Discussion on the Daf - Shabbat

amother

Pumpkin

Sun, Jul 05 2020, 1:21 pm

Aylat wrote:

Shabbat 119 120

Running in and out the house saving food and clothes from the fire - I'm surprised סכנת נפשות isn't mentioned, it sounds very dangerous.

R’ Rosner mentioned that, of course, in cases of סכנת נפשות (as in our days) everything is permitted to prevent loss of life. I think he may have even quoted a Rishon to that effect. He speculated that in those days houses were further apart, so they could be allowed to burn out, without worrying about others catching fire, etc.

Aylat

Mon, Jul 06 2020, 2:34 am

amother [ Pumpkin ] wrote:

I understand that. Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant in terms of running in and out of a burning building.

amother

Pumpkin

Mon, Jul 06 2020, 6:47 am

Aylat wrote:

I understand that. Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant in terms of running in and out of a burning building.

My misunderstanding. Sorry. I would assume that it refers to a very large, sprawling house, where one side is on fire, which would eventually spread to the other side (especially since it is not being put out), and the food, clothing, and/or sifrei kodesh are being removed from the other side to save them from eventually being consumed by the fire.

malki2

Mon, Jul 06 2020, 7:01 am

amother [ Pumpkin ] wrote:

Or it just means that the Shabbos candle tipped over and the tablecloth is burning and the rest of the house will eventually burn. But there is time to get stuff out. Obviously we are not talking about running in and out of a burning building to save some food.

Aylat

Tue, Jul 07 2020, 4:11 am

malki2 wrote:

Both of your scenarios make sense, thanks.

Aylat

Tue, Jul 07 2020, 4:15 am

Shabbat 123

התירו וחזרו והתירו וחזרו והתירו
I think a common perception is that halachot get more machmir going down the generations as תקנות and גדרים are added onto the baseline דאורייתא. Here a גדר was made significantly more lenient. Are there other examples like this?

amother

Pumpkin

Wed, Jul 08 2020, 1:00 am

Aylat wrote:

R’Rosner explained that in those days, chillul Shabbos was rampant, so they assured practically everything (in his words) to give a shock to the system, so-to-speak. Then as Shabbos observance improved, they gradually permitted more items to be used.

It seems to me that takanos and gedarim were usually instituted to combat a widespread problem-of-the-day. They were relaxed if the problem no longer existed (e.g. in today’s example), or if it was a gezeirah sh’ein hatzibbur yachol la’amod bo (e.g. takanos Ezra). A gezeirah sh’ein hatzibbur yachol la’amod bo doesn’t seem to need a formal repeal by the chachamim. It just appears to fall into disuse, because it was never really accepted.

Unfortunately, today we no longer have the ability to change any of the takanos, as we may not know all of the reasons behind them, so we will have to wait for Moshiach and the reinstatement of the Sanhedrin.

amother

Orchid

Wed, Jul 08 2020, 1:12 am

Aylat wrote:

The history of muktza may be an intellectual history, rather than a record of how shabbos was actually observed.

amother

Pumpkin

Wed, Jul 08 2020, 1:23 am

Aylat wrote:

DH supplied an example of the gezeira of shemen akum, which was cancelled by a later bais din. (He says there are not too many examples of this.)

amother

Orchid

Wed, Jul 08 2020, 1:39 am

amother [ Pumpkin ] wrote:

What do you mean by this? Can you elaborate?

I mean, they are documenting a thought process, but not how people kept shabbos. It's almost inconceivable that people could have lived in a world where they couldn't move a spoon on shabbos.

amother

Pumpkin

Wed, Jul 08 2020, 1:59 am

amother [ Orchid ] wrote:

I mean, they are documenting a thought process, but not how people kept shabbos. It's almost inconceivable that people could have lived in a world where they couldn't move a spoon on shabbos.

Do you have any evidence to support that position?

Aylat

Wed, Jul 08 2020, 9:28 am

Shabbat 124

The concept of הערמה is fascinating. (We had this exact scenario in an earlier daf too - can't remember which one.) What are other examples when this is applied? Is it a legitimate mechanism used by the ראשונים and אחרונים or only in the גמרא? What are the parameters of its use?

Aylat

Wed, Jul 08 2020, 9:29 am

amother [ Pumpkin ] wrote:

DH supplied an example of the gezeira of shemen akum, which was cancelled by a later bais din. (He says there are not too many examples of this.)

Oh yeah, that was mentioned near the beginning of this masechta.

Aylat

Wed, Jul 08 2020, 10:09 am

Shabbat 124

וטלטול גופיה לאו משום הוצאה היא
Never learned that מוקצה was a גדר for הוצאה. Always that eg can't touch pen (which is incorrect btw, it's moving that's forbidden) in case you come to write. Maybe this applies to the תקנה against moving כלי שמלאכתו להיתר. Or is it מוקצה in general and I was taught it wrong as a kid?

malki2

Wed, Jul 08 2020, 10:11 am

Aylat wrote:

The Rambam (I think) lists this as one of the reasons for Muktzeh. But there are other reasons as well.

amother

Orchid

Wed, Jul 08 2020, 10:19 am

amother [ Pumpkin ] wrote:

Do you have any evidence to support that position?

None whatsoever. It's just hard to believe that people actually lived according to the strictest concept of muktza, especially since you have Rav Shimon with his attitude that muktza pretty much doesn't exist.

Why isn't it possible that חזרו והיתירו just represents stages of a conversation? As in, we thought this, but then considered something else, and then we thought maybe we were totally wrong and it should be this way.

Given that conversations in the Gemara often transcend time and space, what's wrong with considering that maybe they were condensed?

None of this matters in practical terms. I would just prefer to see Chazal thinking through an issue rather than getting it wrong and backtracking.

Again, I have no way of knowing one way or the other.

malki2

Wed, Jul 08 2020, 10:22 am

amother [ Orchid ] wrote:

Rashi says explicitly not what you said. He definitely understood that people lived without spoons for a period of time.

amother

Pumpkin

Wed, Jul 08 2020, 10:42 am

amother [ Orchid ] wrote:

It’s not a matter of “getting it wrong and backtracking.” It’s a matter of ChaZaL modifying their takanos to match the shifting paradigms on the ground to meet the needs of the people in those times. It appears that the different stages were deliberate (and probably planned), with the more stringent restrictions being lifted as they became unnecessary (having accomplished their purpose).