Shabbat 55: Inevitability of Death, Righteous & Sinners

Today's daf begins with a discussion of good people, who may have the letter tav inscribed on their foreheads, and evil people.  We learn that the righteous must protest the conduct of the wicked.  Examples are shared of times when this did not occur.  Rav Chisda says that six men mentioned by Ezekiel (9:2) are the six angels of destruction: Fury, Wrath, Rage, Destroyer, Breaker, and Annihilator. 

The rabbis consider possible reasons for the letter tav to be on the forehead's of righteous.  Perhaps it represents the word tiheye, you shall live, directed at the righteous, or tamut, you shall die, directed at sinners.  Perhaps it is the last letter in emet, truth, which is the seal of the Holy One.  Or it is the last letter of the aleph-bet, representing one who has studied all there is to learn.  

The rabbis begin a discussion about sin and its relationship with death.  In Psalms, it is written that suffering is a consequence of iniquity.  The Gemara argues with this statement, suggesting that Adam was not punished with the death penalty.  And in Ecclesiastes (9:2), we learn that death comes to everyone independent of our actions.

The Gemara discusses the possible sins of other patriarchs.  Did Reuven really lie with Bilhah, his father's concubine, or did he simply rearrange his father's bed in protest of his father sleeping with Bilhah and not his mother Leah after Rachel's death?   Perhaps Reuven was saved from the sin of adultery.

While the rabbis are clear about the seriousness about avoiding sin, they are particularly concerned about sexually based transgressions.  The thought that our ancestors might be guilty of such behaviours is distasteful.  

Shabbat 54: More on Animals on Shabbat: Calling Out Bad Behaviour

In our last Mishna we learned that ewes may go out kevulot.  This is when a female animal's tail is tied down so that a male animal cannot mount her.  The rabbis suggest that the word kavul means "does not produce fruit".  This is the name of a place, as well.  Land that cannot produce fruit might be called mechabela, bound shut.  

A new Mishna teaches that a camel may not go out with a saddlecloth tied only to its tail on Shabbat, nor may it go out with its legs bound.  Other animals cannot be bound in this way, either.  We cannot tie camels to each other and pul the lead camel thus pulling the others.  We are permitted to place the ropes tied to each camel on our hands and pull them al as long as the ropes are not intertwined with each other.

The Gemara notes Tosefta's comments: camels may not go out with saddlecloths tied to their tails.  They must be tied to tails and humps so that they will not fall off.  Rabba bar Rav Huna says that a camel may go out with a saddlecloth tied to its afterbirth.  It will not be detached by the animal for that would be painful.  

Rav Yehuda says that akud is binding an animal's foreleg and hind leg to each other, like Isaac.  Ragul is tying the lower foreleg to the upper foreleg of an animal so that it could not run away. The rabbis argue about the exact meanings of these terms. The Gemara teaches a reason for not tying camels to each other: it looks like one is going to the market to sell merchandise or to deliver a caravan of camels.  Shabbat cannot be seen as a day where these things are permitted.  The intertwining of ropes refers to a concern about mixing diverse kinds and a prohibition against holding a rope with more than one handbreadth hanging below one's hand.

We are introduced to a second Mishna at the start of amud (b).  It teaches that a donkey cannot go out with the saddlecloth when it is not tied to its back, nor with a bell even if it is plugged to prevent it from ringing, nor with a ladder that is around its neck, nor with a strap that is around its leg.  Roosters cannot go out with strings and not with straps on their feet (demonstrating ownership).  Rams may not go out with a small wagon under their tails to keep them from being damaged.  Ewes may not go out chanunot, calves cannot go out with a gimon, muzzel or sack for feed, cows may not go out with a kupar, skin of a hedgehog.  Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya's cow would go out on Shabbat with a strap between its horns against the will of the Sages.

Steinsaltz's notes suggest that the rabbis might have been referring to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya's wife going out with something prohibited on Shabbat when they speak about his cow.  This would help people from talking about her transgression.  

Other prohibitions are done to prevent the animals' strides, to prevent injury, to prevent vessels from breaking, and to keep animals warm once we taken from them what we need.  Rav Chisda suggest that keeping a ewe warm is treatment  for an Exilarch rather than for a shorn sheep.   We learn a story about the boys, Rav Pappa bar Shmuel and Rav Chisda discussing this with Rav Nachman.  Rav Nachman says that a ewe in labour provided with oiled woollen cloths placed on their heads and wombs  is like turning the animal in to his wife Yalta who descended from the house of the Exilarch.  

After continuing to consider why our last Mishna suggested that we should treat animals in these different ways.  We are reminded that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya would tithe 12,000 calves each year as he had 120,000 calves born in his herds annually.  So the one cow mentioned was actually his neighbour's.  His name was associated with the cow because he did not stand up and decry his neighbour's behaviour.  

At the very end of our daf, we learn that Rav, Rabbi Chanina, Rabbi Yochanan (or Rabbi Yonatan) and Rav Chaviva taught that must protest the sinful conduct of people in one's town.  If not, one is apprehended for their sins.  Similarly, if one does not protest the sinful conduct of the world and one has the power to do so, one is apprehended for the sins of the world.  Rav Papp added to this that the Exilarch had extra responsibility.  If he did not decry the sins of the whole world, all of his family members would be apprehended.  This is because his authority covers the entire Jewish world.  

Shabbat 53: Consideration of Animals' Comfort; Miracles of FTM Transition to Feed an Infant

The rabbis consider whether or not a donkey's saddlecloth might fall from the animal without having to actively remove it on Shabbat.  They also consider the differences between halacha regarding this and halacha regarding a donkey's saddle which might be tied in different places.  Rav Chiyya bar Ashi suggests that it is permitted to place a saddlecloth on a donkey on Shabbat in a private domain with the purpose of warming the donkey.  Rabbi Zeira agrees, stating that we may hang a basket (for feeding) around an animal's neck for the animal's comfort.  Thus it is permitted to place a saddlecloth, to stop the animal's suffering from the cold.  Shmuel disagrees even about the basket.  And then the rabbis debate who actually said what.  Was Shmuel the same person as Aryoch?  And do animals even feel heat?

The rabbis go on to discuss animals, people, and healing.  Should it be permitted to bring an animal into the water on Shabbat to cool the animal when it is ill?  Some rabbis say yes, as we help animals to feel comfortable.  Some rabbis say no, for we should not give anyone the idea that animals can help with crushing medicinal herbs.  Even if that means that the animal dies.  Rabbi Oshaya permits us to run an animal on Shabbat if that animal is seriously constipated, and the halacha agrees with his opinion.

We learn more about the binding and protection of animals' udders.  And then we learn the story of a man whose wife died leaving him a son to nurse.  He did not have money to pay a wet-nurse.  A miracle happened - he developed breasts like a woman and was able to nurse his own son.  Rav Yosef speaks to the deservingness of that man to receive such a miracle.  Abaye says that he was punished as the order of creation was altered on his behalf in such a demeaning way.  Rav Yehuda notes that the order of creation was altered to provide sustenance for an infant rather than find him financial means to pay a wet-nurse.  And Rav Nachman says that food has never been miraculously created in a person's home.

Finally we are told of a man who did not know that his wife had only one arm until the day that she died.   Was this a sign of her modesty?  Or was this a man so modest that he did not truly see the body of his own wife?

Levuvin might refer to the hide that is tied over the hears of rams so that wolves will not attak them.  Or levuvin might refer to animal hides that are tied under male organs so that they will not mount the females.  

We've read some important words in today's daf regarding the consideration of animals' comforts, the modesty of women and men, and the miracle of transitioning from male to female.

Shabbat 52: Animals Going Out on Shabbat

Some of what the rabbis discuss in today's daf:

• whether a cow can go out on Shabbat with a strap over its horns ornamentally or functionally
• Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei said before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that the horse, the mule, the camel and the donkey may go out with a bit 
• is the bit or the yoke a burden?
• Are rules different for the red heifer because it is so valuable?
• Can animals go out with bits and reins wrapped around their necks as ornaments?
• Can rings of animals, of utensils, or rings of anything other than people actually become ritually impure?
• a prod could become impure because it is used by people who can contract ritual impurity
• rings might be made of different materials
• Animal rings might be turned into belt buckles or rings for people
• The comparison is made between these rings and a needle with an eye vs a needle with no eye
• That metaphor is extended to include a rusty needle which affects the sewing and its status 

Before our daf ends, we are introduced to a new Mishna.  It teaches that a donkey may go out on Shabbat with a saddle-cloth to protect it from the cold when it is tied to the animal.  Rams may go out with levuvim, ewes may go out shechuzot, kevulot and kevunot, which will be explain the Gemara.  Female goats may go out with the udders bound.  

Rabbi Yosei prohibits all of these on the grounds that they are burdens except for ewes that are kevunot.  Rabbi Yehuda says that goats may go out with their udders bound to dry their milk and stop their lactation to facilitate conception.  It would be a permanent knot  so that it would not fall in public.  If their udders are bound to conserve milk they would be bound loosely.

Shabbat 51: Insulation of Cold Food, Animals in the Public Domain on Shabbat

We learn two Mishnayot in today's daf.  First, we are taught that if one did not cover a pot of cooked food on erev Shabbat, one may not cover it after dark.  However, if one covered the pot while it was still day and it was uncovered on Shabbat, one is permitted to cover it even on Shabbat.  Further, one may fill a jug with cold water on Shabbat and place it beneath a pillow or a cushion to prevent it from getting warm.

The rabbis discuss the insulation of cold food.  There is concern that one might use something that was previously used to insulate for heat while insulating for cold.  Rabbis disagree with each other about the insulation of cold food, but ultimately it is allowed.  Interestingly, Steinsaltz does not share more insight about the maintenance of cool temperature on a cushion or pillow, but this would make sense in the very high temperatures (along with the very low temperatures) that would be part of life in ancient middle eastern geography.

The second Mishna asks us with what may an animal go out into the public domain on Shabbat and with what may it not go out?  The answer is that a camel may go out with an bit, a naka (white female camel) may go out with a chatom (an iron nose ring), and a Libyan donkey may go out with an iron halter.  Finally, a horse may go out with a chain around its neck.  We learn that in general all animals that typically have chains around their necks when they go out to the public domain may go out and even be pulled by those chains on Shabbat.  If the chains contract ritual impurity, they can be sprinkled with waters of purification (immerse them while in place upon the animals) without being removed.

The Gemara discussed many different possible ways of travelling with animals.  Is it only a camel that can go out with a nose ring?  Can a goat be pulled by a hole carved by its horns?  Or attached to its beard?  It is of note that animals are not permitted to work, or carry a burden, on Shabbat, but they are permitted to be taken through the public domain.

Shabbat 50: Normally Set-Aside Items

In Shabbat 49, the rabbis discussed a new Mishna that teaches us we may insulate a pot of hot food on Shabbat in clothing, produce, doves' wings, wood shavings, and the chaff of fine flax, with disagreement from Rabbi Yehuda.  Of course, the doves' wings stand out, and this is discussed.  A second Mishna from Daf 49  teaches us that we may insulate cooked food on erev Shabbat with wool fleece but we can only move the fleece by lifting the cover and the fleece will move by itself.  There is argument about what can be done if the fleece moves incorrectly once there is movement.

In today's daf, the rabbis continue this last conversation.   What is the intention when one placed the fleece on the food? Where did the fleece come from, a merchant's shelves or one's home, already prepared to use?  

The rabbis then consider how we would permit the use of items that are normally set-aside on Shabbat.  An example is the hard branches of a palm tree first designated as fire wood and then used for sitting.  Must the branches be tied at a certain time?  Other examples include going into the public domain with combed wool covering a wound as long as they are dipped in oil or tied with twine.  There are even some exceptions to this halacha.  Cleaning utensils is fine on Shabbat using agents like natron and sand, but using cream of tartar (white earth, chalk or limestone) is not allowed because it will smooth the utensil.  One of the more interesting examples is bringing soil into the home on Shabbat so that excrement and other filth can be covered over the day.

Shabbat 48: Predicting Wringing a Wet Cloth on Shabbat, Insulation

After discussing further details about heated food on Shabbat, the rabbis turn to other actions that are forbidden on Shabbat.  Malacha, forbidden labour, includes squeezing water from a cloth.  

We are told a story about  Rabba and Rabbi Zeira.  They were visiting the exilarch, Jewish political leader, on Shabbat when a servant placed a cup on top of a cloth over a vessel of hot water.  Rabba speaks up, telling the servant that heat should not be transferred in this way.  Rabbi Zeira says that the servant's actions were fine; it is permitted to spread a cloth over a vessel on Shabbat.  Rabba notes that they should keep watching, and the servant goes on to squeeze water from the cloth.

The rabbis continue their discussion about what is permitted to use as insulation for hot pots on Shabbat.  Moving those pots is another matter, however.  They also speak to other forbidden actions on Shabbat, including cutting the neck opening of one's shirt,  

They go on to consider the transfer of ritual impurity if a creeping animal is found inside of a stove but does not touch other receptacles surrounding the stove.  The rabbis also comment on the transfer of ritual impurity regarding scissors and blades which are made of component parts.

Shabbat 47: Insulation and the Transfer of Heat on Shabbat

We are permitted to carry our children, even if they are carrying stones (which are not to be carried on Shabbat).  Are small items insignificant and thus not worthy of consideration when it comes to measuring what is being carried?  A small item might mean nothing to a rich person, and so it might be permitted for them to carry it (like a tiny piece of frankincense on a coal pan which are nullified by the ashes).  But to a poor person, that frankincense could be used and thus it is significant; we should not move it on Shabbat.  Many other examples are provided - one item might look like another and thus it is prohibited to carry it on Shabbat.  Different consequences are faced depending on the transgression, as well.  

We are introduced to a new Mishna in amud (b).  It teaches that we are permitted to place vessels beneath oil lamps to catch any burning sparks that fall from the lamp to protect from a potential fire.  We cannot put water into the vessel because we would then extinguish the sparks, which is not permitted on Shabbat.  The Gemara immediately counters this logic: if we prepare the vessel to receive sparks aren't we putting the vessel in a "set aside" state?  Rav Huna, son a Rav Yehoshua says that the sparks have no substance.  The burn right away and leave no trace of oil in the vessel thus the vessel may still be moved.  

We then begin Perek IV where we move to discussions about transferring heat.  If a pot is removed from the fire on erev Shabbat, it may be insulted in materials that preserve but not increase its heat.  Raising the pot's temperature is like cooking.   Our new Mishna states that we may not insulate a pot of cook food on erev Shabbat with the solid residue of produce that has been pressed, nor in manure, salt, lime, nor sand whether moist or dry.  We cannot insulate a pot in straw, the residue of grapes, soft materials from clothing, grass or other moist materials.   These may insulate a pot when they are dry.

Tbe rabbis discuss different foods and how much heat they release.  

Shabbat 46: Holding an Opinion While Respecting an Elder; Intention & Nullifying Vows, Moving Lamps

The rabbis continue their discussion about when it permitted to move things that have parts (ie. can be assembled or disassembled) on Shabbat.   In the context of this argument, we are reminded that Rabbi Yochanan stated the principle that the halacha is in accordance with an unattributed mishna.

We are told the story of Rabbi Abbahu, who would move an oil lamp when at Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi's home and would not move an oil lamp when at the home of Rabbi Yochanan.  How could he speak out of both sides of his mouth?  Perhaps he defers to the opinion of each rabbi when in his home?  The Gemara answers that Rabbi Abbahu's opinion follows Rabbi Shimon (who permitted moving the oil lamp on Shabbat).  However, in deference to Rabbi Yochanan he would put aside his own judgement. 

The Gemara discusses what should be permitted regarding different types of lamps.  The conversation turns to other vessels, and then bracelets, nose-rings and other rings.  They cannot be worn in the public domain on Shabbat, but they may be moved and are not set aside.  The rabbis then discuss animals that are set aside until they develop a blemish and candles that cannot be moved until they have burned out.  It is argued that these two things cannot be compared because we can predict when a candle will go out.

A question arises regarding nullifying vows.  We know that a husband is permitted to nullify his wife's vow within one day of learning about that vow.  If she vows not to eat a particular food on Shabbat and he nullifies that vow, does the vow still stand?  If she had set her mind on setting aside the food, then the food should remain set aside over Shabbat.  The Gemara argues that according to the halachot of vows, although the husband should not nullify her vow, he may also dissolve the vow by turning to a court of three common people who will dissolve it.

We are reminded that Rabbi Shimon allows us to move a lamp on Shabbat after the light has been extinguished.  This is likely not because he is afraid that the light will be extinguished unintentionally.  Instead, he stated the principle that an unintentional act - a permitted action that causes an action prohibited on Shabbat to occur - is permitted.  A person may drag a bed, chair, or bench on the ground as long as one does not intend to leave a furrow in the ground.  Even an inadvertent furrow is not a problem.  His opinion is that intention is a hugely significant factor.  This too is up for debate.

Rava reminds us about selling clothing that combines wool and linen, a hybrid that is forbidden by Torah law.  Rabbinic law teaches that sellers can wear these items to sell them but Rava teaches that more pious people hold those garments on a stick.  As long as one does not intend to benefit from them from them (shading from the sun or protecting from the rain), it is permitted to wear them ab initio.

Shabbat 45: She'at Had'chak, Breaking Halachot of Mukzeh in Dangerous Times

We learn that some items that are muktzeh, staying put on Shabbat, are:

• tools that would encourage forbidden labour, like a pen
• dirty or disgusting items
• Valuable items intended to be sold later
• items not ready to be used on Shabbbat, like raisins that have not yet dried
• items that were created on Shabbat, like eggs laid on Shabbat

Rabbi Yehuda says that the halachot of mukzeh should be more strict while Rabbi Shimon holds a very lenient position on the laws of mukzeh.  While the rabbis provide examples of why we should be strict about moving these items on Shabbat, attention is given to alternative perspectives.  

To this end, we learn that Rav's students asked whether we are allowed to move the chanukiah on Shabbat when Zoroastrian fire priests might see them.  Rav agrees that we are permitted to potentially save ourselves by moving the chanukiah under these circumstances.  When asked about moving a candle on Shabbat, Rav says that we should be more stringent.  Unless, of course, there are extraordinary circumstances.

We learn about the principle of she'at had'chak, time of pressure.  It refers to times when Jews are in danger.  We are permitted to follow more lenient opinions if we are at risk.  This is one result of the fascinating tradition of recording all opinions in Talmudic debates.  When required, we have moany sources of wisdom and not just the winning argument help our decision-making.

Shabbat 44: Moving a Bed Carrying Money

We begin today's daf with a new Mishna teaching us about other halachot regarding items that are muchtze, set aside, on Shabbat.  A new oil lamp may be moved on Shabbat but an old one already used cannot be moved because it would be covered in soot and thus would be disgusting.  Rabbi Shimon says that all lamps may be moved on Shabbat except for an oil lamp that is burning on Shabbat because we would not want to accidentally extinguish that light.  What about walking while carrying the lit lamp on Shabbat... and even using the oil that drops from the lamp?

The Gemara uses money placed on a bed to explore the concept of moving prohibited items on Shabbat.  A bed might be designated as a place to set down money.  If that is the case, it is not permitted to move that bed, which would normally be allowed, on Shabbat.  In many cases, it is debatable whether a place that is designated for something is always considered to be designated for that purpose.  In this case, the rabbis suggest that even if there is no money on the bed on Shabbat, we cannot move the bed - and that is the case even if the money fell off of the bed over the course of the day.

Shabbat 43: Moving a Corpse on Shabbat

In daf 42, we were introduced to two Mishnayot.  The first instructs us regarding placing spices in a bowl that once contained vinegar or fish brine. The second Mishna discusses items that are muktze, set aside, on Shabbat.  We cannot place a vessel beneath an oil lamp on Shabbat but we may do so on the Friday before Shabbat.  Regardless we cannot use oil on Shabbat if it was not prepared specifically to be used on Shabbat.  

The rabbis ask about several circumstances, including moving items to prepare for a possible fire before Shabbat and preparing tithed produce before Shabbat.  They consider placing a vessel under a ceiling leak on Shabbat if the water is used for drinking.  What about an egg laid on Shabbat or a Festival.  Can we move it for any reason?  One of the more interesting questions involves moving a mat to cover a bee hive.  The purpose must be to save the honey, however.

The Gemara moves into a discussion about moving things with regard to corpses.  If a corpse is laid out in the sun on Shabbat, two people should sit beside it until they feel heat beneath them.  At that point they are permitted to carry beds to sit on.  When they feel heat from above, they may bring mats to cover them; the beds may be stood up and mats may be laid across them so that each person may take breaks.  Another conversation teaches that in the sun, the corpse may be turned over from bed to bed until it reaches the shade.  Alternatively, one may carry the corpse if a loaf of bread or an infant are placed upon the corpse.  Because it is permitted to move food and babies, the corpse is thought of only as a base for those permitted objects.

We are reminded by Rav that moving an object in an atypical manner is considered to be a true act of moving.  Shmuel states that moving an object in an atypical manner is not considered to be moving at all.  Why would the rabbis even consider such examples?  Who would want to eat a loaf of bread that was sitting on a corpse?  Who would put an infant on a corpse when a corpse is a first degree source of ritual impurity?  And how could we disrespect a corpse by treating it with such indifference?  Clearly, this particular conversation is an argument for the sake of argument; an exaggeration.  At least we can hope so.

Shabbat 41: Avoiding Arousal, Urns for Warming Water

At the very start of today's daf we are told that a man who holds his penis while urinating is said to be as if he were bringing a flood to the world.  He should not put himself in a place where he might become aroused by that minimal contact.  That is such a severe transgression that he is like those who were punished by the flood.

The rabbis discuss what can be discuss practices of idolatry that might be introduced when Gentiles enter a city.  The Gentiles might pour wine for idolatry or they might open barrels of wine, making them prohibited for later use.  This is followed by a conversation about the bathhouse.  Rabbi Zeira disagrees with Rav Yehuda, who believes that Israelites were sent to Babylonia and should not make aliya to Israel until they are called back by G-d.  Rabbi Zeira then hears Rav Yehuda speaking of mundane matters in the bathhouse.  This experience is helpful to him as he considers questions of modesty.  We learn other halachot regarding the bathhouse.  

We are taught a new Mishna.  The Sages describe a mulyar, bronze vessel holding coals are placed in an outer compartment and water is placed on the inside.  It is permitted for use on Shabbat.  The antichi, vessel that holds water adjacent to and not above the coals.  Even if ashes are removed from the antichi, it cannot be used on Shabbat.  

The Gemara wonders about using a large amount of water which would not actually be warmed by the coals.  Is this permitted?  And is an action meant to change the shape of the urn itself permitted on Shabbat?  Where does intention come into this picture?

Shabbat 38: Intention, Ovens, Hot and Cold Water

Rav Chiya bar Abba is asked about the halacha if one leaves a pot on the stove inadvertently and the food cooks on Shabbat.  After waiting for a day, Rav Chiya bar Abba announces that the food is permitted as long as the cooking is done unintentionally.  He also says that the halacha is no different. 

The Gemara discusses what this last comment might mean.  We are told that there might be a difference between taking action, like putting a pot on the stove.  They also consider the importance of intention, and how we might measure intention in another person.  If someone is lying, what would be the consequence? The rabbis also consider the possibility that overcooking might improve the food, like eggs that have shrivelled to the size of crab apples because they have been left on the stove for so long. 

The rabbis look to each others' behaviours to determine what is permitted.  A frequent response is that this might be a 'rogue' rabbi who does not represent the agreed upon halacha of the community.

We are taught two new Mishnayot in amud (b) of our daf.  The first teaches about an oven or a kupach, a ceramic half-stove with enough room for one pot at its top, things other than stoves that bake.  Regarding ovens that are lit with straw or rakings, we cannot place pots inside or on top of them.  A kupach lit with straw or rakings on Shabbat is like a stove but if it is lit with pomace (pressed olive olives or other substances once the oil has been removed), its legal status is like an oven and so we cannot place pots atop them.

The second new Mishna tells us that one may not place a raw egg next to an urn full of hot water on Shabbat because it might roast slightly.  We cannot even wrap an egg in cloths heated in the sun.  Rabbi Yosei permits this.  We cannot insulate an egg in the sand or road dust.  We see that any cooking, even without fire involved - and lighting a fire is the original prohibition - the rabbis put fences around fences to ensure that we do not become familiar with cooking of any sort on Shabbat.

The Mishna goes on to teach us about the people of Tiberias who ran a cold-water pipe through a canal of hot water from the Tiberias hot springs.  They intended to heat the cold potable water on Shabbat.  The rabbis told them that if the water passed through on Shabbat, it would have the same status as water heated on Shabbat and so it would be prohibited for bathing or drinking.  If it passed through on a Festival, then the water would be prohibited for bathing but permitted for drinking.  This is because on Festivals we are permitted to boil water on actual fire for purposes of eating and drinking.

Shabbat 37: Rabbis Chime in on Cooking on Shabbat

The Gemara continues to discus a pot put on a stove that is burning on Shabbat.  Hillel had said that it is permitted to place cooked food on the stove and that one can remove and put back that pot of food during Shabbat, even if the food might cook further.  Shammai said that one must be careful about what is fueling the flames and that a pot once removed from the stove cannot be returned.  Other rabbis take sides on this argument, too.  There is concern that unswept ashes might be stoked or rekindled.  Our rabbis create fences around fences to ensure that we are not lighting fire on Shabbat.

Must food become worse while left on the stove for that action to be permitted?  We are reminded that breads and cakes cannot be baked on Shabbat; their crusts must be finished before Shabbat begins. The rabbis note that some crusts crack and become smaller over time.  Examples are provided of people bringing food for great rabbis who were ill on Shabbat.  If that food becomes less appetizing over time, like fried fish, everyone agrees that it may be left on a stove while it "shrivels and deteriorates".   If the food shrivels and becomes better, the rabbis have mixed opinions.

Shabbat 36: Naming Objects; The Stove on Shabbat & 'Women's Work'

Are we permitted to move a shofar inside the home on Shabbat?  The rabbis wonder whether shofarim are the same things as trumpets.  They debate about whether these are two different words for the same object, used at different points in time.   It is noted we are faced with similar conundrums with other words.  

What difference does it make whether a word is changed if the meaning is the same?  We are told that get, a woman's divorce paper, contains the name of the place where it was written.  The name of that place cannot change for it would invalidate the get.  

We are introduced to Perek III of Massechet Shabbat in amud (b) of today's daf.  The Mishna teaches that if a stove was already lit with straw or rakings on Shabbat, we are permitted to place a pot of cooked food on top of the stove.  Anything that could alight on Shabbat must be removed from the stove.  Beit Shammai say that only hot water can be placed on the stove because the food could cook further and because one might be tempted to stoke the fire.  Beit Hillel say that both hot water and cooked food are permitted.  Beit Shammai add that one may remove a pot from the stove but not replace it.  Beit Hillel say one may return the pot to the stove.

Work done inside the home on Shabbat is particularly of interest to women, who were said to be in charge of the halachot inside of the home.  Women have always been expected to do the less valued work of cooking, cleaning, childcare. To trust women with the observance of  Shabbat-based halachot is significant.  Why would it be that women can be trusted with these halachot but we cannot be trusted with positive/time-based mitzvot?  Again, it seems that halachot are often based on what our Sages determined to be most functional; what would maintain their current organizational structure that maintained the power of men and (in particular) of Torah scholars.

Shabbat 31: Aggravating Hillel & Shammai, Torah on One Foot, Dying in Childbirth

We are told that Hillel is patient and Shammai is impatient.  A story is told about a person who bets 400 zuz that he can aggravate Hillel.  On erev Shabbat, interrupting Hillel from washing his hair, this person rudely says, "Who is Hillel?" and proceeds to ask an insulting question: while do Babylonians have oval heads (Hillel is a Babylonian).  Hillel says that this is a good questions and says it is because the midwives do not shape their heads well at birth.  The questioner waits an hour between each of the next three questions, each as rude as the first.  Hillel does not become agitated.

A person came to Shammai and asked how many Torahs there were.  Shammai responded that there were two, the Written Torah and the Oral Torah.  The person asked to be converted but only to learn the Written Torah, and Shammai kicked him out. That person went to Hillel, who agreed to convert him and taught him the aleph-bet.  The next day he taught the person the aleph-bet differently, and the person challenged him.  Hillel noted that the person had relied on him the day before and should rely on him now - the Oral Tradition must accompany the Written Torah.

One of the most famous quotations from the Talmud follows.  A person approaches Shammai and asks to be converted on the condition that Shammai teaches him the entire Torah while the person is standing on one foot.  Shammai pushes him out with a builder's cubit he is using.  Hillel converts this person, saying that "That which is hateful to you, do not do to another. That is the entire Torah, the rest is interpretation.  Go study."

More aggadot are shared, including a person who approaches Shammai and then Hillel, asking to be converted on the condition that he be installed as High Priest (after hearing about the High Priest's garments).   He is converted by Hillel who explains why he cannot be installed as High Preist.  

After a number of other discussions, we are introduced to a new Mishna that is connected to our previous conversation about lighting Shabbat lights.  It teaches that women can be punished and die in childbirth for three transgressions:

• if they are not careful in the halacha regarding menstruation
• if they do not properly separate the challah from dough
• if they do not light the Shabbat lamp

The Gemara very briefly begins to share rabbis' thoughts about the meanings behind this statement.

Shabbat 30: It Is Better to be Alive Now Than in to be in the World-to-Come

Today's daf begins with a discussion of life and death.  Is it better to be dead or alive?  The rabbis generally believe that because people can praise G-d, it is better for us to be alive.  Rabbi Tanhum asserts both that it is to be a simple creature who can praise G-d and to be alive now because we are currently praising G-d.  Usually we learn that our ancestors are closer to G-d and G-d word than us, but in this case Rabbi Tanhum believes that being alive now is the enviable place to be.

Countering this, the rabbis consider the World to Come.  What we will do when we are there that is not as good as right now, while we are alive?  Rabbi Gamliel teaches that women will conceive and give birth on the same day (Jeremiah 31:7).  In response a student says that "there is nothing new under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9).  Gamliel shows him that, in fact, a chicken lays an egg every day.

The rabbis teach us that our actions in this world are what is important.  The World to Come seems to be based on this world but without the work - no tailoring or cooking will be required for us to live happy lives.

Shabbat 29: Maintaining and Extinguishing Shabbat Lights

In yesterday's daf, Shabbat 28, the rabbis discussed tenting a corpse causing ritual impurity, making phylacteries, and the use of kosher animals in that construction.  A new Mishna is introduced which teaches us about candles wicks that are made from fabric folded into small rolls and lit.  Rabbi Eliezer says that these are ritually impure or can become ritually impure and may not be used on Shabbat.  Rabbi Akiva says that these are not ritually impure and thus can be used on Shabbat.

Our Gemara discusses what can and cannot be used to kindle the light on Shabbat, which is in fact the very beginning of our most auspicious day.  Some of the halachot seem relatively clear regarding ritual impurity, but the rabbis introduce cases that are unusual or extremely specific to test those tools that we have developed.  For example, is this Shabbat or Shabbat and a Festival?  May we use a date to light the candles?  Well, it depends on whether or not the pit would be permitted as well, for once the pit is exposed that is like the introduction or creation of a new thing which is not permitted in a consecrated action. Is the pit permitted if the date was not eaten but removed cleanly from the pit?

Today's daf includes a new Mishna which discusses the oil used to keep Shabbat lamps lit.  The rabbis say that we are not permitted to let an egg drip above a lamp so that the oil extends the life of the light.  Nor are we permitted to place a bowl of oil close enough to the lamp so that the lamp will draw additional oil from the bowl, again extending the light of the lamp.  They agree that these things are permitted before Shabbat if specially constructed so that they preexist and need no interference on Shabbat.  Rabbi Yehuda believes that all of these actions are permitted without conditions.

Piercing an eggshell and setting a bowl aside with oil refer to processes that permit additional oil to be accessed by the lighting mechanism.  The rabbis are concerned both that this could inadvertently extinguish the light and that this could introduce new oil to the lamp on Shabbat, meaning that a ritual impurity could be introduced to a consecrated action on Shabbat.

The rabbis discuss other actions prohibited or permitted.  One of these is dragging large benches on a first floor made of dirt, even though it may leave a gouge in the floor.  Another is selling clothing made of wool and linen together, which is forbidden.  Interestingly, these things are permitted with conditions.  We learn that a merchant may sell non-kosher clothing even by putting them on his/her body, as long as s/he does not benefit from that placement (as shade from the sun, for example).

Another new Mishna is placed at the very end of today's daf.  It teaches us when we are permitted to extinguish Shabbat flames: when one is afraid of Gentiles, when one is afraid of thieves, when one is helping someone who is ill to sleep, and when one is afraid due to an evil spirit.  This last case is said to mean that this is when someone is depressed and would prefer to sit in the dark.  Because of the requirement to celebrate on Shabbat, this last case is quite surprising.

The Mishna goes on to teach us that we are not permitted to put out Shabbat lights in an attempt to save the lamp, the oil or the wick.  Rabbi Yosei permits all of these reasons, as well.  He states that saving the lamp and the oil do not involve any "creative action" prohibited on Shabbat.  Only extinguishing the wick, which would become usable charcoal, would be breaking Shabbat halacha.

Shabbat 27: On Tzitzit

The rabbis continue their discussion about ritual impurity related to the size of and material used in fabric.  Today they focus on tzitzit, ritual fringes on the corners of our garments.  In Numbers (15:39) we are told that "And it shall be unto you for a fringe that you may look upon it and remember all the mitzvot of the Lord".  We are told that the phrase "that you may look" is might mean that night garments are not included because their fringes would not be visible.  Or, perhaps, it might mean that a person who is blind is excluded because one who is blind cannot see their tzitzit. 

The rabbis also remind us about Deuteronomy (22:12) "of your covering with which you cover yourself" the blind person is mentioned as well because he would also cover himself with a covering.  This means that "that you may look upon it" refers to excluding a night garment and not the tzitzit of a blind person.  To finalize this argument, the rabbis share more from Deuteronomy (22:12): "You shall make for yourself twisted fringes on the four corners of your covering; with which you cover yourself."  Certainly the verse in Numbers teaches us that seeing the tzitzit refers to remembering G-d's mitzvot and not simply seeing the reminder.  The rabbis do note that pyjamas are not visible to anyone at night.

We learn again that much of what we do is being seen by others.  If we practice a mitzvah improperly  - or properly - and others see us, we set an example for them about what is appropriate. The rabbis want us to be truly observant of the halacha that has been determined.  And of course this is directly counter to today's philosophies that prioritize what works for us as individuals without focusing on the influence that we might have over others.

At the end of our daf, there is a new Mishna.  It teaches that out of all of the substances that come from a tree, Tosafot say that we may only light with flax on Shabbat.  As well, flax is the only substance coming from a tree that can become ritually impure because of transmission under tents over a corpse.  If a dead body is in a house or a tent made of anything  that comes from a tree, everything in the house becomes ritually impure.  If flax is used, then the tent itself becomes impure.

Shabbat 26: Ritual Purity, Oils and Garments

Our Sages continue to discuss the different types of oil that are permitted or prohibited to use to light on Shabbat.  They suggest that oil from terumot cannot be used for lighting, unless it has been separated into ritually pure and impure piles.  The priest can benefit from the ritually pure teruma after it has been separated, and others may use the ritually impure teruma after it has been separated.  Any untithed teruma cannot be used, because some of that teruma will be ritually impure and not yet separated.  The rabbis speak to the possible ritual impurity that could come from using the sap of a tree, and so only the oils from fruits are permitted.  Rabbi Tarfon continues to insist that only olive oil is appropriate for lighting on Shabbat. 

And then Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri stand and says what about those in Babylonia who only have sesame oil?  And the people of Medea with only nut oil?  And the people of Alexandria with only radish oil?  And the people of Cappadocia, who have nothing but tar oil, do to light on Shabbat?  The rabbis back off of the olive-oil-only argument and discuss the use of gourd oil, tar, and fish oil.  The rabbis speak of what emerges from a tree smaller than three by three fingerbreadths.  This is not large enough to become ritually impure - one may use it for roofing one's sukka, for that roofing must be made of substances that cannot become ritually impure.  Only linen has a unique ritual status, we learn from Abaye.

The rabbis teach us about woolen and linen garments, the only fabrics woven from plant materials considered to be true fabrics.  It seems that leprosy will only transmit ritual impurity to woollen or linen garments and not to other clothing.  That piece of clothing would have to be three by three fingerbreadths, which are measured by the widest part of the thumb.  If a garment is at least three by three handbreadths, which are measured by the size of a clenched fist, or four fingerbreadths, is thought certainly to be a garment fit for use by rich or poor people.  We know that smaller garments are unsuitable for the wealthy not only because of an a fortiori, obviously stronger argument, but because it is mentioned in the Torah. 

The rabbis then argue about whether garments of materials other than wool and linen can become ritually impure. Even the small piece of fabric could become ritually impure from contact with a creeping animal.  It is noted that halachot around the transmission of ritual impurity from leprosy are more stringent.