Wearing rings on Shabbos (Shabbos 57a)

The Mishna seems pretty clear that a woman cannot go out wearing a ring on Shabbos because she might take it off to show how beautiful it is to her friends. The Shulchan Aruch quotes this l'halacha in siman 303 seif 10. Then in seif 19, the Mechaber says that anything that is asur to be worn in reshus harabim is even asur in a chatzer with no eruv. He says that some even say that these things can't be worn in the house and certainly not in a chatzer which has an eruv. He then asks the obvious question - Why do women today just completely disregard this halacha and wear rings whereever they go.

He has a few possible suggestions why they do this:
1. Really it's not allowed but try telling that to your wife! It's better that they be shogegin and not mezidin (this is based on the Tosafos on daf 55 which says that if you know that someone won't listen then it's better not to give them musar).
2. We hold like the first opinion that the Mechaber said that it's not asur to go out to a chatzer even if it doesn't have an eruv with a ring on and nowadays we don't have too many reshus harabims d'oraysa so women wear rings in our carmelis'.
a. The Mishna Brura points out a problem with that is that when we do have a reshus harabim d'oraysa we don't tell women to take off their rings. Also, he says that we pasken like the second opinion quoted above that you can't even go out to a chatzer meureves and certainly not to a carmelis because you might come to carry it in a reshus harabim. So he says that since there are basically no reshus harabim d'oraysa there is no need for the gezeira in a karmelis.
3. The Rama adds another possible reason that nowadays rings are much more common so they're not as likely to take them off as they were in those days. Then they only wore rings for special occasions so they made the gezeira but the reason doesn't apply anymore.


I think that the problems with the first answer are obvious but there is a big chidush in the second and third answers. We are saying that batla taama batla gezeira. Just because the reason doesn't apply anymore the gezeira doesn't either. We don't always say that though. For example by tekias shofar we don't blow it on Shabbos even though you could say the same thing as the Mishna Brura says here. There aren't really many reshus harabims nowadays so according to the logic stated above we should be allowed to blow shofar on Shabbos.

Rav Hershel Shachter has explained that there are two different types of gezeiros. Some are made with the reason so the point is that once the reason no longer applies then the gezeira doesn't either. That was the situation here. The chachamim said you can't wear rings because you might come to carry them in reshus harabim. If we know that the reason doesn't apply anymore then you could wear rings. However, by shofar the reason was only stated later. There was a takana made not to blow shofar on Shabbos and then years later Rabba explained why the takana was made. The gemara wasn't even sure. They knew you couldn't do it but didn't know why. Therefore, even though the original reason for not blowing may have been because otherwise you might come to carry it, even if you know that the reason doesn't apply anymore the gezeira still lasts.

Shevisas behemto (Shabbos 51b)

There is definitely a lav of mechamer on Shabbos (lo saase kol melacha ata ... u'Vehemtecha" in Yisro). There is also definitely no isur (Shabbos 122a) to allow your animal to graze on Shabbos. The question is what about everything else? In other words we know that we have 39 melachos and the animals have less but how do we know which ones they do have. Our Mishna says that it's asur for the animals to carry on Shabbos so how does that fit in? We said in the beginning of the masechte that hotzaa is a melacha gerua so if anything should have been mutar to let your animal do it should have been hotzaa?

The way that Tosafos here in our gemara and the Rambam in perek 20 of hil' Shabbos explain it is that the lav only applies when it's a melacha that you do with your animal. It doesn't apply to other melachos. Other melachos are asur because it's a lav haba michlal aseh of l'maan yanuach. Really all melachos should be asur m'doraysa to let your animal do. If you don't let your animal graze on Shabbos that that's not l'maan yanuach therefore the Torah must have meant to allow the animal to graze.

The Pnei Yehoshua though says that our entire Mishna is only asur m'drabonon. The Daf Digest discusses this and explains it more clearly than I could've so I'll just quote it here.

The Torah only forbids a person from arranging that his animal does an activity such as plowing or carrying packages, that are forbidden for a person to do due to their being laborious....
To confine the animal to remain indoors would cause it to have pain and not be at ease. Therefore it would not be a torah violation for an animal to walk into the public domain with decorative or ornamental accessories, just as it would be permitted for that animal to be loaded with equipement necessary to guard that it not run away and be endangered.

I am not sure that they're right in the interpretation of the Pnei Yehoshua. He only says that melachos like techina and ketzira are asur. They seem to be understanding that to extend to carrying packages but I don't think that the Pnei Yehoshua means that. I think that a melacha is either asur or not and hotzaa is not asur. I think that's clear from the fact that he's the one who asked the question that I asked at the beginning that hotzaa is a melacha grua. Obviously, he doesn't feel that hotzaa should be asur for an animal. The lav of mechamer is different because that's talking about leading your animal and doing the melacha with it. However, I don't think just putting the burden on the animal and getting it to go outside would constitute an isur d'oraysa according the to the Pnei Yehoshua.

Nedarim on Shabbos

The Gemorah on 46b brings the halacha that a husband can annul the vow of his wife if it has to do with Shabbos. I have been thinking over the case and the following bothers me: When did this women make the vow? According to Tosfos (one answer) the case is a classic Migu Deiskatzay. If that is the case, then she must have made the vow before Shabbos. However, we know the halacha that the husband has only until Tzais to annul the vow ( Gemorah Nedarim) if he doesnt, its too late. If so, how can we be having this discussion about annuling a vow on Shabbos? if you want to say that she made it Friday but he did not hear it until Shabbos, we have a problem with Rashi because Rashi says the vow was " I will not eat today". I need some help here.

Chashivos

The gemorah on 47a mentions that a pan that had dirt in it may be Muktzeh if it wasnt for the fact that it still has a small peice of incense in it. The Gemorah then asks that is a small peice of incense worth anything to Rebbi who was quite a wealthy man? My question is what do we do with the concept that we learn from Yaakov and the pachim ketanim? Anything even how minor it may be should should be worth somethig to him? Not much of a question but just a thought!!

Muktza for some but not others (Shabbos 47a)

The gemara says that bigdei aniyim are begadim for aniiyim but not for ashirim but bigdei ashirim are begadim for both. The mishna that it's quoting is actually referring to tuma saying that a beged that is less than 3x3 tefachim is only a beged for aniyim but not ashirim. The gemara seems to equate muktza to this. What happens if an ashir has this piece of clothing that is less than 3x3 tefachim?

The gemara says that it will be muktze. Is it muktza just for the ashirim or because it's owned by an ashir is it muktza for the ani too? What about the reverse - if it's owned by an ani would it be muktza for an ashir? The gemara in 46b is what first alerted me to this question. There it was talking about if the woman made a neder not to eat a fruit, the fruit isn't muktze because the husband could be meifer neder implying that if that wouldn't be the case it would be muktze. Tosafos says that it could be that is only the case if they were her fruit and she asired it on everyone. I think that Tosafos is saying (at least in that answer) that had she not done that then maybe it wouldn't be muktze for anyone (even her) since everyone else could eat it.

I saw tonight that the Mishna Brura deals with this exact question. In the last seif in siman 308, the Shulchan Aruch paskens that muktze for ashirim is muktza for aniim also. However the Mishna Brura there says that there really could be partial muktze. He says the determining factor is who the owner is unless it's owned by an ani and an ashir would never use it. In that case only ashirim who are part of the ani's household can move it. For an outside ashir, it would still be considered muktza.

Sorry for the lack of writing in so long. There's been a lot to say on these dapim but I just haven't had time to organize my thoughts or look through many Rishonim. Others should feel free to post or email their hearos/questions to me.

shehiya or hachazara? (Shabbos 36b-37a)

The gemara seems to try to force a pshat into the Mishna to explain that it's really talking about hachazara and not shehiya. Tosafos (d"h l'olam) is bothered why the gemara goes through such trouble to come up with this pshat in the Mishna. He suggests that it does it because we paken like Chananya that shehiya is allowed as long as it's k'maachal ben drusai even without giruf or kitum. So the gemara wanted to fit the Mishna in with that shita. So according to Tosafos that's why we added words to the Mishna and we explained the Mishna that we were first talking about hachazara then switched to shehiya and then back to hachazara.

The Mishna could fit in with Chananya even if you say it's talking about shehiya - it's talking about leaving something that is less than 1/3rd cooked on the fire when Shabbos starts. Then you don't have to change the whole mishna so to talk about hachazara but it still fits in with Chananya. So why, sccording to Tosafos, didn't the gemara do that?

If it holds two kur is it a kli? (Shabbos 35a)

The gemara says that according to Rabba a kli is considered muktza only if it holds at least 3 kur it's muktze on Shabbos then it's a kli but less than that is not a kli. The gemara then quotes Abaye who says that Rabba paskened for him that two kur was not a kli. The gemara does not seem bothered by this apparent stira but quotes a mishna that supports Rabba's view. The mishna in keilim says that it can't become tamei if it holds at least two kurim. The gemara just ends with that not explaining how Rabba and Rav Yosef could learn differently if there is a mishna that says two kurim is not a kli.

I thought that it's possible that for tuma we are not interested in whether something is a kli or not. We want to know if it's metaltel malei. Something that holds two kur is not so therefore the mishna in keilim says that it can't become tamei. However, for hilchos Shabbos we want to know the definition of a kli and for that Rabba and Rav Yosef say that it's considered a kli (even if it can't be moved full) as long as it holds less than three or four kur. This still doesn't answer the stira within Rabba himself. I guess you have to say that he changed his mind at some point.

The Rambam paskens in hilchos keilim like the mishna that more than 2 kur can't become tamei but in hilchos Shabbos he says that size doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is if it is a kli so even if you need 10 people to move it, it's not muktza if it's a kli. The Magid Mishna points out that the Rambam actually goes even beyond even Rabba and Rav Yosef and paskens like another gemara later in the maseches.

Why not 3/5ths? (Shabbos 34b)

Rabba says that shkia is three parts of a mil and the gemara tries to figure out what it means. Can't be 3 halves or 3/3rds because then he would have phrased it differently so he must mean 3/4ths. That's fine but then the gemara questions what Rav Yosef means when he says 2 parts. Can't be 2/2 because then he would have just said 1. Can't be 2/4ths because then he would have said a half so it must be 2/3rds. Why by Rav Yosef did the gemara entertain the possibility that he meant 2/4ths but by Rabba the gemara didn't even entertain the option of 3/5ths?

I was happy to see the Ritva asked this question but his answer didn't satisfy me so I was even happier to see the Rashash. The Ritva says that the gemara will start with the lowest until it gets to a number that makes sense. So in Rabba it never gets to 3/5ths. It really shouldn't have gotten to 2/4ths in Rav Yosef either but it thinks it's a possibility since we already established that Rabba was talking about fourths. The Rashash asks if that's the reason that the gemara had the hava amina that Rav Yosef meant fourths then why did we fall off that answer? The gemara only rejected the answer because if Rav Yosef wanted to say two fourths then he would have said one half instead. But maybe he said two fourths only because Rabba was already talking in fourths?

Simcha shel mitzvah (30b)

Simcha shel Mitzvah is defined by Rashi as Hachnosos Kallah (D"H Simcha Shel Mitzvah), but by Elisha it seems Rashi (D"H Kchu Li Menagen) explains it as a general state of Simcha. Also, what is the "lelamedcha sheain Shechina shoreh lo mitoch atzvus velo atzlus velo mitoch tzchok...", how does the pasuk in Koheles (that teaches us Simcha shel Mitzvah is good and Simcha sheaino shel Mitvah is bad) teach us this?
R' Moshe in the Dibros Moshe explains that there are three types of Simcha, One is Beetzem simcha shel mitvah such as Oneg Shabbos and Hachnosos Kallah, a second is Simcha of Rshus such as Schok (besides simcha of aveira such as kalus rosh), and a third is simcha of rshus that is intended to create simcha of Mitvah such as the nagen hamenagen for nevius (or the joking before learning to be able to be at ease while learning).

The flow of the Gem' is as follows. Simcha sheaino shel mitvah is "Mah Ze Oseh", there is no toeles from Simcha that isn't shel Mitvah, only from Simcha shel Mitzvah. "Lelamadcha" that only Simcha of Mitvah can create Shrios Shechinah, not "mitoch atzvus velo atzlus velo mitoch TZCHOK..". But from Koheles you would think that this only applies to Simcha shel Mitzvah that is Beetzem shel Mitvah, like Hachnosos Kallah, so the Gem' brings the Pasuk by Elisha that even Simcha of Rshus that is done with the intention of bringing on the Shechina is called Simcha shel Mitzvah, like Rashi explains by the Menagen.

Heinu Detanina 3x3 VeLo YaDanah... (29a)

The Gemarah at the end of 28b has an involved set of criteria in order to explain the Machlokes of why one can not light with an unsinged wick for Shabbos, ending with the comment of Rav Yosef "Now I understand what the explanation of a Mishna that I heard '3x3 exactly' was refering to" . On the top of 29a Rava gives a a very uncomplex explanation of the Machlokes, which has no connection to Rav Yosef's comment. The Gemarah asks then, what was Rav Yosef's comment referring to? It answers that the explanation Rav Yosef heard was referring to the Mishna in Keilim in which the Chachomim say "3x3 precisely" is Mekabel Tumah.

Why would Rav Yosef have said he doesn't know what the comment he heard "3x3 exactly" was refering to if in fact it refers to a BeFairush Mishna in Keilim? The comment he heard "3x3 exactly" and the words of the Mishna "3x3 precisely" are nearly identical.