ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShabbos 29
(a) Had Rav Yehudah (explaining Rebbi Yehudah, who forbids the use of the
following for Shabbos-lights) only specified vessels that broke on Yom-Tov,
we would have thought that Rebbi Yehudah is strict *there* because before
it was a vessel, and now it is a broken vessel (whereas with regard to
date-pits, which remain unchanged, he will agree with Rebbi Shimon, and
permit them to be moved); and had he told us the Din only by date-pits, we
would have said that his Din applies also to date-pits which are initially
covered and have now become uncovered (but when it comes to nut-shells,
which are visible all the time, he will certainly agree with Rebbi Shimon,
and permit them to be moved).
(b) Rebbi Shimon maintains that, in all three cases, it is permitted to
move them, because he does not hold of most kinds of Muktzah, whereas Rebbi
(a) The date-pits which Rav threw into the oven on Yom-Tov were from a type
of date which did not ripen properly, with the result that some of the
fruit stuck to the pits. Consequently, the pits, which had bits of the
fruit stuck to them, were not Muktzah (unlike the species of date to which
Rebbi Chiya was referring - which were of a superior quality, and did not
therefore, stick to the fruit).
(b) It is possible to maintain a fire, even one which was lit with vessels
that broke on Yom-Tov - and which (according to Rebbi Yehudah) are Nolad -
by adding fuel which was prepared (and therefore not Muktzah), and,
provided there is a majority of permitted fuel, one is permitted to stoke
the fire (as Rav Masna has taught us).
(a) If the owner threw away a cloth of less than three Tefachim by three
Tefachim, then everybody agrees that it is no longer subject to Tum'ah.
(b) If he put it in a box, they all agree that it is still Mekabel Tum'ah.
(c) Our Mishnah is speaking about such a cloth which he hung on a peg or
threw behind the door: Rebbi Eliezer holds that, since he did not throw it
in the trash bin, he obviously wants to retain it (and it is still subject
to Tum'ah as if he had put it in a box); whereas according to Rebbi
Yehoshua, since he did not put the cloth it in a box, it is clear that he
no longer wants it, and it is as if he had thrown it away.
(d) Rebbi Eliezer refers to it as 'not designated' because, compared to
putting it in a box, it is not designated; whereas Rebbi Yehoshua refers to
it as 'designated', since, compared to throwing it into the trash-bin, it
is indeed designated.
(a) Rebbi Akiva initially differentiated between hanging the cloth on a peg
and throwing it behind the door - in the former case he holds that a person
is *not* Mevatel the cloth (like Rebbi Eliezer) and in the latter, that he
*is* (like Rebbi Yehoshua).
(b) The use of the words 'Pesilas *ha*'Beged' rather than 'Pesilah *shel*
Beged' suggests that, in spite of his having folded it, it is still a
garment - yet Rebbi Akiva says that folding it, has nullified it from its
iniyial use, so that it is no longer a cloth, as regards Tum'ah (like Rebbi
(a) Chazal were afraid, that if one were permitted to make a hole in an
egg-shell, fill it with oil and place it above a burning lamp (ensuring a
continued supply of oil), then, not realizing that the egg-shell has now
become part of the lamp, he might siphon off some of the oil, thereby
transgressing the law of extinguishing on Shabbos.
(b) We may have thought that *that* does not apply to an earthenware lamp,
which is ugly, and a person is less likely to siphon off oil from it on
Shabbos, because people tend to keep their distance from ugly-looking
vessels; nevertheless, Chazal's decree applies there too.
(c) Rebbi Yehudah permits it by an earthenware lamp, because, in his
opinion, people know that it is all part of the lamp, and will refrain
from siphonong off any of the oil on Shabbos.
(d) If the lamp was initially manufactured like that, then the owner will
not think that the egg-shell contraption is not part of the lamp, and will
know not to siphon off oil from it on Shabbos.
(e) In fact, the Gemara explains, the egg-shell does not need to have been
there initially. What the Mishnah means when it writes 've'Im Chibrah
ha'Yotzer mi'Techilah, Mutar', it means that it was professionally fitted -
even if he did it himself later.
(a) We would have thought that Rebbi Yehudah only permits the contraption
when it is *on top* of the lamp, because then, there is nothing in between
the egg-shell and the lamp, and he will realize that the egg-shell is part
of the lamp and will not siphon off any oil from the lamp. But if he places
his feeder-dish *next to* the lamp, in which case he now has a dish in
between the oil in the feeder-dish and the lamp, he might not realize that
the feeder-dish is part of the lamp, and even he will agree that it is
forbidden. Therefore, the Mishnah had to inform us that, even in this case,
Rebbi Yehudah permits it.
(b) The members of Beis Nitzeh's household were different, the Rabbanan
maintain, because they were 'Zerizin' (alert in the performing of Mitzvos),
so there was no fear that they might take oil out of the lamp. That
explains why the Rabbanan said nothing.
(c) Rebbi Yitzchak ben Elazar told Avin from Tzipori that he was obligated
to protest, and could not remain silent like the Rabbanan were silent to
Rebbi Yehudah, because that would cause people to sin. Why?
(d) Because those who forbid dragging a bench across an *earth* floor for
fear that he might make a groove (see next question), extend the
prohibition even to a *marble* one (decreeing the one because of the other).
(a) According to Rebbi Yirmiyah Rabbah, Rebbi Shimon permits the dragging
of a heavy bench (which might make a groove in the ground), only because he
has no option, but in the case of a light bench (which he is able to pick
up), he is obligated to do so. According to Rebbi Yehudah, both are
According to Ula, Rebbi Shimon permits the dragging even of a light bench -
according to him, a 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven' is permitted even if he has
another option; whereas Rebbi Yehudah forbids the dragging of a light
bench, seeing as he has the option of picking it up, but as far as a heavy
one is concerned, he agrees with Rebbi Shimon, who permits it.
(b) Having ruled that one may drag *a chair* (which one can normally pick
up), why does Rebbi Shimon need to add *a bed* to his list. If a small
object (which one *is* able to pick up), is permitted, then how much more
so a large one, (which one is *not*)? It must be to inform us that, even by
a small object, Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with Rebbi Shimon and forbids.
Consequently, the Beraisa mentions a chair to tell us that even there Rebbi
Shimon is lenient, and a bed, to tell us that even there, Rebbi Yehudah is
An opinion, which concurs with neither of the above interpretations.
(c) Ula answers that Rebbi Shimon is only speaking about small light
objects, and that the bed in the Beraisa is a small one - similar to the
chair ( both will agree however, that a heavy object is permitted).
Whereas Rebbi Yirmiyah Rabbah maintains that Rebbi Shimon is speaking only
about heavy objects - and that the chair is a large one - like the bed
(both will agree however, that it is forbidden to drag a light object).
(d)&(e) The Mishnah in Kil'ayim (which follows the opinion of Rebbi Shimon)
permits the suit-vendors to wear a suit of Kil'ayim to show the potential
purchasers how it looks - in spite of the fact that they have an
alternative method of demonstration: namely, that of placing it on a stick
and showing it to the potential purchasers - and nevertheless, Rebbi Shimon
permits it? A clear proof for Ula!
(a) According to the Tana Kama, someone will be Chayav for extinguishing a
light if his intention is in order to save either the lamp the oil, or the
(b) Frightened of gentiles refers to the Persians, who strictly forbade
anyone to kindle a light at home on the day that they celebrated a
(c) The only case that Rebbi Yossi is Mechayev a Korban (or Kares) for
extinguishing a light, is when his intention is to spare the wick, because
then it is a case of a 'Melachah she'Tzerichah le'Gufah', which will be
explained in the Gemara.