Picking Up the Crumbs

Daf 206-209 (Shabbat 143a-146b)


Daf 206 (Shabbat 143a-143b)

Mishnah. Here are rules for removing on Shabbes remnants of objects that it would be forbidden to move when whole.

Gemara. The gemara questions the accuracy of the mishnah because it presents the opinion of Beit Shammai as more lenient than the opinion of Beit Hillel. R’Yehudah and R’Shimon argue over whether an act that might unintentionally result in a prohibited result is also prohibited. (Both agree the action is prohibited if an unintended prohibited result is inevitable.)

Several methods of discarding date pits are presented.

Perek 22. Mishnah. Here are additional rules for Shabbes– how to deal with a broken wine cask and restrictions on squeezing fruit.

Gemara. The gemara records several disputes regarding liquid that oozes from fruit. Is the juice that flows from such fruit permitted on Shabbes? (It could lead to squeezing!) And what is the law of milk that oozes from a nursing mother’s breast?

Daf 207. (Shabbat 144a-144b)

The gemara seeks to identify fruits that one is permitted to squeeze on Shabbes. Menashya ben Menachem’s practice of squeezing pomegranates is offered as a model, but the gemara asks, “How can you say that the prohibition against squeezing pomegranates is based on the practice of a single individual?” This leads to an attempt to determine if there is any case where an individual’s practice is sufficient to establish a ruling.

Daf 208 (Shabbat 145a-145b)

There is a dispute regarding whether the juice extracted from fruit for use in preparing food is itself considered a food or a beverage (if the latter, it is susceptible to ritual contamination). There is also a dispute regarding whether the status of the juice is in fact the subject of the dispute. And there is a dispute regarding who is the original source of the ruling and whether or not it contains apparent contradictions with other teachings of the same Sage.

The subject apparently changes to consider the reliability of witnesses in different situations: “A witness who acquired his information from the mouth of a second witness is not a valid witness except with regard to offering testimony concerning the marital status of a woman.” The gemara seeks to identify similar situations where hearsay might be admissible.

Mishnah. Here is a rule for when it is permissible to leave food in hot water on Shabbes, and when it is forbidden even to rinse food in hot water.

Gemara. The rabbis identify foods that are allowed to soak, some of which are not appreciated (“had R’Abba not given me three-year-old wine to drink [with it], I would have been compelled to vomit in disgust at eating it!”) The rabbis of Babylonia and the rabbis of Israel apparently each regard the food of the other with contempt. They question apparent differences between the celebrations, the quality of the Torah scholars, and the impurity of the idolaters of Babylonia and Israel. R’Yochanan rebukes those who are asking, “if a matter of love is as clear to you as the fact that your sister is forbidden to you, you may repeat it, but if not, you may not repeat it!” He then proceeds to answer their questions aggadically.

Daf 209 (Shabbat 146a-146b)

Mishnah. Here are rules for perforating and scaling a cask on Shabbes.

Gemara. R’Oshaya says the mishnah only applies to casks of pressed figs. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees with the notion that the figs need to be pressed. Rava disagrees with the notion that the pressed produce needs to be figs. The latter ruling is based on the assumption that using a utensil to perforate the cask would be forbidden if the utensil was not also needed to slice the produce. The gemara seeks to clarify when it is permitted to enlarge or reduce perforations, and whether it is permitted to attach a spigot to a wine cask on Shabbes.

Mishnah. Here are rules regarding using water and when and where it is permissible to get wet clothes dry on Shabbes.

Gemara. The rabbis wonder why most of this Mishnah is necessary since the stated rules are obvious. On the rules regarding clothes taht fell in water, however, they examine contradictory teachings to clarify the rule.

This entry was posted in Daf Yomi, Hevruta study, Talmud and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s