(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 114



(a) When Rebbi Yochanan said that it is a degrading for a Talmid-Chacham to walk in the street with torn shoes - he meant with a patch on a patch.

(b) We learn from the Pasuk "Kol Mesan'ai Ahevu Maves" - that a Talmid-Chacham who walks around with a stain on his (white) clothes is guilty of the death-penalty.

(c) Revav - a fat stain - refers to outer garments, where even a fat stain is a Chilul Hashem; Revad - a Zera stain - refers to the undergarments, where a fat stain is not a Chilul Hashem, but Zera is.

(d) When the Pasuk refers to Yeshayah going 'naked and barefoot' - it meant with tattered clothes and torn shoes.

(a) According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, the minimum size of a wax-stain on a saddle-cloth to be considered a Chatzitzah - is the size of an Italian Isar.

(b) Rebbi Yishmael is quoted as saying that a stain on an article of clothing is considered a Chatzitzah, even if it only shows on *one* side.

(c) Resh Lakish asks whether Rebbi Yishmael, will perhaps agree that, in order to be a Chatzitzah on a saddle-cloth, the stain must be visible on *both* sides. Why? Because people are more particular about clothes that they are about saddle-cloths, and the Din of Chatzitzah depends largely on whether one is particular or not?

(d) Rebbi Yossi rules that stains of the clothes of builder (i.e. Talmidei-Chachamim - 'Al Tikri Banayich, Ela Bonayich') are considered a Chatzitzah on one side, and of an Am ha'Aretz, only on both sides. Now surely, argues Rebbi Chanina, a saddle-cloth is not more Chashuv than the clothes of an Am ha'Aretz! So we see that a stain on a saddle-cloth is indeed considered a Chatzitzah only if it is visible on both sides.

(a) A Talmid-Chacham ...
1. ... who is careful not to wear his clothes inside-out, with the stitches showing - is entitled to claim his lost articles through mere recognition (even without proper identification);
2. ... who is able to state a Halachah anywhere, even in Maseches Kalah, is eligible for the position of head of his community;
3. ... who gives up all his business affairs and spends all his time studying Torah - earns the right to be sustained by the community.
(b) By Maseches Kalah, Rebbi Yochanan is saying that he is even conversant with a Maseches that is little known (See also Tosfos D.H. 'va'Afilu').

(c) We learn that everyone is obligated to help sustain (the latter level of) a Talmid-Chacham - from the Torah, which writes (with regard to the original Aron that Moshe made) "ve'*Asisa* Aron" etc.; whereas with regard to Betzalel's Aron, it writes "ve'*Asu* Aron" etc. - to teach us that when it comes to the Talmid-Chacham (symbolized by Betzalel's golden Aron), everyone should participate.

(d) If the Talmid-Chacham is conversant with the Masechta he is learning, then he is fit to be appointed head of the community, whereas if he is able to answer questions in other Masechtos too, he deserves to become the Rosh Yeshivah.

(a) Bath-attendants were more particular about keeping their robes clean than most other people. That is why stains on their robes were considered a Chatzitzah - even if they were visible only on *one* side.

(b) Rebbi Yanai instructed his sons - that when he died, they should not bury him in white clothes, in case he will not merit to go to Gan Eden, and he would look out of place wearing white shrouds among the mourners (in Gehinom, who would be wearing black). Nor should they bury him in black shrouds, in case he *will* merit to go to Gan Eden, and he will appear equally strange wearing black among those who will be wearing white. What they *should* bury him in, was the red robes of the bath-attendants. So we see that bath-attendants wore red robes, not white ones?

(c) The top garments of the bath-attendants were white, the undergarments, red.

(a) Rebbi Yishmael learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Olas Shabbos be'Shabbat(o)" - that the (Chalavim of the) Olah of one Shabbos (Shabbos Bereishis) is brought on another Shabbos (Yom Kipur).
2. ... and from "(be'Shabba)to" - he learns that the Olah can only brought on *its* Shabbos, but not on another Shabbos; to teach us that the Chalavim of Yom Kipur cannot be brought on Shabbos.
(b) Rebbi Akiva uses the same two Derashos to learn that the Olah of Shabbos is brought on *Yom-Tov*, but not vice-versa.

(c) According to Rebbi Yishmael, 'Nedarim and Nedavos Kereivim be'Yom-Tov'. Consequently, we do not need the first Derashah to permit the Olah of Shabbos on Yom-Tov, which is obviously permitted; so he uses the Pasuk to derive that 'Chelvei Shabbos Kereivin be'Yom'ha'Kipurim'. Whereas Rebbi Akiva holds 'Nedarim u'Nedavos Ein Kereivim be'Yom-Tov', in which case, he needs the Pasuk to teach us that Chelvei Shabbos Kereivim be'Yom-Tov' (but not on Yom-Kipur).




(a) One does not blow the six Teki'os on Friday afternoon - since work on the outgoing Yom Kipur is forbidden, just like it is on the incoming Shabbos. So what point is there in blowing - seeing as the objective of blowing - i.e. to remind the people to stop work, does not apply here. Similarly, what point is there in making Havdalah from Shabbos to Yom Kipur, since nothing becomes permitted - and the sole objective of Havdalah is to permit Melachah)?

(b) According to Yehudah Brei de'Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi, the author of this Beraisa must be Rebbi Akiva. Why is that? Because according to Rebbi Yishmael, Yom Kipur is indeed more lenient than Shabbos, inasmuch as one brings the Chalavim of Shabbos on Yom Kipur. In that case, they ought to blow the Shofar on Yom Kipur which falls on Friday, in order to publicise this fact. Then in subsequent years, when Yom Kipur falls on Sunday, and they do not blow the Shofar on Motza'ei Shabbos, the Kohanim will realize that Yom Kipur is more lenient than Shabbos, and remember to bring the Shabbos Chalavim on Yom Kipur.

(c) According to Yehudah Brei de'Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi, blowing the Shofar on Yom Kipur was necessary only in order to remind the Kohanim to bring the Chalavim of Shabbos on Yom Kipur. But this is unnecessary, Rebbi Zeira maintains, because of the accepted fact that Kohanim are keen, and therefore require no reminder.

(a) Since most of the Teki'os in the Mikdash were blown in connection withto the Avodah, it is hardly surprising that the Gemara at first thought that also the three that were to remind the people to stop work, were for the exclusive benefit of the Kohanim.

(b) According to Rav Shisha Brei de'Rav Idi, the reason that one does not blow on Yom Kipur which falls on Friday, is because this leniency is not required that year. Why not? Because since Yom Kipur is followed by Shabbos, they will anyway not be able to cook the vegetables, so why should they need to cut them? And Chazal only permitted a Shvus if its benefits were felt immediately, not if it was only for subsequent years.

(c) According to Rav Shisha, why does the Mishnah in Chulin rule that one does not blow on a Yom-Tov which falls on Motza'ei Shabbos. One ought to blow in order to remind people that they are permitted to Shecht (and to cook) immediately?

(d) So we see, that one does not blow to permit work, only to forbid it.

1.When Yom-tov falls on Friday - Havdalah is not recited, since Havdalah comes Lehakel (when it is mi'Kodesh le'Chol) and not Lehachmir (when it is mi'Chol le'Kodesh).
2. When Yom-Tov falls on Motza'ei Shabbos - Havdalah *is* recited, because it is me'Kodesh le'Chol.
(b) When Yom-Tov falls on Friday - one does blow the Shofar, to stop people from performimg Melachos that are permitted on Yom-Tov.
(a) We initially think that "Shabason" - written in connection with Shabbos, must be referring to cutting detached vegetables, and not to Melachah - since we already have a Pasuk in Yisro prohibiting Melachah "Lo Sa'aseh Kol Melachah".

(b) The Gemara concludes that "Shabason" is an Asei for Melachah (so that Melachos on Shabbos now have an Asei, as well as a Lo Sa'aseh).

(c) Chazal permitted cutting vegetables, cracking nuts and peeling pomegranates on Yom Kipur from Minchah-time and onwards - because, since it is close to the termination of the fast, to prepare food and not be able to eat it, is an affliction.

(d) When the Amora'im saw that their families were cutting the vegetables *before* Minchah-time, when it is *not* an affliction, they told them that they had received a letter from Eretz Yisrael forbidding the cutting of vegetables on Yom Kipur - in order, that they would take their instructions seriously.

Hadran Alach, 've'Eilu Kesharim'!

Next daf


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