Questions about Tractate Shabbat
Hello Rabbi
If I remember correctly, you told me that you once taught classes on the chapter Kol Kibbutzim in Tractate Shabbat and I am currently studying Shabbat Mishnayot and I have a few questions about the chapter, please:
1. This shutdown is a dervish according to the method that a job that does not need a body, and therefore I do not understand what the concern is that led to the decrees being issued.
Lest it be extinguished because the person is in a hurry for his wealth if the prohibition is a prohibition of the rabbis and not from the Torah.
2. I don’t understand – someone’s house burns down on Shabbat and they start discussing whether he is always allowed to save 3 meals or whether it depends on how many.
What meals are left for him on Shabbat and how many clothes, etc., is that what would interest someone whose house burned down – after all, he would first try to
Already saving precious valuables – (is there a problem with a muqtza in such a situation?), secondly, how can he think about food now?
His house burned down, and one of the neighbors would surely agree to host him for Shabbat, he needs to sleep somewhere anyway, so I
Don’t understand all the fuss about saving food?
3. In the last chapter of the tractate it is written that if someone goes outside the boundaries and Shabbat arrives, he is permitted to give his wallet to a Gentile to shake.
For him, because it is believed that no man stands on his own wealth, and if we do not allow him, he himself will shake the wallet, whereas with us it is written that they forbade it.
In principle, he should save, lest, out of a hurry for his wealth, he should come to extinguish it, but he was allowed some allowances, such as food for 3 meals.
And 18 clothes. Are all those permits also because they feared that if they were not permitted, it would be presumed that a person would not stand on his own property?
And it will save and turn off, so was it allowed to save a little or is it for another reason, and if so, what is the difference between the two situations?
4. There is a disagreement between Tanna Kama and Laban Batira about whether it is permissible to save a way out that is not an invader or even an invader. In the commentary to the Mishnayot
It says that an intruder exit is closed by 3 winds and has a side, and an intruder is also with 3 winds and has no side, and I always thought
An intruder is completely broken and only has 2 spirits, so what exactly are the correct definitions?
5. It is written in the Mishnah, “If there were scholars who would settle accounts with him after Shabbat.” And it is written in the commentary from the Gemara that it is about the saviors, fear not.
Heavens that do not want to benefit from others and since they know that the owner of the house did not willingly abandon what they saved, then
They return everything to him, but they also don’t want their trouble to be for nothing, and the Mishnah teaches that there is no Shabbat reward here, etc.
And so it’s allowed. And that sounds a bit contradictory to me. On the one hand, they are presented as people who don’t want to enjoy what others have, but on the other hand,
Second, they don’t want your trouble to be for free, so they do take money from it? I would expect them to do everything for free there.
God, especially in such a catastrophic situation where a person’s house burns down, which is a very big disaster, so who would think of taking money from him?
And even more so if he is considered God-fearing?
Thank you very much.
I even wrote a book about this episode (which was ultimately not published).
1. A collection of works on the Rambam makes this difficult, and cites the Pani (I think B.K. 35) who claims that the shalal is a Torah prohibition, but that it is not punished (stoning and sin). Of course, the other systems have a problem. Although there is room for the claim that the shalal is a more severe prohibition than regular rabbinic prohibitions, it is still a decree for decrees. Although they also disagreed on this (as I think the Rambam and Torah scholars do) whether there are no decrees for regular rabbinic prohibitions or only for decrees.
2. I didn’t understand the question. What does it matter what interests him and what doesn’t. The Gemara discusses what is permissible and what is forbidden. And if someone is not interested in pork, is he allowed to eat pork? And if there is someone who hosts it, then perhaps he really is forbidden to save it. What’s the problem?!
Although there is a kind of reasoning in Toss Shabbat 3:1 (regarding the lowering of the loaf of bread), that we do not decree something that a person will certainly not hear (not to lower the loaf of bread, and then the person who stuck it in the oven will be liable to death). This (together with question 1) raises in me the suspicion that perhaps all of this is actually declaratory law and there is no real expectation that it will be upheld. At most, a person will be extinguished by the change.
Furthermore, there is room for another question: After all, according to many opinions, it is possible to violate the prohibitions of the rabbis in the place of great loss. If so, the prohibition to extinguish and the decree not to save lest it be extinguished are prohibitions of the rabbis. So why is it impossible to violate this prohibition itself in the place of great loss? But this is of course a tricky question, since this itself is prohibited here, and therefore here it is clear that it is not rejected in the face of losses.
3. I remember that the commentators also make this difficult. But it is not similar. In the R.A., the explanation is that when a person is stressed, it will lead him to commit prohibitions, and therefore they allow him a minor prohibition so that he does not violate a severe prohibition. With us, the situation is different. The fear is that if we allow him to save, then in the midst of the activity, he will come to turn off the light out of a panic that he will not notice the Sabbath (not that he will intentionally violate it because of the desire to save the house per se). In addition, turning off the light is a public action that everyone sees, and a person will not commit an offense in front of everyone. For example, shaking a wallet.
4. In Gemara 17a, this is specifically asked, and Amoraim disagree on this. Although, according to the law, the definition of an invader here is different from its definition in the Eruvin.
5. The people worked for him and they receive wages for their work. And doesn’t a plumber who saves you from trouble take money? Their piety is such that they don’t take the food itself because they didn’t give it up wholeheartedly.
Furthermore, these are not righteous people, but people who obey the law. Magzals do not want to enjoy themselves, but want to be paid for their work.
But beyond all that, the Gemara discusses a question of principle and states that they have the right to receive money for their work and that this is not Shabbat pay. If they decide to give up, they will be blessed. The discussion here is of principle, what their rights are. It has nothing to do with the question of what it is recommended that they do in practice.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
