(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shabbos 42


QUESTION: The Gemara asks that since Shmuel permits Davar sh'Ein Miskaven, like Rebbi Shimon, he should also maintain that a Melachah sh'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah is permitted. The Gemara answers that the two concepts are not related.

Why did the Gemara think they were related to begin with? The two concepts have entirely different laws.
(1) "Davar sh'Ein Miskaven" is permitted on Shabbos, while Melachah sh'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah is forbidden mid'Rabanan even according to Rebbi Shimon.
(2) Furthermore, the concept of Davar sh'Ein Miskaven applies to all prohibitions in the Torah, while the concept of Melachah sh'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah is a concept unique to Shabbos, which is learned out from the verse "Meleches Machsheves." We see, then, that they are two completely independent Halachos.


(a) TOSFOS (DH Afilu) explains that whenever a person does an action unintentionally results in a Melachah being performed (that is, he performs a Davar sh'Ein Miskaven), that means by definition that the Melachah that results is not Tzerichah l'Gufah (because the person had no need to perform the Melachah). Hence, the Gemara's initial assumption was that the reason why, on Shabbos, Rebbi Shimon permits a Davar sh'Ein Miskaven is because even if Melachah is unintentionally performed, it will remain no more than a Melachah sh'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, which he prohibits mid'Rabanan. Similarly, it was assumed that Rebbi Yehudah prohibits a Davar sh'Ein Miskaven because it may result in a Melachah that the Torah prohibits, since he considers Melachah sh'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah to be a Torah transgression.

(b) TOSFOS HA'ROSH and TOSFOS in Zevachim (92a) explain that the Gemara initially thought that if a Melachah sh'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah is forbidden, that is because one's *intention* does not make a difference (that is, even though he did not intend to perform the Melachah for the usual *purpose* he is still Chayav). If one's intention does not make a difference, then it stands to reason that not only does not having intention to perform the Melachah *for its purpose* not make a difference (and he is still Chayav), but not having *any intention at all to do the Melachah* also does not make a difference.

OPINIONS: Beis Shamai permits pouring hot water into cold water that is in a cup, but not cold water into hot water in a cup. Beis Hillel does not differentiate between pouring hot into cold or cold into hot in a *cup* (he permits both ways), but rather, he differentiates between a *bath* and a cup. In a bath, he agrees that only hot water may be poured into cold water, but not cold into hot.
(1) What is the difference between pouring cold into hot or hot into cold?

(2) What is the difference between a bath and a cup?

(a) RASHI's opinion:
(1) RASHI answers that the difference between pouring hot into cold and pouring cold into hot is based on the rule in Chulin that "Tata'a Gavar" -- the temperature of the substance on the bottom overpowers the temperature of the substance on the top, so that if cold water is being poured into hot water, the hot overpowers and heats the cold, and v.v.. (The SEFAS EMES points out that this applies only if the lower and upper waters are roughly equal in quantity. If the quantity of the hot water being poured into the cold water is much greater than that of the cold water, it is forbidden and "Tata'a Gavar" will not permit it. Likewise, if the quantity of cold water being poured into hot water is much greater than that of the hot water, it is permissible.)
(2) Rashi explains that a bathtub is a Kli Rishon, and that is why Beis Hillel is stringent with regard to a bathtub. As a Kli Rishon, it is inherently hotter than a Kli Sheini and has the power to cook. A cup, on the other hand, is a Kli Sheini and cannot cook.
(b) TOSFOS (DH Nosen, Ambati) opinion:
(1) TOSFOS explains that the water resting in the container is of much greater quantity that the water being poured in. (That, says Tosfos, is the normal manner when pouring one liquid into another -- the smaller quantity is poured into the greater quantity). The larger quantity of water, i.e. that bottom one, is the overpowering one.
(2) Tosfos explains that a bathtub is also a Kli Sheini. The Rabanan were stringent regarding a bathtub, though, because if it is permitted to pour cold water into a hot bath, people might think assume that it is permitted to pour cold water into a Kli Rishon. Since a bathtub is so hot, they will not distinguish between a bathtub (which is a Kli Sheini) and a Kli Rishon.
(c) RASHBA's opinion:
(1) The RASHBA answers that the difference between pouring hot water into cold and cold water into hot is that while the hot water is being poured, the stream of water cools off and it cannot heat the cold water, no matter how much hot water is poured in. (The hot water is cooled as it flows through the air, and by immediately mixing with the cold water into which it falls as a thin stream.)
(2) Beis Hillel permits pouring even a little cold water into a lot of hot water in a *cup*, because a cup is a Kli Sheini and a normal Kli Sheini cannot cook (no matter how little or how much water is poured into it). The Rashba adds that even if one touches the water after pouring the cold into the hot and it feels like it is boiling hot, nevertheless the cold water was not cooked by the hot; rather, the heat that one feels is the hot water, and the cold water which was poured in merely became warmed up. A *bathtub*, although it is also a Kli Sheini, is a very hot Kli Sheini. Therefore it will cook whatever cold water is poured into it (even large amounts).


(a) The Mishnah differentiates between putting spices into a Kli Rishon (that is not on the fire) and putting them into a Kli Sheini. A Kli Rishon cooks them, while a Kli Sheini does not cook them. The MISHNAH BERURAH (318:65) points out that this rule does not always apply. A *solid object* (in contrast to a liquid) which is still very hot (Yad Soledes Bo) will cook regardless of the Kli into which it has been placed (that is, even in a Kli Shelishi it will cook).

(b) The Gemara discusses whether salt can be cooked or not. According to the first version in the Gemara, Rebbi Chiya says that it *does* cook in a Kli Sheini. According to the second version, Rebbi Chiya says that it does *not* cook even in a Kli Rishon.

The Rishonim rule in accordance with the second version, because the second version is consistent with the ruling of Rav Nachman. However, TOSFOS (DH v'Hayinu) and the MORDECHAI conclude that since there is another version in the Gemara, one who does not place salt even in a Kli Sheini "is worthy of blessing." The REMA cites this ruling (OC 318:9).

The Mishnah Berurah adds that the types of salt that are processed by being cooked, or sugar that is processed by being cooked, may be put even into a Kli Rishon (that is not on the fire), because once something has been cooked, it cannot be re-cooked (Ein Bishul Achar Bishul). Some people are stringent, he adds, because it appears like one is cooking, and therefore it is best not to put salt into a Kli Rishon under any circumstances.

Next daf


This article is provided as part of Shema Yisrael Torah Network
Permission is granted to redistribute electronically or on paper,
provided that this notice is included intact.
For information on subscriptions, archives, and other Shema Yisrael
Classes, send mail to daf@shemayisrael.co.il

Shema Yisrael Torah Network
Jerusalem, Israel

In the U.S.:
Tel. (908) 370-3344
Fax. (908) 367-6608

Toll free line for dedications: 1-800-574-2646