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


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Shabbos 36



(a) A trumpet, which is straight, is not fit for any other use. Consequently, it is purely a 'K'li she'Melachto le'Isur', which is Muktzah; whereas a Shofar, which has a curved shape, is fit to be used as a receptacle (for a child to drink wine from), and is therefore not Muktzah (according to Rebbi Yehudah, as we shall see shortly).

(b) We thought, at first, that the Beraisa that forbids even a Shofar to be handled, must be speaking about a communal one, which is not used for drinking - and the Beraisa which permits a Shofar, about a private one.

(c) This answer, however, is not acceptable, because a communal Shofar too, is not only *fit* to be used for the same purpose, but *was* also used for that - to give a poor child to drink (considering that it is the duty of the community to feed the poor).

(d) Rebbi Nechemya holds that one may only move an object for the main purpose for which it was designated. Consequently, a Shofar, which is designated for blowing (and not for drinking), will be Muktzah.

(a) The Tana who permits one to handle even a trumpet, is Rebbi Shimon, who does not, as a rule, hold of Muktzah.

(b) Since Rebbi Nechemya forbids the handling of a Shofar, as well as a trumpet, why did he need to mention a trumpet at all, after telling us that a Shofar is Asur? Is it not then obvious, that a trumpet will be Asur too?

(c) That is what forces us to say that the Shofar that he mentioned first is not really a Shofar but a trumpet (and vice-versa) - and the Beraisa was learnt in a place where they had already adopted the custom to switch their names. Now we can say that the Tana prohibits the handling of a trumpet, and even of a Shofar ('Lo Zu, Af Zu' - mentioning the less obvious first, as is customary among Tana'im.

(d) After the switch, one would only be Yotze if he heard the blowing of a 'trumpet', but not of a 'Shofar' (so if a Ba'al Tokei'a said that he had blown a Shofar one would not be Yotzei); alternatively, if an Am ha'Aretz asked what to blow, we would have to tell him to blow a 'trumpet'.

(a) They also switched the names of an 'Aravah' (a willow that is Kasher for Succos, and a 'Tzaftzefah' (one that is not, because it has a round leaf and a white stem), and those of a 'Pesorah' (the original name for a large table) and a 'Pesorta' (the name for a small table).

(b) The ramifications of that latter switch are concerning a business deal in which someone agrees to sell his friend a Pesora or a Pesorta, who would be obligated to provide the purchaser with what it is called *now*, and not with what it was originally called.

(c) The Meses is surrounded by a thin layer of skin, and is therefore Tereifah if a needle pierces the skin. But the Beis ha'Kosos is surrounded by a double layer of skin, with the result that, should a needle pierce it, it is only Terifah if it pierced *both layers*, but not if it pierced only *one*. If someone should now ask a Rav about a needle which pierced a 'Huvlila', he would be referring (not to the Meses, as would formerly have been the case, but) to the Beis ha'Kosos, in which case the animal might now be Kasher. Whereas if he asked him about a needle which pierced a 'Bei Kasi', the Rav would be forced to pronounce the animal Tereifah at all costs.

(d) And the ramifications of the switch between Bavel and Bursif are in the area of Gitin, where a Get which a Sheliach brings from Bavel was Kasher without his needing to say 'be'Fanai Nichtav u'be'Fanai Nechtam') - because the Sofrim in Bavel were experts in writing Gitin li'Shemah (with the correct intentions), whilst in Bursif, they were not (and the Sheli'ach who brought the Get had therefore to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav' etc.). After the switch, it was the Shli'ach from Bursif who did *not* need to say 'Be'Fanai Nichtav' etc., and the Shli'ach from Bavel who *did*.

Hadran Alach, 'Bameh Madlikin'!



Perek Kirah


(a) A Kirah is an oblong-shaped oven which has space for two pots inside it.
(Most of our ovens have the Din of a Kirah.)

(b) The Mishnah permits one to leave things to cook on a Kirah from Erev Shabbos to Shabbos, when it has been lit with straw or stubble.

(c) 'Ketimah' is the placing of ashes on top of the burning coals, as a sign that one does not want them to cool down (and is therefore not interested in stoking them).

(d) Beis Hillel permit the placing, not only of *hot water* on to a Kirah which is Gerufah and Ketumah, but also *other cooked foods*, and they also permit one to return them on to the stove; whereas Beis Shamai forbids one to leave other foods on the stove, because, in spite of the fact that it is 'Gerufah' or 'Ketumah', one may come to stoke the coals, or because it looks like cooking, and presumably, that is also the reason why they forbid one to return even water on to a Kirah.

5) Why do Chazal prohibit Chazarah or even Shehiyah on a Kirah which is not 'Gerufah u'Ketumah'?


(a) 'Lo Yiten Ad she'Yigrof' could mean 'Lo Yachzir', over which Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel subsequently argue; but they will both agree that it is permitted to *leave* things on a stove to cook, even when it is not 'Gerufah u'Ketumah'.
Alternatively, it could mean 'Lo Yashhu', meaning that Beis Hillel even forbid one to *leave* something to cook on an oven which is not a 'Gerufah u'Ketumah', and that, according to Beis Shamai, even *that* is forbidden.

(b) If we explain the Mishnah to mean specifically "Lo Yachzir', inferring that leaving something to cook on the stove is permitted even when the stove is not 'Gerufah u'Ketumah', then the author of the Mishnah will be Chananya, who maintains that, once the pot has reached the stage of 'ke'Ma'achal ben Derasai' (one third cooked), one may leave it on the stove to continue cooking.

(c) The problem with interpreting the Mishnah like this is that the Reisha and the Seifa of the Mishnah are both telling us the same thing - namely, that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue over whether one may or may not, return a pot to a Kirah which is 'Gerufah u'Ketumah' on Shabbos.

(d) The Gemara adds to the Mishnah, which now reads 'Kirah' etc., 'O Ad she'Yiten es ha'Efer - Aval Lishhos, Mashhin Af Al Pi she'Eino Garuf etc. u'Mah Hen Mashhin, Beis Shamai Omrin Chamin etc. ve'Hach Chazarah de'Amri Lach La'av Divrei ha'Kol Hi, Ela Machlokes Beis Shamai u'Veis Hillel, she'Beis Shamai Omrin' etc.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,