(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 120



(a) Our Mishnah permits saving a basket full of loaves, a cake of figs and a barrel full of wine, even if they contains enough for a hundred meals.

(b) Whatever the others save, really belongs to them, as will be established in the Gemara. However, our Mishnah speaks when they opt to return it to the owner. If they are clever, the Mishnah adds, they will make a Cheshbon after Shabbos, and claim their expenses from him.

(c) Ben Beseira permits even saving these things into a courtyard which has no Eiruv.

(d) One is also permitted to save as much as one can wear, both as regards clothes and as regards headgear.

(a) According to the second answer of the Gemara, this Mishnah permits even saving in many baskets, but provided he saves them all into that courtyard; the previous Mishnah, which restricts one's efforts to saving three meals and no more, is speaking about saving them to another courtyard.

(b) According to the first answer (which is how the Gemara concludes) - one is permitted to go to any amount of trouble to fill one basket or one blanket, with as many smaller vessels as one wishes - provided he ultimately carries no more than one vessel out of the house.

(c) 'u'Vilevad she'Lo Yavi K'li Acher' - implies that whatever he can take out in one vessel is permitted, provided he does not bring a second vessel, as we just explained.

(a) No! They acquire the food from Hefker, and have no obligation to return the food to the owner.

(b) Had they been Chasidim (who always go beyond the letter of the law) - they would have returned the food without any thought of payment, since the money resembles remuneration for Shabbos services rendered, and is something which Chasidim would avoid.

(c) So the Gemara establishes the Mishnah by Yir'ei Shamayim, who, on the one hand, do not want to benefit from others for nothing; but on the other, they do want to go to the trouble of saving the food freeof charge. So, if they are clever, and know that, in reality, this does not constitute remuneration for Shabbos services (since, strictly speaking, the food that they save is their's), they will hand owner a bill after Shabbos.

(d) By food, the owner is not permitted to save more than what he needs for three meals.Consequently, once he has saved that amount, he can only announce 'Bo'u ve'Hatzilu *Lachem*'!; whereas by clothes, where he always has the option of going back time and time again (according to the Tana Kama), he is justified in announcing 'Bo'u ve'Hatzilu *Imi*'!?

(a) The Sudar that hung round one's neck - served the purpose of wiping one's mouth and eyes.

(b) According to Rebbi Yossi - one is permitted to save only *one* batch of eighteen clothes,and no more.

(a) Rebbi Shimon ben Nanes permits spreading a goat's-skin cloth over a cupboard that has caught fire - since he permits Gram Kibuy.

(b) According to Rebbi Yossi, placing a wall of vessels in front of a fire is permitted - provided the vessels are not new earthenware ones which contain water, since these burst easily, and the water will douse the flames - and in Rebbi Yossi's opinion, Gram Kibuy is Asur.

(a) The Beraisa permits wrapping oneself with the burning cloak or opening the Sefer-Torah and reading in it ('and if it goes out, it goes out') - but not pouring water on the other end (which is more direct). So how can Rav permit it?

(b) The Gemara initially rejects the contention that Rav follows the opinion of Rebbi Shimon Ben Nanes in our Mishnah - who is lenient by Gram Kibuy (as long as one does not extinguish the fire directly), because even Rebbi Shimon ben Nanes is lenient only because the skin puts out the flames automatically (without the person doing anything), but who says that he permits Gram Kibuy where the person participates?

(c) We finally reconcile Rav with Rebbi Shimon ben Nanes - by inferring from Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah (who forbids new earthenware barrels) that the Tana Kama (Rebbi Shimon ben Nanes) clearly permits even placing these in front of the flames - despite the fact that the person participated in the Gram Kibuy.




(a) 'Ner she'Al Gabi Tavla, Mena'er es ha'Tavla, ve'Hi Nofeles' - speaks when the lamp is lit (but when there is no oil in it - see Tosfos DH 'Mena'er').

(b) The board or the table do not become a 'Basis le'Davar ha'Asur' - because the Beraisa speaks when he *forgot* the lamp on the board. To become a Basis, the object would have to have been left on the board deliberately.

(c) Rav rejects the ruling that permits opening and closing a door with a lamp behind it - because even Rebbi Shimon would concede that is forbidden, on the grounds that the wind is bound to blow out the flame, and Rebbi Shimon agrees that 'Pesik Reisha' is forbidden.

(d) Is it because Rav rules like Rebbi Yehudah that he objects to a Beraisa which follows the opinion of Rebbi Shimon? Consequently, we cannot explain that Rav cursed anyone who followed the Beraisa, because the author of the Beraisa is Rebbi Shimon, and *he* holds like Rebbi Yehudah.

8) Regarding opening a door, when there is a lamp burning opposite: If there is an unusually strong wind blowing, everyone would agree that this is prohibited. The Machlokes between Rav Yehudah and Abaye is in the case of an ordinary wind. Rav Yehudah permits opening the door, because should the wind blow out the flame, it is only a 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven', which is Mutar. Abaye agrees that, this is strictly speaking, permitted. However, he decrees by an ordinary wind, because of a case when an unusual wind is blowing.


(a) In the Beraisa, the Rabbanan forbid the placing of all vessels (in front of a fire) that are likely to break - in fact, they permit only the placing of metal vessels. Rebbi Yossi, on the other hand, permits even earthenware vessels that are made in Shichin and K'far Chananyah (which are strong, and which will not burst from the heat).

(b) If we simply switch the opinions in our Mishnah (in which case, Rebbi Yossi will permit all vessels - even those which *will* burst from the heat) - then when, in the Beraisa, he only permits the two specific kinds of earthenware, he is suggesting to the Chachamim that, as far as *he* is concerned, *all* vessels are permitted. However, would they not at least concede that those two kinds of vessels are permitted.

(c) The Gemara rejects this contention on the basis of another Beraisa, quoted by Rav, which cites Rebbi Yossi as being the one to forbid Gram Kibuy.

(d) The Gemara amends the Beraisa, to read entirely like Rebbi Yossi, who follows his reasoning in our Mishnah, to forbid vessels which may burst, and permit those which will not.

(a) Rebbi Yossi permits Toveling directly - because the Torah writes (with regard to erasing the Name of Hashem) "Lo Sa'asun Ken la'Hashem Elokechem" (Re'ei) - from which Chazal derive 'Asiyah Hu de'Asur, Gerama Shari'. Strictly speaking, we have a Pasuk by Shabbos too, which permits Gerama ("Lo *Sa'aseh* Kol Melachah" - Yisro). However, because a person becomes confused when his money is at stake, Chazal, afraid that he will go further and also extinguish the fire, restricted him to using things that will not extinguish the flames (which will remind him to keep cool).

(b) In view of the above, if the Rabbanan permit Gram Kibuy by Shabbos (disagreeing with the decree of Rebbi Yossi), then how much more so, should they be lenient in the case of Tevilah. So why are they strict there?

(c) The Beraisa speaks when the reed is tied loosely, and the ink is still wet. Consequently, neither constitutes a Chatzitzah.

(a) The reed is required, not in order to avoid erasing Hashem's Name, but because one is not permitted to stand naked before Hashem's Name. In reality, one can place one's hand over the Name of Hashem, in which case a reed is not necessary. However, in case one forgets, Chazal required that one ties a reed around it. According to Rebbi Yossi, if he has no reed, he does indeed place his hand over the Name.

(b) Rebbi Yossi holds 'Tevilah bi'Zemanah Mitzvah'. That is why, if he has no reed, he must nevertheless Tovel, placing his hand over the Name of Hashem. But the Rabbanan (who hold 'Tevilah bi'Zemanah La'av Mitzvah'), for fear that one may forget to place one's hand over the Name, decreed that, if he has no reed, then he must wait until he finds one - even if that is only on the next day.

(c) According to the Rabbanan, "ve'Hayah Lifnos Erev Yirchatz ba'Mayim" - is no more than a sound piece of advice for the Kohen to Tovel that evening, if he wants to eat his Terumah. Why is that? Because, should he fail to do so, he will be obligated to wait until the following night before he will be eligible to eat it; since Terumah requires Ha'arev Shemesh, after the Tevilah.

Next daf


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