דף פ"א

Byגילעד בן-צור

עמוד א

קושייה א

שבת פ״א א:ב׳

שנינו: תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חֲפֵי פּוֹתַחַת טְהוֹרִין שניים של מפתח, כשהן נמצאות מחוץ למנעול - לא מקבלות טומאה, קְבָעָן בַּפּוֹתַחַת טְמֵאִין כשהן נמצאות בתוך המנעול - מקבלות טומאה. וְשֶׁל גַּל, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחִיבְּרָן בַּדֶּלֶת וּקְבָעָן בְּמַסְמְרִים טְהוֹרִין ושיניים של מנעול, אף על פי שהן מחוברות לדלת - לא מקבלות טומאה — שֶׁכׇּל הַמְחוּבָּר לַקַּרְקַע הֲרֵי הוּא כַּקַּרְקַע כיוון שכל המחובר לקרקע - לא מקבל טומאה.

Shabbat 81a:2

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the measure of Rabbi Yehuda is greater? Don’t we maintain that the measure of the Rabbis is greater? Ulla said: Rabbi Yehuda did not refer to the entire key, but to the teeth of a key. With regard to the above, the Gemara cites that which the Sages taught in a baraita: The teeth of a key are ritually pure, and they cannot become impure when separate from the key, as they have no function on their own. However, if one affixed them to a key, they can become ritually impure as part of a utensil. And teeth of a lock, even though one attached them to the door and affixed them with nails, are ritually pure, as anything attached to the ground has the same legal status as the ground itself, which cannot become ritually impure.

השאלה שלי היא מהו הדין לגבי חפי (שיניים של מפתח) שהוא בתוך המנעול ועשה חצי סיבוב (וע"י כך הוא בעצמו ננעל אל תוך המנעול ולא יכול לצאת).

הרי מחד, הוא "נקבע בפותחת" - ומקבל טומאה.

ומחד, הוא "מחובר אל הקרקע" - ולא מקבל טומאה!

עמוד ב

קושייה ב

שבת פ״א ב:א׳

שנינו בגמרא, שאלו את רב חִסְדָּא: מַהוּ לְהַעֲלוֹתָם אַחֲרָיו לַגַּג? מה הדין להעלאת אבנים (לצרכי קינוח) לגג בשבת? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: גָּדוֹל כְּבוֹד הַבְּרִיּוֹת שֶׁדּוֹחֶה אֶת ״לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה״ שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה ענה לו רב חסדא: שכבוד הבריות במצב הזה - דוחה את מצוות הלאו. יָתֵיב מָרִימָר וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְמָרִימָר הקשה רבינא: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר נוֹטֵל אָדָם קֵיסָם מִשֶּׁלְּפָנָיו לַחֲצוֹת בּוֹ שִׁינָּיו, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים לֹא יִטּוֹל אֶלָּא מִן הָאֵבוּס שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה! הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם כאן, במקרה עם הקיסם — אָדָם קוֹבֵעַ מָקוֹם לִסְעוּדָה, הָכָא וכאן, במקרה עם האבנים — אָדָם קוֹבֵעַ מָקוֹם לְבֵית הַכִּסֵּא?

Shabbat 81b:1

Ḥisda: What is the halakha with regard to taking those stones up with him to the roof if his bathroom is there? Is it permitted or is it prohibited due to the exertion involved? He said to him: It is permitted; great is human dignity as it overrides a prohibition in the Torah. The Gemara relates: Mareimar sat and stated this halakha. Ravina raised an objection to the statement of Mareimar from a baraita where Rabbi Eliezer says: A person may take a wood chip from the ground before him to clean his teeth on Shabbat. And the Rabbis say one may take a wood chip only from the animal’s trough, which is already designated for the animal’s use, but not from wood on the ground, which is set-aside. Apparently, despite the fact that using the wood chip enhances human dignity, it is nevertheless prohibited due to the prohibition of set-aside. The Gemara rejects this: How can you compare? There, a person determines the place for his meal. Since he knows where he will eat he should have prepared toothpicks beforehand. Here, does a person determine the place for a bathroom? He relieves himself wherever he finds a discreet place to do so.

התשובה הסופית מובנת, אך לא היו יכולים לתרץ באופן פשוט יותר?

שהרי מדובר ב2 איסורים שונים! כאן (בעניין הקיסם) מדובר באיסור מוקצה, וכאן (בעניין האבנים) מדובר בטרחה יתרה בשבת!

קושייה ג

שבת פ״א ב:ג׳

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: צְרוֹר אבן שֶׁעָלוּ בּוֹ עֲשָׂבִים — מוּתָּר לְקַנֵּחַ בּוֹ בשבת. וְהַתּוֹלֵשׁ את העשבים מִמֶּנָּה (מן האבן) בְּשַׁבָּת (בכוונת תכילה) — חַיָּיב חַטָּאת. אָמַר רַב פַּפֵּי: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִדְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, הַאי פַּרְפִּיסָא — שְׁרֵי לְטַלְטוֹלֵיהּ רב פפי: מדברי ריש לקיש ניתן להגיד שעציץ - מותר לטלטלו בשבת. מַתְקִיף לַהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא: אִם אָמְרוּ שמטלטלים לְצוֹרֶךְ קינוח, הרי גם אנשים יֹאמְרוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ זה ויעקפו את האיסור ע"י השקר?!

Shabbat 81b:3

With regard to the matter itself, Reish Lakish said: It is permitted to wipe with a stone upon which grasses have grown. And one who detaches grasses from it unwittingly on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering. Rav Pappi said: Learn from that which Reish Lakish said that it is permitted to carry this perforated flowerpot on Shabbat. Rav Kahana strongly objects to this: If they said that it is permitted to carry a stone with weeds on it for a purpose, will they say it is permitted to carry a flowerpot for no purpose? Abaye said: Since the topic of a perforated pot has come to our hands, let us say something with regard to it: If it had been placed on the ground and one lifted it and placed it on top of pegs on Shabbat, he is liable for the labor of detaching. The roots of the plant could have protruded through the holes to draw sustenance from the ground, and when one lifts it he detaches it from that sustenance. Similarly, if it had been placed on pegs and one placed it on the ground, he is liable for the labor of planting.

אם כך לשיטת רב כהנא, לא ניתן לטלטלו בשבת משום איסור מוקצה.

ובנוסף לכך - לא ניתן לדרוש מהאדם שיקנח בו במקום משום שהדבר יביש אותו!

ומה יעשה אותו אדם?

קושייה ד

שבת פ״א ב:ד׳

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָסוּר לְקַנֵּחַ בְּחֶרֶס בְּשַׁבָּת.

Shabbat 81b:4

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is prohibited to wipe with an earthenware shard on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for that prohibition? If you say that it is due to the danger that he might injure himself with the sharp edges of the shard, it should be prohibited also on weekdays. Rather, it is due to the fact that it invites witchcraft. If so, he should also not do so on weekdays. Rather, the concern is lest he remove hairs with the earthenware shard. However, that is an unintentional act, which is permitted. Rav Natan bar Oshaya said to those who raised the question: A great man said something, let us say a reason for it, and explain Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement as follows: It is not necessary to say that it is prohibited on a weekday for the aforementioned reasons because he has the option of using a stone. However, with regard to Shabbat we would have said that since this shard has the status of a utensil and is not set-aside, he may well use it, as it is preferable to a stone, which is set-aside. Therefore, he teaches us that it is prohibited.

החרס שרבי יוחנן מדבר עליו מורכב מחרסית.

והלא כבר נאסר לקנח בחרסית כאמור:

שבת פ״א א:ח׳

עֲשָׂרָה דְּבָרִים מְבִיאִין אֶת הָאָדָם לִידֵי תַחְתּוֹנִיּוֹת, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: ........................ וְהַמְקַנֵּחַ בְּסִיד, וּבְחַרְסִית, ........................... ?

Shabbat 81a:8

The Gemara raises an objection: Is it permitted to wipe with a stone that was already used? Didn’t the Sages say: Ten things bring a person to suffer from hemorrhoids and they are: One who eats the leaves of bulrushes, grape leaves, tendrils of grapevines, the palate and tongue of an animal, as well as any other part of the animal which is not smooth and which has protrusions, without salt, the spine of a fish, a salty fish that is not fully cooked, and one who drinks wine dregs, and one who cleans himself with lime and clay, the materials from which earthenware is made, and one who cleans himself with a stone with which another person has cleaned himself. And some say: One who suspends himself in the bathroom as well. Apparently, using a previously used stone is dangerous to one’s health. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, where it is prohibited, is referring to a case where the stone is still moist. Here, where it is permitted, is referring to a case where the stone is dry. And if you wish, say instead that here, where it is prohibited, is referring to one side, using the side that was already used; here, where it is permitted, is referring to both sides, using the other side of the same stone. And if you wish, say instead that this, where it is permitted, is referring to one’s own stone, which he used to clean himself; this, where it is prohibited, is referring to another person’s stone, which poses a danger.

אם כך מדוע יש לשנות פעם נוספת את הדבר?