Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shabbos 81

1) A LOCK MADE OF BONE

OPINIONS: The Beraisa says that Chafei Posachas (teeth of a lock which are made of bone) is Tahor until it is placed into a lock. Why is it Tahor until it is placed into a lock?

(a) RASHI says that a Chaf is Tahor before it is placed into a lock because it is not usable at all by itself. Once it is placed in the lock, it becomes useful and can therefore become Tamei. Rashi explains that it becomes Tamei for two reasons: (1) Peshutei Kli *Etzem* (utensils made of bone which do not have receptacles) are like Peshutei Kli *Matchus* (metal) and are Mekabel Tum'ah, and (2) it is attached to an item -- the lock -- which is Mekabel Tum'ah, because it has a receptacle (for the key).

(b) TOSFOS disagrees and says that Peshutei Kli Etzem are *Tahor*. Furthermore, the Chaf is the main part of the lock, and therefore it will not become Tamei because it is attached to something which is attached to the ground. On the contrary, the lock itself will not become Tamei because it is attached to the Chaf and subordinate to it.

Tosfos also asks on the first statement of Rashi, that since the Chaf is not usable when it is not attached, it is Tahor. That is obvious, asks Tosfos, and what then is the Beraisa teaching us?

Rather, Tosfos explains that the Chaf alone does not become Tamei because it is a metal Chaf which has not yet been completed ("Golmei Kli Matchus"). Although it is still fit for some uses even when it is not connected to the lock, it is nevertheless Tahor because it is an unfinished metal utensil. Once it is attached to the lock, though, it has been finished, and even though it has no receptacle, it is Mekabel Tum'ah because it is a completed metal utensil.

QUESTION: The Gemara is discussing the amount and types of rocks that one may bring with him to the bathroom on Shabbos. Why does the Gemara interrupt to discuss whether it is permitted to move a spice mortar on Shabbos?

ANSWERS:

(a) RASHI explains that because of its shape, it is fit for using for Kinu'ach in the bathroom.

(b) TOSFOS (DH v'Im and v'Amar), says that it has nothing to do with Kinu'ach. Rather, the Gemara is giving the maximum amount of stones that one may take with him to the bathroom. When going to a temporary bathroom ("Beis ha'Kisei sh'Eino Kavua"), one may take the amount of rocks equal in size to the "leg of a Meduchah Ketanah."

81b

OPINIONS: Rav Chisda and Raba bar Rav Huna said "something" in order to undo the witchcraft of the lady who cast a spell on their ship. What was it that they said? RASHI in Chulin (105b DH Amrei) offers two explanations: (a) They countered her spell by using their knowledge of black magic, (b) they uttered the Holy Name. This appears to be the opinion of Rashi in our Sugya as well. Of the second possibility, Rashi comments, "it cannot be proven" (v'Lo Much'cha Milsa - see Rosh Yosef). It seems from Rashi as though the second suggestion would need strong backing. Why is that?

(a) In AVOS D'REBBI NASAN (12:13) we are taught that the expression "de'Ishtamesh be'Taga Chalaf" (AVOS 1:13) means that one who uses the Holy Name will have no part in the World To Come. This interpretation is quoted by the REMA in Shulchan Aruch (YD 246:21). [Although we find that when Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish learned Sefer Yetzirah a calf was created (Sanhedrin 67b), RASHI there explains that the calf came about by itself, it was not created intentionally.]

(b) In our Sugya, however, RASHI explains that the Amoraim used a "Shem Taharah" (Holy Name) to start the boat. This conforms to the opinion of the REMA in YD 179:15, who permits the use of the Holy Name to perform miracles. In fact, "one who performs miracles with Hashem's Holy Name demonstrates the greatness and mightiness of the Creator (LEVUSH, ibid.)." According to the Rema, the quote from Avos d'Rebbi Nasan apparently pertains only to those who are not on the proper level of holiness when they use the Holy Name. (It is possible that the words "Shem Taharah" used by Rashi in our Sugya, as opposed to "Shem Kodesh," are a euphemism for Shem Tum'ah." If so, Rashi's opinion here is consistent with what he wrote in Chulin.)

HALACHAH: The SHACH (YD 179:18), quoting the LEVUSH, states that since it is almost impossible to be on the proper level of Kedushah and Taharah to use the Holy Name, we should refrain from using it except under dire circumstances.