Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) TEFILAH ON SHABBOS AND YOMTOV

(a) (Beis Shamai) We recite eight Berachos (Shabbos and YomTov each getting its own Berachah).
(b) (Beis Hillel) We recite seven Berachos (inserting YomTov into the middle of the Shabbos Berachah).
(c) (Rebbi) We close the middle Berachah with a reference to YomTov, - Mekadesh HaShabos, Yisrael v'haZemanim.

1. The wording taught before Ravina was Mekadesh Yisrael v'haShabbos v'haZemanim.
2. Ravina corrected it back to Mekadesh HaShabos on the grounds that Yisrael is not Mekadesh Shabbos.

(d) (R. Yosef) The Halachah follows Rebbi, as qualified by Ravina.

(a) (Tana Kama) One must add Ya'aleh v'Yavo in Avodah of each regular Tefilah (repeating the Amidah if forgotten).
(b) (R. Eliezer) It is said in Hoda'ah.
(c) (Tana Kama) During Musaf, the Shabbos Amidah is said and YomTov is inserted into the middle Berachah.
(d) (R. Shimon b. Gamliel and R. Yishmael b.R. Yochanan b. Beroka) Whenever we recited the shorter Amidah (seven Berachos instead of 18) we insert Kedushas HaYom into the middle of the Shabbos Berachah.
(e) (R. Huna) The Halachah does not follow that pair.

(a) (R. Chiya b. Ashi citing Rav) A conditional Eruv Techumin may be made on two days of YomTov.
(b) (Rava) The same can be said of Eruv Tavshilin.
(c) Rav, who permits Eruv Techumin (which involves Kinyan Shevisa), would certainly permit Eruv Tavshilin (which is only a Siman Heter).
(d) Rava, who permits Eruv Tavshilin, would not permit Eruv Techumin.

1. Question: Why would one be more stringent?
2. Answer: Because Techumin involves Kinyan Shevisa on YomTov.

(a) One may not bake from one day of YomTov to the next.
(b) We may state with confidence that one may cook a large quantity or draw a large quantity of water, even if one only needs a small part of that amount (the Tirchah is the same).
(c) Baking, however (which requires dealing with each loaf individually) one may only bake that which he needs.
(d) (R. Shimon b. Elazar) One may fill the oven with bread even if he needs only one loaf because that loaf is enhanced by a full oven.
(e) (Rava) The Halachah follows R. Shimon b. Elazar.

(a) Question: What is the consequence of not making an Eruv Tavshilin?

1. Is he forbidden to cook for Shabbos, and his flour may also not be prepared for Shabbos; or,
2. Is he forbidden but his flour is permitted.
3. Question: Of what consequence is this question?
4. Answer: Whether or not his flour must be gifted to another person in order to be prepared (if his flour is prohibited then it must belong to someone else in order to be prepared).

(b) Answer: The Beraisa taught that his flour must be gifted to someone else, thus proving that his flour is forbidden.
(c) Question: May one eat, on Shabbos, that which was baked in spite of the absence of an Eruv Tavshilin?

1. Answer: If this food were permitted, then the previous Beraisa would have listed this as another way in which he may eat despite the absence of an Eruv!
2. Question: That is no proof, since the Beraisa is only discussing permitted ways of allowing him to eat, not the outcomes of violations.

(d) Answer: The Beraisa (by ruling that one who is Ma'arim may not eat the prepared food on Shabbos) teaches that it is not permitted.
(e) Question (R. Ashi): But we may not extend the Halachah of Ha'aramah (where Chazal were likely to be more stringent since he is less likely to repent his action) to that of Meizid (where he knows he transgressed)!?

1. (R. Nachman b. Yitzhok): The Beraisa which forbids in the case of Ha'aramah is the opinion of Chananiah (citing Beis Shamai who is Machmir regarding Eruv).
2. This view may not be applied l'Halachah to forbid the food of one who did not make an Eruv.

(f) Answer: A Beraisa (which prohibits the fruit which was tithed b'Meizid on Shabbos) provides proof that food prepared against an Isur d'Rabanan may not be eaten.
(g) Question: That is no proof as that Beraisa speaks where he has other fruit to eat (whereas in the case of Eruv he has no other food to eat).
(h) Answer: Another Beraisa forbids the use of Kelim which were intentionally immersed on Shabbos (again, in violation of an Isur d'Rabanan, presumably the same as Eruv).
(i) Question: Again, that speaks where he has, or can borrow, other utensils (presumably not applicable to food).
(j) Answer: We were taught that one who intentionally cooks on Shabbos may not eat therefrom (proving that Meizid results in Isur).
(k) Question: That is an Isur Torah, and does not extend to Eruv!

(a) Our Mishnah is not in accordance with the following:
(b) (R. Shimon b. Elazar) There is agreement that two Tavshilin are required, and the argument is over how to reckon fish fried with an egg.

1. Beis Shamai sees it as one dish and Beis Hillel reckons it as two.
2. They would agree that if the egg (or a vegetable) were prepared separately and placed into the fish that it would be considered two dishes.

(c) (Rava) The Halachah follows our Tana (where Beis Hillel holds we need one Tavshil).

(a) (Abaye) The Halachah is that if he has already begun kneading the dough when the Eruv was eaten he may complete the preparation of the bread.

(a) (Beis Shamai) All Tevilos must be done before Shabbos (since Tevilah is considered a Tikun).
(b) (Beis Hillel) Kelim must be immersed before Shabbos but a person may immerse on Shabbos.
(c) They agree that water which was Tamei may be made Tahor through Hashakah (Zri'ah) in the Mikvah if placed in a stone Keli (but not through Tevilah in a wooden Keli).
(d) One is permitted to immerse in order to switch from one Gav to another and from one Chaburah to another.