(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 79



(a) The Shiur for carrying tanned or untanned hide and for tanning it - is enough to write a Kamei'a on it.

(b) We see from weaving and spinning (from the fact that the Shiur for weaving follows the Shiur for spinning - double the space between the extended fore and middle fingers - that the Shiur of a later Melachah sets the Shiur for an earlier one. In that case, the same will apply to carrying an untanned hide - the Shiur will be the size on which one can write a Kamei'a, since that is the Shiur that one is Chayav for tanning.

(c) The Shiur for a piece of hide that one does not intend to be tanned is the same as one that one *does*.

(a) The Shiur for carrying out ...
1. ... soaked dye is the amount that one would designate as a sample, whereas the Shiur for carrying dyes is the amount that one would use to dye a piece of cloth that one places inside a woman's head-covering - which is a larger Shiur than that of soaked dye.
2. ... carrying unsown seeds - is a little less than a Kigerogeres, according to the Tana Kama, and five seeds, according to Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira; whereas the Shiur for carrying out manure or fine sand, is enough to fertilize a stalk of cabbage (according to Rebbi Akiva) or a leek (according to the Rabbanan).
3. ... sewage-water - is a Revi'is; whereas the Shiur for cement (for which sewage-water is used), is large enough to place on the front of a furnace and to punch a hole in it for the bellows to fan the flames.
(b) Usually, the Shiur for one Melachah is equivalent to the Shiur of the Melachah which determined its use. Dye that has not been soaked, seeds that have not been soaked and sewage-water are different, because a person will not take the trouble to soak such a small amount of dye, to carry out one seed to sow, or to mix just enough cement for one furnace.

(c) The Beraisa, which gives the Shiur for untreated hide as enough to cover a small weight, is speaking about *wet* hide, and hide is not fit to be tanned until it has been dried.

(d) And the Mishnah in Kelim, which gives the Shiur for hide as five Tefachim by five Tefachim, is speaking about hide that has been treated in boiling water, so that it has become hard enough to sit on and to use as a table.
The Shiur for ordinary hide that has been dried and not boiled, remains the size on which one can write a Kamei'a.

3) The Shiur for ...
  1. ... 'Cheifah' - is the amount on which one is able to write a Kamei'a.
  2. ... 'Diftera' - is a piece sufficiently large to write a Get on it.



(a) Gevil that been spliced, the top section is called Klaf, and the lower section, Duchsustus.

(b) If 'Mezuzah' in the Beraisa ('Klaf ve'Duchsustus, Kedei Lichtov Alav Mezuzah') means literally, a Mezuzah, then the Shiur for Klaf, as well as Duchsustus, is large enough to write the two Parshiyos of Shema and ve'Hayah Im Shamo'a.

(c) That clashes with the Shiur given in our Mishnah: namely, the smallest Parshah in the Tefilin, which is that of Shema?

(a) According to Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah, Rebbi Shimon renders the Ketzitzah, Tamei, but not the Tefilin-straps.

(b) Rebbi Zakai holds that Rebbi Shimon does not even consider the Ketzitzah to be Tamei either, only the Mezuzah - i.e. the actual Parshiyos.

(c) The Gemara rejects the contention that Mezuzah in the first Beraisa means Mezuzah she'bi'Tefilin, on the grounds that the Seifa continues 'Klaf, Kedei Lichtov Alav Parshah Ketanah she'bi'Tefilin', implying that the Reisha is not talking about Tefilin, but about Mezuzah.

(d) The Gemara therefore amends the Beraisa (and at the same time, answers the Kashya) to read like this: 'Klaf ve'Duchsustus, Shiuran be'Kamah? Duchsustus, Kedei Lichtov Alav Mezuzah; Klaf, Kedei Lichtov Alav Parshah Ketanah she'bi'Tefilin'.

(a) The Gemara took Rav to mean that just as one writes Tefilin on Klaf, so too can one write them on Duchsustus.

(b) Since the Mishnah writes '*Klaf* Kedei Lichtov ... Parshah Ketanah she'bi'Tefilin, she'Hi Shema Yisrael', we can deduce from there that this is not the Shiur for Duchsustus - implying that Duchsustus is not Kasher for Tefilin, only for Mezuzos.

(c) In fact, answers the Gemara, Tefilin may be written on Duchsustus. However, Lechatchilah, they should be written on Klaf. Therefore, one does not tend to designate Duchsustus for the writing of Tefilin.

(a) Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai, both the Tefilin and the Mezuzah are written on the part which is spliced: i.e. Tefilin on the under-side of the Klaf (the side nearest to the flesh), and the Mezuzah on the upper-side of the Duchsustus (the side nearest the hair).

(b) The Gemara thinks at this stage, that Tefilin are Kasher on Duchsustus, but that Mezuzah is not Kasher on Klaf.

(c) The Gemara takes 'Shinah ba'Zeh u'va'Zeh' - both referring to Mezuzah - to mean that whether he wrote it on Klaf (even) on the side of the hair (the upper-side), or on Duchsustus , on the side of the flesh (the underside), it is Pasul. (Both could also refer to Tefilin - See Tosfos, DH 'Idi ve'Idi'.)

(d) Alternatively, Rav holds like Rebbi Acha, who says in a Beraisa 'Shinah ba'Zeh u'va'Zeh, Kasher'. He establishes the Beraisa by Tefilin, and Rebbi Acha is Machshir even if he wrote the Tefilin on Duchsustus.

(a) Tana de'Bei Menasheh, who says 'Kasvah Al ha'Gevil ve'Al ha'Klaf ve'Al ha'Duchsustus, Kesheirah', cannot be referring to Mezuzah, because a Mezuzah that is written on Klaf is Pasul. That is why the Gemara initially believes he must be referring to Tefilin.

(b) However, the Gemara concludes, that cannot be, because Tana de'Bei Menasheh is also Machshir on Gevil, and Tefilin cannot be written on Gevil.

(c) Consequently, Tana de'Bei Menasheh can only be referring to a Sefer-Torah - and not to either Tefilin or a Mezuzah.

(a) According to the Beraisa, the only reason that one cannot use the Parshiyos of worn-out Tefilin for a Mezuzah, is because it is forbidden to use something that is more holy for a less holy purpose. Otherwise, it is clear from the Beraisa, that it would be permitted. Now on what were the Tefilin written, if not on Duchsustus (since we believe at this stage, that a Mezuzah cannot be written on Klaf - so, if it was written on Klaf, how could the Tefilin possibly be Kasher for a Mezuzah) - a proof for Rav's initial statement?

(b) Who says that the Tefilin were written on Duchsustus? Perhaps they were written on Klaf - according to the opinion of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar quoting Rebbi Meir, who rules that a Mezuzah on Klaf is Kasher.

(c) On the contrary, says Rebbi Meir, if anything, it is preferable to write a Mezuzah on Klaf, because Klaf lasts longer.

(d) When Rav said 'Klaf, Harei Hu ke'Duchsustus, he was referring to Mezuzos, and he meant that a Mezuzah is Kasher on Klaf - not that Tefilin are Kasher on Duchsustus, which in fact, they are *not*.

Next daf


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