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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 13, 2020 | 讻状讗 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 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 99

Today’s daf is sponsored in honor of Judy Berman to celebrate her birthday. Your dedication to the daf is inspiring and we love you so much. Love, your children. And in memory of David Meir Shavit ben Shlomo Lipa z”l by his children who have joined the daf yomi learning, whose yahrzeit is on Shabbat.聽聽

In what way was the covering of the Tabernacle made of goat hairs more unique than the one made of colorful threads? What were the exact dimensions of the wagons that carried the beams and the space in between? The banks of a pit or a rock that is 4×4 and 10 handbreaths tall is a private domain and one is obligated for placing an item on top of it. Several questions are asked regarding placing items from a public domain or a pillar or wall in the public space that is tel handbreaths tall – doesn’t it past through an exempt place (above 10 in the public space) before getting there – so maybe one should not be obligated. What if it was a wall that wasn’t 4×4 wide and first functions as a wall of a carmelit and then became a wall of a private space – is the wall considered a private domain? What is the creation of the private space happens at the same time as one is moving something from it to the public space?

讜谞专讗讬谉 拽专住讬谉 讘诇讜诇讗讜转 讻讻讜讻讘讬诐 讘专拽讬注

Additionally, the clasps in the loops, which connected the curtains to one another, looked like stars in the sky.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬专讬注讜转 讛转讞转讜谞讜转 砖诇 转讻诇转 讜砖诇 讗专讙诪谉 讜砖诇 转讜诇注转 砖谞讬 讜砖诇 砖砖 讜注诇讬讜谞讜转 砖诇 诪注砖讛 注讝讬诐 讜讙讚讜诇讛 讞讻诪讛 砖谞讗诪专讛 讘注诇讬讜谞讜转 讬讜转专 诪诪讛 砖谞讗诪专讛 讘转讞转讜谞讜转 讚讗讬诇讜 讘转讞转讜谞讜转 讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 讗砖讛 讞讻诪转 诇讘 讘讬讚讬讛 讟讜讜 讜讗讬诇讜 讘注诇讬讜谞讜转 讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讗砖专 谞砖讗 诇讘谉 讗转谞讛 讘讞讻诪讛 讟讜讜 讗转 讛注讝讬诐 讜转谞讬讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 砖讟讜祝 讘注讝讬诐 讜讟讜讜讬 诪谉 讛注讝讬诐:

Our Sages taught: The bottom curtains in the Tabernacle were made of sky blue wool, and of purple wool, and of scarlet wool, and of fine linen; and the top curtains were made of goat hair, even though that material is considered to be inferior and common. However, the wisdom that was stated with regard to the top curtains was greater than that which was stated with regard to the bottom ones. This is because, with regard to the bottom curtains, it is written: 鈥淎nd every wise-hearted woman spun with her hands, and they brought that which they had spun, the blue, and the purple, the scarlet, and the linen鈥 (Exodus 35:25); while with regard to the top curtains, it is written: 鈥淎nd all of the women whose hearts inspired them with wisdom spun the goats鈥 (Exodus 35:26). The phrase 鈥渨hose hearts inspired them鈥 suggests a greater degree of wisdom. Apparently, spinning the goat鈥檚 hair curtains required greater skill than spinning the various kinds of wool. And on a similar note, it was taught in a baraita in the name of Rabbi Ne岣mya: The hair was rinsed on the goats, and it was even spun from the goats, which required a great deal of skill.

砖转讬 讙讝讜讝讟专讗讜转 讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 注讙诇讜转 转讞转讬讛谉 讜讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜爪讬讚讬讛谉 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讬谉 注讙诇讛 诇注讙诇讛 讻诪诇讗 讗专讱 注讙诇讛 讜讻诪讛 讗专讱 注讙诇讛 讞诪砖 讗诪讜转 诇诪讛 诇讬 讘讗专讘注 讜驻诇讙讗 住讙讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇讬讚讞拽讜 拽专砖讬诐

We learned in the mishna with regard to two balconies. Rav said in the name of Rabbi 岣yya: With regard to the wagons on which the beams of the Tabernacle were transported, the areas beneath them, and between them, and to their sides are considered to be the public domain. Abaye said: The space between one wagon and the wagon alongside it equaled the full length of a wagon. And how much was the length of a wagon? It was five cubits. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the wagon to be five cubits long? Four and a half cubits would suffice whether the beams were arranged in three stacks, each a cubit and a half wide, or four stacks, each one cubit wide. The Gemara answers: You need the wagon to be five cubits long so that space remains between the beams and they will not be pressed against each other.

讗诪专 专讘讗 爪讬讚讬 注讙诇讛 讻诪诇讗 专讞讘 注讙诇讛 讜讻诪讛 专讞讘 注讙诇讛 砖转讬 讗诪讜转 讜诪讞爪讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讘讗诪转讗 讜驻诇讙讗 住讙讬讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇讬讚讚讜 拽专砖讬诐

Rava said: The area on the sides of the wagon between the wagon and the wheel and the thickness of the wheel together equaled the full width of the wagon (Tosafot). And how much was the width of the wagon? It was two and a half cubits. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the wagon to be two and a half cubits wide? A cubit and a half would suffice. The Gemara answers: So that the beams would not teeter. Ten-cubit beams on a one-and-a-half-cubit wide surface would be unstable.

讗诇讗 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚专讱 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 讗谞谉 讚讙诪专讬谞谉 诇讛 诪诪砖讻谉 讚诪砖讻谉 讞诪讬住专讬 讛讜讗讬 讗诪转讗 讬转讬专讗 讛讜讗讬 讚讛讜讛 拽讗讬 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚讻讬 诪砖转诇驻讬 拽专砖讬诐 讛讜讛 谞拽讬讟 诇讛讜:

The Gemara comments: However, with regard to the principle that we maintain that a thoroughfare in the public domain is sixteen cubits wide; we who derive it from the Tabernacle encounter a difficulty: The thoroughfare associated with the Tabernacle was fifteen cubits wide. When two wagons stood side by side, the width of the wagons plus the space between them and the space on their sides totaled fifteen cubits. The Gemara explains: There was an extra cubit where a member of the tribe of Levi stood, to ensure that if the beams fell, he would take hold of them and restore them to their stack. Therefore, the total width was no less than sixteen cubits.

诪转谞讬壮 讞讜诇讬转 讛讘讜专 讜讛住诇注 砖讛谉 讙讘讜讛讬谉 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘谉 讗专讘注讛 讛谞讜讟诇 诪讛谉 讜讛谞讜转谉 注诇 讙讘谉 讞讬讬讘 驻讞讜转 诪讻谉 驻讟讜专:

MISHNA: With regard to the bank surrounding a pit and the boulder that are ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, one who takes an object from them to the public domain and similarly one who places an object from the public domain atop them is liable for carrying from one domain to another. If the height or width of the pit or the boulder is less than that height, ten handbreadths, one is exempt because the legal status of those protrusions is not distinct from that of the surrounding public domain.

讙诪壮 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 讞讜诇讬转 讛讘讜专 讜讛住诇注 诇讬转谞讬 讛讘讜专 讜讛住诇注 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讜专 讜讞讜诇讬转讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇注砖专讛 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注诪讜拽讛 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘讛 讗专讘注讛 讗讬谉 诪诪诇讗讬谉 讛讬诪谞讛 讘砖讘转

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why do I need to teach in the mishna about the cases of the bank of a pit and a boulder? Let the mishna simply teach about a pit and a boulder. One could derive the halakha with regard to an object that is ten handbreadths high from the case of the boulder, and the halakha with regard to an object that is ten handbreadths deep from the pit. The fact that the mishna taught the case of the bank of a pit supports the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A pit and its bank join together to constitute the total ten handbreadths. If the distance from the bottom of the pit to the top of its bank is ten handbreadths, it is considered a private domain, even though some of the ten handbreadths are above ground and some are below. That halakha was also taught in the following baraita: With regard to a pit in the public domain that is ten handbreadths deep and four handbreadths wide, one may not fill water from it on Shabbat because the pit itself is a private domain, and carrying water from the pit to the public domain is prohibited

讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 注砖讜 诇讛 诪讞讬爪讛 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 砖讜转讬谉 讛讬诪谞讛 讘砖讘转 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讻谞讬住 诇讛 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讜讘讜专 讜讞讜诇讬转讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇注砖专讛

unless they constructed a partition around it that is ten handbreadths high. Everything within the partition is then considered a private domain, and one standing within the partition may draw water from the pit. And similarly, one may only drink water from the pit on Shabbat if he inserts his head and most of his body into the well. And a pit and its bank join together to constitute the total of ten handbreadths, as stated by Rabbi Yo岣nan.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 诪专讚讻讬 诪专讘讗 注诪讜讚 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘 讗专讘注讛 讜讝专拽 讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬讜 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛专讬 注拽讬专讛 讘讗讬住讜专 讛专讬 讛谞讞讛 讘讗讬住讜专 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪诪拽讜诐 驻讟讜专 拽讗转讬讗 诇讗

Rav Mordekhai raised a dilemma before Rava: In a case where there is a column in the public domain that is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, and one threw an object and it landed atop the column, what is the ruling? The two sides of the dilemma are: Do we say that the lifting from the public domain was performed in a prohibited manner and the placing in the private domain was performed in a prohibited manner, and therefore one is liable? Or perhaps, we say that since the object comes from an exempt domain, the one who threw the object would not be liable. Prior to landing on the column, the object traveled through the airspace above the public domain. The airspace of a public domain extends ten handbreadths from the ground. Beyond that point the airspace is an exempt domain.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讬讗 讗转讗 砖讬讬诇讬讛 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讬讗 讗转讗 砖讬讬诇讬讛 诇讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讬讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻讜诇讻讜 讘专讜拽讗 讚讛讚讚讬 转驻讬转讜

Rava said to Rav Mordekhai: It is our mishna that states that one who places an object atop a boulder that is more than ten handbreadths high is liable. Rav Mordekhai came and asked Rav Yosef about the same dilemma: Rav Yosef said to him: It is our mishna. Rav Mordekhai came and asked Abaye. He said to him: It is our mishna. Rav Mordekhai said to them: You are all spewing the same spittle. None of you taught anything new. You repeat the same unsatisfactory answer.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讜讗转 诇讗 转住讘专讗 讜讛转谞谉 讛谞讜讟诇 诪讛谉 讜谞讜转谉 注诇 讙讘谉 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘诪讞讟

They said to Rav Mordekhai: And do you not hold this to be correct? Didn鈥檛 we learn explicitly in the mishna: One who takes an object from them, and one who places an object atop them is liable? He said to them: Perhaps the mishna is referring to a needle that can be placed atop the column without passing through the exempt area above ten handbreadths, since it is so small and hardly takes up any space.

诪讞讟 谞诪讬 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 诪讚诇讬讗 驻讜专转讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜专砖讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 讚专诪讬讗 讘讞专讬爪讛

They said to him: With regard to a needle, too, it is still impossible that it will not be raised somewhat above the public domain. He answered them: It is possible that the boulder has a protrusion below ten handbreadths from the ground. Since the protrusion is not significant in and of itself, it has the legal status of a hole in the wall of a private domain. One who throws an object into it is liable, just like one who throws into the private domain itself. Alternatively, it is possible that the needle is placed in a groove that is below ten handbreadths from the ground. The needle did not enter the groove from above ten handbreadths. It passed directly into the groove, which is a private domain. Therefore, Rav Mordekhai鈥檚 dilemma is not resolved from the mishna.

讗诪专 专讘 诪讬砖讗 讘注讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讜转诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜讗讬谞讜 专讞讘 讗专讘注 讜诪讜拽祝 诇讻专诪诇讬转 讜注砖讗讜 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讝专拽 讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬讜 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬谞讜 专讞讘 讗专讘注 诪拽讜诐 驻讟讜专 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚注砖讗讜 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讻诪讗谉 讚诪诇讬 讚诪讬讗

Rav Meyasha said that Rabbi Yo岣nan raised a dilemma: There is a wall in the public domain that is ten handbreadths high and is not quite four handbreadths wide, and it surrounds a karmelit and renders the area that it encloses the private domain. The wall serves as a partition of this private domain. And if one threw an object from the public domain and it landed atop the wall, what is the ruling? Do we say: Since it is not four handbreadths wide it is an exempt domain, and the one who threw the object is exempt? Or perhaps we say that since it rendered the karmelit the private domain, the wall together with the private domain is considered to be filled. Therefore, the object is considered to have landed on an area that is four handbreadths wide, and the one who threw the object is liable.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇讗讞专讬诐 注讜砖讛 诪讞讬爪讛 诇注爪诪讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讜转诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜讗讬谞讜 专讞讘 讗专讘注 讜诪讜拽祝 诇讻专诪诇讬转 讜注砖讗讜 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讛讝讜专拽 讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讗讞专讬诐 注讜砖讛 诪讞讬爪讛 诇注爪诪讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Ulla said: The fact that it is considered a private domain is derived by means of an a fortiori inference: If this wall creates a partition that renders other areas surrounded by the wall a private domain, all the more so does it render itself a private domain. It was also stated that Rabbi 岣yya bar Ashi said that Rav said, and so too, Rabbi Yitz岣k said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: With regard to a wall in the public domain that is ten handbreadths high and is not quite four handbreadths wide, and it surrounds a karmelit and renders the area that it surrounds the private domain, if one threw an object from the public domain and it landed atop the wall, he is liable. If this wall creates a partition that renders other areas a private domain, all the more so does it render itself a private domain.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讜专 转砖注讛 讜注拽专 诪诪谞讜 讞讜诇讬讗 讜讛砖诇讬诪讛 诇注砖专讛 诪讛讜 注拽讬专转 讞驻抓 讜注砖讬讬转 诪讞讬爪讛 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗转讜 讜诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗讜 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讜讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 诪讞讬爪讛 注砖专讛 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讘讜专 注砖专讛 讜谞转谉 诇转讜讻讛 讞讜诇讬讗 讜诪讬注讟讛 诪讛讜 讛谞讞转 讞驻抓 讜住讬诇讜拽 诪讞讬爪讛 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗转讜 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗讜 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised a dilemma: In a case where there is a pit that is nine handbreadths deep, and one dug out a segment of earth from the bottom of the pit and thereby completed the depth of the pit to ten handbreadths, and then he proceeded to throw the earth into the public domain, what is the ruling? The two sides to the dilemma are: Is it that the lifting of the object and establishment of the ten-handbreadth partition came about simultaneously, and he is liable? Or perhaps he is not liable. And if you say: Since the partition was not ten handbreadths deep initially, he is not liable, then in a case where there is a pit that is ten handbreadths deep, and one placed a segment of earth into the pit and thereby minimized its depth to less than ten handbreadths, nullifying its status as a private domain, what is the ruling? The two sides of the question are: Is it that placement of the object and the elimination of the ten-handbreadth partition came about simultaneously, and he is liable? Or perhaps, he is not liable because the partition was not intact throughout the performance of the action.

转讬驻砖讜讟 诇讬讛 诪讚讬讚讬讛 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 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 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讜讛讗 诇讗 谞讞

The Gemara suggests: Resolve Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 dilemma from his own statement, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who throws an object four cubits in the public domain and it hits the wall above ten handbreadths from the ground, which is an exempt domain, it is as if he threw it in the air, and he is exempt. If it was below ten handbreadths from the ground, it is as if he threw it and it landed on the ground, and one who throws an object four cubits and it lands on the ground is liable. And we discussed it: How could he be liable for carrying in that case? The object did not come to rest on the wall and there was no placement.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讚讘讬诇讛 砖诪讬谞讛 砖谞讬谞讜 讜讗诪讗讬 讛讗 拽讗 诪诪注讟 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is with regard to the case of a juicy cake of figs that sticks to the wall when thrown against it that we learned in the mishna. The Gemara asks: And why is one liable in that case? When the cake of figs sticks to the wall, it reduces the distance the figs traveled from the measure of four cubits that determines liability. If one threw the cake of figs at a distance of exactly four cubits from the wall, and, based on Rabbi Yo岣nan, the object becomes part of the wall, the distance that the cake of figs traveled is slightly less than four cubits, and therefore he should be exempt. Since Rabbi Yo岣nan did not take this into account, apparently, in his opinion, when the placement of the object and the elimination of the partition are simultaneous, one is liable.

讛转诐 诇讗 诪讘讟诇 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 诪讘讟诇 诇讬讛

The Gemara rejects this and says: The cases are not similar because there, in the case of the cake of figs, the one who threw it does not nullify its independent existence vis-脿-vis the wall, as the food will eventually be removed from the wall. Here, in the case of the dirt in the pit, one nullifies its independent existence vis-脿-vis the pit, and it eliminates the ten-handbreadth partition.

讘注讬 专讘讗 讝专拽 讚祝 讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬 讬转讬讚讜转 诪讛讜 诪讗讬 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讛谞讞转 讞驻抓 讜注砖讬讬转 诪讞讬爪讛 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗转讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

Rava raised a similar dilemma: In a case where one threw a board and it landed on top of stakes that are ten handbreadths high but not four handbreadths wide, what is the ruling? Once the board lands, the surface is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide. The Gemara asks: What is his dilemma? Does his dilemma pertain to the ruling in a case where the placement of the object and the establishment of the partition came about simultaneously? That is precisely the dilemma raised by Rabbi Yo岣nan.

讻讬 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讗 讻讙讜谉 讚讝专拽 讚祝 讜讞驻抓 注诇 讙讘讬讜 诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗转讜 讻讛谞讞转 讞驻抓 讜注砖讬讬转 诪讞讬爪讛 讚诪讬 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 诪讬讚诇讗 驻讜专转讗 讜讛讚专 谞讬讬讞 讻注砖讬讬转 诪讞讬爪讛 讜讛谞讞转 讞驻抓 讚诪讬 转讬拽讜

The Gemara answers: The case where Rava raised a dilemma is more complex. His dilemma is with regard to a case where one threw a board and there was an object resting atop the board. In that case, what is the ruling? The two sides of the dilemma are: Since the board and the object come simultaneously, the legal status is similar to a case where the placement of the object and the establishment of the partition came about simultaneously. The object and the board are a single unit that creates a partition when it lands, and therefore one is exempt. Or perhaps we say that since it is impossible, when they land, for the object not to rise slightly and then land because the object and the board are not connected, it is like the case where the establishment of the partition was completed and the placement of the object followed, and therefore one is liable. These dilemmas remain, and therefore let it stand unresolved.

讗诪专 专讘讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬 诪讬诐 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讬诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讛谞讞转谉 讗讙讜讝 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讬诐

Rava raised an issue related to the previous dilemmas, and before doing so he sought to clarify certain points. Rava said: It is obvious to me that if one poured water onto water that is its placement, and if one did so from one domain to another he is liable. If one placed a nut onto water,

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 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...

Shabbat 99

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 99

讜谞专讗讬谉 拽专住讬谉 讘诇讜诇讗讜转 讻讻讜讻讘讬诐 讘专拽讬注

Additionally, the clasps in the loops, which connected the curtains to one another, looked like stars in the sky.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬专讬注讜转 讛转讞转讜谞讜转 砖诇 转讻诇转 讜砖诇 讗专讙诪谉 讜砖诇 转讜诇注转 砖谞讬 讜砖诇 砖砖 讜注诇讬讜谞讜转 砖诇 诪注砖讛 注讝讬诐 讜讙讚讜诇讛 讞讻诪讛 砖谞讗诪专讛 讘注诇讬讜谞讜转 讬讜转专 诪诪讛 砖谞讗诪专讛 讘转讞转讜谞讜转 讚讗讬诇讜 讘转讞转讜谞讜转 讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 讗砖讛 讞讻诪转 诇讘 讘讬讚讬讛 讟讜讜 讜讗讬诇讜 讘注诇讬讜谞讜转 讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讗砖专 谞砖讗 诇讘谉 讗转谞讛 讘讞讻诪讛 讟讜讜 讗转 讛注讝讬诐 讜转谞讬讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 砖讟讜祝 讘注讝讬诐 讜讟讜讜讬 诪谉 讛注讝讬诐:

Our Sages taught: The bottom curtains in the Tabernacle were made of sky blue wool, and of purple wool, and of scarlet wool, and of fine linen; and the top curtains were made of goat hair, even though that material is considered to be inferior and common. However, the wisdom that was stated with regard to the top curtains was greater than that which was stated with regard to the bottom ones. This is because, with regard to the bottom curtains, it is written: 鈥淎nd every wise-hearted woman spun with her hands, and they brought that which they had spun, the blue, and the purple, the scarlet, and the linen鈥 (Exodus 35:25); while with regard to the top curtains, it is written: 鈥淎nd all of the women whose hearts inspired them with wisdom spun the goats鈥 (Exodus 35:26). The phrase 鈥渨hose hearts inspired them鈥 suggests a greater degree of wisdom. Apparently, spinning the goat鈥檚 hair curtains required greater skill than spinning the various kinds of wool. And on a similar note, it was taught in a baraita in the name of Rabbi Ne岣mya: The hair was rinsed on the goats, and it was even spun from the goats, which required a great deal of skill.

砖转讬 讙讝讜讝讟专讗讜转 讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 注讙诇讜转 转讞转讬讛谉 讜讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜爪讬讚讬讛谉 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讬谉 注讙诇讛 诇注讙诇讛 讻诪诇讗 讗专讱 注讙诇讛 讜讻诪讛 讗专讱 注讙诇讛 讞诪砖 讗诪讜转 诇诪讛 诇讬 讘讗专讘注 讜驻诇讙讗 住讙讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇讬讚讞拽讜 拽专砖讬诐

We learned in the mishna with regard to two balconies. Rav said in the name of Rabbi 岣yya: With regard to the wagons on which the beams of the Tabernacle were transported, the areas beneath them, and between them, and to their sides are considered to be the public domain. Abaye said: The space between one wagon and the wagon alongside it equaled the full length of a wagon. And how much was the length of a wagon? It was five cubits. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the wagon to be five cubits long? Four and a half cubits would suffice whether the beams were arranged in three stacks, each a cubit and a half wide, or four stacks, each one cubit wide. The Gemara answers: You need the wagon to be five cubits long so that space remains between the beams and they will not be pressed against each other.

讗诪专 专讘讗 爪讬讚讬 注讙诇讛 讻诪诇讗 专讞讘 注讙诇讛 讜讻诪讛 专讞讘 注讙诇讛 砖转讬 讗诪讜转 讜诪讞爪讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讘讗诪转讗 讜驻诇讙讗 住讙讬讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇讬讚讚讜 拽专砖讬诐

Rava said: The area on the sides of the wagon between the wagon and the wheel and the thickness of the wheel together equaled the full width of the wagon (Tosafot). And how much was the width of the wagon? It was two and a half cubits. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the wagon to be two and a half cubits wide? A cubit and a half would suffice. The Gemara answers: So that the beams would not teeter. Ten-cubit beams on a one-and-a-half-cubit wide surface would be unstable.

讗诇讗 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚专讱 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 讗谞谉 讚讙诪专讬谞谉 诇讛 诪诪砖讻谉 讚诪砖讻谉 讞诪讬住专讬 讛讜讗讬 讗诪转讗 讬转讬专讗 讛讜讗讬 讚讛讜讛 拽讗讬 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚讻讬 诪砖转诇驻讬 拽专砖讬诐 讛讜讛 谞拽讬讟 诇讛讜:

The Gemara comments: However, with regard to the principle that we maintain that a thoroughfare in the public domain is sixteen cubits wide; we who derive it from the Tabernacle encounter a difficulty: The thoroughfare associated with the Tabernacle was fifteen cubits wide. When two wagons stood side by side, the width of the wagons plus the space between them and the space on their sides totaled fifteen cubits. The Gemara explains: There was an extra cubit where a member of the tribe of Levi stood, to ensure that if the beams fell, he would take hold of them and restore them to their stack. Therefore, the total width was no less than sixteen cubits.

诪转谞讬壮 讞讜诇讬转 讛讘讜专 讜讛住诇注 砖讛谉 讙讘讜讛讬谉 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘谉 讗专讘注讛 讛谞讜讟诇 诪讛谉 讜讛谞讜转谉 注诇 讙讘谉 讞讬讬讘 驻讞讜转 诪讻谉 驻讟讜专:

MISHNA: With regard to the bank surrounding a pit and the boulder that are ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, one who takes an object from them to the public domain and similarly one who places an object from the public domain atop them is liable for carrying from one domain to another. If the height or width of the pit or the boulder is less than that height, ten handbreadths, one is exempt because the legal status of those protrusions is not distinct from that of the surrounding public domain.

讙诪壮 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 讞讜诇讬转 讛讘讜专 讜讛住诇注 诇讬转谞讬 讛讘讜专 讜讛住诇注 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讜专 讜讞讜诇讬转讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇注砖专讛 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注诪讜拽讛 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘讛 讗专讘注讛 讗讬谉 诪诪诇讗讬谉 讛讬诪谞讛 讘砖讘转

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why do I need to teach in the mishna about the cases of the bank of a pit and a boulder? Let the mishna simply teach about a pit and a boulder. One could derive the halakha with regard to an object that is ten handbreadths high from the case of the boulder, and the halakha with regard to an object that is ten handbreadths deep from the pit. The fact that the mishna taught the case of the bank of a pit supports the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A pit and its bank join together to constitute the total ten handbreadths. If the distance from the bottom of the pit to the top of its bank is ten handbreadths, it is considered a private domain, even though some of the ten handbreadths are above ground and some are below. That halakha was also taught in the following baraita: With regard to a pit in the public domain that is ten handbreadths deep and four handbreadths wide, one may not fill water from it on Shabbat because the pit itself is a private domain, and carrying water from the pit to the public domain is prohibited

讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 注砖讜 诇讛 诪讞讬爪讛 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 砖讜转讬谉 讛讬诪谞讛 讘砖讘转 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讻谞讬住 诇讛 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讜讘讜专 讜讞讜诇讬转讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇注砖专讛

unless they constructed a partition around it that is ten handbreadths high. Everything within the partition is then considered a private domain, and one standing within the partition may draw water from the pit. And similarly, one may only drink water from the pit on Shabbat if he inserts his head and most of his body into the well. And a pit and its bank join together to constitute the total of ten handbreadths, as stated by Rabbi Yo岣nan.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 诪专讚讻讬 诪专讘讗 注诪讜讚 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘 讗专讘注讛 讜讝专拽 讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬讜 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛专讬 注拽讬专讛 讘讗讬住讜专 讛专讬 讛谞讞讛 讘讗讬住讜专 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪诪拽讜诐 驻讟讜专 拽讗转讬讗 诇讗

Rav Mordekhai raised a dilemma before Rava: In a case where there is a column in the public domain that is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, and one threw an object and it landed atop the column, what is the ruling? The two sides of the dilemma are: Do we say that the lifting from the public domain was performed in a prohibited manner and the placing in the private domain was performed in a prohibited manner, and therefore one is liable? Or perhaps, we say that since the object comes from an exempt domain, the one who threw the object would not be liable. Prior to landing on the column, the object traveled through the airspace above the public domain. The airspace of a public domain extends ten handbreadths from the ground. Beyond that point the airspace is an exempt domain.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讬讗 讗转讗 砖讬讬诇讬讛 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讬讗 讗转讗 砖讬讬诇讬讛 诇讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讬讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻讜诇讻讜 讘专讜拽讗 讚讛讚讚讬 转驻讬转讜

Rava said to Rav Mordekhai: It is our mishna that states that one who places an object atop a boulder that is more than ten handbreadths high is liable. Rav Mordekhai came and asked Rav Yosef about the same dilemma: Rav Yosef said to him: It is our mishna. Rav Mordekhai came and asked Abaye. He said to him: It is our mishna. Rav Mordekhai said to them: You are all spewing the same spittle. None of you taught anything new. You repeat the same unsatisfactory answer.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讜讗转 诇讗 转住讘专讗 讜讛转谞谉 讛谞讜讟诇 诪讛谉 讜谞讜转谉 注诇 讙讘谉 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘诪讞讟

They said to Rav Mordekhai: And do you not hold this to be correct? Didn鈥檛 we learn explicitly in the mishna: One who takes an object from them, and one who places an object atop them is liable? He said to them: Perhaps the mishna is referring to a needle that can be placed atop the column without passing through the exempt area above ten handbreadths, since it is so small and hardly takes up any space.

诪讞讟 谞诪讬 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 诪讚诇讬讗 驻讜专转讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜专砖讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 讚专诪讬讗 讘讞专讬爪讛

They said to him: With regard to a needle, too, it is still impossible that it will not be raised somewhat above the public domain. He answered them: It is possible that the boulder has a protrusion below ten handbreadths from the ground. Since the protrusion is not significant in and of itself, it has the legal status of a hole in the wall of a private domain. One who throws an object into it is liable, just like one who throws into the private domain itself. Alternatively, it is possible that the needle is placed in a groove that is below ten handbreadths from the ground. The needle did not enter the groove from above ten handbreadths. It passed directly into the groove, which is a private domain. Therefore, Rav Mordekhai鈥檚 dilemma is not resolved from the mishna.

讗诪专 专讘 诪讬砖讗 讘注讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讜转诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜讗讬谞讜 专讞讘 讗专讘注 讜诪讜拽祝 诇讻专诪诇讬转 讜注砖讗讜 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讝专拽 讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬讜 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬谞讜 专讞讘 讗专讘注 诪拽讜诐 驻讟讜专 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚注砖讗讜 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讻诪讗谉 讚诪诇讬 讚诪讬讗

Rav Meyasha said that Rabbi Yo岣nan raised a dilemma: There is a wall in the public domain that is ten handbreadths high and is not quite four handbreadths wide, and it surrounds a karmelit and renders the area that it encloses the private domain. The wall serves as a partition of this private domain. And if one threw an object from the public domain and it landed atop the wall, what is the ruling? Do we say: Since it is not four handbreadths wide it is an exempt domain, and the one who threw the object is exempt? Or perhaps we say that since it rendered the karmelit the private domain, the wall together with the private domain is considered to be filled. Therefore, the object is considered to have landed on an area that is four handbreadths wide, and the one who threw the object is liable.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇讗讞专讬诐 注讜砖讛 诪讞讬爪讛 诇注爪诪讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讜转诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜讗讬谞讜 专讞讘 讗专讘注 讜诪讜拽祝 诇讻专诪诇讬转 讜注砖讗讜 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讛讝讜专拽 讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讗讞专讬诐 注讜砖讛 诪讞讬爪讛 诇注爪诪讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Ulla said: The fact that it is considered a private domain is derived by means of an a fortiori inference: If this wall creates a partition that renders other areas surrounded by the wall a private domain, all the more so does it render itself a private domain. It was also stated that Rabbi 岣yya bar Ashi said that Rav said, and so too, Rabbi Yitz岣k said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: With regard to a wall in the public domain that is ten handbreadths high and is not quite four handbreadths wide, and it surrounds a karmelit and renders the area that it surrounds the private domain, if one threw an object from the public domain and it landed atop the wall, he is liable. If this wall creates a partition that renders other areas a private domain, all the more so does it render itself a private domain.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讜专 转砖注讛 讜注拽专 诪诪谞讜 讞讜诇讬讗 讜讛砖诇讬诪讛 诇注砖专讛 诪讛讜 注拽讬专转 讞驻抓 讜注砖讬讬转 诪讞讬爪讛 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗转讜 讜诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗讜 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讜讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 诪讞讬爪讛 注砖专讛 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讘讜专 注砖专讛 讜谞转谉 诇转讜讻讛 讞讜诇讬讗 讜诪讬注讟讛 诪讛讜 讛谞讞转 讞驻抓 讜住讬诇讜拽 诪讞讬爪讛 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗转讜 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗讜 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised a dilemma: In a case where there is a pit that is nine handbreadths deep, and one dug out a segment of earth from the bottom of the pit and thereby completed the depth of the pit to ten handbreadths, and then he proceeded to throw the earth into the public domain, what is the ruling? The two sides to the dilemma are: Is it that the lifting of the object and establishment of the ten-handbreadth partition came about simultaneously, and he is liable? Or perhaps he is not liable. And if you say: Since the partition was not ten handbreadths deep initially, he is not liable, then in a case where there is a pit that is ten handbreadths deep, and one placed a segment of earth into the pit and thereby minimized its depth to less than ten handbreadths, nullifying its status as a private domain, what is the ruling? The two sides of the question are: Is it that placement of the object and the elimination of the ten-handbreadth partition came about simultaneously, and he is liable? Or perhaps, he is not liable because the partition was not intact throughout the performance of the action.

转讬驻砖讜讟 诇讬讛 诪讚讬讚讬讛 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 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 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讜讛讗 诇讗 谞讞

The Gemara suggests: Resolve Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 dilemma from his own statement, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who throws an object four cubits in the public domain and it hits the wall above ten handbreadths from the ground, which is an exempt domain, it is as if he threw it in the air, and he is exempt. If it was below ten handbreadths from the ground, it is as if he threw it and it landed on the ground, and one who throws an object four cubits and it lands on the ground is liable. And we discussed it: How could he be liable for carrying in that case? The object did not come to rest on the wall and there was no placement.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讚讘讬诇讛 砖诪讬谞讛 砖谞讬谞讜 讜讗诪讗讬 讛讗 拽讗 诪诪注讟 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is with regard to the case of a juicy cake of figs that sticks to the wall when thrown against it that we learned in the mishna. The Gemara asks: And why is one liable in that case? When the cake of figs sticks to the wall, it reduces the distance the figs traveled from the measure of four cubits that determines liability. If one threw the cake of figs at a distance of exactly four cubits from the wall, and, based on Rabbi Yo岣nan, the object becomes part of the wall, the distance that the cake of figs traveled is slightly less than four cubits, and therefore he should be exempt. Since Rabbi Yo岣nan did not take this into account, apparently, in his opinion, when the placement of the object and the elimination of the partition are simultaneous, one is liable.

讛转诐 诇讗 诪讘讟诇 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 诪讘讟诇 诇讬讛

The Gemara rejects this and says: The cases are not similar because there, in the case of the cake of figs, the one who threw it does not nullify its independent existence vis-脿-vis the wall, as the food will eventually be removed from the wall. Here, in the case of the dirt in the pit, one nullifies its independent existence vis-脿-vis the pit, and it eliminates the ten-handbreadth partition.

讘注讬 专讘讗 讝专拽 讚祝 讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬 讬转讬讚讜转 诪讛讜 诪讗讬 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讛谞讞转 讞驻抓 讜注砖讬讬转 诪讞讬爪讛 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗转讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

Rava raised a similar dilemma: In a case where one threw a board and it landed on top of stakes that are ten handbreadths high but not four handbreadths wide, what is the ruling? Once the board lands, the surface is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide. The Gemara asks: What is his dilemma? Does his dilemma pertain to the ruling in a case where the placement of the object and the establishment of the partition came about simultaneously? That is precisely the dilemma raised by Rabbi Yo岣nan.

讻讬 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讗 讻讙讜谉 讚讝专拽 讚祝 讜讞驻抓 注诇 讙讘讬讜 诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗转讜 讻讛谞讞转 讞驻抓 讜注砖讬讬转 诪讞讬爪讛 讚诪讬 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 诪讬讚诇讗 驻讜专转讗 讜讛讚专 谞讬讬讞 讻注砖讬讬转 诪讞讬爪讛 讜讛谞讞转 讞驻抓 讚诪讬 转讬拽讜

The Gemara answers: The case where Rava raised a dilemma is more complex. His dilemma is with regard to a case where one threw a board and there was an object resting atop the board. In that case, what is the ruling? The two sides of the dilemma are: Since the board and the object come simultaneously, the legal status is similar to a case where the placement of the object and the establishment of the partition came about simultaneously. The object and the board are a single unit that creates a partition when it lands, and therefore one is exempt. Or perhaps we say that since it is impossible, when they land, for the object not to rise slightly and then land because the object and the board are not connected, it is like the case where the establishment of the partition was completed and the placement of the object followed, and therefore one is liable. These dilemmas remain, and therefore let it stand unresolved.

讗诪专 专讘讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬 诪讬诐 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讬诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讛谞讞转谉 讗讙讜讝 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讬诐

Rava raised an issue related to the previous dilemmas, and before doing so he sought to clarify certain points. Rava said: It is obvious to me that if one poured water onto water that is its placement, and if one did so from one domain to another he is liable. If one placed a nut onto water,

Scroll To Top