ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShabbos 51
(a) Chazal forbade covering a pot on Shabbos, even with a cover that does
not increase the heat, fof fear that, if he finds that his food has become
cold, he may come to put the pot on the fire, to heat it up.
(b) If the pot was already covered before Shabbos, and the cover slipped
off, it is permitted to re-cover it.
(c) One may put a flask of cold water under a cover, to prevent the sun
from heating it up.
(d) We need Rav Yehudah to permit this even with regard to a *food* dish,
which it is common to cover in this way, in order to heat it (and we may
have thought that it would be forbidden - even when one is covering it in
order to keep it cool); because our Mishnah mentions water, which one does
not commonly cover in order to heat it in this way, as a result of which
there is no reason to prohibit cooling it.
(a) Rebbi retracted from his original stance (to forbid wrapping a cold pot
to prevent it from becoming hot), when he heard from Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi
Yossi that his father permitted it.
(b) 'Kevar Horeh Zaken' means that the elder (in this case, Rebbi Yossi)
has already ruled (and who am I to rule differently)?
(c) Rav Papa commented on the love that the Talmidei-Chachamim bore each
other. Had Rebbi Yossi been alive, he would (in spite of his greatness -
Rashi, see also Tosfos DH 'Ilu'), have been subjugated to Rebbi, who was
the Prince and the head of the Sanhedrin. Nevertheless, Rebbi submitted to
(a) Rav Nachman also instructed Daro his slave, to fetch him hot water that
had been heated by a non-Jewish baker - because 'Bishul Akum' does not
apply to any food that can be eaten or drunk uncooked.
(b) Rav Ami was cross with him, because, in his opinion, he should have
taken a more stringent view, since he was an important person, from whom
others may learn to be adopt other unwarranted leniencies.
(a) Raban Gamliel goes even further than the Tana Kama. He permits not only
to add covers to the boiling pot, but even to change one cover for another
- even a better cover to re-place an inferior one.
(b) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel permits even covering with a new cover, if the
food was emptied into a second pot. Why?
Because now that he is making the food cooler (by pouring it into a K'li
Sheni), he is most unlikely to go and heat it - the reason for the
prohibition of Hatmanah!
(c) It is forbidden to take the pot from its wrapping if it is covered with
a Muktzah cover and the top of the lid does not protrude from it.
(d) Even if he removes the wrapping from the side, he will not be permitted
to pick up the pot, which has become a 'Basis le'Davar he'Asur', since he
put the cover there deliberately (According to Tosfos, a Muktzah object
that is placed on a second object- even deliberately - with the intention
of having it removed during Shabbos, does not create a Basis. See DH 'O'.)
(e) If some of the lid protrudes from the Muktzah cover, it still remains a
Basis (according to Rashi). However, it appears, that the easily accessible
lid makes it possible to tilt the pot on its side - which is permitted even
by Muktzah, since one does not pick up the Muktzah object from the ground.
(a) A 'Meicham' is a copper kettle, and a 'Kedeirah', an earthenware pot.
(b) The correct text in the Gemara permits every combination of placing one
of these hot containers on top of the other, because one is only preserving
the heat, - not increasing it (nor is this considered Hatmanah, which
Chazal forbade on Shabbos - even if it is only to preserve the heat).
(c) One is permitted to cement the mouth of the kettle or pot, provided the
dough was kneaded before Shabbos.
(d) It will be forbidden to place one on top of the other, if the bottom
one is hot and the top one, cold.
(a) Rebbi permits Hatmanah of cold things (provided it is only to keep it
cool). (This is what he conceded to Rebbi Yossi - as we learnt on the
Hadran Alach, 'ba'Meh Tomnin!' --- Perek Ba'meh Beheimah
(b) Rubbing snow or ice to transform it into water, is forbidden
(presumably mi'de'Rabanan), because it is creating something new, and
resembles a Melachah.
(c) The Rabanan forbade this only because of its similarity to a Melachah.
Consequently, placing the ice into wine to cool the wine, or into a cup in
the sun to melt them, is permitted, since he did not do anything, so it
does not resemble a Melachah.
(a) The Torah writes "Lema'an Yanu'ach Shorcha va'Chamorcha" (Devarim), to
place an Isur Asei on allowing one's animal to perform one of the
thirty-nine Melachos (which is not for its own pleasure - such as plucking
grass to eat) on Shabbos.
(b) Whatever is needed to guard the animal, is permitted for the animal to
carry. It is considered an ornament, and, like a human being is permitted
(min ha'Torah) to wear ornaments in the street, so too is an animal.
(c) One may allow a horse, a mule, a camel and a donkey to go out into the
street with a ring around their necks.
(d) Should those rings become Tamei, the Tana permits them to be sprinkled
with the ashes of the Parah Adumah, and to be Toveled as they are - even
whilst the animal is actually wearing them.
(a) A 'Na'akasa Chivresa bi'Zemama de'Parzela' means that a white dromedary
is permitted to go out with a metal nose-ring.
(b) The people of Mechuza sent Levi barley together with his money, as a
hint that he was better off bying a local donkey and feeding it constantly
with barley, than going for a Lubian donkey - since, travelling alone would
take them half a year there, and half a year back.
(c) 'Nigri de'Chamra, Sa'ari' means that the footsteps of a donkey depends
upon the amount of barley that one feeds it.
(a) Since a dromedary is not guarded with reigns, it is obvious that it may
not it go out with them.
(b) The Sha'aleh in the case of a camel with a nose-ring, is whether
excessive guarding is called carrying and is forbidden, or whether it
remains within the realm of guarding, and is therefore permitted?
(c) The fact that the Beraisa gives a number (of animals that one may allow
to go out with reigns), comes to preclude one case: and that case might be
a camel with a nose-ring (because it is excessive) or it might be a
dromedary with reigns.
(d) The Beraisa permits a camel and a Lubian donkey to go out with reigns.
(a) The Gemara establishes the Machlokes between the Tana Kama (who forbids
a Chayah to go out with a 'collar', and Chananya, who permits it, by a cat,
for which a collar is an excessive form of guarding. In that case, the
point under discussion (whether or nor, excessive guarding is called
carrying or not), is a Machlokes Tana'im - the Tana Kama forbids, whilst
(b) The Beraisa cannot be talking about a large Chayah (like a lion), for
whom a collar would obviously be useless (so why should Chananya permit
it?); nor can it be talking about a small kind of Chayah (such as a stoat
or a weasel), for which a collar is ideal (so why should the Tana Kama
(c) Rabbah bar Rav Huna - who was greater than Levi - was upset with him,
for allowing his donkey to go in front of his own.
(d) Levi asked Rabbah bar Rav Huna whether one may allow a donkey such as
the one he was riding (an unruly one that is difficult to control) to go
out with a bit on Shabbos. And he answered the Sha'aleh by quoting Rabah
bar Rav Huna's own father, who ruled in the name of Shmuel like Chananya,
who permits it.