘 讜讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘讗 拽专讬 转讜诇讚讛

The Gemara further asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who renders one liable for the performance of a subcategory of prohibited labor when performed together with a primary category, why is this called a primary category, and why is this called a subcategory? The Gemara answers: According to him, that which was a significant labor in the Tabernacle is called a primary category; that which was not a significant labor in the Tabernacle is not called a primary category. Alternatively, perhaps that which is written explicitly in the Torah is called a primary category, and that which is not written explicitly in the Torah is called a subcategory.

讜讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛讝讜专拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘讻讜转诇 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻讝讜专拽 讘讗讜讬专 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻讝讜专拽 讘讗专抓 讜讛讝讜专拽 讘讗专抓 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讞讬讬讘

And as for the halakha that we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who throws an object on Shabbat a distance of four cubits in the public domain and it lands on a wall, if the wall was higher than ten handbreadths, it is as if he threw it into the air, and he is exempt. If the wall was lower than ten handbreadths, it is as if he threw it onto the ground, and one who throws an object a distance of four cubits onto the ground in the public domain is liable.

讝专拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪谞诇谉 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 砖讻谉 讗讜专讙讬 讬专讬注讜转 讝讜专拽讬谉 诪讞讟讬讛谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讗讜专讙讬谉 诪讞讟讬谉 诇诪讛 诇讛讜 讗诇讗 砖讻谉 转讜驻专讬 讬专讬注讜转 讝讜专拽讬谉 诪讞讟讬讛谉 讝讛 诇讝讛

The Gemara asks: If one threw an object four cubits in the public domain, and it did not go from one domain to another, from where do we derive that he is liable? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoshiya said: Because the weavers of the tapestries in the Tabernacle throw their needles to each other when they need to borrow the other鈥檚 needle. Throwing was a labor performed in the Tabernacle; therefore, one is liable for performing it. The Gemara wonders: Why do weavers need needles? Rather, emend the statement to say: Because those who sewed the tapestries throw their needles to each other.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讙讘讬 讛讚讚讬 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 诪讟讜 讛讚讚讬 讘诪讞讟讬谉 讚讬诇诪讗 讘转讜讱 讗专讘注 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬

The Gemara asks: Is it clear that they had to throw needles to each other? Perhaps they sat next to each other. The Gemara answers: It is clear that they kept their distance from each other. If they sat too close, they would reach each other and hurt one another with their needles. The Gemara asks: Perhaps, even though they kept their distance, they sat within four cubits of each other, and they would not throw the needles farther than that. In the absence of proof of their sitting arrangement, this halakha cannot be derived from those who sewed the tapestries.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 砖讻谉 讗讜专讙讬 讬专讬注讜转 讝讜专拽讬谉 讘讜讻讬讗专 讘讬专讬注讛 讜讛诇讗 讗讜讙讚讜 讘讬讚讜 讘谞讬住讻讗 讘转专讗

Rather, Rav 岣sda said: Throwing an object four cubits in the public domain is prohibited because the weavers of the tapestries in the Tabernacle threw the shuttle, to which the thread of the warp was tied on the tapestry. Weaving entails throwing the thread of the warp through the threads of the woof. The Gemara asks: That is not actually throwing, as didn鈥檛 the weaver hold the end of the thread in his hand? One is not liable for throwing an object when part of it remains in his hand. Rather, this must be referring to the final throw, when the weaving was finished and the weaver released the thread from his hand.

讜讛讗 讘诪拽讜诐 驻讟讜专 拽讗讝诇讗 讗诇讗 砖讻谉 讗讜专讙讬 讬专讬注讜转 讝讜专拽讬谉 讘讜讻讬讗专 诇砖讜讗诇讬讛谉 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讙讘讬 讛讚讚讬 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 诪讟讜 讛讚讚讬 讘讞驻转

The Gemara asks: Doesn鈥檛 the shuttle go in an exempt domain? The tapestry was less than four handbreadths wide, rendering it an exempt domain even though it is four cubits long. One who throws in an exempt domain is exempt. Rather, it is because the weavers of tapestries throw the shuttle to those who seek to borrow it from them. The Gemara asks: But perhaps they sat next to each other? The Gemara answers: That is impossible because they would reach one another and disturb one another when tightening the thread at the end of the tapestry.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 砖诇讞讜驻讬 讛讜讜 诪砖诇讞驻讬 讜转讜 诪讬 砖讗讬诇讬 诪讛讚讚讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 诇讜讚讗 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诪诪诇讗讻转讜 讗砖专 讛诪讛 注砖讬诐 诪诪诇讗讻转讜 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 讜讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛 诪诪诇讗讻转 讞讘讬专讜

The Gemara asks: And perhaps they were not in a straight line but staggered. That would enable the weavers to sit adjacent to each other without disturbing each other鈥檚 work. And furthermore, did they borrow from each another? Wasn鈥檛 the following taught in a baraita of the Sage Luda? The verse states: 鈥淎nd all the wise men who performed all of the work of the Sanctuary came, each one from the work he was doing鈥 (Exodus 36:4). From that verse it is derived: Each performed the labor from his own work, and they would not perform the labor from their friends鈥 work. Each person had his own tools and did not need to borrow from others.

讜转讜 诪注讘讬专 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪谞诇谉 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讻诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讙诪专讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛:

And furthermore, the Gemara asks: Even if the halakha of throwing was derived from here, from where do we derive that one who carries an object four cubits in the public domain is liable? Rather, apparently, this halakha is not derived from the labor performed in the construction of the Tabernacle. Rather, all the halakhot related to carrying four cubits in the public domain are learned through tradition and not derived from the text.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪拽讜砖砖 诪注讘讬专 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛讜讛 讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 转讜诇砖 讛讜讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 诪注诪专 讛讜讛

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The wood gatherer who was sentenced to death for desecrating Shabbat (see Numbers 15:33鈥36) was one who carried four cubits in the public domain. He was stoned for performing the prohibited labor of carrying. It was taught in a baraita: He was one who detached still-growing branches. He was stoned for performing the prohibited labor of detaching. Rav A岣, son of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, said: He was one who gathered sticks together into a pile.

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讻讚专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 诪爪讗转讬 诪讙诇转 住转专讬诐 讘讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜讻转讜讘 讘讬讛 讗讬住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讘讜转 诪诇讗讻讜转 讗专讘注讬诐 讞住专 讗讞转 (讜讗诐 注砖讗谉 讻讜诇诐 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转) 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讗讞转 讜转讜 诇讗 讜讛转谞谉 讗讘讜转 诪诇讗讻讜转 讗专讘注讬诐 讞住专 讗讞转 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪谞讬讬谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讗诐 注砖讗谉 讻讜诇诐 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

The Gemara asks: What is the practical ramification of determining precisely which prohibited labor the wood gatherer performed? The Gemara answers: The ramification is with regard to the statement of Rav, as Rav said: I found a hidden scroll in the house of Rabbi 岣yya. And in it, it is written that Isi ben Yehuda says: The number of primary categories of labor prohibited on Shabbat is forty-less-one. And if one performed all of them in the course of one lapse of awareness, he is liable to bring only one sin-offering. The Gemara asks: One and no more? We learned in a mishna: The number of primary categories of prohibited labors on Shabbat is forty-less-one, which the mishna proceeds to list. And we discussed this mishna: Why do I need this tally of forty-less-one? And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The tally was included to teach that if one performed all the prohibited labors in the course of one lapse of awareness, during which he was unaware of the prohibition involved, he is liable for each and every one.

讗讬诪讗 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讗讞转 诪讛诐

This citation from the hidden scroll cannot be accurate. Rather, emend this statement in the hidden scroll and say that one is not liable for one of them. There is a primary category of labor among the thirty-nine primary categories of prohibited labor whose violation does not incur the death penalty. The identity of this category that is not punishable by death was not specified.

专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 讚讛诪注讘讬专 讞讬讬讘 讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 讚转讜诇砖 讞讬讬讘 讜专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 讚诪注诪专 讞讬讬讘 诪专 住讘专 讛讗 诪讬讛转 诇讗 诪住驻拽讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讛讗 诪讬讛转 诇讗 诪住驻拽讗:

It is obvious to Rav Yehuda that one who carries four cubits in the public domain is liable to receive the death penalty. And it is obvious to the baraita that one who detaches is liable to receive the death penalty. And it is obvious to Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov that one who gathers is liable to receive the death penalty. In other words, this Master maintains: With regard to this labor, in any case, there is no uncertainty. And this Master maintains: With regard to that labor, in any case, there is no uncertainty. Each Sage maintains that the prohibited labor that he attributed to the wood gatherer incurs the death penalty and is certainly not the labor referred to in the hidden scroll.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪拽讜砖砖 讝讛 爪诇驻讞讚 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讬讛讬讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 讜讬诪爪讗讜 讗讬砖 讜讙讜壮 讜诇讛诇谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗讘讬谞讜 诪转 讘诪讚讘专 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 爪诇驻讞讚 讗祝 讻讗谉 爪诇驻讞讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

On the topic of the wood gatherer, the Gemara cites that which the Sages taught in a baraita: The wood gatherer mentioned in the Torah was Zelophehad, and it says: 鈥淎nd the children of Israel were in the desert and they found a man gathering wood on the day of Shabbat鈥 (Numbers 15:32), and below, in the appeal of the daughters of Zelophehad, it is stated: 鈥淥ur father died in the desert and he was not among the company of them that gathered themselves together against the Lord in the company of Korah, but he died in his own sin, and he had no sons鈥 (Numbers 27:3). Just as below the man in the desert is Zelophehad, so too, here, in the case of the wood gatherer, the unnamed man in the desert is Zelophehad; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 注拽讬讘讗 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讗转讛 注转讬讚 诇讬转谉 讗转 讛讚讬谉 讗诐 讻讚讘专讬讱 讛转讜专讛 讻讬住转讜 讜讗转讛 诪讙诇讛 讗讜转讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 诇注讝 注诇 讗讜转讜 爪讚讬拽

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira said to him: Akiva, in either case you will be judged in the future for this teaching. If the truth is in accordance with your statement that the wood gatherer was Zelophehad, the Torah concealed his identity, and you reveal it. And if it the truth is not in accordance with your statement, you are unjustly slandering that righteous man.

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 鈥 Shabbat 96-102

This week we will review Daf 96-102 and learn about different laws pertaining to throwing on Shabbat. We will also...
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 96: Catch!

The new chapter, HaZorek: Throwing an item between public and private domains; throwing an item from a private domain to...

Shabbat 96

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 96

讛讗 讘专讘专讘讬 讜讛讗 讘讝讜讟专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 砖讜谞讬谉 讻诇讬 讞专住 砖讬注讜专讜 讘讻讜谞住 诪砖拽讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诪讜爪讬讗 诪砖拽讛 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讙讬住讟专讗 讘诇讘讚 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讘讗 讙讬住讟专讗 诇讙讬住讟专讗

This statement, that a hole must be large enough to enable a pomegranate to go out in order to purify the vessel, is referring to large vessels. And this statement, that teaches that a vessel is purified only when the majority of the vessel is broken, is referring to small vessels. Rav Asi said that they teach this halakha: With regard to an earthenware vessel, the measure of the hole that renders it unable to become ritually impure is large enough to enable liquid to enter it. And they only said: The measure of a small hole from which liquid seeps, with regard to the impurity of a shard [gistera]. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara answers that Mar Zutra, son of Rav Na岣an, said: A shard is used as a plate beneath a perforated earthenware vessel. If the shard is also perforated and leaks, it is no longer of any use. Because one does not say: Bring another shard to seal the leak of a shard, but throws it out immediately.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 转专讬 讗诪讜专讗讬 讘诪注专讘讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讝讘讚讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讻诪讜爪讬讗 专诪讜谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讻砖讜专砖 拽讟谉 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 讗讞讚 讛诪专讘讛 讜讗讞讚 讛诪诪注讬讟 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专 讻讛谞讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻诇讬 讞专住 砖讬注讜专讜 讻诪讜爪讬讗 讝讬转讬诐 讜诪专 拽砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讛 诪住讬讬诐 讘讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讛专讬 讛谉 讻讻诇讬 讙诇诇讬诐 讜讻诇讬 讗讘谞讬诐 讜讻诇讬 讗讚诪讛 砖讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讜诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 讜诇注谞讬谉 爪诪讬讚 驻转讬诇 注讚 砖讬驻讞转 专讜讘讜:

Ulla said: Two amora鈥檌m in the West, Eretz Yisrael, disagree about this topic: They are Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Avin, and Rabbi Yosei bar Zavda. One said: The measure of a hole that purifies an earthenware vessel is large enough to enable a pomegranate to go out. And one said: The size of a small root. And your mnemonic to remember that neither holds that the measure is size of an olive is the expression: Both one who increases and one who decreases. They hold extreme positions in this dispute and eschew the intermediate position. Rav 岣nnana bar Kahana said an intermediate position in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: An earthenware vessel becomes ritually pure with a hole large enough to enable olives to go out. And Mar Kashisha, son of Rabba, concluded this halakha in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: And vessels that have been perforated are like dung vessels, and so too, stone vessels and earth vessels that were not baked in a kiln, which neither become impure by Torah law nor by rabbinic law. And, as far as the matter of an earthenware vessel with a sealed cover in a room with a corpse, it maintains its impurity until the majority of it is broken.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛诪爪谞讬注

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛讝讜专拽 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讞讬讬讘 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘讗诪爪注 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉

MISHNA: One who throws an object on Shabbat from the private domain to the public domain or from the public domain to the private domain is liable. However, one who throws an object from the private domain to the other private domain, and the object passes through the public domain between the two, Rabbi Akiva deems him liable for carrying into the public domain, and the Rabbis deem him exempt.

讻讬爪讚 砖转讬 讙讝讜讝讟专讗讜转 讝讜 讻谞讙讚 讝讜 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛诪讜砖讬讟 讜讛讝讜专拽 诪讝讜 诇讝讜 驻讟讜专 讛讬讜 砖转讬讛谉 讘讚讬讜讟讗 讗讞转 讛诪讜砖讬讟 讞讬讬讘 讜讛讝讜专拽 驻讟讜专 砖讻讱 讛讬转讛 注讘讜讚转 讛诇讜讬诐

How so? If there are two balconies [gezuztra鈥檕t] that are private domains opposite each other on either side of the public domain, one who passes or throws an object from the one on this side to the one on that side is exempt. However, if the balconies were on the same level on the same side of the public thoroughfare, and the public domain separated the two, one who passes from one to the other is liable, and one who throws is exempt, as that method, passing, was the service of the Levites who carried the beams of the Tabernacle.

砖转讬 注讙诇讜转 讝讜 讗讞专 讝讜 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讜砖讬讟讬谉 讛拽专砖讬诐 诪讝讜 诇讝讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 讝讜专拽讬谉:

In the Tabernacle, two wagons along the same level stood behind one another in the public domain, and the Levites passed the beams from one wagon to the other through the public domain on the same side of a thoroughfare. But they did not throw from one wagon to another because the beams were heavy. Passing, which was performed in the Tabernacle, is prohibited. Throwing, which was not performed in the Tabernacle, is not prohibited.

讙诪壮 诪讻讚讬 讝专讬拽讛 转讜诇讚讛 讚讛讜爪讗讛 讛讬讗 讛讜爪讗讛 讙讜驻讛 讛讬讻讗 讻转讬讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬爪讜 诪砖讛 讜讬注讘讬专讜 拽讜诇 讘诪讞谞讛 诪砖讛 讛讬讻谉 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 讘诪讞谞讛 诇讜讬讛 讜诪讞谞讛 诇讜讬讛 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛讜讗讬 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 转驻讬拽讜 讜转讬转讜 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讚讬讚讻讜 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

GEMARA: With regard to the main issue, the Gemara asks: After all, throwing is a subcategory of carrying out. Where is the primary category of prohibited labor of carrying out itself written in the Torah? Isn鈥檛 it necessary to clarify the primary category before discussing the subcategory? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: As the verse said: 鈥淎nd Moses commanded, and they passed a proclamation throughout the camp saying: Neither man nor woman should perform any more work to contribute to the Sanctuary; and the people stopped bringing鈥 (Exodus 36:6). According to Rabbi Yo岣nan, Moses commanded the people to cease bringing contributions in order to prevent them from bringing their contributions on Shabbat. He then explains: Where was Moses sitting? He was in the camp of the Levites, and the Levites鈥 camp was the public domain. And he said to Israel: Do not carry out and bring objects from the private domain, your camp, to the public domain, the camp of the Levites.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚讘砖讘转 拽讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讘讞讜诇 拽讗讬 讜诪砖讜诐 讚砖诇讬诪讗 诇讛 诪诇讗讻讛 讻讚讻转讬讘 讜讛诪诇讗讻讛 讛讬转讛 讚讬诐 讜讙讜壮 讙诪专 讛注讘专讛 讛注讘专讛 诪讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

The Gemara asks: And how do you know that he was standing and commanding the people on Shabbat? Perhaps he was standing during the week, and Moses commanded the cessation of contributions because the labor of the Tabernacle was completed, since all the necessary material was already donated, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the work was sufficient for them for all of the work to perform it, and there was extra鈥 (Exodus 36:7). Rather, derive this by means of a verbal analogy between passing mentioned in this context and passing mentioned with regard to Yom Kippur.

讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讜讬注讘讬专讜 拽讜诇 讘诪讞谞讛 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讜讛注讘专转 砖讜驻专 转专讜注讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘讬讜诐 讗住讜专 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘讬讜诐 讗住讜专

It is written here, with regard to the Tabernacle: 鈥淎nd they passed a proclamation throughout the camp,鈥 and it is written there, with regard to Yom Kippur: 鈥淎nd you shall pass a blast of a shofar on the tenth day of the seventh month, on Yom Kippur you shall sound a shofar throughout your land鈥 (Leviticus 25:9). Just as there, with regard to the shofar of the Jubilee Year, passing is on a day on which it is prohibited to perform labor, so too, here passing is on a day on which it is prohibited to perform labor.

讗砖讻讞谉 讛讜爪讗讛 讛讻谞住讛 诪谞诇谉 住讘专讗 讛讬讗 诪讻讚讬 诪专砖讜转 诇专砖讜转 讛讜讗 诪讛 诇讬 讗驻讜拽讬 讜诪讛 诇讬 注讬讜诇讬 诪讬讛讜 讛讜爪讗讛 讗讘 讛讻谞住讛 转讜诇讚讛

The Gemara asks: We found a source prohibiting carrying out from a private domain into the camp of the Levites. From where do we derive that carrying in is also considered a prohibited labor? The Gemara answers: It is a logical inference. After all, carrying is from one domain to another, so what difference is there to me whether it is carrying out or carrying in? Carrying from one domain to another is prohibited; the direction in which the object is carried makes no difference. However, carrying out is a primary category, while carrying in is a subcategory, as it is not stated explicitly in the biblical text.

讜诪讻讚讬 讗讛讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讜讗讛讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讛 讛讗讬 讗讘 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讛 讛讗讬 转讜诇讚讛

The Gemara now questions the distinction between primary categories and subcategories of labor. After all, one is liable for this, carrying out, and one is liable for that, carrying in. Why is this called a primary category, and why is this called a subcategory? What is the point of the distinction?

谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚讗讬 注讘讬讚 砖转讬 讗讘讜转 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讗讬 谞诪讬 砖转讬 转讜诇讚讜转 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 转专转讬 讜讗讬 注讘讬讚 讗讘 讜转讜诇讚讛 讚讬讚讬讛 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讞讚讗

The Gemara answers: The practical ramification is that if one performs two different primary categories together, or alternatively, if one performs two subcategories of two different primary categories together, he is liable to bring two sin-offerings. And if one performs a primary category of labor together with its own subcategory, he is liable to bring only one sin-offering.

讜诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讗转讜诇讚讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讘 讗诪讗讬 拽专讜 诇讛 讗讘 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讜 诇讛 转讜诇讚讛 讛讱 讚讛讜讗讬 讘诪砖讻谉 讞砖讬讘讗 拽专讬 诇讛 讗讘 讛讱 讚诇讗 讛讜讗讬 讘诪砖讻谉 讞砖讬讘讗 诇讗 拽专讬 诇讛 讗讘 讗讬 谞诪讬 讛讱 讚讻转讬讘讗 拽专讬 讗讘 讜讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘讗 拽专讬 转讜诇讚讛

The Gemara further asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who renders one liable for the performance of a subcategory of prohibited labor when performed together with a primary category, why is this called a primary category, and why is this called a subcategory? The Gemara answers: According to him, that which was a significant labor in the Tabernacle is called a primary category; that which was not a significant labor in the Tabernacle is not called a primary category. Alternatively, perhaps that which is written explicitly in the Torah is called a primary category, and that which is not written explicitly in the Torah is called a subcategory.

讜讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛讝讜专拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘讻讜转诇 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻讝讜专拽 讘讗讜讬专 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻讝讜专拽 讘讗专抓 讜讛讝讜专拽 讘讗专抓 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讞讬讬讘

And as for the halakha that we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who throws an object on Shabbat a distance of four cubits in the public domain and it lands on a wall, if the wall was higher than ten handbreadths, it is as if he threw it into the air, and he is exempt. If the wall was lower than ten handbreadths, it is as if he threw it onto the ground, and one who throws an object a distance of four cubits onto the ground in the public domain is liable.

讝专拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪谞诇谉 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 砖讻谉 讗讜专讙讬 讬专讬注讜转 讝讜专拽讬谉 诪讞讟讬讛谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讗讜专讙讬谉 诪讞讟讬谉 诇诪讛 诇讛讜 讗诇讗 砖讻谉 转讜驻专讬 讬专讬注讜转 讝讜专拽讬谉 诪讞讟讬讛谉 讝讛 诇讝讛

The Gemara asks: If one threw an object four cubits in the public domain, and it did not go from one domain to another, from where do we derive that he is liable? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoshiya said: Because the weavers of the tapestries in the Tabernacle throw their needles to each other when they need to borrow the other鈥檚 needle. Throwing was a labor performed in the Tabernacle; therefore, one is liable for performing it. The Gemara wonders: Why do weavers need needles? Rather, emend the statement to say: Because those who sewed the tapestries throw their needles to each other.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讙讘讬 讛讚讚讬 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 诪讟讜 讛讚讚讬 讘诪讞讟讬谉 讚讬诇诪讗 讘转讜讱 讗专讘注 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬

The Gemara asks: Is it clear that they had to throw needles to each other? Perhaps they sat next to each other. The Gemara answers: It is clear that they kept their distance from each other. If they sat too close, they would reach each other and hurt one another with their needles. The Gemara asks: Perhaps, even though they kept their distance, they sat within four cubits of each other, and they would not throw the needles farther than that. In the absence of proof of their sitting arrangement, this halakha cannot be derived from those who sewed the tapestries.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 砖讻谉 讗讜专讙讬 讬专讬注讜转 讝讜专拽讬谉 讘讜讻讬讗专 讘讬专讬注讛 讜讛诇讗 讗讜讙讚讜 讘讬讚讜 讘谞讬住讻讗 讘转专讗

Rather, Rav 岣sda said: Throwing an object four cubits in the public domain is prohibited because the weavers of the tapestries in the Tabernacle threw the shuttle, to which the thread of the warp was tied on the tapestry. Weaving entails throwing the thread of the warp through the threads of the woof. The Gemara asks: That is not actually throwing, as didn鈥檛 the weaver hold the end of the thread in his hand? One is not liable for throwing an object when part of it remains in his hand. Rather, this must be referring to the final throw, when the weaving was finished and the weaver released the thread from his hand.

讜讛讗 讘诪拽讜诐 驻讟讜专 拽讗讝诇讗 讗诇讗 砖讻谉 讗讜专讙讬 讬专讬注讜转 讝讜专拽讬谉 讘讜讻讬讗专 诇砖讜讗诇讬讛谉 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讙讘讬 讛讚讚讬 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 诪讟讜 讛讚讚讬 讘讞驻转

The Gemara asks: Doesn鈥檛 the shuttle go in an exempt domain? The tapestry was less than four handbreadths wide, rendering it an exempt domain even though it is four cubits long. One who throws in an exempt domain is exempt. Rather, it is because the weavers of tapestries throw the shuttle to those who seek to borrow it from them. The Gemara asks: But perhaps they sat next to each other? The Gemara answers: That is impossible because they would reach one another and disturb one another when tightening the thread at the end of the tapestry.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 砖诇讞讜驻讬 讛讜讜 诪砖诇讞驻讬 讜转讜 诪讬 砖讗讬诇讬 诪讛讚讚讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 诇讜讚讗 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诪诪诇讗讻转讜 讗砖专 讛诪讛 注砖讬诐 诪诪诇讗讻转讜 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 讜讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛 诪诪诇讗讻转 讞讘讬专讜

The Gemara asks: And perhaps they were not in a straight line but staggered. That would enable the weavers to sit adjacent to each other without disturbing each other鈥檚 work. And furthermore, did they borrow from each another? Wasn鈥檛 the following taught in a baraita of the Sage Luda? The verse states: 鈥淎nd all the wise men who performed all of the work of the Sanctuary came, each one from the work he was doing鈥 (Exodus 36:4). From that verse it is derived: Each performed the labor from his own work, and they would not perform the labor from their friends鈥 work. Each person had his own tools and did not need to borrow from others.

讜转讜 诪注讘讬专 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪谞诇谉 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讻诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讙诪专讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛:

And furthermore, the Gemara asks: Even if the halakha of throwing was derived from here, from where do we derive that one who carries an object four cubits in the public domain is liable? Rather, apparently, this halakha is not derived from the labor performed in the construction of the Tabernacle. Rather, all the halakhot related to carrying four cubits in the public domain are learned through tradition and not derived from the text.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪拽讜砖砖 诪注讘讬专 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛讜讛 讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 转讜诇砖 讛讜讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 诪注诪专 讛讜讛

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The wood gatherer who was sentenced to death for desecrating Shabbat (see Numbers 15:33鈥36) was one who carried four cubits in the public domain. He was stoned for performing the prohibited labor of carrying. It was taught in a baraita: He was one who detached still-growing branches. He was stoned for performing the prohibited labor of detaching. Rav A岣, son of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, said: He was one who gathered sticks together into a pile.

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讻讚专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 诪爪讗转讬 诪讙诇转 住转专讬诐 讘讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜讻转讜讘 讘讬讛 讗讬住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讘讜转 诪诇讗讻讜转 讗专讘注讬诐 讞住专 讗讞转 (讜讗诐 注砖讗谉 讻讜诇诐 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转) 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讗讞转 讜转讜 诇讗 讜讛转谞谉 讗讘讜转 诪诇讗讻讜转 讗专讘注讬诐 讞住专 讗讞转 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪谞讬讬谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讗诐 注砖讗谉 讻讜诇诐 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

The Gemara asks: What is the practical ramification of determining precisely which prohibited labor the wood gatherer performed? The Gemara answers: The ramification is with regard to the statement of Rav, as Rav said: I found a hidden scroll in the house of Rabbi 岣yya. And in it, it is written that Isi ben Yehuda says: The number of primary categories of labor prohibited on Shabbat is forty-less-one. And if one performed all of them in the course of one lapse of awareness, he is liable to bring only one sin-offering. The Gemara asks: One and no more? We learned in a mishna: The number of primary categories of prohibited labors on Shabbat is forty-less-one, which the mishna proceeds to list. And we discussed this mishna: Why do I need this tally of forty-less-one? And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The tally was included to teach that if one performed all the prohibited labors in the course of one lapse of awareness, during which he was unaware of the prohibition involved, he is liable for each and every one.

讗讬诪讗 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讗讞转 诪讛诐

This citation from the hidden scroll cannot be accurate. Rather, emend this statement in the hidden scroll and say that one is not liable for one of them. There is a primary category of labor among the thirty-nine primary categories of prohibited labor whose violation does not incur the death penalty. The identity of this category that is not punishable by death was not specified.

专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 讚讛诪注讘讬专 讞讬讬讘 讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 讚转讜诇砖 讞讬讬讘 讜专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 讚诪注诪专 讞讬讬讘 诪专 住讘专 讛讗 诪讬讛转 诇讗 诪住驻拽讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讛讗 诪讬讛转 诇讗 诪住驻拽讗:

It is obvious to Rav Yehuda that one who carries four cubits in the public domain is liable to receive the death penalty. And it is obvious to the baraita that one who detaches is liable to receive the death penalty. And it is obvious to Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov that one who gathers is liable to receive the death penalty. In other words, this Master maintains: With regard to this labor, in any case, there is no uncertainty. And this Master maintains: With regard to that labor, in any case, there is no uncertainty. Each Sage maintains that the prohibited labor that he attributed to the wood gatherer incurs the death penalty and is certainly not the labor referred to in the hidden scroll.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪拽讜砖砖 讝讛 爪诇驻讞讚 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讬讛讬讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 讜讬诪爪讗讜 讗讬砖 讜讙讜壮 讜诇讛诇谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗讘讬谞讜 诪转 讘诪讚讘专 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 爪诇驻讞讚 讗祝 讻讗谉 爪诇驻讞讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

On the topic of the wood gatherer, the Gemara cites that which the Sages taught in a baraita: The wood gatherer mentioned in the Torah was Zelophehad, and it says: 鈥淎nd the children of Israel were in the desert and they found a man gathering wood on the day of Shabbat鈥 (Numbers 15:32), and below, in the appeal of the daughters of Zelophehad, it is stated: 鈥淥ur father died in the desert and he was not among the company of them that gathered themselves together against the Lord in the company of Korah, but he died in his own sin, and he had no sons鈥 (Numbers 27:3). Just as below the man in the desert is Zelophehad, so too, here, in the case of the wood gatherer, the unnamed man in the desert is Zelophehad; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 注拽讬讘讗 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讗转讛 注转讬讚 诇讬转谉 讗转 讛讚讬谉 讗诐 讻讚讘专讬讱 讛转讜专讛 讻讬住转讜 讜讗转讛 诪讙诇讛 讗讜转讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 诇注讝 注诇 讗讜转讜 爪讚讬拽

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira said to him: Akiva, in either case you will be judged in the future for this teaching. If the truth is in accordance with your statement that the wood gatherer was Zelophehad, the Torah concealed his identity, and you reveal it. And if it the truth is not in accordance with your statement, you are unjustly slandering that righteous man.

Scroll To Top