(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shabbos 9


QUESTION: The Gemara says that a Mavuy's doorstep that has an area of 4x4 Tefachim is not considered to be part of the Mavuy (for the purpose of carrying while walking along the doorstep, or from the doorstep to the Mavuy). RASHI (DH Tzarich Lechi) explains that in the Mavuy itself, carrying is permitted because of the Lechi that is standing at the opening of the Mavuy, along the side of the doorstep. The permissible carrying area is limited to within the Lechi's *inner* edge, which is at the inner side of the doorstep; therefore, the doorstep is *not* included in the Lechi's function.

Next, the Gemara entertains the possibility that on a doorstep *less* than 4x4 Tefachim wide, carrying might be permitted since in the case of such a small area, carrying is permitted anywhere within the *outer* edge of the Lechi. Rashi (DH v'Chi Teima d'Leis Bei) explains that if the doorstep is less than four by four, then there is *no need* for a real Lechi, because the very walls of the entranceway will serve as the Lechi for the doorstep area and will permit carrying from the doorstep to the Mavuy.

 ____  \  /____
|____|   |____|
| |         | |
| |         | |
| |         | |
| |         | |
| |  MAVUY  | |
| |         | |
| |         | |
| |         | |
| |         | |
| |         | |
| ----------- |

Why did Rashi introduce the concept of the walls serving as a Lechi *now*? He should have mentioned it at the beginning of the Sugya, when the Gemara assumed that the doorstep was four by four. Rashi should have said there that the wall is the Lechi and the inner side of the wall cannot serve to permit the doorstep! (MAHARSHAL, MAHARSHA)


(a) The MAHARSHAL explains that when Rashi said that there was a Lechi on the doorstep whose inner side is the limit for the carrying-area inside the Mavuy, Rashi did not really mean that there was an independent "Lechi." By saying Lechi Rashi meant the wall adjacent to the doorstep; he called it a Lechi because it performs the same function as a Lechi, as Rashi later made clear.

(b) Perhaps Rashi's intention was to show us first that not only does the inner side of a *wall* permit carrying only from its inner edge inward, but a full-fledged Lechi also only serves to permit carrying from its inner edge inward. Next, when the Gemara suggests that a doorstep less than 4x4 will be permitted by the outer edge of a Lechi, Rashi emphasizes that even the outer edge of a *wall* will also permit the doorstep. (M. Kornfeld)

Acherim said that a doorstep serves two domains. When the door is open, it is part of Reshus ha'Yachid, and when the door is closed, it is part of Reshus ha'Rabim. The Gemara wants to know in which situation this statement was made; when does the status of a doorstep depend on whether the door is open or closed?

The Gemara suggests two answers that are both based on the same premise -- the doorstep is considered Reshus ha'Yachid only if it has one of two situations: (1) a roof with an area of 4x4 Tefachim on top of it (because the edge of a 4x4 roof is considered able to descend and act as a fourth wall -- the door and the lintels are the other three -- making the doorstep under it a Reshus ha'Yachid); (2) a roof beam ("Korah") of a Mavuy on top of it (because of the special enactment of the Rabanan that a roof beam either serves as a reminder that this is the extent of Reshus ha'Yachid, or because of "Yored v'Sosem" -- the roof beam's edge descends to act as a fourth wall to make the enclosed area a Reshus ha'Yachid).

If it is the doorstep of a house, it is considered part of the inside of the house if it has a roof which is 4x4 Tefachim. If it is the doorstep to a Mavuy, it is considered part of the inside of the Mavuy if it has *either* a 4x4 roof or a Korah on top of it.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah in the name of Rav says that Acherim are talking about a doorstep of a Mavuy which has a roof beam on top of it. The roof beam is only one Tefach wide, and is located on the inner side of the doorstep (that is, closer to the door). When the door is open, the roof beam serves to enclose the part of the doorstep that is underneath it (as in situation (#2), above). When the door is closed, the roof beam cannot be considered to be enclosing the part of the doorstep under it, because the roof beam is no longer associated with the Mavuy. A roof beam only makes whatever is underneath it into a Reshus ha'Yachid when it is associated with a Mavuy (this was part of the Rabanan's enactment).

(b) Rav Ashi explains that Acherim were talking about the doorstep of a *house*. Above the doorstep is a roof made of two beams, which together cover an area of at least 4x4 Tefachim, but each of the two beams by itself is less than 4x4 Tefachim. The gap between the two beams is less than three Tefachim. When the door is open, the concept of Lavud (Gud Achis) takes effect and the two beams are viewed as one large beam that is enclosing the entire 4x4 Tefachim (as in situation #1 above). When the door is closed, the door dissociates the outer beam from the inner beam, and the outer beam is left enclosing an area *less* than 4X4. Therefore, it is not able to create an outer, fourth, Mechitzah for the doorstep, and the doorstep remains a Karmelis.

(If the roof of the doorstep had been just one large roof beam, then closing the door at the middle would not have been able to dissociate the outer part of the doorstep from the inner part, and the doorstep would still be a Reshus ha'Yachid.)


QUESTION: The Mishnah states, "A person should not go to barber close to Minchah before he Davens. A person should not enter a bathhouse, nor go in to tan hides, nor to eat, nor to judge." Why did the Mishnah separate going to a barber from all of the other activities in the Mishnah? The Mishnah should have put them all together! ANSWERS:
(a) RASHI explains that this Mishnah is cited in Shabbos because of its similarity to the following Mishnah (11a), which says that a tailor should not walk out on Friday near sundown with his needle lest he forget and carry his needle on Shabbos, transgressing the Melachah of Hotza'ah. Similarly, a person should not become involved in these activities shortly before Minchah, lest he forget to Daven Minchah.

In all the latter cases of the Mishnah, the fear is that the person may forget about Minchah because he is *involved* in another act which distracts him from Minchah. However, when a person sits in front of a barber he is playing a passive part. He is not physically involved in any act per se, yet we still fear that he may forget about Minchah. Logically, then, going to a barber most closely resembles the case of the following Mishnah, because there, too, the tailor is not involved in an *act* that will cause him to forget about carrying his needle on Shabbos.

Since the case of the barber is the reason for recording this Mishnah here because of its close similarity to the next Mishnah, it is given special status and mentioned separately from the other cases in the Mishnah. (This is alluded to by Rashi who explains, with regard to going to a barber, that "perhaps one *will forget* and not Daven," while with regard to the other activities Rashi says, "The reason of all of them is that perhaps one will *get so involved* in them that he will forget....") (Y. Shaw)

(b) The RASHASH suggests another reason for including this Mishnah in Maseches Shabbos. This Mishnah is related to the preparations required for Shabbos, since one is supposed to get a haircut before Shabbos (see SHULCHAN ARUCH OC 260). According to his suggestion, as well, it is appropriate that going to a barber is given special status in the Mishnah, since it is the sole reason for including our Mishnah in Maseches Shabbos. (The bathhouse that is mentioned in the Mishnah does not refer to the obligation to wash oneself before Shabbos. Rather, it refers to a much more involved process of bathing, like a spa, which is not done in preparation for Shabbos.)

OPINIONS: When is a person allowed to eat before Minchah?
(a) The RIF and the RAMBAM rule like the second answer of the Gemara (Rav Acha Bar Yakov), that even a *normal* meal is prohibited from right before *Minchah Gedolah* and on (this is the strictest opinion).

(b) TOSFOS and the ROSH explain that the Halachah follows the first answer of the Gemara, because it was Rav Ashi, the redactor of the Gemara, who said it. Therefore, it is prohibited to start a *large* meal before *Minchah Gedolah*. A normal meal, however, is permitted. Before Minchah Ketanah, even a normal meal is prohibited (in accordance with the opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua Ben Levi).

(c) The BA'AL HA'ME'OR writes that since the Gemara in Berachos (28b) teaches that the Halachah is not like Rebbi Yehoshua Ben Levi, the question of the Gemara never really started. Consequently, we remain with the original assumption of the Gemara, that the Mishnah only prohibits starting these activities before Minchah Ketanah. It is therefore permitted to start *even a large meal* before Minchah Gedolah, but prohibited before *Minchah Ketanah*.

(d) The TUR cites RABEINU YEHUDAH (quoting his Rebbi) who maintains that only a *large meal* is prohibited, but both before *Minchah Gedolah and Minchah Ketanah*. A normal meal is permitted, because the Halachah is not in accordance with Rebbi Yehoshua Ben Levi.

HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 232) cites the opinion of the Rif and the Rambam (a), which is the most stringent opinion. The REMA mentions the other three opinions. The MISHNAH BERURAH writes that we may follow the lenient side of any of the opinions (because the prohibition is only mid'Rabanan). Therefore, the practice is to permit starting a large meal before Minchah Gedolah, and a normal meal before Minchah Ketanah, and to refrain only from starting a large meal before Minchah Ketanah. The Kaf ha'Chayim rules that even the Sefardim may rely on this lenient practice, because nowadays we have a set time for Davening and that prevents us from forgetting to Daven Minchah.

However, the BI'UR HALACHAH adds that it is "Midas Chasidus" (a trait of righteousness) to be stringent, but only to the extent of Tosfos' stringency (b); it is not necessary to be as stringent as the Rambam's opinion (a). The Kaf Ha'Chaim, however, maintains that it is "Midas Chasidus" to be stringent even like the Rambam's opinion.

Next daf


This article is provided as part of Shema Yisrael Torah Network
Permission is granted to redistribute electronically or on paper,
provided that this notice is included intact.
For information on subscriptions, archives, and other Shema Yisrael
Classes, send mail to daf@shemayisrael.co.il

Shema Yisrael Torah Network
Jerusalem, Israel

In the U.S.:
Tel. (908) 370-3344
Fax. (908) 367-6608

Toll free line for dedications: 1-800-574-2646