A Daf A Day (daf yomi)

A daf yomi blog for discussion, questions and comments on the daily daf.

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

Tying garbage bags (Shabbos 112a)

The following was posted as a comment on another thread but I wanted it to be a post. It was posted by "DAR"
I heard an interesting pshat today (from Rabbi Elefant's daf yomi shiur on ouradio.org) regarding tying garbage bags on shabbos. The Debetziner Rav says that since a "knot", by definition, is something which can be tied and untied, a knot on a garbage bag is not really a "knot" since it is never intended to be opened once you tie it. Thus, you can make such a tying on shabbos since a tying which you intend to last forever does not fall within the definition of a knot. The Maharil Diskin offers a similar explanation as to how a string was tied around the Seir Hamishtaleach on Yom Kippur. Why should this be allowed - isn't tying a knot assur? He explains that since the knot is intended to last forever - i.e. once the seir is pushed off the mountain, he is never heard from again - it is permissible to make such a knot.
I find that to be a huge chiddush. I'd have thought that the definition of a kesher shel kayama (at least according to Rashi) is one that lasts forever. I thought the only question is what is the minimum shiur of "shel kayama" - is it a week, a month or what but to say that there is a maximum shiur is just unbelievable.

I just looked what the Kollel Iyun Hadaf had to say and this is what they said:

HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 317:1) cites the opinion of the Rif and Rambam (c), that one is permitted to tie a knot only when it is not a professional knot and it is tied to last for a short time. The REMA cites the opinion of Rashi (a), that if it is a permanent knot, one is Chayav regardless of the expertise of the knot.

All of the abovementioned Rishonim (Rashi (a), Re'em (b), and the Rif and Rambam (c)) require that the knot be permanent in order for one to be Chayav for tying it. What is a permanent knot that one may not tie, and what is a temporary knot that one may tie?

From the words of Rashi and the Rif, it appears that a permanent knot is defined as a knot that one ties in order to leave it as a knot forever, with no intention to ever untie it.

A knot that is not permanent and that one may tie l'Chatchilah is defined by the REMA in the name of the TUR and MORDECHAI as a knot that one ties with intention to leave it for less than one week.

According to this tying a garbage bag would be an isur d'oraysa. Before tying one on Shabbos you should consult with your LOR.

help finding a gemara

Someone (ds) emailed me the following to post on the blog. Any help would be appreciated. My memory isn't so good but maybe someone else remembers to what he is referring.

I would appreciate if you can post my question thanks.

I started learning Bruchois and Shabbos with the daf yomi on the cd daf, I came across a gemeruah or at least that the maggidei shiur read with the actual text, its so clearly in my mind that I even think I remember the layout of that daf, I confirmed with my friend who also learned the daf and he too told me that he remembers it from Bruchois and Shabbos, but both of us couldn’t find it. Don’t get me wrong we tried for hours on end.

I did find that it’s the last piece in Makkos. (in Makkos it doesn’t reference back to Shabbos or Bruchois) I would appreciate if anyone can help me.

The gemruah says a story of when R' Akiva with other tannuim came up to Yerushaleim after the Chorbin when they saw it, they rant their cloths, when they came to the beis hamikdoish they saw a fox emerge. The tannuim started crying while R' Akiva started laughing…….they asked why are you laughing? he asked why are you crying? He said that since the Nuvi Yermiah became true so too will the Nuvi Zachari where it says "old men and women will……" (Zachari 8)

Any help would be appreciated it, but remember only in Bruchois or Shabbos.

Tuesday, August 16, 2005

Questions on Shaboss's daf (103)

Here are some questions that were vexing me from Shabbos's daf.

1. R' Yehuda and his Rebbi agree that Shem Mishimon is Chayav, but argue about Sh"Sh from Shashbatzar. What possible reason should there be to distinguish between two different letters (shtei shemos) that make up a small word and two similar letters (shem echad) that make up a small word?

2. The gemarah asks (on Amud Beis) from the braisa of U'kesavtam, referring to the halachos of writing a mezuzah or tefilin, to question why Shem from Shimon would be chayav, since a mem peshutah used in place of a mem stumah is pasul for a mezuzah or tefilin. What do the halachos of Csivas STA"M have to do with the melacha of Cosev on Shabbos. Why must your cesivah on Shabbos be considered valid safrus to qualify as a melacha of cosev?

3. At the end of the daf the gemarah proves that a tanna holds a mem stumah used in place of a mem pshutah is kosher for mezuzah or tefilin, because the drasha that introduces Nisuch Hamaim on Succos uses a mem stumah as the beginning of the word Mayim. This question doesn't need to be vocalized it is so hard to swallow, but here goes. Its a drasha, using extra letters in the pasukim, so why should the drasha have to conform to hilchos STA"M in order to be valid?

Monday, August 15, 2005

Tearing is mesaken (Shabbos 105b)

The gemara quotes a braisa that says that if one tears his garment on Shabbos because a relative died then he is yotze the chiyuv kria but is also chayav for kria on Shabbos. How is he yotze the mitzva if it's a mitzva habaa b'aveira? Why is this not different than eating stolen matza? Someone asked this question this morning and I saw that Kollel Iyun Hadaf asked the question and suggested a couple answers:

1. Some Rishonim explain that when one steals Matzah to eat on Pesach, the transgression has an effect on the object (the Matzah), and that effect remains on the Matzah until the moment he eats it. A stolen piece of Matzah is subject to an obligation to return the stolen object to its rightful owner, and therefore the object itself is an "object of Aveirah." In contrast, when a person tears his clothing upon hearing of the death of a relative on Shabbos, the transgression has no effect on the object, and thus one fulfills his obligation. The concept of "Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah" applies only when the object is affected by the transgression and is an object whose very nature contains an element of transgression. (RITVA to Sukah 30a)

I saw that the Sfas Emes quotes this answer also. He also uses this to explain an apparent contradiction within the halachos of kria. The Tur paskens (Y"D 340:28) that you are not yotze kria if you do it on a stolen garment but you are if you tear a garment of yours on Shabbos. This makes sense based on this answer. If you tear on a stolen object then the object itself is a stolen object so you can't be yotze the mitzva of kria with that but here it's just the act which is forbidden but the object never becomes a forbidden object.

2. Other Rishonim explain that "Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah" applies only when the Aveirah itself is the cause of the fulfillment of the Mitzvah. That is, without the Aveirah, the Mitzvah would not be done (see TOSFOS to Sukah 30a). A person must own the Matzah he eats in order to fulfill the obligation to eat Matzah on Pesach night. When a person steals Matzah, he acquires it when the owner gives up hope of ever retrieving (Yi'ush). Thus, it is the Aveirah (the act of stealing) that causes the Matzah to become his and enables him to fulfill the Mitzvah. In contrast, in the case of one who tears his clothing on Shabbos in mourning, the transgression of tearing on Shabbos is not what enables him to fulfill the Mitzvah. Since the person could fulfill his obligation to tear this garment without transgressing Shabbos (such as by tearing it on Sunday), his act on Shabbos is not considered a "Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah."

The Sfas Emes didn't like this answer so much because the split is hard to understand. Just like you could fulfill your obligation by tearing on Sunday so too you could fulfill by tearing another garment. Why is one considered a mitzva habaa b'aveira but not the other? He also suggests another couple of answers but doesn't stick with either one. He likes the first answer quoted above the best.

Friday, August 12, 2005

Does it have to be attached? (Shabbos 103a)

The mishna says that if you gather wood on Shabbos to make the tree or ground you're chayav for any amount but if you do it for firewood then you need enough to cook an egg. Rashi comments that you are only chayav if it's attached. The Tiferes Yisrael says the Mishna is talking about where it's detached. You're chayav if you take it to improve the tree for zoreia and for the land for charisha. If you do it because you want the wood then it's meamer.

Rashi only means it has to be attached in order to be chayav for a kol shehu for zoreia or charisha. You don't need it to be attached for the chiyuv of meamer but that chiyuv is only if you take it to use it. If you are just taking it to clean up the field then there is no isur of meamer. The Tiferes Yisrael is a bigger chidush because he's saying that it's called charisha or ketzira even though the wood is not attached. I would have thought (like Rashi) that the definition of those melachos is taking something attached.

Hami'tsadayd Es Ha'even (Shabbos 102b)

Rashi explains that Hami'tsadayd Es Ha'even refers to the bottom row of a brick wall, and the melacha is Boneh. The Rambam and Rabbeinu Chananel say that the melacaha is Makeh Bi'patish. The Magid Mishne says that this is the Rambam's girsa is the gemara. Apparently it is the Rabbeinu Chananel's girsa also. Still, why should this be Makeh Bi'patish, since he has just started making the wall, it's not finished yet. The Rabbeinu Chananel says that Mi'tsadayd means that he settles the stone in the ground so that he can build on it. He seems to say that the bottom row of stones is the foundation for the wall - a separate entity, and not the bottom row of the wall like Rashi says. Finishing the foundation is Makeh Bi'patish because he has finished making something that can be used for building a wall. It is similar to Rashi's explanation of Makeh Bi'patish in our Mishna, where Rashi says that he finishes chiseling a rock out of the mountain, which can now be used for building a wall.

Thursday, August 11, 2005

Where does the wastewater go? (Shabbos 100b)

The gemara on the bottom of 100b says that according to Rav Chisda and Rabbah who require a four by four area how can you the wastewater outside the ship? The gemara says that maybe they just put it in the same four by four area where they get the water from. The gemara rejects that because that would be disgusting. So the gemara ultimately answers that a four by four area isn't needed to dump the water and you can dump it down the side.

We were bothered by two points on this gemara. First of all, why is it disgusting to draw water from there, you're just making four walls but all the ocean water is still mixing? Also, why can't they just make another four by four area for dumping the water?

The Pnei Yehoshua answers that the problem isn't that it's literally disgusting. Of course, it doesn't matter where you pour the water but that people will just be disgusted at the idea of having a designated area set aside for the wastewater. Therefore the Chachamim didn't require you to do this.

This explanation doesn't fit into Rashi (the P"Y admits this) and there are other explanations found in the Ritva and other places but I liked this one the best

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

Do Hot and Cold Water Mix (Shabbos 99b-100a)

The gemara says (explanation courtesy of Kollel Iyun Hadaf):
(Rava): The following is obvious to me - water on top of water is considered Nach (if one takes some of the water resting in a Kli or another place, this is considered Akirah)....
R. Yochanan ben Nuri and Chachamim argue about oil floating on top of wine: (Mishnah): If [Terumah] oil is floating on top of [Terumah]wine and a Tevul Yom touched the oil, only it is Nifsal (they are not considered connected, we do not consider it as if he touched the wine; the oil is only a Shelishi l'Tumah, it cannot Posel the wine);R. Yochanan ben Nuri says, they are connected (both are Nifsalim).

Why is it that the Chachamim consider oil on top of wine to be separate but not water on top of water? Is it just because they don't mix? If so then if you take boiling hot water and put it on top of cold water you should not be chayav because they won't mix (you can see how you could experiment with that here). It could be the Chachamim would say that is like oil on top of wine. However, I think that they probably would say it's different. In the case of oil and wine it has two things 1. it's two different substances and 2. they don't mix. However, in the case of the water, even though they don't mix but they're still the same substance so it would be a hanacha. I'm not sure about that though.

UPDATE: Please read the comment.

Friday, August 05, 2005

Why mention yom tov? (Shabbos 95a)

The gemara quotes a tosefta from the 10th perek of Shabbos that says (from kollel iyun hadaf):
If one milked, curdled milk or made cheese the Shi'ur of k'Grogeres, swept or Ribetz (sprinkled water to prevent dust from rising) or removed cakes of honey from a hive: If he did so on Shabbos b'Shogeg, he is Chayav Chatas; if he did so on Yom Tov b'Mezid, he gets 40 lashes. Chachamim say, these are forbidden only mid'Rabanan.
Why does this Tosefta all of a sudden mention yom tov? Is there an added chidush by yom tov? This is smack in the middle of maseches Shabbos so it could have easily said b'shogeg chatas and b'meizid misa. Why all of a sudden the need to mention yom tov?

I think that Tosafos' question (d"h v'harode) can answer my question. There is a huge chiddush by yom tov because you might have thought that these melachos shouldn't be chayav on yom tov because of ochel nefesh. The chidush here is that according to R' Eliezer you are chayav despite the normal heterim of yom tov.

I'm not going to explain here the answer of why R' Eliezer says you're chayav anyway but there's a lot written on it. I think that the Ritva does a good job (especially if you use the MHK edition) of summarizing the opinions. It's not even clear if R' Eliezer is really mechayev in all the cases or only in the last three. I was just really bothered by the fact that yom tov was mentioned at all and Tosafos answered that question for me.

Thursday, August 04, 2005

Chai Nose es Atzmo (Shabbos 94a)

The gemara says that you may be patur for carrying a live person or animal because "chai nose es atzmo" - the person/animal that you're carrying is really partially carrying himself. Tosafos d"h Shehachay asks the obvious question: So what? You're still carrying it! You're chayav for carrying a feather on Shabbos and this is certainly heavier than that. Even if you say that the guy you're carrying is helping you but that's only mesayaya and we just said that you would still be chayav in that case so why should you be patur here? Tosafos answers that the only time you're chayav is if it's similar to a melacha that they did in the mishkan and in the mishkan they never carried live people.

The Pnei Yehoshua points out that this is only true by hotzaa. We see later on the daf that by other melachos even if they're only somewhat similar to what was done in the mishkan (braiding hair compared to building) that you are chayav. However, since by hotzaa it's a melacha gerua (see the first Tosafos in the mesechet) you are only chayav if it's exactly like what they did in the Mishkan.

Someone asked me yesterday morning how you could be patur according to R' Shimon and R' Yehuda for carrying with someone else because that's exactly what they did in the mishkan? They were carrying huge beams and keilim and one person couldn't have possibly carried it by themselves! Tosafos answers this question on daf 3a (d"h Shneihem) that is exactly why they need a pasuk to teach you that you're patur. It's true that without an extra pasuk you would have thought you'd be chayav. Tosafos then asks about other aspects of hotzaa which might not have been done exactly that way in the Mishkan. So you see again that hotzaa is very different from the other 38 melachos. By the other melachos if it's similar to a melacha then it becomes a tolda and is still chayav on Shabbos but by hotzaa because it's a melacha gerua it has to be exactly like they did it in the mishkan.

UPDATE: I saw that the YU Torah online had more:
R. Chaim Brisker (Chiddushim al HaShas) asserts that there are actually two exemptions derived from the same source: Shnayim Sheasauhu, and a “partial melakhah”. Only the first requires that both be capable; the second does not, and “chai nosei et atzmo” comes from that category. (See also Resp. Rabeinu Meshulam Igra, O.C. 8).

R. Moshe Feinstein (Resp. Iggerot Moshe, Y.D. I, 2) explains the position of Tosafot as being that the mishkan only teaches us about a melakhah of hotza’ah in a specific format – where an object will be moved from one domain to the next, and it will be clear from looking at the object in its new location that it was moved by someone. However, with a living being, as that being could have moved on its own power, it is not evident from seeing that being in a new location that someone else did the moving. Using this logic, R. Moshe explains the distinction between an adult and a baby in this realm.

Carrying a meis (Shabbos 93b)

The Mishna says that the shiur for hotzaa for a meis is a kezayis because that's the amount that is metamei b'ohel. Earlier though on daf 90a the mishna said that the shiur for mekak sefarim is a kol shehu because you need to bury it. Don't you need to bury a meis also? Tosafos Yom Tov has two answers:
1. You don't need to bury less than a kezayis of a meis. (I don't think that we pasken that way)
2. It's not so common to have less than a kezayis of a meis therefore the shiur is for the common ramification which is a kezayis for tuma.

Wednesday, August 03, 2005

l'acharav u'ba lo l'acharav (Shabbos 92b)

The gemara explains that there are conflicting diyukim in the Mishna. As kollel iyun hadaf summarizes:
1. The Reisha exempts when he intended for in front and it went in back - but had he intended for in back and it went in back, he would be liable;
2. The Seifa is Mechayev when he intended for in back and it went in front - but had he intended for in back and it went in back, he would be exempt!
In that second case why are you chayav? If you are patur if you intended to carry it in the back and you did then you shouldn't be chayav just because it ended up in the front. At least not according to Rava. As kollel iyun hadaf explains the gemara on 72b:

ONE WHO INTENDED TO PERFORM A PERMITTED ACTION (a) If one intended to pick up something detached, and picked up something attached (Tosfos - he did not realize that it was attached; Rashi - he was trying to pick up something else), detaching it, he is exempt; (b) (Rava): If he intended to cut something detached, and he cut something attached, he is exempt; (c) (Abaye): He is Chayav.(d) Rava exempts, for he did not intend to cut something that may not be cut;(e) Abaye obligates, for he intended to cut in any case.

This is Rava talking in our gemara so doesn't it contradict his opinion from 72b? This morning someone showed me the Meromei Sade who answers this question. He says that when the gemara says that had he intended for in back and it went in back, he would be exempt it doesn't mean that he'd be patur had he done what he intended. It means that he'd be patur if he intended to carry it in the back on the side but it ended up in the back back because he intended for a good shemira but it ended up as a shemira pechusa. Had he intended for that shemira pechusa though he'd have been chayav. That would answer my question.