שבת  פרק  שני   במה מדליקין  ( כח: )       Shabbath 28b  ❃

אתיא בקל וחומר מנוצה של עזים שאין מטמא בנגעים - מטמא באהל המת, עור בהמה טמאה שמטמאה בנגעים - אינו דין שמטמאה באהל המת.

ואלא הא דתני רב יוסף: לא הוכשרו במלאכת שמים אלא עור בהמה טהורה בלבד, למאי הלכתא?

לתפילין.

תפילין?

בהדיא כתיב בהו (שמות יג) למען תהיה תורת ה' בפיך - מן המותר בפיך.

אלא לעורן.

והאמר אביי: שין של תפילין הלכה למשה מסיני - אלא לכורכן בשערן ולתופרן בגידן.

- הא נמי הלכה למשה מסיני הוא, דתניא: תפילין מרובעות הלכה למשה מסיני, נכרכות בשערן ונתפרות בגידן.

- אלא לרצועות.

והא אמר רבי יצחק: רצועות שחורות הלכה למשה מסיני.

- נהי דגמירי שחורות - טהורות מי גמירי?

מאי הוי עלה דתחש שהיה בימי משה?

אמר רבי אלעא אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש, אומר היה רבי מאיר: תחש שהיה בימי משה בריה בפני עצמה היה, ולא הכריעו בה חכמים אם מין חיה הוא אם מין בהמה הוא, וקרן אחת היתה לו במצחו, ולפי שעה נזדמן לו למשה, ועשה ממנו משכן ונגנז.

מדקאמר קרן אחת היתה לו במצחו - שמע מינה טהור היה, דאמר רב יהודה: שור שהקריב אדם הראשון קרן אחת היתה לו במצחו, שנאמר (תהלים סט) ותיטב לה' משור פר מקרן מפריס.

- מקרין תרתי משמע - אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק: מקרן כתיב.

- וליפשוט מיניה דמין בהמה הוא - כיון דאיכא קרש דמין חיה הוא, ולית ליה אלא חדא קרן - איכא למימר מין חיה הוא

משנה:

פתילת הבגד שקפלה ולא הבהבה, רבי אליעזר אומר: טמאה היא ואין מדליקין בה, רבי עקיבא אומר: טהורה היא ומדליקין בה.

גמרא:

בשלמא לענין טומאה - בהא פליגי, דרבי אליעזר סבר: קיפול אינו מועיל, ובמילתיה קמייתא קיימא.

ורבי עקיבא סבר: קיפול מועיל ובטולי בטיל.

אלא לענין הדלקה במאי פליגי?

אמר רבי אלעזר אמר רב אושעיא, וכן אמר רב אדא בר אהבה: הכא בשלוש על שלוש מצומצמות עסקינן, וביום טוב שחל להיות ערב שבת עסקינן, דכולי עלמא אית להו דרבי יהודה, דאמר: מסיקין בכלים ואין מסיקין בשברי כלים, ודכולי עלמא אית להו דעולא, דאמר עולא: המדליק צריך שידליק ברוב היוצא.

רבי אליעזר סבר: קיפול אינו מועיל, וכיון דאדליק ביה פורתא - הויא ליה שבר כלי, וכי קא מדליק - בשבר כלי קמדליק.

ורבי עקיבא סבר: קיפול מועיל, ואין תורת כלי עליו, וכי קמדליק - בעץ בעלמא קמדליק.

אמר רב יוסף: היינו דתנינא שלוש על שלוש מצומצמות ולא ידענא למאי הלכתא.

ומדקא מתרץ רב אדא בר אהבה אליבא דרבי יהודה - שמע מינה כרבי יהודה סבירא ליה ומי אמר רב אדא בר אהבה הכי?

והא אמר רב אדא בר אהבה:


it is inferred a minori from goats' hair, which is not defiled by leprosy, yet is defiled by overshadowing the dead; then the skin of an unclean animal, which is defiled by leprosy, is surely defiled by overshadowing the dead.

Then when R`Joseph recited, 'For the sacred work none but the skin of a clean animal was considered fit,' for what practical law [did he say it]?(1) -In respect of phylacteries.(2)

Of phylacteries it is explicitly stated, th the law of the Lord may be in thy mouth,(3) [meaning] of that which is permitted in thy mouth?(4)

Rather in respect of their hide.(5)

But Abaye said, The skin of phylacteries is a law of Moses from Sinai?(6) - Rather, it is in respect of tying it with hair and sewing it with its tendons.(7)

But that is a law of Moses from Sinai.

For it was taught: Rectangular phylacteries(8) are a law of Moses from Sinal: they must be tied with their hair and sewn with their tendons.(9)

- Rather it is in respect of their straps.(10)

But R`Isaac said, Black straps are a law of Moses from Sinai?

Granted that black is traditional, is clean traditional?(11)

What is our conclusion with respect to the tahash which existed in Moses' days? - Said R`Elai in the name of R`Simeon B`Lakish, R`Meir used to maintain, The tahash of Moses' day was a separate species, and the Sages could not decide whether it belonged to the genus of wild beasts or to the genus of domestic animals; and it bad one horn in its forehead, and it came to Moses' hand [providentially] just for the occasion,(12) and he made the [covering of the] Tabernacle, and then it was hidden.

Now, since he says that it had one horn in its forehead, it follows that it was clean.

For R`Judah said, The ox which Adam the first [man] sacrificed had one horn in its forehead, for it is said, and it shall please the Lord better than an ox, o bullock that hath a horn [sic] and hoofs.(13)

But makrin(14) implies two? -Said R`Nahman B`Isaac: Mi-keren(15) is written.(16)

Then let us solve thence that it was a genus of domestic animal?(17) - Since there is the keresh,(18) which is a species of beast, and it has only one horn, one can say that it [the tahash] is a kind of wild beast.

MISHNAH:

A WICK [MADE] OF A CLOTH WHICH WAS TWISTED BUT NOT SINGED,-R`ELIEZER SAID: IT IS UNCLEAN, AND ONE MAY NOT LIGHT [THE SABBATH LAMP] THEREWITH; R`AKIBA MAINTAINED: IT IS CLEAN, AND ONE MAY LIGHT THEREWITH. "

GEMARA:

As for the matter of uncleanness, it is well, [for] they differ in this: R`Eliezer holds that twist is of no effect, and it remains in its previous condition;(19) while R`Akiba holds that twisting is effective, and it [its previous condition] is indeed annulled.

But with reference to lighting, wherein do they differ? - R`Eleazar said in R`Oshaia's name, and R`Adda B`Ahabah said likewise: The reference here is to [a rag] exactly three [fingerbreadths] square;(20) and also to a Festival falling on the eve of the Sabbath.

Now, all agree with R`Judah, who maintained, One may fire [an oven, etc. ,] with [whole] utensils, but not with broken utensils.(21)

Further, all agree with 'Ulla's dictum, viz. : He who lights must light the greater part [of the wick] which protrudes.

R`Eliezer holds that twisting is of no avail, and immediately one kindles it slightly it becomes a broken utensil,(22) and when he goes on kindling it,(23) he kindles a broken utensil.

But R`Akiba holds that twisting is effective, and it does not bear the character of a utensil, and therefore when he kindles, he kindles a mere piece of wood.(24)

R`Joseph observed: This is what I learnt, exactly three [fingerbreadths] square, but did not know in reference to what law.

Now, since R`Adda B`Ahabah explains it in accordance with R`Judah,(25) it follows that he himself holds as R`Judah.

Yet did R`Adda B`Ahabah say thus?

Surely R`Adda B`Ahabah said:


(1) As a mere historical fact it is of no importance. Hence what is its purpose, seeing that it does not teach that the skin of an unclean animal is not defiled by overshadowing the dead, as one wished to deduce supra a?

(2) That the parchment of these must be made of the skin of a clean animal.

(3) Ex. XIII, 9; the reference is to tefillin (v. Glos.) .

(4) Cf. p. 118, n. 2 (on explicitness) .

(5) The leather of the capsules in which the parchment is placed. This cannot be deduced from the verse quoted, for 'the law of the Lord' was not written upon them. a hsa

(6) The letter shin () is stamped out of the leather itself at the side of the capsule. This is part of the Name Shaddai () and therefore comes within the meaning of 'the law of the Lord'. - With respect to the meaning of 'a law of Moses from Sinai', some take it literally: this was handed down direct from Moses; others understand it in a more figurative sense: it is traditional, but its exact origin is unknown, and hence ascribed to Moses, who in general is the source of Jewish law. V. Weiss, Dor, I, 71 seq.

(7) The parchment within the phylacteries, on which Biblical passages are written, is rolled up and tied round with animal hair. The receptacles themselves are sewn together with the tendons of animals. Both must be from clean animals.

(8) I.e., the faces of the capsules must be rectangular in shape, the whole forming a cube.

(9) 'Their' meaning of the same animal or species which furnishes the parchment and the leather. Thus they must be all of a clean animal and this is a traditional law.

(10) These must be of the skin of a clean animal.

(11) I.e., is there a tradition that they must be of the skin of a clean animal? Surely not! Hence R. Joseph's teaching is necessary.

(12) Lit., 'garment'.

(13) Ps. LXIX, 32.

(14) E. V. 'that hath horns.'

(15) Than a horn, iren ihren

(16) I.e., which is normally punctuated (mi-keren) , but here makrin. On the identification of this ox with that sacrificed by Adam v. A.Z. 8a.

(17) Viz., an ox or bullock.

(18) Jast.: a kind of antelope, unicorn. (10) The reasons are discussed in the Gemara,

(19) A rag, being part of a garment, is liable to become unclean, a wick does not become unclean. R. Eliezer holds that mere twisting without singeing-this was done to facilitate the lighting-does not make it a wick, and therefore it is still subject to uncleanness.

(20) This is the smallest size liable to defilement (supra 26b) ; in that sense it is regarded as a whole garment (or utensil) .

(21) On Festivals. A whole utensil may be handled on Festivals, and therefore it may be taken for burning. But if a utensil is broken on the Festival so that it can now be used as fuel only, it is regarded as a thing newly-created (nolad v. Glos.) -i.e., a new use for it has just been created-and such may not be handled on Festivals.

(22) Since it was the minimum size originally.

(23) Until the greater part is alight.

(24) I.e., this twisted rag is just like a piece of wood,

(25) That nolad (v. n. 3) is forbidden.