Discussion on the Daf - Shabbat

Log in / Sign Up

List of Forums + New Post Recipe Box Usergroups Following My Posts Bookmarks

Private Messages Advanced Search Rules New User Guide FAQ Advertise Contact Us

Forum -> Judaism

Previous 1 2 3 12 13 14 Next

View latest: 24h 48h 72h

naturalmom5

Tue, Mar 10 2020, 12:58 pm

FREILICHEN PURIM

Shabbos 4

Mechalel Shabbos to prevent someone from being forced to leave the Derech Chas V’shalom
If it is permissible to leave the Techum in an efforts to save one’s
kidnapped daughter and prevent her from being lead off the Derech
- שו"ת הרשב"א, בית יוסף , שו"ע -
[ד [The Beis Yosef 15 raises that the Rashba was once consulted
concerning what to do in a situation where one’s daughter was
kidnapped on Shabbos with the purpose of enticing her to leave the
Derech. The question was whether or not her father should be allowed
to leave the Techum (and even the outside 3 pasa’os according to the
opinion that it is d’oraisa) in an effort to save her and prevent her
from leaving the Torah way. The Rashba responded that his
inclination was to say we don’t push off Shabbos to prevent someone
else from transgressing aveiros. To back himself up, he brought the
words of our Gemara stating that we are not supposed to transgress
an avierah to benefit a friend even when transgressing a light aveirah
to prevent one that is treated more stringently

The Rashba continued that this cannot be compared the case
mentioned from Eiruvin 16 where we say it is better for a chaveir to
transgress a light issur in order to prevent an am ha’aretz from
stumbling in something more stringent. That case is different because
there the am ha’aretz’s potential transgression would actually be
caused by the actions of the chaveir. As such, the same cannot
necessarily be said regarding other cases. However, the Rashba
concluded that there is still what to look into concerning this subject.
On the other hand, the Beis Yosef continues that from the words
of Tosafos we see the father should be mechalel Shabbos to save his
daughter. This is clear from how Tosafos differentiates between
whether or not the one transgressing does so negligently. In this case
where the girl was seized by force and subsequently taken away with
purpose of pressuring her to leave the Derech, there is no evidence
of negligence on behalf of the girl herself. Therefore, to Tosafos this
is such a scenario where we do say to transgress a light issur in an
effort to save someone else. We can also reach the same conclusion
through what Tosafos says regarding the half slave half free man that
the reason to free him is because Pru U’revu is a very important
mitzvah. Here too, there is no greater mitzvah than preventing
someone from completely abandoning the Torah way.
Therefore, he concludes that it is a mitzvah to be mechalel
Shabbos even m’doraisa in an effort to save the girl. Not only that,
if the father wishes to refrain from going then we force him to do so
anyway. We do this the same way we find that a master is forced to
free his half slave for the purpose of enabling him to fulfill the
mitzvah of Pru U’revu. Here too it is considered a light thing to be
mechalel Shabbos even m’doraisa if the purpose is to save a girl from
completely forsaking the Torah way.
Similarly, the Shulchan Aruch 17 paskens that it is a mitzvah for
one to leave even the 3 parsa’os on Shabbos in an effort to save his
daughter from being enticed to leave the Derech. Also, if the father
wishes to refrain from doing so, we force him anyway. The Rema
concludes by writing to see what is written later .

Aylat

Wed, Mar 11 2020, 1:42 am

Shabbat 5

First historical mention of basketball? Wink

amother

Orchid

Wed, Mar 11 2020, 1:48 am

Aylat wrote:

Shabbat 5

First historical mention of basketball? Wink

That put things in a whole new light for me!

Aylat

Wed, Mar 11 2020, 2:29 am

Shabbat 5

Methodological (?) observation: I find it fascinating that so much of the Gemara can only be understood by - knowing all the rest of the Gemara already. Not only did we jump straight into the details of הוצאה and a list of מלאכות appears only 7 chapters in, but within the specifics of הוצאה there's no structured defining of terms. Not only would I not be able to understand the Gemara on my own, the person giving the shiur has to use concepts not yet used by the Gemara in order to explain.

Very different to how it's taught in הלכה class. "These are the different רשויות.The act of הוצאה needs עקירה and הנחה. The definitions of each רשות is as follows. The parameters of עקירה and הנחה are as follows." Etc. From the general to the particular. Whereas the Gemara dives straight into specific, often unusual, particular cases - a nut in a bowl floating on water, is that נח?

I've read about the Gemara's שור and בור method of teaching נזיקין but this is my first time actually learning legal-heavy Gemara (as opposed to aggadata). Very interesting.

Aylat

Wed, Mar 11 2020, 2:36 am

naturalmom5 wrote:

Fascinating. Is this one of the sources on the debate about inviting non-frum people for Shabbat if you know they will drive? I'm also curious about the story behind the shaila. Who kidnapped the daughter and why? "Leave the derech" = convert to Christianity in those days, right? Why did the father have to travel on Shabbat - would it have been impossible to reach her if he waited to leave til motz'sh or is it counted so urgent that it needs to be done straight away? And how did the story end? Also looking forward to Eiruvin 16 to see what that scenario is.
(Btw what does the last sentence mean?)

naturalmom5

Wed, Mar 11 2020, 6:48 am

Im not sure what you are asking

The last paragraph is quoting

SA O Chaim 306.13 and 328.10

naturalmom5

Wed, Mar 11 2020, 6:53 am

Its Shushan Purim...hooray...

Specific Dinnim with regards to carrying 4 Amos in a Public Domain according to Ben Azai
When carrying in a public domain according to Ben
Azai if one is chayiv even with stopping to rest in middle
of the 4 amos / Where the object wasn’t put down at
the end of the 4 amos / Where the object was put down
in middle of the 4 amos
- תוספות בשם ריב"א, שפת אמת, רשב"א, קהלות יעקב -
[ה [As we have seen, Tosafo 13s raises that even according to Ben
Azai one is chayiv for carrying 4 amos in a public domain, and
we don’t say walking is like standing there. Tosafos reasons that
this is because the issur to carry is Halacha L’Moshe MiSinai. He
later brings the Riva who raises a safek within this explanation for
how to reconcile Ben Azai’s shita. His safek is twofold. The first
part is concerning according to Ben Azai whether or not we should
say one is chayiv for carrying even when stopping to rest in middle
of the 4 amos. Additionally, he is also unsure what the din would
be where one doesn’t stop to stand outside the 4 amos (for example
where someone takes the object from him beforehand). His question
there is whether or not we can still use the concept of walking being
like standing to at least consider it as if he stood outside the 4 amos.
The Sefas Emes explains the Riva by saying his safek is
concerning how to understand this chiddush that one is chayiv for
carrying (4 amos in a public domain) Halacha L’Moshe MiSinai
even though walking is usually like standing. On the one hand, we
can understand it to mean the halacha is said specifically
concerning the distance of 4 amos. This means to say that although
walking truly is like standing, one is chayiv nevertheless when
walking 4 amos. The status of standing is disregarded. According
to this the same would apply to one who stands to rest from his
burden. Such a person would be chayiv the same way one moving
is chayiv although it is considered like standing. According to this,
after carrying the 4 amos it then returns to the din of walking being
like standing. Therefore, even if one doesn’t actively stop to stand,
nevertheless he would be chayiv because the usual din considers
him to have stopped.
Alternatively, it is possible to understand the Halacha L’Moshe
MiSinai comes to tell us that in relation to the issur of carrying
there is no din of walking being like standing whatsoever.
Therefore, even after the distance of 4 amos one doesn’t become
chayiv until he physically stops. Without stopping he is still pattur
since for this issur there is no rule to consider the walking to be
like stopping. According to this approach it comes out that if one
were to stop in middle of the 4 amos to rest, then this would
constitute a break making him pattur for carrying. The Halacha is
specifically relegated to making walking not considered to be
standing with regard to this issur.
The Rashba 14 also writes like this Tosafos that the issur of
carrying according to Ben Azai is Halacha L’Moshe MiSinai.
However, he explicitly adds that all this is said specifically to
disregard the general rule considering walking to be like standing.
It isn’t possible to then apply it as well to stopping for rest.
Therefore, of course stopping to take a rest would constitute a
break, and one in such a situation would be pattur. The Halacha
exclusively dictates that one who walks is chayiv and not one who
stops to rest.
The Kehillos Yaakov 15 also raises this safek of the Rivah
concerning whether or not we should also consider breaking to rest
as not being a hefsek in the 4 amos and as if he came to a full stop.
He clarifies that nevertheless this is only in consideration where one
doesn’t actually put the object down when resting. Since the ikar
din is that walking is considered like standing, therefore when it
was nischadesh that one is nevertheless chayiv for carrying 4 amos
in a public domain there really should be no difference between
standing through walking or through resting. However, when
putting the object down that is considered a hanacha of the object
and not of the person’s body. Therefore, such a case is not
comparable to walking being like standing to say he should still be
chayiv even though the object is resting on the ground.

Aylat

Wed, Mar 11 2020, 8:30 am

Naturalmom5,

What is הלכה למעשה מסיני - that walking 4 אמות is carrying? And מרשות לרשות is מדאורייתא?

Which halachot is walking like standing? Not heard of that concept before.

My question in the other post Shabbat 4 is what does it mean, "concludes by see what is written later"? Written where by who? Ie he doesn't resolve the issue there?

naturalmom5

Wed, Mar 11 2020, 11:25 am

Aylat wrote:

Very good questions. I will try to look it up and ask my husband

naturalmom5

Wed, Mar 11 2020, 2:13 pm

Aylat

Do you have a Mishna Brura

306.13, is talking about a criminal or someone who is running away and if you wait till after Shabbos you wont be able to get him, so we make an announcement in shul

328.10 , says that a deathly ill person that says he needs to be mehalel Shabbos for his sickness we only listen to a Dr.
Then there is another opinion that a lay-person is also listened to, but only a Jew , not a NJ who isnt a recognized medical exoert..

Reb Moshe has a tshuva on this too
YD 3.90

naturalmom5

Wed, Mar 11 2020, 6:23 pm

Aylat wrote:

Carrying 4 amos in RR is HMM

Rishus l rishus is doreissa

Aylat

Wed, Mar 11 2020, 11:40 pm

naturalmom5 wrote:

Thank you. I'll look up MB if I have time. Don't have Igrot Moshe alas.

Aylat

Wed, Mar 11 2020, 11:41 pm

naturalmom5 wrote:

Carrying 4 amos in RR is HMM

Rishus l rishus is doreissa

What status is הלכה למשה מסיני? Is it דרבנן, דאורייתא or somewhere in between (if there is such a thing)? I feel like I should know this.

naturalmom5

Fri, Mar 13 2020, 2:20 pm

Shabbos 7a

half a Wall with half a Hole
If it is possible to join the two even at a distance greater
than 3 tefachim

- ר"ן, ביאור הלכה, שפת אמת -
[ב [We had mentioned the Ran who holds that even where the walls
of a house don’t make up 10 tefachim, their combination with
the walls of a hole allow them to join together and be eligible for
consideration as a private domain. Now, he actually goes on to
prove this from how we pasken that a depth and wall of 5 tefachim
can join together. On the same note, Rebbi Yochanan paskens
later 17 that a pit and its cavity can combine to make up 10 tefachim,
and there is even a b’raisa like him.

This all stems from what is found in Eiruvin 18 that l’halacha a
5 tefach depth and wall combine for 10 tefachim. Rashi there 19
explains this to be referring to a chatzeir where the gound is 5
tefachim high and someone added to that height with a 5 tefach wall.
Similarly, both the Tur and Shulchan Aruch 20 raise that a 5 tefach
mound can have its shiur completed through building a 5 tefach
wall. This then serves to make the mound eligible for carrying and
all other matters. It is from all this that it becomes clear it would
also be permissible to combine the 5 tefachim from a hole with the
5 tefachim of a house’s wall. This joining then makes the space into
a private domain, and it isn’t necessary for the actual walls of the
house to be 10 tefachim high.

We just mentioned the Shulchan Aruch as saying that a five
tefach mound can have its shiur completed through building an
additional 5 tefach wall. This then makes it valid for carrying and all
other matters. Concerning this psak, the Biur Halacha21 raises a
safek regarding what the din would be if the new wall were to be
constructed at a distance of 3 or 4 (or more) tefachim from the edge
of the mound. His question is whether or not we can still join the two
together to create a complete wall. He reasons to say this is the
subject of disagreement between the Tehillah L’Dovid and the Gra22.
However, from the words of the Ran it is clear he would say there
is no need for the mound and upper wall to be within 3 tefachim of
each other. We know he holds that where a 4 by 4 hole is made it
doesn’t also have to be close to the actual walls of the house itself.
He says this even where the walls of the house aren’t 10 tefachim
from their own height, and proves his opinion through what is said
that a depth and wall can join together. Therefore, it is clear from his
words that they can combine even when at a distance from each other.
Indeed, the Sfas Emes 23 also raises that the ikar is like the Ran
who holds regarding Hilchos Shabbos one can join a half wall of a
house together with a half wall of a hole even where the two are
far from each other. He asserts that this is clear from how a 5 tefach
wall and 5 tefach depth are able to combine, and the Gemara
bringing this psak makes no mention of a need for the two to be
within 3 tefachim of each other.

Not only that, he even writes this for the words of the Rosh
as well. He asserts that his intention never was to combine the
answers of Tosafos and the Tosafos Yeshanim requiring the walls
of a house to be 10 tefachim high (like how the Magen Avraham
explained the Rosh’s words). On the contrary, the Rosh’s true
intention was to say regarding making a private domain on
Shabbos that it isn’t necessary to physically join the walls of the
hole to the walls of the house. Rather, it is enough for there to
be a 10 tefach separation between the public domain and the floor
of the hole made up of an external wall and the internal parts of
the house. He even adds it doesn’t make any sense to say the
Rosh was insinuating that we need to physically join the upper
tefach of the external wall to make up the 10 tefachim within the house

NOTES
requires. That is what makes the Sukkah usable. However, this is not true concerning the
walls needed to make an area a private domain for Shabbos. There it isn’t the wall itself
that is the pressing need. Instead, the intention is for the area to be enclosed. Therefore,
it is specifically by the walls of Shabbos that it is okay even where the hole isn’t close
to them. At the end of the day it is still completely enclosed. However, by Sukkah it is
the wall itself that is needed. As such, the wall need to literally be next to the hole.

Aylat

Sat, Mar 14 2020, 1:20 pm

(Ladies, help, I keep picking up my phone to start listening to my shiur and instead I check the news or more of the messages flooding my inbox. Arghhh. Anxiety rising. Shabbat was such a nice break from that pressure. I feel like I need to increase my learning at the moment, but it's hard to concentrate. Okay, deep breath.)

imorethanamother

Sun, Mar 15 2020, 12:38 am

I can’t even formulate questions, that’s how little I understand. Just when I think something is a karmelis, it’s a reshus rabim.

A big hole?
A puddle?
A pole? (Differing heights)
A branch?
A basket?
An upside down basket?
A box? Why isn’t a box like a basket?

naturalmom5

Mon, Mar 16 2020, 9:56 am

Shabbos 8

- תוספות ישנים, חתם סופר, תוצאות חיים -
[ ב [As we have mentioned, Rashi holds the reason for the pettur is
because in the Mishkan they only threw vessels and not
domains. On Rashi’s assertion, the Tosafos Yeshanim 6 questions that
this isn’t true. On the contrary, they were motzi domains in the
Mishkan. Both the Aron and the Mizbeiach had the shiur to be
considered domains, and we should learn from them that they were
motzi domains in the Mishkan.

The Chasam Sofer 7 comes to answer this question. He writes that
we can’t compare throwing to Hotza’ah. When Rashi asserted that
they only threw vessels in the Mishkan and not domains, he meant
this specifically concerning the action of throwing. Of course he knew
that with their hands they were motzi the Aron and Mizbeichos which
constitute domains. However, this was done through the action of
Hotza’ah with their hands, and we cannot learn out throwing from
Hotza’ah. Not only that, he writes this with a clear indication that he
is bothered by how the question was asked in the first place.
Now, the Sefer Totzaos Chaim 8 brings these words of the
Chasam Sofer, and writes that we can use them to answer for why
Abayei specifically discussed the act of throwing a beehive into a
public domain. In truth, he could have also brought the din with
regard to being motzi a beehive as throwing is merely an offshoot
of Hotza’ah. In fact, on the surface it would seem to make more
sense that he should have discussed the Av Melacha and not the
offshoot. However, with the Chasam Sofer’s explanation for Rashi’s
words this all makes sense. From his words we see the whole din of
the beehive applies specifically to throwing and not Hotza’ah. It was
specifically the action of throwing that was present in the Mishkan
with relation to objects and not domains. On the other hand, one
would be chayiv for being motzi a domain as such an action was
present in the Mishkan.

However, the Totzaos Chaim also answers for the reasoning of the
Tosafos Yeshanim. He asserts the Tosafos Yeshanim must have held
that because throwing is an offshoot of Hotza’ah as we see later on 9,
therefore it doesn’t make sense to differentiate between the two. As
such, if we say that one would be chayiv for being motzi a beehive
because such an action was present in the Mishkan, then it wouldn’t
stand to reason to give a different din for throwing. Being an offshoot
of Hotza’ah makes that it should always have the same din as the Av.

IF ANYONE IS STILL INTERESTED...

Aylat

Mon, Mar 16 2020, 11:06 am

imorethanamother wrote:

I'm very confused about how we can define urban neighbourhoods as כרמליות and put up עירובין nowadays. Doesn't seem to fit with רשות הרבים and כרמלית here in the Gemara. I guess I'll need to wait til מסכת עירובין.

Aylat

Mon, Mar 16 2020, 11:11 am

A few questions from the end of last week

Shabbat 8
Is the reed basket כוורת discussion specifically about throwing or also applies to carrying? If the first, is that why the needles are mentioned? Because big poles were also transferred between רשויות in מלאכת המשכן.

I'm confused in general about transferring 4 amot in רשות הרבים. Need עקירה and הנחה or is that only when transferring between domains?

According to רבא's point about the bits of reeds that extend beyond the basket and thus would be more than 10 tefachim above the ground and in פטור airspace. Does that mean that transferring any tall object (above 10 tefachim) is never liable because it extends into non-רשות הרבים airspace?

Aylat

Mon, Mar 16 2020, 11:13 am

Shabbat 9

הלכה למעשה we don't have any restrictions nowadays within רשות היחיד, right? (Re ר יצחק בר אבדימי at bottom of עמוד א.) Where did that go to?

Page 2 of 14

Previous 1 2 3 12 13 14 Next