Previous daf

1)

(a) One is permitted to drink the water that a non-Jew drew for himself, but not the water that he drew for a Jew.

(b) And the same applies to water that the non-Jew drew for an animal: if he drew it for his own animal, then the Jew may water his animal from there, but not if he drew it for an animal belonging to a Jew.

(c) The Mishnah brings the story with Raban Gamliel - to *prove* the opinion of the Tana Kama (as is always the case with stories), not to dispute it.

(a) Had the Tana confined his words to the Din of the lamp, we would have said that one may use the lamp that was lit by the gentile (for gentiles) only because of the principle 'Ner le'Echad, Ner le'Me'ah', but not by water, when we might have forbidden a Jew to use it, because of the fear that he will draw extra water, to accomodate the Jew as well as himself.

(b) He adds the Din of the ramp (which is similar to that of the lamp), in order to tell us the story of Raban Gamliel.

(c) All cases of Amirah le'Nochri (and certainly if he did not tell the gentile specifically) are only mi'de'Rabbanan - except for a Jewish slave who works for his master, which the Torah specifically forbids.

(a) One is ...

1. ... permitted to feed one's animal with grass that a gentile cut for his own animal;
2. ... forbidden to feed it grass that he picked for the animal of a Jew;
3. ... forbidden to feed it grass from a storehouse, because we are afraid that he may forget and pick up the Muktzah to feed his animal.

(b) The Heter to feed one's animal with grass cut by a non-Jew is not to actually place it on the Muktzah, but to stand in front of his animal and guide it towards the cut grass.

(c) Even if the non-Jew cut the grass or drew the water for his own animal, it will be forbidden for a Jew to make use of that grass or water - in a case where the Jew was aquainted with the non-Jew who did the Melachah; this is because we are afraid that since the non-Jew knows the Jew, he will cut or draw extra, on behalf of the Jew.

(d) Rava maintains that even here, where there was an important dignitary of the caliber of Raban Gamliel, the gentiles made the ramp for themselves, and we will apply the principle 'Ner le'Echad, Ner le'Me'ah'.

(a) If the majority of the town's residents are gentiles, then the Jew is permitted to bathe in the bathhouse immediately after nightfall; whereas if the majority of residents are Jews, then he has to wait 'bi'Chedei she'Ya'asu'.

(b) 'bi'Chedei she'Ya'asu' - means the time it would normally take to perform the Melachah (so that the Jew should not have benefited at all from the Melachah that the gentile performed on Shabbos).

(c) The case of the bathhouse is different than that of Abaye (who permits what a gentile prepared for himself, as long as it is not in the presence of the Jew), since the bath-attendant who heats the water, heats it having in mind the majority of the town's residents (irrespective of whether he sees them at that moment or not).

(d) Mechtzah al Mechtzah - is also forbidden until 'bi'Chedei she'Ya'asu' - since we do not know for sure on whose behalf they heated the water.

5) Shmuel changed his mind, and made use of the lamp - when he saw the gentile bring a document and read it, because then he knew that the gentile had lit it for himself.

6)

(a) The detached door of a vessel is in itself a vessel (because of its mother vessel - though it becomes a vessel independently - see d.), and is therefore not Muktzah; whereas the detached door of a house is not a vessel, and is therefore Muktzah.

(b) The Mishnah expressly permits picking up a tool (whose function is prohibited on Shabbos), to use for a function that is permitted.

(c) It would be feasible to say that the door of a vessel which broke off *on Shabbos* is permitted (because when Shabbos commenced, it was permitted together with its mother vessel), but not one which broke off *before* Shabbos, (since it was not permitted together with its mother-vessel when Shabbos entered).

(d) We do not however, make this distinction. In both cases, the door is permitted, because, as we mentioned earlier (in a.), the door remains fit to re-attach to the vessel (Tosfos DH 'Adraba'), and is therefore permitted either way.

(a) Removing or replacing the door of a chicken-coop on Shabbos - constitutes Binyan or Setirah, which is a Melachah d'Oraysa.

(b) Abaye amends 'Deles shel Shidah ... Notlin, Aval Lo Machzirin' - to read 'Deles etc. ... she'Nitlu, Lo Machzirin'.

(c) Rava holds 'Ein Binyan u'Setirah be'Kelim'. And that is why it is permitted to remove the door of a box etc. mi'de'Rabbanan however, the door may not be replaced, because Chazal were afraid that he might come to fix it properly, and be guilty of Makeh ba'Patish.

(a) Rav Yehudah holds that a 'Davar she'Melachto le'Isur' - is forbidden, even if one uses it for a function that is permitted on Shabbos.

(b) But our Mishnah permits using a large board or a pitch-fork to feed a child. Now surely, nobody would designate these to use to feed a child - nevertheless, the Mishnah permits doing this. From this we see, that ...

(c) ... a 'Davar she'Melachto le'Isur' - is permitted, if one uses it for a function that is permitted - and that is Rabah's opinion