Shabbas 30b – answering a mamzerus insult

We learned that both Rebbi and Rabbi Chiya were a proof to the statement that when it comes to non Torah statements, אלתען כסיל כאולתו, i.e. – don’t answer and debate him. The Ben Ish Chai in his sefer Ben Yehoyada says he found a worn piece of paper with a question asked by his grandfather, from the gemara in bava metzia that we learned – where Rabbi Shimon Ben Elazar was suspected as not having fathered his own children, due to his girth. But over there, he did answer – why?

Ben Yehoyada answers that there it was not a real accusation, it was just השערת שכל and therefore, since Rabbi Shimon Ben Elazar had a concrete answer to her suggestion, it was appropriate to disprove her. But in this case, the guy was making a lying accusation  and there is no way to really prove him, therefore it was best to not answer and get him punished min hashamayim.

Shabbas 25b - Rabbi Yehuda Bar Ilay on Erev Shabbas

(The following is a small excerpt from “כיבוד ועונג שבת” in volume 1 of Shiurim Lezecher Abba Mari (Rav YD Solovoeitchik), which is highly recommended to see inside in its entirety)

The Rambam codifies the actions of Rabbi Yehuda Bar Ilay in Perek 30 of Hilchos Shabbas as follows:

איזה הוא כיבוד--זה שאמרו חכמים שמצוה על אדם לרחוץ פניו ידיו ורגליו בחמין בערב שבת, מפני כבוד השבת.  ומתעטף בציצית ויושב בכובד ראש, מייחל להקבלת פני השבת, כמו שהוא יוצא לקראת המלך.  וחכמים הראשונים היו מקבצין תלמידיהן בערב שבת, ומתעטפים; ואומרים, בואו ונצא לקראת שבת המלך

Subsequent to this Halacha, the Rambam continues to list other items included in the definition of כבוד שבת. But as these are mentioned first and together there would seem to be some significance to this. The Rav pointed out that these 4 items mentioned 1. washing 2. wrapping in tallis 3. כובד ראש and 4. sitting in anticipation are found by Tefilla as well. The Rambam lists washing yadayim as one of the items that is מעכב davening. In Hilchos tzitizis, the Rambam writes that “לעולם ישתדל להיות עטוף בכסות המחוייבת בציצית, כדי שיקיים מצוה זו.  ובשעת התפילה, צריך להיזהר ביותר”. As for כובד ראש we know the din that tefilla requires it and as for anticipation, the Rambam codifies the requirement “לפיכך צריך לישב מעט קודם התפילה, כדי לכוון את ליבו, ואחר כך יתפלל”

The purpose of these Halachos in tefilla are that we are preparing before we encounter HKBH and stand before Him. Therefore we see from here that these laws of כבוד שבת are based on the same idea, preparing to receive the Shechina into our homes (קבלת שבת). Once we successfully make this part happen, the rest of the halachos of כבוד שבת are how the house has to be set up to accommodate our Guest, that we should have clean clothing, candles, etc.

These two aspects of כבוד שבת are actually seen in the source pasuk for the din of כבוד שבת in sefer ישעיהו which mentions כבוד twice: וקראת לשבת עונג לקדוש ה’ מכובד refers to the כבוד related to the acknowlegement of the presence of the shechina, while the continuation of the pasuk is “וכבדתו מעשות דרכיך” – the actions we need to do like how we dress, food, etc.

Shabbas 21-22 – Using Chanuka candles

On 21b, the Gemara seems to conclude like the din of Rav that אסור להשתמש לאורה. As the בעל המאור writes, this would seem to be a blanket statement that would prohibit all use of the candles whether it is for mitzva or reshus or תשמיש קדושה. The בעל המאור  even explains the logic that these candles are a זכר for the menora in the beis hamidkash which are completely אסור בהנאה. Based on this the gemara on 22a א”ר יהודה א”ר אסי אסור להרצות מעות כנגד נר חנוכה would seem to disagree with this din. For this reason, we explained in shiur that this would be the reason to exclude Rav from this din, since it is not in line with the previous statement of Rav that completely negated use of the נרות חנוכה. We then have the following sugya where there is a machlokes if מדליקין מנר לנר. Again, this discussion should not even start according to the original statement of Rav.

However, a problem arises due to the pesak of the Rambam and Rif, who pasken the first sugya like Rav, and yet allow lighting מנר לנר. How can we understand this?

The Ramban defends the Rif and explains that there is another way to understand the case of הרצאת מעות. Rather than understand as we did until now that this is a lower level use than mitzva, he explains that this is a bigger chiddush – since it is just using the candle light for simple glance to see the coins. (in chidushei Haramban he writes that it does not even look like הנאה since it is done from a distance) Therefore, Shmuel who allows הרצאת מעות still agrees with the fundamental din of Rav that אסור להשתמש לאורה and argues about this din since he defines it as הנאה and not תשמיש. This explanation also seems to be peshat of the Rambam as he writes “אסור להשתמש לנר חנוכה … ואפילו לבדוק מעות או למנותן לאורה אסור”

What about הדלקה מנר לנר—why should the Rif and Rambam allow this? The Ramban in the chidushim explains that this is allowed since the two candles are part of the same mitzva and מין במינו אינו בטל. Thus the only תשמיש מצוה allowed is this lighting and one cannot reuse the lights as נרות שבת either as we see in the gemara later.

What is the nature of the mitzvah of lighting candles on Chanuka? (Shabbos 21b)

Is it a mitzva of לילה? Or is it a mitzva of פרסומי ניסא? It is clear that the reason for the mitzva is פרסומי ניסא, the question is how did chazal make the takana? Did they make it a regular mitzva of לילה like so many other mitzvos or did they make the takana as well a mitzva of פרסומי ניסא?

This would seem to be a machlokes harishonim. The gemara wants to know why the language of משתשקע החצה עד שתכלה רגל מן השוק, is used. The gemara offers 2 answers, אי לא אדליק מדליק אי נמי לשיעורא. Tosafos there understands this to mean as follows. the first answer is saying that if you did not light in this time (from shkia until תכלה רגל מן השוק) you missed the mitzva and cannot do the mitzva anymore, the second answer argues and says that it is coming to tell us how long the candles must burn. The Rambam as well understands the first answer as Tosafos, the Rambam however holds that the second answer is not arguing, rather it adds another requirement, how long the candles need to burn. The Rambam understands that these 2 go together and that the shiur is not in time but rather from when you light until תכלה רגל מן השוק. This is meduyak in the Rambam because he writes that תכלה רגל מן השוק is כחצי שיעור או יתר. The Rambam clearly states that the shiur of תכלה רגל מן השוק could be longer then a half hour.

According to both Tosafos and the Rambam it would seem that the mitva is a mitzva of פרסומי ניסא and therefore if you light after תכלה רגל מן השוק you are not יוצא. The Rashba however writes that the gemara did not mean that you are not יוצא at all. Rather you are not יוצא the way the Chachamim wanted but you are certainly יוצא the mitzva if you light at night. The Rashba seems to holds that it is a mitzva of night and therefore b'dieved the zman is all night. Lechatchila the chachamim said you should light when there is pirsumei nisa.

The same thing applies to lighting before the zman. According to the Rashba, just like you can do mitzva's of night starting from plag hamincha, you can light from plag hamincha. According to the Rambam there is no such din, lighting is not a mitzva of night and therefore before shkia is simply not the zman.

The obvious question on the Rambam is what about Friday night. The answer is that since Chanukka is 8 days and there must always be a Friday night, Chazal made a special takana on Friday night that you can light before shkia. According to the Rashba we don't need to come on to this, it is just the regular din of doing mitzvos of night from plag.

Shabbas 19a - Going on a boat trip close to shabbas

Here is a short summary of a number of the reasons presented by Rishonim for why “אין מפליגין בספינה פחות מג' ימים קודם לשבת” except if is for a devar mitzva or before three days before shabbas (mostly as summarized by the Ritva)

1. Rashbam (as quoted in Ritva and Tosfos Eruvin 43a) – The issue is one of finishing a melacha before shabbas and only assur according to beis shammai. It seems that there is a dispute if he means the melacha of a goy (the seifa of our mishna) or שביתת כלים. The language of the Rashbam in Tosfos Eruvin is “דלא שרו לעשות מלאכה בע”ש אלא בכדי שיעשו מבעוד יום”. It seems from the Rosh that we are talking about שביתת כלים since he asks the following question: Since the issur is techumim and only derabanan, even בית שמאי are modeh that there is no problem, like טוענים קורות בית הבד ועיגולי הגת. However, according to the Ritva, he quotes עורות לעבדן, and mentions the goy doing melacha for the Jew (again of brining him out of the techum)

2. Rabbeinu Chananel: The issur is techum and only applies to a low boat.

3. Rif: The problem is ביטול עונג שבת as it takes a few days to get used to the water and seasickness. (Can a large cruise be allowed as I assume you barely feel that you are at sea?)

4.Baal Hamaor: going on this trip is that you place yourself in a situation of ספק סכנה and therefore it looks as if you are creating a situation on purpose of being מחלל שבת. So, three days before shabbas is called “before shabbas” and one has to have it in mind. He therefore extends to this to other scenarios as well such as going to a desert (and what Rav Meir mentioned in shiur. Does this relate to cutting your nails three days before shabbas as well?)

5. Tosfos (Ritzba -eruvin 43a): The issur is a גזירה אטו שיטה על פני המים  that you may make a boat or steer such a boat yourself for 4 amos in a karmelis (the water). Since this is just a חשש and גזירה, the takana does not take effect in case of devar mitzva or leaving before three days before.

6. Ramban: the case that is assur is where 50% or more of the passengers on the boat are ישראל and since driving the boat involves a number of issurei torah like tying and untying, if the goy is doing that melacha for you on shabbas, then it is assur. However, this is only when the boat is starting close to shabbas, since if earlier then it does not look like the goy is doing melacha for the  ישראל anymore

It would seem according to all these reasons (except Tosfos and maybe Rif) that you can book your cruise without a problem and thought of when it is leaving. (there is a discussion if and how to go on shabbas as well)

Shabbas 18a - Making noise on shabbas

The simple reading of the gemara is that Rabba’s peshat is accepted and in explaining that the beraysa that says it is assur to to put wheat in a Rechayim is according to Beis Hillel. This then means that the issur is because of hashmaas kol and such is the pesak of Rabbeinu Chananel. However, Rabbeinu Tam has a different reading of the gemara. He understands that Rav Oshaya accepted the reading of Rav Yosef in the beraysa, i.e.  the words מאן תנא שביתת כלים דאוריתא are not discussing the opinion in general, but the beraysa we had just discussed. Thus Rav Oshaya agrees with the peshat of Rav Yosef (and he is the decider of pesak!), in which case the issur of hashmaas kol is not mentioned there, rather the issur by rechayim is due to שביתת כלים. This would mean that we do not have such an issur of השמעת קול learned out from the beraysa and perhaps no such issur exists.

As it turns out, the issue of what the pesak is in our sugya is a major machlokes rishonim, with the Baal Hamaor agreeing with Rabbeinu Tam and Ramban disagreeing. The Rambam omits this din and the Rif seems to be meikil about hashmaas kol as well, though he quotes the opinoin to be machmir due to hashmaas kol. For this reason, the Beis Yosef writes that we can be meikil in hashmaas kol and codifies this in the Shulchan Aruch as well (רנב:ה). The Rema starts by agreeing with this and then writes ויש אוסרים.

For this reason under various circumstances heterim are given even for things that make noise, especially in cases of financial loss. One significant one (and important if you want to do chazara early shabbas morning) is for an alarm clock, as the Rema writes “אע”פ שמשמיע קול להודיע השעות בשבת כי הכל יודעים שדרכו להעמידן מאתמול ”

Rav Meir explained in shiur that the issue of hashmaas kol is based on אוושא מילתא, which means a zilzul in shabbas. What creates the zilzul – if it is the noise itself, then why should the clock be allowed just because people know you set it up before? I think the tzitz eliezer in chelek 4 siman 31 (http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14503&pgnum=169)  explains this idea. He says that the אוושא מילתא is still connected to whether people will think this is something you may have decided to do on shabbas in violation or obviously did beforehand. In his case, (he is dealing with watering seeds on shabbas where the sprinkler was turned on before shabbas), he feels that that people will realize that you needed to set it up beforehand (due to the urgency of that case), so maybe the idea is the same with the alarm clock – that it is obvious to people that you set up the alarm clock before and therefore the noise itself is less of a zilzul.

שבת היא מלזעוק ורפואה ורפואה קרובה לבא (Shabbos 12a)

The gemara says that someone who goes to visit a sick person should say this (שבת היא מלזעוק ורפואה קרובה לבא) to the sick person. Rashi explains, we are telling the sick person to try not to be sad because it is shabbos and a person is supposed to be happy on shabbos. The Ran has a different peshat. He says we are telling the sick person that since it is shabbos we can't daven for him.

Rashi's peshat fits in better with the מי שבירך לחולים, we say the מי שבירך and then we tell the people in shul, don't be upset about the sick person it is shabbos. However, according to the Ran it is a bit difficult, we are contradicting ourselves, we just said a prayer for the sick person and we end off by saying we really aren't allowed to daven for you. Maybe the pshat is that we are explaining why this is the only tefilla we are saying for the sick person.