Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shabbos 51

1) HALACHAH: AN INSULATED POT THAT BECAME UNCOVERED

QUESTION: The Mishnah states that if one covered a pot with insulatory material before Shabbos and it "became uncovered," one may cover it again on Shabbos, and doing so is not considered a new Hatmanah (which would be forbidden to do on Shabbos).

Why does the Mishnah say that the pot "became uncovered," i.e. by itself? Even if one *purposely* removed the cover, it should be permitted for him to replace it on Shabbos -- just as we find that if one removes a pot from a stovetop on Shabbos, he may replace it afterwards (Mishnah, 36b according to Beis Hillel). If so, the Mishnah here ought to have emphasized that one may re-cover the pot even if he *intentionally* removes its cover on Shabbos!

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS explains that the Mishnah is referring to a pot that became uncovered *on Friday* before Shabbos (and not on Shabbos or during Bein ha'Shemashos). If it *accidentally* became uncovered on Friday (until after Shabbos began), then one may cover it again on Shabbos. But if one *purposely* uncovered it on Friday, one may not return the cover on Shabbos, because it is considered a fresh Hatmanah and is prohibited on Shabbos. (However, if the pot was covered until after Bein ha'Shemashos, one may be intentionally uncover it and re-cover it on Shabbos as necessary.)

(b) The SEFER HA'TERUMAH and the SMAG cited by the HAGAHOS MAIMONI (Hilchos Shabbos 3:6 and 4:2) explain that the Mishnah is referring to a pot that became uncovered *on Shabbos*. The Mishnah is teaching that if it became uncovered by itself -- or even intentionally -- on Shabbos, then one may replace the cover. The reason the Mishnah mentions that it was un-covered "unintentionally" is in order to teach that if it became uncovered on *Friday* (until after the beginning of Shabbos) even unintentionally, it is forbidden to cover it again on Shabbos. They cite support for this explanation from the Yerushalmi.

HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 257:4) rules stringently, like the second opinion. Therefore, if the pot became uncovered *even by itself* on Friday before Shabbos, one may *not* cover it on Shabbos.

51b

OPINIONS: The Beraisa at the end of the chapter says that one may not crush ice on Shabbos, but one may put it inside a cup to melt. What is the problem with crushing it, and why is it permitted to place it in a cup to melt?

(a) RASHI writes that it is prohibited to crush ice because it *appears* as though one is creating a new entity ("Nolad"), water, on Shabbos. The prohibition is limited to a *positive action* that produces a new entity. One may, however, let it happen water become created itself by placing the ice in a cup. Since it is not a genuine case of Nolad (but just "looks like" Nolad), the water produced is not Muktzah, and if no active crushing is involved, it is permitted to allow the ice to melt.

(b) The RASHBA cites the SEFER HA'TERUMAH who says that making water from ice is indeed a genuine case of Nolad, and the water produced in such a manner is Muktzah. The RITVA explains that according to this, when the Beraisa says that one may let ice melt in a cup, it is referring to a cup that already *has water in it*. Since the newly created water (from the melting ice) mixes immediately with the water already in the cup and is never an independent entity, it is permitted to let the ice melt in such a manner.

(c) The RASHBA himself says that the problem is that crushing ice gives the appearance of "Sechitah," squeezing an object to obtain its juice. If crushing ice was permitted, people might err and think that it is also permissible to squeeze fruit to obtain juice (which is an Isur d'Oraisa). However, it is permitted to crush ice inside of a cup if it is filled with water (because the resulting liquid becomes mixed immediately and is not seen, and it is not obvious that he has created liquid). Likewise, letting the ice melt by itself even when it is not in a cup if permitted (it does not resemble Sechitah because no action of squeezing has been done). That is, the Rashba accepts the lenient rulings of both Rashi and the Sefer ha'Terumah: ice may be let to melt by itself, or crushed manually into a cup with water.

HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 320:9) cites the explanation of Rashi (a). The MISHNAH BERURAH (320:34) cites the Rashba (c) and says that one may leave ice to melt in the sun, or crush ice into a cup of water. The Mishnah Berurah (320:35) then cites the REMA (OC 318:16) who quotes the Sefer ha'Terumah, that crushing ice may be forbidden because of Nolad, and therefore one should only let it melt in a cup that already has water in it.

QUESTION: The Gemara discusses whether an animal may walk in Reshus ha'Rabim with "Shemirah Yeseirah" (items that assist in restraining or protecting it, which provide *more* than enough restraint or protection) on Shabbos. Is such attire considered a "Tachshit" (common accessory), which an animal may wear in Reshus ha'Rabim on Shabbos, or is it considered a "Masuy" (load, burden), which an animal may not take into Reshus ha'Rabim on Shabbos.

The Gemara quotes Rebbi Yosi who said that four animals may go out with a halter ("Afsar"), and it attempts to prove from this that "Shemirah Yeseirah" *is* considered a Masuy; Rebbi Yosi's statement that four animals may go out with a halter implies that they may *not* go out with another type of restraint, such as one which provides too much restraint. The Gemara refutes this proof and suggests that Rebbi Yosi meant to say that only these four animals may go out with a halter, but *other types* of animals may not go out with a halter (because it does not provide protection for them at all).

The Gemara then cites another short Beraisa that says that a "Luvdekim and camel may go out with a halter." Why is this Beraisa mentioned here? What is it adding to the discussion at hand?

ANSWERS:

(a) Indeed, it is not relevant, but since the Gemara cited Rebbi Yosi who gave a list of animals that may go out with a halter, the Gemara brings another list.

(b) The MAHARSHA and MAHARAM explain that this Beraisa is proving that "Shemirah Yeseirah" is prohibited, since it implies that a camel may *not* go out with an iron nose-ring, only with a halter. It is true that Rebbi Yosi's list provides no clear proof, since it might be implying that *other animals* may not go out with a *halter*. But that was because he explicitly emphasized "*these* animals may go out with a halter," excluding all other animals. The short Beraisa, however, does not specify that exclusively "these" animals may wear a halter, and thus it is not excluding other animals from doing so. It must therefore be teaching that a camel may go out with a halter, but *not* with an iron nose-ring.

(c) The SEFAS EMES and KORBAN NESANEL (#2) explain that this Beraisa is proving that not only may the list of "four animals that go out with a halter" which was provided by Rebbi Yosi is incomplete. Even a Luvdekim may go out with a halter. If so, when the first Tana said that four animals may go out with a halter, the implication could not have been that only these animals may go out with a halter but not any other animals. Rather, the implication must be that these four animals may not go out with an iron nose-ring (Shemirah Yeseirah), as the Gemara originally assumed

QUESTION: The Gemara relates that Levi, the son of Rav Huna Bar Chiya, and Rabah Bar Rav Huna were traveling on donkeys from one town to another. Levi's donkey galloped ahead of Rabah's donkey. Rabah became upset that Levi went ahead of him, neglecting to give him the respect which he was due. Levi indirectly informed Rabah that it was not done on purpose, but that his donkey was hard to control.

Why was Levi required to let Rabah go ahead of him in the first place? Even though Rabah was deserving of respect, there is no obligation to let the more respected person go first on the road (Berachos 47a)! Why, then, was Rabah upset?

ANSWER: TOSFOS cites RABEINU TAM who answers that the Gemara in Berachos, which says that there is no obligation to let someone greater go ahead while traveling, applies only when each person is traveling by himself and they happen to meet up with each other. However, if they are traveling together as a group, then certainly one must give deference to one who is greater and allow him to travel at the head.