םָדָאְדּ בוּשָׁח אָנֲא :Daf Ditty Shabbes 142 “everything's all Sir Garnet", I am the very model of a modern Major-General, I've information vegetable, animal, and mineral, I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical1 “a person should have a piece of paper in each side pocket. On one should be written, “The world was created (just) for me”. On the other, “I am (originated from only) dust and ashes” Kotzker Rebbe 1 HMS Pinafore, Gilbert and Sullivan 1 Abaye explained his actions and said: If not for the fact that I am an important person, why would I need to place a spoon on the bundles? Aren’t the bundles themselves suited to lean upon? I could have carried the bundles without the spoon. Similarly, Rava said: If not for the fact that I am an important person, why would I need to place a knife on a young dove? Isn’t the young dove itself suited to be eaten as raw meat? The Gemara asks: The reason that it is permitted to move the slaughtered dove is because it is suited to be eaten by a person as raw meat; but if it is not suited to be eaten by a person as raw meat, no, it may not be moved. Is that to say that Rava holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that on Shabbat it is prohibited to move food that was originally designated for human consumption and is now only suited for animal consumption? Didn’t Rava say to his attendant on a Festival: Roast a duck for me, and throw its intestines to the cat. Moving the duck’s intestines was permitted in order to feed the cat. Similarly, moving 2 the dove should have been permitted not because it is raw meat fit for consumption by a person, but because it is suited for consumption by a dog. RASHI ..because I am stricter on myself so that people will not learn from me to be lenient… RASHBA JASTROW Our Daf relates that although Abaye was of the opinion that it is permitted to carry sheaves of harvested grain on Shabbos, he nevertheless refrained from doing so unless he first placed a ladle on the sheave. Why did he hold it is permitted to carry sheaves? Although the grain they contain must undergo much processing before it is edible, the stalks of which the sheaves are comprised can serve here and now as mats upon which a person may lay down. Why then did he refrain from doing so? Because he was a distinguished person. Hence, his conduct would serve as a model that other people might emulate. Therefore, lest other people draw erroneous conclusions and potentially treat prohibitions leniently, Abaye conducted himself stringently and refrained from carrying the sheaves outright. The Gemara then cites Rava’s similar conduct in another case involving the laws of Shabbos. 3 On the basis of this passage and similar Gemaras, Yad Malachi (Klalei ha’Alef #6) rejects the assertion of Be’er Sheva (fol. 110d) that it is only in regard to the law that forbids dishes cooked by non-Jews (Bishul Akum) that a distinguished person must maintain a higher standard.2 Indeed, in his notes to Yad Malachi (ad loc.), R’ Yeshaya Pick notes that he found fourteen laws besides the law of Bishul Akum in which the principle that a distinguished person should maintain a higher standard is invoked. Hence, writes Yad Malachi, a scholar must refrain from activities — that are perfectly permissible for other people — when they touch upon any area of Halacha in which a prohibition may apply. He explains that this is because of a fact of human nature expounded by Talmud Yerushalmi in Moed Kattan (cited by Ritva to Moed Kattan 2a), that people are more likely to interpret what they see erroneously and draw distorted conclusions than to interpret what they see correctly and draw accurate conclusion.3 Jan Hus A church dissenter, he was eventually taken in front of the council and asked to recant his views. He replied, "I would not for a chapel of gold retreat from the truth!". When he refused, he was put back in prison. On July 6, 1415, he was burned at the stake for heresy against the doctrines of the Catholic Church. He could be heard singing Psalms as he was burning. 2 Be’er Sheva contends that this is due to the unique distance from “non-kosher” food that is the essence of this prohibition. 3 Daf Digest 4 After Hus was executed, the followers of his religious teachings (known as Hussites) refused to elect another Catholic monarch and defeated five consecutive papal crusades between 1420 and 1431 in what became known as the Hussite Wars. Both the Bohemian and the Moravian populations remained majority Hussite until the 1620s, when a Protestant defeat in the Battle of the White Mountain resulted in the Lands of the Bohemian Crown coming under Habsburg dominion for the next 300 years and being subject to immediate and forced conversion in an intense campaign of return to Catholicism. “You’ve cooked your goose” If your “goose has been cooked”, that probably means that you’ve been – to use another idiom – caught red-handed. You’re done for! The jig is up! In other words, you’re in big trouble. But the phrase’s deeper connotation implies more than just trouble. It also connotes a sense of being trapped and unable to escape your fate. Interestingly enough, there might not be any literal geese involved in the origin of this idiom. Some people believe it comes from the Czech and is derived from the burning of a famous early protestant martyr, Jan Hus, who was put to death as a heretic in 1415. The origin of the surname Hus is the word goose, meaning the idiom may be much more macabre. Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes4 that on Yom Tov, Rava told his servant to roast a goose and throw its intestines to a cat. The Gemara understands from Rava's words that he rules in accordance with Rebbi Shimon, who maintains that one is permitted to move an object on Yom Tov for the sake of animals, even though the object was designated for human use before Yom Tov. How can this be inferred from Rava's ruling? Perhaps Rava agrees with Rebbi Yehudah and not with Rebbi Shimon; Rebbi Yehudah prohibits giving animals an object designated for humans only when the object is no longer fit to be used by a person.5 If the object can still be used by a person (that is, it is fit for its designated use), even Rebbi Yehudah agrees that it is not Muktzah and it may be given to animals. Why, then, does the Gemara say that Rava's action shows that he rules like Rebbi Shimon? The goose intestines were still fit for humans! The type of Muktzah that the Gemara here discusses is usually referred to as "Muchan l'Adam Eino Muchan l'Behemah." It is important to note that there are two distinct types of Muktzah which are included in this expression. 4 Daf Advancemnet Forum Shabbes 142 5 Because the object is no longer fit for its originally designated use as human food, it is considered Nolad and is Muktzah. 5 1. An object is Muktzah when the laws of Shabbos or Yom Tov prevent man from using the object. For example, on Shabbos a live animal is Muktzah, because the laws of Shabbos forbid the slaughter of an animal. Even though live animals are sometimes fed to dogs, since this animal is not fit for humans at present it is Muktzah (according to Rebbi Shimon) and may not be fed to dogs. 2. If something happens to an object on Shabbos that makes it unfit for man, it may not be fed even to dogs. (This is a form of Nolad.) For example, if the animal was alive before Yom Tov (and was fit for man, since he could slaughter and eat it on Yom Tov) and then it died on Yom Tov, it becomes unfit for man and is Muktzah and may not be fed to dogs. In Rava's case, the intestines of the animal fit into neither category! There is no law of Yom Tov that prevents the intestines from being used by man, and nothing happened to the intestines that made them unfit for human use. RASHI explains: that goose intestines are unfit for man not because any change occurred to them, but because it is Yom Tov, and it is not the manner to eat goose intestines on Yom Tov. Therefore, it is considered as though the laws of Yom Tov prohibit this item from human use (the first category mentioned above). That is why Rebbi Yehudah would prohibit giving them to animals. TOSFOS (Shabbos 29a, DH Achlan, and Beitzah 33a, DH v'Shadi) challenges Rashi's explanation from the Gemara earlier (128a) which states that one is permitted to move raw meat on Shabbos because it is possible for people to eat the meat in such a state. Certainly it is not the normal manner to eat raw meat on Shabbos, and yet the raw meat is not considered Muktzah! Tosfos therefore explains that goose intestines are edible as soon as the goose is slaughtered (before Yom Tov). However, shortly thereafter (on Yom Tov) the intestines spoil and become inedible.