סקר
באיזה גיל התחלת ללמוד דף יומי






 

Steinsaltz

Rather, it is referring to hard clothes, upon which it is permitted to sit even if they are a mixture of wool and linen. And this is in accordance with the opinion that Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: With regard to this hard felt [namta] material produced in the town of Neresh, it is permitted to sit or recline on it, and one need not be concerned about the fact that it is a mixture of wool and linen.

Rav Pappa said: With regard to felt socks [ardalayin], there is no prohibition of diverse kinds regarding them, as they are hard. Rava said: These bundles for coins, comprised of hard fabric or felt, there is no prohibition of diverse kinds with regard to them. However, with regard to pouches for holding seeds, there is a prohibition of diverse kinds with regard to them, as they are larger and softer than both felt socks and hard bundles for coins. Rav Ashi said: Both this and that have no prohibition of diverse kinds with regard to them because using these items is not the usual manner of keeping warm. Even if these objects are placed close to one’s skin, this is not the usual way of wearing clothes and warming oneself, and therefore they are permitted.

§ The mishna taught: However, one may not send a spiked sandal on a Festival. The Gemara asks: A spiked sandal, what is the reason that it may not be worn? The Gemara answers: It is due to an incident that occurred. A great tragedy resulted when people wore spiked sandals on Shabbat, which led the Sages to decree that these sandals may not be worn on a Shabbat or Festival.

Abaye said: With regard to a spiked sandal, it is prohibited to wear it on Shabbat, but it is permitted to move it. He clarifies: It is prohibited to wear a spiked sandal, due to the incident that occurred. And it is permitted to move it, from the fact that the mishna teaches: One may not send. For if it enters your mind that it is prohibited even to move a spiked sandal, now consider: If it were prohibited to move it, is the mishna required to state that one may send it? Rather, it must certainly be permitted to move a spiked sandal inside the house, despite the fact that one may not wear it.

The mishna further teaches: Nor may one send an unsewn shoe on a Festival. The Gemara asks: This is obvious, as these shoes are unfit for wearing. The Gemara answers: This statement was necessary only to teach that although the shoe is attached with pins and can be worn, it may not be sent on a Festival. Since it not properly sewn, it is not usually worn.

The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: One may not even send a white shoe. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda permits the sending of a black shoe but prohibits the sending of a white one because a white one requires a lump of chalk to color it properly. Rabbi Yosei prohibits the sending of a black shoe because one needs to polish it.

The Gemara comments: And they do not disagree with regard to the halakha, as this Sage ruled in accordance with the custom of his locale, and this Sage ruled differently, in accordance with the custom of his locale. In the place of this Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, the leather was made so that the side of the hide facing the flesh is on the underneath, facing the inside of the shoe, and therefore it does not require polishing; whereas in the place of that Sage, Rabbi Yosei, the leather was made so that side of the hide facing the flesh is above, facing the outside of the shoe. That side is often cracked and uneven and requires smoothing and polishing.

§ The mishna taught that this is the general principle: With regard to any article that one may use on a Festival, one may send it. The Gemara relates: Rav Sheshet permitted the Sages to send phylacteries on a Festival. Abaye said to him: But didn’t we learn in the mishna: With regard to any article that one may use on a Festival, one may send it? Phylacteries are not worn on Festivals. The Gemara answers: This is what the mishna is saying: With regard to any article that one may use on a weekday, one may send it on a Festival.

Abaye said: With regard to phylacteries, since this topic has come before us in the previous discussion, let us say a novel matter about it: If someone was coming on the road on the eve of a Shabbat or Festival, and he had phylacteries on his head, as the practice then was to don phylacteries the entire day, but not at night, and the sun set before he arrived at his destination, signaling the beginning of the Shabbat or Festival, when phylacteries may not be worn or even moved, he places his hand upon them to cover them so that people will not see them until he reaches his house, at which point he removes them. If he was sitting in the study hall with phylacteries on his head, and the day of Shabbat or the Festival was sanctified, for which he was unprepared, he places his hand upon them until he reaches his house.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Ika, raised an objection from the following teaching: If one was coming on the road with phylacteries on his head, and the day was sanctified before he arrived at his destination, he places his hand upon them until he reaches the house nearest the wall, where he removes them and leaves them there. If he was sitting in the study hall, outside the city, and the day was sanctified, for which he was unprepared, he places his hand upon them until he reaches a house that is near the study hall, where there are people who can guard the phylacteries. This shows that one may not bring phylacteries all the way to his house, but only to the nearest place within the city boundary.

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This baraita, which teaches that one places the phylacteries in the house nearest the wall, is referring to a case where the phylacteries can be safeguarded there, whereas that baraita, which states that he may bring them all the way to his house, deals with a situation where they are not safeguarded in the nearest house.

The Gemara challenges this: If the baraita is dealing with a case where the phylacteries are not safeguarded, why discuss specifically the case of phylacteries that were on his head? Even if one was not donning them but found them placed on the ground, he should also be required to don them and bring them to the house, for didn’t we learn in a mishna (Eiruvin 95a): One who finds phylacteries lying in a field outside of the city on Shabbat should don them and bring them into the city one pair at a time?

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This baraita, where it was taught that one need not don the phylacteries if they were not already on his head, is referring to a situation where they are safeguarded from thieves and also from dogs. That mishna, which stated that even if one found them on the ground, he must put them on and bring them into the city, is referring to a case where they are safeguarded from dogs but are not safeguarded from thieves.

The Gemara clarifies the novel element of the mishna’s ruling. Lest you say: Since most thieves [listim] are Jews, who would not treat phylacteries with contempt, one should not be allowed to carry them because there is no danger that they will be desecrated if they are left in their place, the mishna teaches us that the halakha takes the minority of cases into account. It is therefore appropriate to don the phylacteries and bring them into the city.

Talmud - Bavli - The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren No=C3=A9 Talmud
with commentary by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz Even-Israel (CC-BY-NC 4.0)
אדם סלומון
© כל הזכויות שמורות לפורטל הדף היומי | אודות | צור קשר | הוספת תכנים | רשימת תפוצה | הקדשה | תרומות | תנאי שימוש באתר | מפת האתר