Previous daf

1)

(a) How can one even compare them, asks the Gemara? The Sefer-Torah bag is a Basis to something which is permitted, whereas the skin of the Pesach is a basis to the flesh, which is itself forbidden?

(b) Even if there is money inside the bag, it is better than our case of the skin. Why? Because at least *there*, the bag is a Basis le'Davar ha'Mutar, as well as a Davar ha'Asur, unlike the skin, which is a Basis for a Davar ha'Asur only.

(c) Nor can we prove the Heter to move the skin together with the flesh, from the fact that one is initially permitted to bring the bag with the money inside - since who said that one may? Certainly not from the fact that one is not obligated to throw out the money. Why not? Because that may well be only due to the fact that, in the process of emptying out the money, the Sefer may catch fire. But it does not follow that one may bring a bag with money inside - Let him bring a bag without money inside.

(a) So the Gemara reverts to the original proof - that it is permitted to strip the Pesach, from the fact that one may carry the bag with the Sefer Torah. What do we do with the problem of not learning a Melachah from mere Tiltul? The answer is that, here too, it is not a real Melachah, since we are speaking in a case when he does not need the skin, and does not intend to perform the Melachah.

(b) Nor is it considered a Pesik Reisah, for which he would be Chayav, since it also speaks in a case where he tears off the skin in small strips. Consequently, it is not really a Melachah at all, only a Shevus, similar to saving the bag together with the Torah.

(a) The Chachamim (Beis Hillel) require either a Lechi (an upright post), or a Koreh (a crossbeam) to permit carrying in a cul-de-sac, whereas Rebbi Eliezer requires two Lechayayim. Both Tana'im hold like Rebbi Eliezer, who calls a Mavuy *she'Eino* Mefulash one with *two* Lechayayim, whilst a Mavuy with only *one* Lechi, he refers to as a Mavuy Mefulash. Consequently, Ben Beseira permits saving a Sefer with its bag into a Mavuy which has only *one* Lechi, the Rabbanan require *two*.

(b) Firstly, asks Rabah, how can Rebbi Eliezer call a Mavuy which is closed at one end and has a Lechi at the other - 'a Mavuy Mefulash'? It may well require another Lechi, but that is no reason to refer to it as 'Mefulash'! And secondly, if we are speaking about a blind alley which has a Lechi at the entrance, then why do the Rabbanan permit saving only a *Sefer* there, and not *food and drink* as well?

(c) Rabah explains the Machlokes like this: Rebbi Yehudah holds that someone who owns two houses on two sides of the street - may place either a Lechi or a Koreh at either end of his property and carry within that space (The Rabbanan do not permit an area of the Reshus ha'Rabim to be turned into a Reshus ha'Yachid in this manner). Both the Rabbanan and Ben Beseira follow the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah; the Rabbanan hold that one is only permitted to save a Sefer into such that Reshus as described by Rebbi Yehudah (when it has a Lechi or a Koreh at *either* end, and which is referred to as a 'Mavuy she'Eino Mefulash'), whereas according to Ben Beseira, one may even save it into a street which has only *one* Lechi or Koreh (referred to as a 'Mavuy Mefulash').

(d) Abaye point out Rabah's second question (which he himself asked on Rav Chisda) will boomerang on him: Since that area has a Lechi or a Koreh at either end, then why (if the Chachamim hold like Rebbi Yehudah), may one save only a Sefer there, and not food and drink as well? So Rav Ashi finally establishes the Machlokes according to Rebbi Eliezer - by a Mavuy which has three walls; if it has a Lechi (or a Koreh), then it is called a Mavuy she'Eino Mefulash, into which the Rabbanan permit one to carry a Sefer (but not food, since it does not have *two* Lechayayim; whereas Ben Beseira permits one to save a Sefer even into a Mavuy with *one* Lechi (which he calls a Mavuy Mefulash), but not food and drink, which may only be saved into a Mavuy which has *two* Lechayayim (which he calls a Mavuy she'Eino Mefulash).

4)

(a) According to the Tana Kama, one is permitted to save as much food as one needs from the time of the fire: three meals before the meal on Friday night; two meals, between the Friday-night meal and the Shabbos morning meal; one meal between the morning meal and Se'udas Shelishis. According to Rebbi Yossi, Chazal always permitted three meals.

(b) The reason that Chazal did not give a blanket Heter to save as much food as one can - is because they were afraid that, in one's confusion, one may come to put out the fire?

(c) Similarly with a broken barrel of wine - they were afraid that, if they were to permit bringing other vessels, one might rush home to fetch more vessels, and then carry them through the street, in order to save as much wine as possible.

(d) Someone who has guests, is permitted to bring other vessels to collect the wine from the air or from the roof's edge, so as to have sufficient wine to serve his guests.

(a) Whether one is permitted to use the other vessels first, and invite the guests afterwards - is a Machlokes Tana'im: according to the Tana Kama, one may not (Ein Ma'arimin); according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, one may (Ma'arimin).

(b) Rebbi Eliezer does not allow him to Shecht both animals (a mother and its child) that fell into the pit - because the Torah writes in Emor "Oso ve'es Be'no, Lo Sishchatu be'Yom Echad".

(c) Rebbi Yehoshua holds that one may first bring up the one, having in mind to Shecht it. However (upon finding the slightest fault), he does not Shecht it, and brings up the other one (in case it is better than the first).

(d) Rebbi Eliezer forbids bringing up the second animal, because it is possible to feed it where it is, in the pit; whereas in our case, where he has no other option, Chazal may well have permitted Ha'aramah - to save the wine first and invite the guests afterwards (like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah). And it is also possible that Rebbi Yehoshua permits bringing up the second animal by means of Ha'aramah, only because of the animal's pain (Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim), but as far as saving the wine is concerned, Ha'aramah will be Asur.

(a) If one saved white bread from a fire - he is not permitted to then save black bread, since black bread is definitely inferior to white bread (at least it was considered such in those days). Whereas if he first saved black bread, he is permitted to go on to save white bread, since it is superior. This Beraisa appears to follow the opinion of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah (quoted in 5a).

(b) One is permitted to save from Yom Kipur (which falls on Friday) for Shabbos, but not vice-versa (when Yom Kipur falls on Motza'ei Shabbos), since he does not need the food until after the fast, in which case he can bake the bread *then*. Since when do we permit a Sh'vus on Shabbos for a weekday? And the same applies to saving on Shabbos for Yom-Tov (which falls on Sunday) - since he can bake *then*. Neither may he remove the bread on one Shabbos for the next, since he has a whole week to bake!

(a) Someone who forgot bread in the oven when Shabbos entered, is permitted to save three meals.

(b) He is also permitted to announce to all his neighbors that whoever wants, may come and save for himself three meals.

(c) He is not permitted to use a baker's shovel, despite the fact that this does not constitute a Melachah, only a Chochmah. Nevertheless, on account of its similarity to a Melachah, Chazal required that one make as much change (Shinuy) as possible.

(d) Blowing the Shofar, like removing bread from the oven using a baker's shovel, is only a Chochmah, and not a Melachah - and is only Asur mi'de'Rabbanan.

(a) We learn from ...

1. ... "ve'Hayah ba'Yom ha'Shishi, ve'Hechinu Es Asher Yavi'u" - that as soon as they brought the Manna, they prepared it; from which we learn that just as Yisrael in the desert prepared the food for Shabbos as early as possible on Friday morning, so too, are we obligated to prepare the food for Shabbos, early on Friday morning.
2. ... "(Liktu) Lechem Mishneh" - the obligation of making a Motzi on two whole breads.
3. ... "Liktu" - that it is not necessary to eat both loaves, only to recite a Motzi over them.

(b) When Rebbi Zeira broke off a large piece of Chalah, sufficient for the whole meal, it did not look like greed - since he did not do this during the week. So it was clear that what he did was purely li'Chevod Shabbos.

(c) Breaking off a *large* piece - gives the impression that one endears the Shabbos meal - which is a Mitzvah.

(d) Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi made a point of using the brad that had been used for an Eiruv, for Motzi, whenever it was available - to show their love for Mitzvos. 'Since one Mitzvah was performed with the bread', they said, 'let us use it for another Mitzvah'.

(a) According to ...

1. ...the Rabbanan, we learn from the three times "ha'Yom" - the three meals on Shabbos, one on Friday night, and by day.
2. ...Rebbi Chidka, we learn from "ha'Yom" that one is obligated to have three meals on Shabbos day.

(b) Since Rebbi Yossi says 'Le'olam Matzilin Mazon Shalosh Se'udos, we see that the Mishnah is speaking when he has not eaten yet (and it is not in *this* point, that thar Rabbanan of Rebbi Yossi argue with him) like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Chidka, and not Rebbi Chidka.