Shmuel said: A Jew who hires a non-Jew to complete a certain project, the halacha is as follows: If the work (the case is referring to something that is clearly recognizable that it belongs to the Jew, such as a house or land) is being done within the techum (2000 amos) of the Jew’s city, it is prohibited to arrange such a deal (since people will assume that the Jew hired the worker on Shabbos); however, outside the techum, it would be permitted.
Rav Papa qualifies this ruling: If there is another cite near the place where the work is being performed, it is forbidden since the Jewish people residing in that city will assume that the employer hired these workers on Shabbos.
Rav Mesharshiya further qualifies this ruling: When there is no city next to the place where the work is being performed, it is permitted, but only on Shabbos and the festivals since it is not usual for any Jews to be there (past the techum); however, it would be forbidden on Chol Hamoed since it is usual for other Jews to be there.
The Gemora cites an incident: Non-Jews built a mansion outside the techum for Mar Zutra on Shabbos. Rav Safra and Rav Huna did not go inside because it was built on Shabbos. Some say that Mar Zutra didn’t even enter the mansion. The Gemora explains that even though it was being built outside the techum and therefore it should be permitted, prominent people (like these Amoraim) are different and must hold themselves to a higher standard. (12a)
Rav Papa qualifies this ruling: If there is another cite near the place where the work is being performed, it is forbidden since the Jewish people residing in that city will assume that the employer hired these workers on Shabbos.
Rav Mesharshiya further qualifies this ruling: When there is no city next to the place where the work is being performed, it is permitted, but only on Shabbos and the festivals since it is not usual for any Jews to be there (past the techum); however, it would be forbidden on Chol Hamoed since it is usual for other Jews to be there.
The Gemora cites an incident: Non-Jews built a mansion outside the techum for Mar Zutra on Shabbos. Rav Safra and Rav Huna did not go inside because it was built on Shabbos. Some say that Mar Zutra didn’t even enter the mansion. The Gemora explains that even though it was being built outside the techum and therefore it should be permitted, prominent people (like these Amoraim) are different and must hold themselves to a higher standard. (12a)
The Gemora cites a braisa: One may hire a non-Jew during Chol Hamoed to work after Chol Hamoed, but we cannot hire him to work during Chol Hamoed. The braisa presents a rule: Whatever work the Jew is permitted to do during Chol Hamoed, he can tell the non-Jew to perform, but whatever he is prohibited from doing, he cannot hire a non-Jew to perform. (12a)
The Gemora cites a braisa: One is prohibited from bringing animals into a field for the purpose of manuring it on Shabbos, on festivals and on Chol Hamoed. If non-Jews came on their own with their animals, it is permitted to leave them there. One is not allowed to help move the animals from one section of the field to another, nor is he permitted to provide them with a watchman to protect their flock. If the non-Jew was hired for a week, for a month, for a year or for a seven year span, one would be allowed to help him move the animals from one section of the field to another (on Chol Hamoed) and he is permitted to provide them with a watchman to protect their flock (since the non-Jew is hired for a certain amount of time, he can perform the work whenever he chooses and it is regarded as if he is working for himself). (12a)
The Mishna states: Similarly (to the case with the olives from the previous Mishna), one whose wine was in the vat and he became a mourner (prohibiting him from work), or something unavoidable occurred before a festival (and he couldn’t pour it into the barrels); Rabbi Yosi maintains: He is permitted to pour all the wine into the barrels during Chol Hamoed and he may cover the barrel in the usual manner. Rabbi Yehudah states: He is permitted to make a temporary cover for the barrels to ensure that the wine will not turn sour. (Once the grapes have been pressed, they must be poured into barrels and sealed; otherwise, they will turn sour. (12a)
Rav Yitzchak bar Abba said: Which Tanna holds that any work performed during Chol Hamoed to prevent a loss must be done in an unusual manner? It is not Rabbi Yosi, for he maintains in our Mishna that permitted work (the processing of the wine) may be done in the usual manner. (Rabbi Yehudah disagrees.) Rav Yosef said: The halacha follows Rabbi Yosi’s opinion. (12a)
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: One is permitted to seal a barrel of beer during Chol Hamoed in order to prevent a loss.
The Gemora states: There exists a potential loss regarding unsealed beer (just like by wine). This can be proven from a statement Abaye said over from his mother (i.e., his nursemaid, since Abaye’s mother died at childbirth): A six se’ah sealed barrel of beer is preferred over an eight se’ah unsealed barrel of beer. (12a)
Rav Chama bar Guria said in the name of Rav: The laws of Chol Hamoed are similar to the laws regarding the Cutheans. (The Cutheans converted to Judaism after an outbreak of wild animals in Eretz Yisroel and their conversion was debated as to its validity. They observed some commandments, but not others.)
The Gemora explains: The halachos of Chol Hamoed are like barren women (who do not provide offspring for their husbands) and we cannot learn one halacha from another. The Gemora cites an example: Shmuel ruled that one is permitted to coat the inside of a jug with pitch on Chol Hamoed, but not a barrel; Rav Dimi from Naharda ruled that one is permitted to coat the inside of a barrel with pitch on Chol Hamoed, but not a jug. Rav Dimi is concerned about suffering a loss on Chol Hamoed and therefore only permits the coating of a large barrel; Shmuel is concerned about excessive exertion and therefore only permits the coating of a small jug.
Abaye compared the laws of Chol Hamoed to the laws of Shabbos; some labors are exempt from any punishment but nevertheless forbidden and some activities are permissible to begin with. (12a – 12b)
The Gemora presents a dispute regarding performing labor during Chol Hamoed with crop that is still attached to the ground. One braisa rules: Permission is granted to perform work during Chol Hamoed in cases when otherwise there would be a loss is exclusive to things that are detached from the ground; however, unless one does not have what to eat, it is forbidden to work with crop that is still attached to the ground. This is the opinion of Rabbi Yosi; the other Tannaim disagree and maintain that work can be done with crop that is still attached to the ground. (12b)
The Gemora cites a braisa: One may grind grain into flour during Chol Hamoed if he needs it for the festival; otherwise, it is prohibited. If he grinds for the festival and there is leftover, it is permissible to use that flour.
One may cut branches during Chol Hamoed if he needs it for the festival; otherwise, it is prohibited. If he cuts the branches for the festival and there is leftover, it is permissible to use the wood.
One may make beer during Chol Hamoed if he needs it for the festival; otherwise, it is prohibited. If he makes the beer for the festival and there is leftover, it is permissible to use that beer, provided that he does not utilize a ruse by intentionally making more than what he needs for the festival.
The Gemora challenges this last ruling from a braisa: Even if one has old beer in stock, he may make new beer during Chol Hamoed and drink from the new beer, demonstrating that it in fact was necessary.
The Gemora concludes that it is a dispute among the Tannaim. (12b)
The Gemora records an incident: Rabbi Yehudah Nesiah went out on Shabbos wearing a metal ring with a signet of almog wood. During the week, he would drink water, which was heated by an Aramean cook. Rabbi Ami heard about these two things and became upset.
Rav Yosef discusses the source for Rabbi Ami’s objection. It could not have been because the ring was considered muktzah since we learned in a braisa (Shabbos 46b): One may move bracelets, nose rings and rings in a courtyard on Shabbos as they have the status of vessels. It could not have been because he drank from the water cooked by the non-Jew, since we learned that anything which is normally eaten raw is not subject to the prohibition against gentile cooking. (Water does not need to be heated and therefore should not be subject to this prohibition.)
The Gemora answers: Rav Ami felt that since Rabbi Yehudah Nesiah was of great stature, he should not have went out on Shabbos wearing a metal ring with a signet of almog wood and he should not drink water heated by a gentile. The reason for Rav Ami’s protest is because he felt others would see a great man like Rabbi Yehudah Nesiah ruling leniently and they might go and rule even more leniently, which may lead to a transgression. (12b)
0 comments:
Post a Comment