Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Gitin, 68

1) THE DISEASED PIECE OF MEAT

QUESTION: The Gemara relates Rav Sheshes' ordeal with the servants of the Reish Galusa. They served him meat with a bone that could have caused him to choke. Rav Sheshes (who was blind) felt the bone and wrapped it in cloth (RASHI explains that he wrapped not only the bone, but the piece of meat that had the bone in it). After he finished eating, the servants saw that he had wrapped something in a cloth and they were curious to find what it was, so they accused him of stealing a silver cup. They checked him and they found the piece of meat and accused him of coming not to eat and visit but to torment them. He told them that he came to eat the meat but that he did not eat that piece of meat because it had the taste of diseased meat which is not healthy to eat.

Rashi adduces proof to his explanation that Rav Sheshes wrapped the piece of meat as well as the bone, and not only the bone by itself, from the words of the Gemara itself. When the servants of the Reish Galusa found something wrapped in cloth and accused Rav Sheshes of coming to torment them and not to eat with them, Rav Sheshes said that he did not eat the meat because it was diseased. It is obvious, then, that he had wrapped up the meat and not only the bone.

TOSFOS explains that Rav Sheshes wrapped up the meat since it really tasted diseased, as we see from what Rav Sheshes said to the servants when they found the meat, and not because he knew that there was a bone in it. Why, then, does the Gemara relate that he felt the bone in the meat and that is why he wrapped up the meat? Perhaps he was entirely unaware of the bone, and he wrapped up the meat simply because it tasted diseased!

ANSWER: The MAHARSHA answers that if not for the fact that Rav Sheshes found the bone, he would have simply discarded the diseased meat. Since he found the bone, though, he wanted to keep it as evidence to show the Reish Galusa that his servants are lowly, unscrupulous villains.

According to the Maharsha's explanation, it is not clear why Rav Sheshes needed to take the whole piece of meat and then offer other reasons why he did not eat the meat. He should have simply taken the bone and shown it to the Reish Galusa to prove that his servants were trying to harm him!

The MAHARAL explains that if Rav Sheshes would have removed the bone from the meat, then he would not have been able to prove that the servants served him meat with a dangerous bone in it. He did not want them to be able to claim that the bone was not left together with the meat, and therefore he left the bone attached to the meat so that he would have clear, undeniable evidence of their behavior.

However, if the reason why he kept the meat was to prove that the servants were acting wickedly, then why did he say that he wrapped it up because it was diseased?

The Maharal explains that the reason why Rav Sheshes told the servants that he did not eat the meat because it was diseased is because he did not want the servants to be aware that he suspected them of attempted murder. He wanted to prove their behavior to the Reish Galusa. Hence, he used the fact that the meat was diseased as an excuse why he did not eat it, implying that he had every intention to eat it if it had not been diseased. (The Maharal points out that this explanation is compatible with Rashi's explanation of the Gemara, but Tosfos writes that the reason why he did not eat the meat was indeed because it was diseased.)

OPINIONS: The Gemara in Sotah (48b) says that when the Beis ha'Mikdash was destroyed, the creature known as the Shamir ceased to exist. Does this refer to the first Beis ha'Mikdash, or to the second Beis ha'Mikdash? That is, did the Shamir exist in the times of the second Beis ha'Mikdash?

(a) TOSFOS here (DH Ika) says that the Gemara means that after the *second* Beis ha'Mikdash was destroyed, the Shamir ceased to exist, but it was used during the time that the second Beis ha'Mikdash stood. Tosfos proves this from our Gemara that says that Shlomo ha'Melech -- when cutting the stones for the construction of the Beis ha'Mikdash -- brought the Shamir that Moshe Rabeinu used for cutting the stones of the Efod when engraving in them the names of the Shevatim. This implies that the Shamir is needed to cut the stones of the Efod. Since the Gemara in Kidushin (31a) says that in the time of the second Beis ha'Mikdash they were looking to buy new stones for the Efod, they must have had the Shamir in order to cut them!

(b) The RAMBAN in Parashas Terumah (quoted by the RASHASH here) says that there was no need for the Shamir to cut the stones of the Efod. He says that only for the stones of the Choshen was there a need for the Shamir, since the Torah writes that they must be "b'Milu'osam," in their state of completion. The Torah does not write this when describing the stones of the Efod, and therefore it is acceptable to etch out, with a tool, the names of the Shevatim on those stones and there is no need for the Shamir to cut them. The Ramban understands that when our Gemara says that Moshe used that Shamir for the Efod, it does not mean that it was used for the stones on the straps of the Efod, but rather for the stones that were on the Choshen that was connected to the Efod. (See Shmuel I 23:9.)

According to his opinion, there is no proof that the Shamir existed in the time of the second Beis ha'Mikdash, since, as the Gemara in Kidushin relates, they only needed stones for the Efod and not for the Choshen.

QUESTION: The Gemara in Avodah Zarah (52b) says that the Chashmona'im could not use the stones of the Mizbe'ach that were defiled by the Syrian-Greeks. It says that they could not cut them and then use them, because it is not permitted to use metal tools to cut the stones of the Mizbe'ach. TOSFOS asks that according to his own view that the Shamir existed in the time of the second Beis ha'Mikdash, why did the Chashmona'im not use it to cut the stones of the Mizbe'ach?

ANSWER: Tosfos answers that although the Beis ha'Mikdash was built from "Even Sheleimah" (complete stones) and the Shamir was used to cut them, the Shamir could not be used for the cutting of the stones of the Mizbe'ach since they had to be perfectly smooth to the extent that one's fingernail would not get caught on them. The Shamir could not produce such a smooth cut.

Tosfos' opinion that the Shamir could not be used for the Mizbe'ach is only according to his own opinion that it existed in the time of the Chashmona'im. According to the Ramban's opinion, though, there is room to say that the Shamir did not exist in the era of the second Beis ha'Mikdash and therefore they did not use it for the stones of the Mizbe'ach; had they had the Shamir, though, they would have used it to cut the stones of the Mizbe'ach.

This might also explain the RAMBAM's opinion. The Rambam (Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah 1:14) writes that any stone that has a bump on which one's fingernail would get caught is unfit for the Mizbe'ach, since it says that they must be built from "Avanim Sheleimos" (complete stones). He concludes there by saying that the same applies to the stones of the Beis ha'Mikdash. We see that he equates the requirements for the stones of the Mizbe'ach with the requirements for the stones of the Beis ha'Mikdash (at least with regard to requiring "Avanim Sheleimos"). Consequently, the Rambam could prove from our Gemara that if the Shamir can be used for the stones of the Beis ha'Mikdash, then so, too, it can be used for the Mizbe'ach. Why, then, did the Chashmona'im not use the Shamir for the stones of the Mizbe'ach? It must be that they did not have the Shamir, as we said according to the view of the Ramban. (See RAMBAM, Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash 9:7, 9, who does not mention how they cut the stones of the Choshen and Efod. Also see the Rambam in Perush ha'Mishnayos 9:11, where he says that the Shamir *was* used for the Urim V'Tumim.)

68b