ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShabbos 117
(a) How can one even compare them, asks the Gemara? The Sefer-Torah bag is
a Basis to something which is permitted, whereas the skin of the Pesach is
a basis to the flesh, which is itself forbidden?
(b) Even if there is money inside the bag, it is better than our case of
the skin. Why? Because at least *there*, the bag is a Basis le'Davar
ha'Mutar, as well as a Davar ha'Asur, unlike the skin, which is a Basis for
a Davar ha'Asur only.
(c) Nor can we prove the Heter to move the skin together with the flesh,
from the fact that one is initially permitted to bring the bag with the
money inside - since who said that one may? Certainly not from the fact
that one is not obligated to throw out the money. Why not? Because that may
well be only due to the fact that, in the process of emptying out the
money, the Sefer may catch fire. But it does not follow that one may bring
a bag with money inside - Let him bring a bag without money inside.
(a) So the Gemara reverts to the original proof - that it is permitted to
strip the Pesach, from the fact that one may carry the bag with the Sefer
Torah. What do we do with the problem of not learning a Melachah from mere
Tiltul? The answer is that, here too, it is not a real Melachah, since we
are speaking in a case when he does not need the skin, and does not intend
to perform the Melachah.
(b) Nor is it considered a Pesik Reisah, for which he would be Chayav,
since it also speaks in a case where he tears off the skin in small strips.
Consequently, it is not really a Melachah at all, only a Shevus, similar to
saving the bag together with the Torah.
(a) The Chachamim (Beis Hillel) require either a Lechi (an upright post),
or a Koreh (a crossbeam) to permit carrying in a cul-de-sac, whereas Rebbi
Eliezer requires two Lechayayim. Both Tana'im hold like Rebbi Eliezer, who
calls a Mavuy *she'Eino* Mefulash one with *two* Lechayayim, whilst a Mavuy
with only *one* Lechi, he refers to as a Mavuy Mefulash. Consequently, Ben
Beseira permits saving a Sefer with its bag into a Mavuy which has only
*one* Lechi, the Rabbanan require *two*.
(b) Firstly, asks Rabah, how can Rebbi Eliezer call a Mavuy which is closed
at one end and has a Lechi at the other - 'a Mavuy Mefulash'? It may well
require another Lechi, but that is no reason to refer to it as 'Mefulash'!
And secondly, if we are speaking about a blind alley which has a Lechi at
the entrance, then why do the Rabbanan permit saving only a *Sefer* there,
and not *food and drink* as well?
(c) Rabah explains the Machlokes like this: Rebbi Yehudah holds that
someone who owns two houses on two sides of the street - may place either a
Lechi or a Koreh at either end of his property and carry within that space
(The Rabbanan do not permit an area of the Reshus ha'Rabim to be turned
into a Reshus ha'Yachid in this manner). Both the Rabbanan and Ben Beseira
follow the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah; the Rabbanan hold that one is only
permitted to save a Sefer into such that Reshus as described by Rebbi
Yehudah (when it has a Lechi or a Koreh at *either* end, and which is
referred to as a 'Mavuy she'Eino Mefulash'), whereas according to Ben
Beseira, one may even save it into a street which has only *one* Lechi or
Koreh (referred to as a 'Mavuy Mefulash').
(d) Abaye point out Rabah's second question (which he himself asked on Rav
Chisda) will boomerang on him: Since that area has a Lechi or a Koreh at
either end, then why (if the Chachamim hold like Rebbi Yehudah), may one
save only a Sefer there, and not food and drink as well? So Rav Ashi
finally establishes the Machlokes according to Rebbi Eliezer - by a Mavuy
which has three walls; if it has a Lechi (or a Koreh), then it is called a
Mavuy she'Eino Mefulash, into which the Rabbanan permit one to carry a
Sefer (but not food, since it does not have *two* Lechayayim; whereas Ben Beseira permits one to save a Sefer even into a Mavuy with *one* Lechi
(which he calls a Mavuy Mefulash), but not food and drink, which may only
be saved into a Mavuy which has *two* Lechayayim (which he calls a Mavuy
(a) According to the Tana Kama, one is permitted to save as much food as
one needs from the time of the fire: three meals before the meal on Friday
night; two meals, between the Friday-night meal and the Shabbos morning
meal; one meal between the morning meal and Se'udas Shelishis. According to
Rebbi Yossi, Chazal always permitted three meals.
(b) The reason that Chazal did not give a blanket Heter to save as much
food as one can - is because they were afraid that, in one's confusion, one
may come to put out the fire?
(c) Similarly with a broken barrel of wine - they were afraid that, if they
were to permit bringing other vessels, one might rush home to fetch more
vessels, and then carry them through the street, in order to save as much
wine as possible.
(d) Someone who has guests, is permitted to bring other vessels to collect
the wine from the air or from the roof's edge, so as to have sufficient
wine to serve his guests.
(a) Whether one is permitted to use the other vessels first, and invite the
guests afterwards - is a Machlokes Tana'im: according to the Tana Kama, one
may not (Ein Ma'arimin); according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, one may
(b) Rebbi Eliezer does not allow him to Shecht both animals (a mother and
its child) that fell into the pit - because the Torah writes in Emor "Oso
ve'es Be'no, Lo Sishchatu be'Yom Echad".
(c) Rebbi Yehoshua holds that one may first bring up the one, having in
mind to Shecht it. However (upon finding the slightest fault), he does not
Shecht it, and brings up the other one (in case it is better than the
(d) Rebbi Eliezer forbids bringing up the second animal, because it is
possible to feed it where it is, in the pit; whereas in our case, where he
has no other option, Chazal may well have permitted Ha'aramah - to save the
wine first and invite the guests afterwards (like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi
Yehudah). And it is also possible that Rebbi Yehoshua permits bringing up
the second animal by means of Ha'aramah, only because of the animal's pain
(Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim), but as far as saving the wine is concerned,
Ha'aramah will be Asur.
(a) If one saved white bread from a fire - he is not permitted to then save
black bread, since black bread is definitely inferior to white bread (at
least it was considered such in those days). Whereas if he first saved
black bread, he is permitted to go on to save white bread, since it is
superior. This Beraisa appears to follow the opinion of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi
Yehudah (quoted in 5a).
(b) One is permitted to save from Yom Kipur (which falls on Friday) for
Shabbos, but not vice-versa (when Yom Kipur falls on Motza'ei Shabbos),
since he does not need the food until after the fast, in which case he can
bake the bread *then*. Since when do we permit a Sh'vus on Shabbos for a
weekday? And the same applies to saving on Shabbos for Yom-Tov (which falls
on Sunday) - since he can bake *then*. Neither may he remove the bread on
one Shabbos for the next, since he has a whole week to bake!
(a) Someone who forgot bread in the oven when Shabbos entered, is permitted
to save three meals.
(b) He is also permitted to announce to all his neighbors that whoever
wants, may come and save for himself three meals.
(c) He is not permitted to use a baker's shovel, despite the fact that this
does not constitute a Melachah, only a Chochmah. Nevertheless, on account
of its similarity to a Melachah, Chazal required that one make as much
change (Shinuy) as possible.
(d) Blowing the Shofar, like removing bread from the oven using a baker's
shovel, is only a Chochmah, and not a Melachah - and is only Asur
(a) We learn from ...
1. ... "ve'Hayah ba'Yom ha'Shishi, ve'Hechinu Es Asher Yavi'u" - that as
soon as they brought the Manna, they prepared it; from which we learn that
just as Yisrael in the desert prepared the food for Shabbos as early as
possible on Friday morning, so too, are we obligated to prepare the food
for Shabbos, early on Friday morning.
(b) When Rebbi Zeira broke off a large piece of Chalah, sufficient for the
whole meal, it did not look like greed - since he did not do this during
the week. So it was clear that what he did was purely li'Chevod Shabbos.
2. ... "(Liktu) Lechem Mishneh" - the obligation of making a Motzi on two
3. ... "Liktu" - that it is not necessary to eat both loaves, only to
recite a Motzi over them.
(c) Breaking off a *large* piece - gives the impression that one endears
the Shabbos meal - which is a Mitzvah.
(d) Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi made a point of using the brad that had been
used for an Eiruv, for Motzi, whenever it was available - to show their
love for Mitzvos. 'Since one Mitzvah was performed with the bread', they
said, 'let us use it for another Mitzvah'.
(a) According to ...
1. ...the Rabbanan, we learn from the three times "ha'Yom" - the three
meals on Shabbos, one on Friday night, and by day.
(b) Since Rebbi Yossi says 'Le'olam Matzilin Mazon Shalosh Se'udos, we see
that the Mishnah is speaking when he has not eaten yet (and it is not in
*this* point, that thar Rabbanan of Rebbi Yossi argue with him) like the
Rabbanan of Rebbi Chidka, and not Rebbi Chidka.
2. ...Rebbi Chidka, we learn from "ha'Yom" that one is obligated to have
three meals on Shabbos day.