ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShabbos 120
(a) Our Mishnah permits saving a basket full of loaves, a cake of figs and
a barrel full of wine, even if they contains enough for a hundred meals.
(b) Whatever the others save, really belongs to them, as will be
established in the Gemara. However, our Mishnah speaks when they opt to
return it to the owner. If they are clever, the Mishnah adds, they will
make a Cheshbon after Shabbos, and claim their expenses from him.
(c) Ben Beseira permits even saving these things into a courtyard which has
(d) One is also permitted to save as much as one can wear, both as regards
clothes and as regards headgear.
(a) According to the second answer of the Gemara, this Mishnah permits even
saving in many baskets, but provided he saves them all into that courtyard;
the previous Mishnah, which restricts one's efforts to saving three meals
and no more, is speaking about saving them to another courtyard.
(b) According to the first answer (which is how the Gemara concludes) - one
is permitted to go to any amount of trouble to fill one basket or one
blanket, with as many smaller vessels as one wishes - provided he
ultimately carries no more than one vessel out of the house.
(c) 'u'Vilevad she'Lo Yavi K'li Acher' - implies that whatever he can take
out in one vessel is permitted, provided he does not bring a second vessel,
as we just explained.
(a) No! They acquire the food from Hefker, and have no obligation to return
the food to the owner.
(b) Had they been Chasidim (who always go beyond the letter of the law) -
they would have returned the food without any thought of payment, since the
money resembles remuneration for Shabbos services rendered, and is
something which Chasidim would avoid.
(c) So the Gemara establishes the Mishnah by Yir'ei Shamayim, who, on the
one hand, do not want to benefit from others for nothing; but on the other,
they do want to go to the trouble of saving the food freeof charge. So, if
they are clever, and know that, in reality, this does not constitute
remuneration for Shabbos services (since, strictly speaking, the food that
they save is their's), they will hand owner a bill after Shabbos.
(d) By food, the owner is not permitted to save more than what he needs for
three meals.Consequently, once he has saved that amount, he can only
announce 'Bo'u ve'Hatzilu *Lachem*'!; whereas by clothes, where he always
has the option of going back time and time again (according to the Tana
Kama), he is justified in announcing 'Bo'u ve'Hatzilu *Imi*'!?
(a) The Sudar that hung round one's neck - served the purpose of wiping
one's mouth and eyes.
(b) According to Rebbi Yossi - one is permitted to save only *one* batch of
eighteen clothes,and no more.
(a) Rebbi Shimon ben Nanes permits spreading a goat's-skin cloth over a
cupboard that has caught fire - since he permits Gram Kibuy.
(b) According to Rebbi Yossi, placing a wall of vessels in front of a fire
is permitted - provided the vessels are not new earthenware ones which
contain water, since these burst easily, and the water will douse the
flames - and in Rebbi Yossi's opinion, Gram Kibuy is Asur.
(a) The Beraisa permits wrapping oneself with the burning cloak or opening
the Sefer-Torah and reading in it ('and if it goes out, it goes out') - but
not pouring water on the other end (which is more direct). So how can Rav
(b) The Gemara initially rejects the contention that Rav follows the
opinion of Rebbi Shimon Ben Nanes in our Mishnah - who is lenient by Gram
Kibuy (as long as one does not extinguish the fire directly), because even
Rebbi Shimon ben Nanes is lenient only because the skin puts out the flames
automatically (without the person doing anything), but who says that he
permits Gram Kibuy where the person participates?
(c) We finally reconcile Rav with Rebbi Shimon ben Nanes - by inferring from Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah (who forbids new earthenware barrels) that
the Tana Kama (Rebbi Shimon ben Nanes) clearly permits even placing these
in front of the flames - despite the fact that the person participated in
the Gram Kibuy.
(a) 'Ner she'Al Gabi Tavla, Mena'er es ha'Tavla, ve'Hi Nofeles' - speaks
when the lamp is lit (but when there is no oil in it - see Tosfos DH
Regarding opening a door, when there is a lamp burning opposite: If there
is an unusually strong wind blowing, everyone would agree that this is
prohibited. The Machlokes between Rav Yehudah and Abaye is in the case of
an ordinary wind. Rav Yehudah permits opening the door, because should the
wind blow out the flame, it is only a 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven', which is
Mutar. Abaye agrees that, this is strictly speaking, permitted. However, he
decrees by an ordinary wind, because of a case when an unusual wind is
(b) The board or the table do not become a 'Basis le'Davar ha'Asur' -
because the Beraisa speaks when he *forgot* the lamp on the board. To
become a Basis, the object would have to have been left on the board
(c) Rav rejects the ruling that permits opening and closing a door with a
lamp behind it - because even Rebbi Shimon would concede that is forbidden,
on the grounds that the wind is bound to blow out the flame, and Rebbi
Shimon agrees that 'Pesik Reisha' is forbidden.
(d) Is it because Rav rules like Rebbi Yehudah that he objects to a Beraisa
which follows the opinion of Rebbi Shimon? Consequently, we cannot explain
that Rav cursed anyone who followed the Beraisa, because the author of the
Beraisa is Rebbi Shimon, and *he* holds like Rebbi Yehudah.
(a) In the Beraisa, the Rabbanan forbid the placing of all vessels (in
front of a fire) that are likely to break - in fact, they permit only the
placing of metal vessels. Rebbi Yossi, on the other hand, permits even
earthenware vessels that are made in Shichin and K'far Chananyah (which are
strong, and which will not burst from the heat).
(b) If we simply switch the opinions in our Mishnah (in which case, Rebbi
Yossi will permit all vessels - even those which *will* burst from the
heat) - then when, in the Beraisa, he only permits the two specific kinds
of earthenware, he is suggesting to the Chachamim that, as far as *he* is
concerned, *all* vessels are permitted. However, would they not at least
concede that those two kinds of vessels are permitted.
(c) The Gemara rejects this contention on the basis of another Beraisa,
quoted by Rav, which cites Rebbi Yossi as being the one to forbid Gram
(d) The Gemara amends the Beraisa, to read entirely like Rebbi Yossi, who
follows his reasoning in our Mishnah, to forbid vessels which may burst,
and permit those which will not.
(a) Rebbi Yossi permits Toveling directly - because the Torah writes (with
regard to erasing the Name of Hashem) "Lo Sa'asun Ken la'Hashem Elokechem"
(Re'ei) - from which Chazal derive 'Asiyah Hu de'Asur, Gerama Shari'.
Strictly speaking, we have a Pasuk by Shabbos too, which permits Gerama
("Lo *Sa'aseh* Kol Melachah" - Yisro). However, because a person becomes
confused when his money is at stake, Chazal, afraid that he will go further
and also extinguish the fire, restricted him to using things that will not
extinguish the flames (which will remind him to keep cool).
(b) In view of the above, if the Rabbanan permit Gram Kibuy by Shabbos
(disagreeing with the decree of Rebbi Yossi), then how much more so,
should they be lenient in the case of Tevilah. So why are they strict
(c) The Beraisa speaks when the reed is tied loosely, and the ink is still
wet. Consequently, neither constitutes a Chatzitzah.
(a) The reed is required, not in order to avoid erasing Hashem's Name, but
because one is not permitted to stand naked before Hashem's Name. In
reality, one can place one's hand over the Name of Hashem, in which case a
reed is not necessary. However, in case one forgets, Chazal required that
one ties a reed around it. According to Rebbi Yossi, if he has no reed, he
does indeed place his hand over the Name.
(b) Rebbi Yossi holds 'Tevilah bi'Zemanah Mitzvah'. That is why, if he has
no reed, he must nevertheless Tovel, placing his hand over the Name of
Hashem. But the Rabbanan (who hold 'Tevilah bi'Zemanah La'av Mitzvah'), for
fear that one may forget to place one's hand over the Name, decreed that,
if he has no reed, then he must wait until he finds one - even if that is
only on the next day.
(c) According to the Rabbanan, "ve'Hayah Lifnos Erev Yirchatz ba'Mayim" -
is no more than a sound piece of advice for the Kohen to Tovel that
evening, if he wants to eat his Terumah. Why is that? Because, should he
fail to do so, he will be obligated to wait until the following night
before he will be eligible to eat it; since Terumah requires Ha'arev
Shemesh, after the Tevilah.