דף מ"ח
User Profile Picture
Byגילעד בן-צור

עמוד א

קושייה א

רשום בתלמוד במפורש ש אם טומנין אז אסור לטלטל :

בבא בתרא י״ט א:י״א

אמר רב יוסף לפי שאין דרכן של בני אדם להטמין בסלעים אמר ליה אביי וכי דרכן של בני אדם להטמין בגיזי צמר ולשונות של ארגמן דתניא טומנין בגיזי צמר ובציפי צמר ובלשונות של ארגמן ובמוכין ואין מטלטלין אותן

Bava Batra 19a:11
Rav Yosef says: There is a practical reason for this difference. Rocks are not mentioned there because it is not customary for people to insulate food with rocks. Abaye said to him: And is it customary for people to insulate food with wool fleece and tabs of purple wool? As it is taught in a baraita: One may insulate food with wool fleece; with combed wool clumps, which are unwoven; with tabs of purple wool; and with swatches of soft material; but one may not move them on Shabbat because they are set-aside [muktze].

כיצד יכולה הגמרא לומר הוראה אחרת?

שבת מ״ח א:ז׳

אִי מִשּׁוּם הָא — לָא אִירְיָא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִם לֹא טָמַן בָּהֶן אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין אוֹתָן.

Shabbat 48a:7
The Gemara rejects this proof: If that is the reason, there is no conclusive argument, as it is saying in the baraita as follows: If, however, he did not insulate a pot in them, he may not move them on Shabbat. In that case, they remain earmarked for their own purpose and are therefore set-aside [muktze].

עמוד ב

קושייה ב

שבת מ״ח ב:ה׳

מַאן תְּנָא הָא מִלְּתָא דַּאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן כׇּל הַמְחוּבָּר לוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כָּמוֹהוּ?

Shabbat 48b:5
In Sura, they taught this following halakha in the name of Rav Ḥisda; in Pumbedita, they taught it in the name of Rav Kahana, and some say, it was taught in the name of Rava: Who is the tanna who taught this matter stated by the Sages: The status of anything connected to an object is like that of the object with regard to ritual impurity?

מדוע אמר רב שהשיטה של "כל המחובר לו הרי הוא כמוהו" - היא של רבי מאיר כמצויין להלן:

שבת מ״ח ב:ו׳

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא. דִּתְנַן: בֵּית הַפַּךְ וּבֵית הַתַּבְלִין וּבֵית הַנֵּר שֶׁבַּכִּירָה מְטַמְּאִין בְּמַגָּע וְאֵין מְטַמְּאִין בָּאֲוִיר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְטַהֵר.

Shabbat 48b:6
Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The tanna in question is Rabbi Meir, as we learned in a mishna: The receptacle for the cruse of oil, and the receptacle for the spices, and the receptacle for the lamp that are in the stove become ritually impure through contact, i.e., if the wall of the stove becomes ritually impure through contact with a creeping animal, the receptacles also become ritually impure. However, these receptacles do not become ritually impure through air space, i.e., if the creeping animal were inside the stove but did not come into contact with its walls, the stove itself becomes ritually impure, but the receptacles do not; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Shimon deems the receptacles ritually pure, even if the creeping animal came into actual contact with the stove.

אם לא באמת הייתה כוונה לדמות את ה"בתים" לכירה?

ככתוב להלן:

שבת מ״ח ב:ח׳

לְעוֹלָם לָאו כְּכִירָה דָּמוּ וְרַבָּנַן הוּא דִּגְזַרוּ בְּהוּ. אִי גְּזַרוּ בְּהוּ, אֲפִילּוּ בָּאֲוִיר נָמֵי לִיטַּמּוּ!

Shabbat 48b:8
The Gemara answers: Actually, by Torah law, the receptacles are not considered like the stove itself, and the Sages are the ones who issued a decree that they become ritually impure due to their proximity to the stove. The Gemara asks: If the Sages issued a decree that they become ritually impure, then even in the case where the creeping animal does not come into contact with the walls of the oven, but is merely in its air space, the receptacles should also become ritually impure.