Previous daf

1)

(a) Chazal forbade covering a pot on Shabbos, even with a cover that does not increase the heat, fof fear that, if he finds that his food has become cold, he may come to put the pot on the fire, to heat it up.

(b) If the pot was already covered before Shabbos, and the cover slipped off, it is permitted to re-cover it.

(c) One may put a flask of cold water under a cover, to prevent the sun from heating it up.

(d) We need Rav Yehudah to permit this even with regard to a *food* dish, which it is common to cover in this way, in order to heat it (and we may have thought that it would be forbidden - even when one is covering it in order to keep it cool); because our Mishnah mentions water, which one does not commonly cover in order to heat it in this way, as a result of which there is no reason to prohibit cooling it.

(a) Rebbi retracted from his original stance (to forbid wrapping a cold pot to prevent it from becoming hot), when he heard from Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi that his father permitted it.

(b) 'Kevar Horeh Zaken' means that the elder (in this case, Rebbi Yossi) has already ruled (and who am I to rule differently)?

(c) Rav Papa commented on the love that the Talmidei-Chachamim bore each other. Had Rebbi Yossi been alive, he would (in spite of his greatness - Rashi, see also Tosfos DH 'Ilu'), have been subjugated to Rebbi, who was the Prince and the head of the Sanhedrin. Nevertheless, Rebbi submitted to his opinion.

(a) Rav Nachman also instructed Daro his slave, to fetch him hot water that had been heated by a non-Jewish baker - because 'Bishul Akum' does not apply to any food that can be eaten or drunk uncooked.

(b) Rav Ami was cross with him, because, in his opinion, he should have taken a more stringent view, since he was an important person, from whom others may learn to be adopt other unwarranted leniencies.

(a) Raban Gamliel goes even further than the Tana Kama. He permits not only to add covers to the boiling pot, but even to change one cover for another - even a better cover to re-place an inferior one.

(b) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel permits even covering with a new cover, if the food was emptied into a second pot. Why?
Because now that he is making the food cooler (by pouring it into a K'li Sheni), he is most unlikely to go and heat it - the reason for the prohibition of Hatmanah!

(c) It is forbidden to take the pot from its wrapping if it is covered with a Muktzah cover and the top of the lid does not protrude from it.

(d) Even if he removes the wrapping from the side, he will not be permitted to pick up the pot, which has become a 'Basis le'Davar he'Asur', since he put the cover there deliberately (According to Tosfos, a Muktzah object that is placed on a second object- even deliberately - with the intention of having it removed during Shabbos, does not create a Basis. See DH 'O'.)

(e) If some of the lid protrudes from the Muktzah cover, it still remains a Basis (according to Rashi). However, it appears, that the easily accessible lid makes it possible to tilt the pot on its side - which is permitted even by Muktzah, since one does not pick up the Muktzah object from the ground.

5)

(a) A 'Meicham' is a copper kettle, and a 'Kedeirah', an earthenware pot.

(b) The correct text in the Gemara permits every combination of placing one of these hot containers on top of the other, because one is only preserving the heat, - not increasing it (nor is this considered Hatmanah, which Chazal forbade on Shabbos - even if it is only to preserve the heat).

(c) One is permitted to cement the mouth of the kettle or pot, provided the dough was kneaded before Shabbos.

(d) It will be forbidden to place one on top of the other, if the bottom one is hot and the top one, cold.

(a) Rebbi permits Hatmanah of cold things (provided it is only to keep it cool). (This is what he conceded to Rebbi Yossi - as we learnt on the previous Amud).

(b) Rubbing snow or ice to transform it into water, is forbidden (presumably mi'de'Rabanan), because it is creating something new, and resembles a Melachah.

(c) The Rabanan forbade this only because of its similarity to a Melachah. Consequently, placing the ice into wine to cool the wine, or into a cup in the sun to melt them, is permitted, since he did not do anything, so it does not resemble a Melachah.

(a) The Torah writes "Lema'an Yanu'ach Shorcha va'Chamorcha" (Devarim), to place an Isur Asei on allowing one's animal to perform one of the thirty-nine Melachos (which is not for its own pleasure - such as plucking grass to eat) on Shabbos.

(b) Whatever is needed to guard the animal, is permitted for the animal to carry. It is considered an ornament, and, like a human being is permitted (min ha'Torah) to wear ornaments in the street, so too is an animal.

(c) One may allow a horse, a mule, a camel and a donkey to go out into the street with a ring around their necks.

(d) Should those rings become Tamei, the Tana permits them to be sprinkled with the ashes of the Parah Adumah, and to be Toveled as they are - even whilst the animal is actually wearing them.

(a) A 'Na'akasa Chivresa bi'Zemama de'Parzela' means that a white dromedary is permitted to go out with a metal nose-ring.

(b) The people of Mechuza sent Levi barley together with his money, as a hint that he was better off bying a local donkey and feeding it constantly with barley, than going for a Lubian donkey - since, travelling alone would take them half a year there, and half a year back.

(c) 'Nigri de'Chamra, Sa'ari' means that the footsteps of a donkey depends upon the amount of barley that one feeds it.

(a) Since a dromedary is not guarded with reigns, it is obvious that it may not it go out with them.

(b) The Sha'aleh in the case of a camel with a nose-ring, is whether excessive guarding is called carrying and is forbidden, or whether it remains within the realm of guarding, and is therefore permitted?

(c) The fact that the Beraisa gives a number (of animals that one may allow to go out with reigns), comes to preclude one case: and that case might be a camel with a nose-ring (because it is excessive) or it might be a dromedary with reigns.

(d) The Beraisa permits a camel and a Lubian donkey to go out with reigns.

(a) The Gemara establishes the Machlokes between the Tana Kama (who forbids a Chayah to go out with a 'collar', and Chananya, who permits it, by a cat, for which a collar is an excessive form of guarding. In that case, the point under discussion (whether or nor, excessive guarding is called carrying or not), is a Machlokes Tana'im - the Tana Kama forbids, whilst Chananya permits.

(b) The Beraisa cannot be talking about a large Chayah (like a lion), for whom a collar would obviously be useless (so why should Chananya permit it?); nor can it be talking about a small kind of Chayah (such as a stoat or a weasel), for which a collar is ideal (so why should the Tana Kama forbid it?)

(c) Rabbah bar Rav Huna - who was greater than Levi - was upset with him, for allowing his donkey to go in front of his own.

(d) Levi asked Rabbah bar Rav Huna whether one may allow a donkey such as the one he was riding (an unruly one that is difficult to control) to go out with a bit on Shabbos. And he answered the Sha'aleh by quoting Rabah bar Rav Huna's own father, who ruled in the name of Shmuel like Chananya, who permits it.