ד' סיון תשפ“ Wed, May 27 2020 OVERVIEW of the Daf Gemara GEM 1) Relieving one’s self Mishnah Match Maneuver R’ Huna taught his son Rabbah the importance of learning about the proper way to go to the bathroom. O ur Massechta, Shabbos, obviously deals with the laws of R’ Huna rules that when given the choice between using a Shabbos. We must understand, therefore, the reason the first sev- stone or a shard for wiping on Shabbos, the stone is preferable. en topics dealt with in our chapter were included in this Mas- R’ Chisda disagrees and gives preference to the shard. sechta, and why they are placed here, at this point. There is a similar dispute between R’ Chisda and R’ Ham- Rashi addresses this issue at the very beginning of the perek, nuna whether a stone or grass is better for wiping. and he says that one of the topics featured within this series of The consequences for not relieving one’s self are discussed. Mishnayos is (86a): “How do we know that we are allowed to wash Advice is offered to help a person who has difficulty reliev- the milah on the third day after circumcision, even if it falls on ing himself. Shabbos?” Therefore, Rashi says that all of these other topics which follow the same pattern (“How do we know that…?”) were 2) MISHNAH: Tannaim dispute the minimum size of earthen- placed here as part of a package deal of Mishnayos with a similar ware that creates liability. style. registers an objection against this (ד"ה אמר ) Tosafos 3) Clarifying the Mishnah suggestion. If this was the case, Tosafos says, the only reason any The Gemara clarifies that R’ Meir’s minimum measurement of these inquiries is here is due to the question about washing a child on Shabbos. Accordingly, we would expect the topic regard- is larger than R’ Yosi’s. ing the laws of Shabbos to be the first one discussed, being that it Although R’ Yosi’s refutation of R’ Meir’s allusion seems is connected to the massechta, and the other Mishnayos would strong, the Gemara records R’ Meir’s response. follow due to their parallel style. Yet, we find the opposite to be -the case. We begin with a Mishnah discussing the ritual impuri הדרן עלך המוציא יין ties of idolatry, and then the status of boats and their inability to 4) MISHNAH: R’ Akiva rules that idolatry transmits tum’ah contract ritual impurity (83b). Finally, after presenting rules of a), the Mishnah finally arrives at the 86) פולטת ש"ז b) and 84) כלאים .the same way a nidah transmits tum’ah law of Shabbos in the middle of 86a! What is even more surpris- 5) Developing the disagreement concerning the tum’ah status ing is that the rule of caring for the milah on the third day should of idolatry itself be included in the chapter of “Rabbi Eliezer” (nineteenth A Mishnah in Avodah Zarah is quoted which records a dis- chapter, beginning 130a), where all other laws of milah are dis- pute between R’ Akiva and the Rabanan. The Rabanan rule cussed. Tosafos therefore suggests that because the previous perek that idolatry transmits tum’ah the way as a sheretz and R’ Akiva concluded with expounding upon a verse from Yeshayahu 30:14, rules that idolatry transmits tum’ah like a nidah. we now continue with another Mishnah where we find a law Rabbah explains that idolatry will certainly transmit based upon a nearby verse (ibid. 30:22). The halachos are not asso- according to both opinions and ciated with each other in any way other than their both being טומאת משא ”carrying tum’ah“ the issue under dispute is whether idolatry will transmit the found in Yeshayahu 30. Then, our perek continues with its series ,According to R’ Akiva it of Mishnayos, all of which associate some halacha upon a verse . אבן מסמא ”tum’ah of a “placed rock .אסמכתא will and according to Rabanan it will not. using the method of R’ Elazar disagrees with Rabbah’s understanding of the dis- pute. He maintains that idolatry will not transmit the tumah of a “placed rock” according to all opinions and the point of dis- REVIEW and Remember pute is whether idolatry transmits “carrying tumah.” According to R’ Akiva it does and according to Rabanan it does not. 1. Why did R’ Huna feel that it was important that his son study with R’ Chisda? Both Rabbah and R’ Elazar, each one based upon their po- sition, develop the full extent of the dispute between R’ Akiva and Rabanan. 2. What is the recommended way to prepare for a meal? . אבן מדמא Today’s Daf Digest is dedicated 3. Define The Langsner family in memory of their grandmother 4. Why is idolatry compared to a sheretz? מרת רייזל בת ר' אברהם מרדכי הלוי,ע"ה שבת פ ב“ —Number 144 is prohibited to use supple vegetation as well as hard stemmed vege- tation. He as well considers attached vegetation to be Muktzeh. HALACHAH Highlight [Still, one is permitted 13 even according to this opinion to walk on Is grass Muktzeh while it is still attached? grass because that is done with one’s feet.] The Eliyahu Rabbah 14 rises to challenge the viewpoint that prohibits the use of grass and היו לפיו צרור ועשבים: רב חסדא ורב המוא ... וחד אמר מקח בעשבים -similarly supple vegetation. He is joined in this objection by numer ואין מקח בצרור. If a person had before himself a stone and grass, Rav Chisda and Rav Ham- ous Poskim 15 , amongst them the Mishnah Berura 16 . nunah disagree as to which is preferable to be used. … One says that he Thus, there would be no dispute about walking and/or sitting 17 should utilize the grass for hygienic issues, and should not utilize the stone on grass. Additionally, according to the Eliyahu Rabbah, the Mish- for that purpose. nah Berura and others, supple vegetation such as grass is not Muk- 1 tzeh and is not included in the prohibition of making use of that I n his second explanation, Rashi understands that the grass being which is attached to the ground, and as such, one would be permit- referred to here is still attached to the ground. According to this ted 18 to gently move with ones hands grass or other similarly non- view, the stone should not be used because the stone is Muktzeh, but stiff stemmed vegetation, as long as he was careful not to uproot or he can use the grass while it is still attached, as long as he doesn’t sever the grass. However, one should note that it appears that Rav -This view is codified in the Shulchan Shlomo Zalman Auerbach 19 rules that in the present day when at .(שלא יזיזם ) ”move them“ 2 Aruch . However, the Poskim disagree regarding the practical appli- tached grass serves no purpose, grass is Muktzeh and can not be 3 cation of this view. The Magen Avraham maintains a more literal moved directly. A similar view is quoted in the name of Rav Yosef interpretation of Rashi’s statement that the grass may be used but Shalom Elyashiv 20 . .1 רש"י (ד"ה ואיו מקח) not moved.” The Magen Avraham thus opines that grass is also“ .2 שו"ע (סי' שיב ס"ו) 4 .3 מג"א (שם ס"ק ו) Muktzeh, and as such can not be moved directly ; however, it can be .4 וכן ראה בשו"ע הגר"ז (סי' שלו ס"ד) שאם משתמש בירק המחובר לא יזיזו בידו moved by the person’s body 5 and not by his hands. Therefore, the משום מוקצה. ע"ש. .5 כן הסביר הפרמ"ג (שם). אמם עיין בלבושי שרד על המג"א שם. person would need to move the posterior region of their body over .6 א"ר (סי' שיב ס"ק יג) .7 תוספת שבת (שם ס"ק יא) ובבגדי ישע שם וכן במאמ"ר שם (ס"ק ט) וכ"כ הערוך .the grass in order to affect the desired hygienic result השלחן שם (ס"ק ט) ועוד. However, numerous Poskim challenge the Magen Avraham’s .8 מש"ב שם (ס"ק יט) וע"ש בשער הציון (ס"ק כב) ועוד בשער הציון (סי' שלו ס"ק מב). 6 וכן ראה שם במש"ב (ס"ק יז) שיקח בעשבים דלא הוי מוקצה. position. The Eliyahu Rabbah disagrees with the Magen Avraham’s .9 עי' במאירי כאן וכן בארחות חיים (הלכות שבת אות שסג) ובחידושי הר"ן כאן. וכן בפסקי הריא"ז הדמ"ח (סוף פ"ח דשבת, דף קפג ע"ב בדפה"ס) וכן בפסקי הרי"ד שם -view that attached grass is Muktzeh; rather, the concern is that per (עמ' שו) והובאו דבריהם בשו"ת יביע אומר ח"ה (חאו"ח סי' כו אות ב). ע"ש. .haps the person will sever the grass from its place of attachment .10 רמ"א בהגה (סי' שלו ס"א) .11 מש"ב שם (ס"ק יג) Thus, Rashi’s intent when he writes as long as he doesn’t “move .12 ט"ז (שם ס"ק ב). וכן ראה דברי הט"ז שם (ס"ק י) .13 עי' פרמ"ג (סי' שלו במשב"ז סוס"ק ד וס"ק ו). וכן בשביתת השבת (מלאכת קוצר ס"כ) is as long as he doesn’t sever them. This opinion (שלא יזיזם ) ”them .14 א"ר (סי' שלו ס"ק ג) is upheld by many Poskim 7, amongst them the Mishnah Berura 8. It .15 עי' בתוספת שבת שם (ס"ק ד) ובבגדי ישע שם וכן בהר שלום שם (ס"ק ג).