Correcting somebody is not a simple as you might think TB Shabbat 55

We learned in the Mishnah on daf TB Shabbat 54b that “Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya’s cow would go out on Shabbat with a strap between its horns, contrary to the will of the Sages.” (Sefaria.org translation) For Rabbi Elazar ben Azariya to act contrary to the will the sages is very strange to understand. If you remember when we studied massechet Berachot Rabbi Elazar ben Azariya was appointed Nasi the head of the Jewish people when he was 18 years old. (See TB Berachot 27b-28a)  The notion that the Nasi would violate Shabbat is inconceivable. The Gemara explicates this difficulty “It was taught in the Tosefta: The cow was not his; rather, it was his neighbor’s. And because he did not protest her conduct and tell her that doing so is prohibited the cow was called by his name to his discredit, as if it were his.” (Sefaria.org translation)  Rabbi Elazar ben Azariya didn’t observed a mitzvah that is found in this week’s Torah portion Acharei Mot-Kedoshim. We are commanded to “reprove your kinsman but incur no guilt because of him.” (Leviticus 19:17)

Today’s daf TB Shabbat 55 continues to investigate this mitzvah to reprove your neighbor. “With regard to the issue of reprimand, it was related that Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Simon: Let the Master reprimand the members of the house of the Exilarch, as Rabbi Simon had some influence over them. Rabbi Simon said to him: They will not accept reprimand from me. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Let my master reprimand them even if they do not accept it.” (Sefaria.org translation) Tosefot comments that we are only obligated to reprove somebody if there is a chance that he will listen. If we are absolutely sure that the person won’t listen we shouldn’t reprove him as it is taught in TB Beitza 30a “Rather, the accepted principle is: Leave the Jews alone; it is better that they be unwitting sinners and not be intentional sinners. If people engage in a certain behavior that cannot be corrected, it is better not to reprove them, as they are likely to continue regardless of the reproof, and then they will be sinning intentionally. It is therefore preferable for them to be unaware that they are violating a prohibition and remain merely unwitting sinners.” (Sefaria.org translation)

In his book Love Your Neighbor Rabbi Zelig Pliskin dedicates over 12 pages explicating how one should observe this mitzvah of correcting somebody. I like to share some insights he brings from our tradition when it comes to reproving somebody.

“We are commanded to correct someone who behaves improperly, whether in matters pertaining to man’s relationship with God or with man’s relationship with his fellow man. (Chinuch 239)

“A person should correct his own faults before he corrects others (Bava Batra 60b) this does not free us from rebuking others; rather, it obligates us to correct ourselves first.

“The most important rule to remember about rebuke is that it must be administered with love and as painlessly as possible. Only when the recipient of rebuke feels that the rebuker loves him, will he readily accept the admonition.

“When you rebuke someone, you must do so privately so as not to embarrass him. This applies both when the matter pertains to his having wronged you, and when the matter pertains to his improper behavior as regards his obligations to God. (Rambam, Hilchot Daot 6:7)

“Even when you rebuke someone privately, you must be very careful not to shame him. (Rambam, Hilchot Daot 6:8)

“If a person you have reviewed did not heed you the first time, you should continue to rebuke him as many times as necessary until he corrects his ways. (Rambam, Hilchot Daot 6:7)  The Talmud says, ‘Even 100 times’ (TB Bava Metzia 31a)

“The Chofetz Chayim gives an analogy to someone who sells apples from a stand. He will keep calling out, ‘Apples for sale!’ the entire day. Even if only one passerby in 100 he needs his sales pitch, it is worthwhile. This is his livelihood, and he cannot afford to remain silent. The same is true of rebuke. Of course, a person does not always effect change in the recipient of his rebuke. But even if he is successful only occasionally, it is worth his efforts. Chofetz Chayim al HaTorah, on this verse.” (Quoted from Love Your Neighbor, pages 278-292)

A balance of values TB Shabbat 54

In today’s daf TB Shabbat 54 discusses what things animals should not wear and go out on Shabbat. There are several different underpinning reasons why certain things were forbidden depending on the animal. For example a calf may not go out with a “training yolk” because that would be a burden. Another reason falls under the category of marit ayin (מראית עין) literally “the appearance of the eye.” The concept of marit ayin encourages us to live a life beyond reproach. We should not appear to do something wrong. The Gemara gives two examples.

“We learned in the mishna: And one may not tie camels one to the other and pull the lead camel, thereby pulling the others after it. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Rav Ashi said: Because he appears like one going to the market [ḥinga] to sell merchandise or to deliver a caravan of camels. In deference to Shabbat, one may not create that impression…

“We also learned in the mishna: A donkey may not go out with a bell even if it is plugged to prevent it from ringing. The reason is that the animal’s owner appears like one going to the market, who adorns his donkey with bells in honor of market day.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Obviously no commerce is permitted on Shabbat. A caravan of camels or a donkey with a bell gives the false impression that the owners are going to go to the marketplace and violate Shabbat.

Nevertheless, there are limitations to marit ayin. Bet Hillel believes that marit ayin doesn’t apply in private. (TB Betzah 9a) Times and perceptions change effect our behavior. At first when almond milk and margarine first came into them market, rabbinic authorities said some type of physical sign was needed to publicize that you were mixing milk and meat. “Rama: we make milk from almonds and place bird meat in it, since (milk and bird meat) is only rabbinically (forbidden). But with meat from a domesticated animal, place almonds next to the milk, so that people don’t misunderstand. This is what we said above in chapter 66.” (Shulcha Aruch, Yoereh De’ah 87:6) (Sefariah.org translation) Today nondairy milk substitutes and margarine are so common no kind of physical sign is needed at all.

There is a competing Jewish value, giving one the benefit of the doubt or in Hebrew דן את האדם בכף זכות. (Avot 1:6) We should not jump to conclusions because when we do most often we end up being just plain wrong.

This is how I feel we should balance these two value concepts. We should live our lives above reproach, but give the next person the benefit of doubt.

Sometimes it takes a miracle to make a living TB Shabbat 53

Today’s daf TB Shabbat 53 teaches that everybody agrees we are allowed to place on animals things like a saddle blanket to keep them warm when they are cold because we are not permitted to cause animals pain or in Hebrew  צער בעלי חיים.  Obviously the purpose of these blankets is to serve and protect the animal and they are not a burden (משאוי). In the course of discussion with what things animals may go out and Shabbat, the Gemara goes off on a little tangent and tells a very strange story

 “Sages taught: There was an incident where one man’s wife died, and she left him a son to nurse, and he did not have money to pay the wages of a wet-nurse. And a miracle was performed on his behalf, and he developed breasts like the two breasts of a woman, and he nursed his son.

“Rav Yosef said: Come and see how great this person is that a miracle of that magnitude was performed on his behalf. Abaye said to him: On the contrary, how dishonorable is this person that the order of creation was altered on his behalf. A miracle was indeed performed on his behalf; however, it was performed in a demeaning and unpleasant manner.

“Rav Yehuda added and said: Come and see how difficult it is to provide for a person’s sustenance. It is so difficult that the order of creation had to be altered on his behalf, which was apparently easier than providing him a source of financial support. Rav Naḥman said: Know that it is so, as miracles are often performed on a person’s behalf; however, it has not yet happened that food was miraculously created in a person’s home.” (Sefaria.org translation)

I’m pretty skeptical that this miracle ever happened no matter what our sages taught. What interests me is Rav Yehuda take away “Come and see how difficult it is to provide for a person’s sustenance.” We shall learn in TB Pesachim 118a to what a degree the hardship of providing a person’s sustenance is. Rabbi Yoḥanan emphasizes how difficult it is to make a living and providing food for your family by comparing the verses concerning God’s punishment of Adam and Eve after they ate the forbidden fruit. He even goes as far to say that providing a livelihood is harder than bringing redemption to this world because only God can provide for our livelihood. According to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, even for God this is no simple matter.

“Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The task of providing a person’s food is twice as difficult as the suffering endured by a woman in childbirth. While, with regard to a woman in childbirth, it is written: “In pain [be’etzev] you shall bring forth children” (Genesis 3:16), with regard to food, it is written: “In toil [be’itzavon] you shall eat of it, all the days of your life” (Genesis 3:17). Itzavon is a superlative form of etzev, which indicates that it is more difficult to support oneself than to give birth.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The task of providing a person’s food is more difficult than the redemption. While, with regard to the redemption, it is written: “The angel who has redeemed me from all evil” (Genesis 48:16), indicating that a mere angel is sufficient to protect a person from all evil; whereas, with regard to sustenance, it is written: “The God who has been my shepherd all my life long to this day” (Genesis 48:15). This verse implies that only God can help one who is struggling to earn a living.

Rav Sheizvi said, citing Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: The task of providing a person’s food is as difficult as the splitting of the Red Sea, as it is written: “He gives food to all flesh, for His mercy endures forever” (Psalms 136:25), and juxtaposed to it is the verse: “To Him who divided the Red Sea in sunder, for His mercy endures forever” (Psalms 136:13). The reiteration of the last part of the verse indicates that the two praises are to a certain extent equivalent.” (Sefaria.org translation)

What was a reality back in Talmudic times is unquestionable true today during the coronavirus pandemic. In the past four weeks over 22 million people have lost their jobs and are looking for unemployment benefits. Not since the Great Depression have we seen such a toll on the workforce. Those of us who are blessed with an income have an opportunity and an obligation to help those in need. Here are three websites which can help you decide where to direct some of your tzedaka money. Let’s be God’s partners helping the Almighty provide our neighbors. Together we can make a difference.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/03/heres-how-to-help-those-affected-by-the-coronavirus-pandemic.html

(https://www.plateonline.com/food/trending-now/updated-these-organizations-are-helping-unemployed-hospitality-workers)

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/27/smarter-living/coronavirus-charity-donations.html

What’s the story about excessive security? TB Shabbat 52

As I studied today’s daf TB Shabbat 52 I wish that I lived on a farm or on the kibbutz to visualize the realia of the different types of bits, halters, collars worn by different types of animals that farmers use. I have to admit for all us urbanites or suburbanites this chapter is almost completely academic. None of my friends and I own camels, cows, horses, and mules. I do think that we could apply this concept when we walk our dogs and Shabbat.

Yesterday’s daf TB 51b and today’s daf continues the discussion about excessive security. May one use excessive security on an animal or is that considered a burden (משאוי)?  Yesterday the discussion revolved around using a nose ring on a camel which is considered excessive when all you need is a bit. Today’s daf revolves around a strap that was secured around a cow which is a very docile animal. Is the strap excessive security and permitted or is it a burden and forbidden for cow to go out thusly and Shabbat?

“We learned there in a mishna: And neither may a cow go out with a strap between its horns. Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said: Rav and Shmuel disagreed about this: One said: Whether it was placed for beauty, as an ornament, or whether it was placed to secure the cow, it is prohibited for the cow to go out with the strap between its horns. And the other one said: For beauty, it is prohibited; however, if it was placed to secure the cow, it is permitted.” (Sefaria.org translation)

For the answer I like to share a story that straddles both dappim. 

“The Gemara relates that Levi, son of Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya, and Rabba bar Rav Huna were once going together on a road. Levi’s donkey on its own initiative went ahead of the donkey of Rabba bar Rav Huna. Rabba bar Rav Huna was offended because he was the greater Torah scholar, and he thought that Levi went first to assert that he considered himself the greater scholar. Levi said to himself: I will say something to him, so that he will be placated and will understand that it was not my intention to disrespect him. He said to him: An undisciplined donkey whose conduct is wicked like this one that I am riding, what is the ruling with regard to having it go out with a halter on Shabbat? Typically, in order to secure a donkey, a bit suffices and it does not require a halter. A halter constitutes excessive security. However, the question is whether or not a halter that provides excessive security for a wild donkey like this one is considered a burden with which it is prohibited to go out to the public domain on Shabbat. Rabba bar Rav Huna said to him: Even if the security is considered extraneous, your father said the following in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya, who said that a device that provides excessive security is not considered a burden.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The story teaches us three things. First of all, we need to respect our teachers. They are dedicated, overworked, and underpaid. Especially today we should appreciate how quickly our teachers pivoted from teaching in a classroom to teaching online due to the coronavirus. Teaching online requires a brand new set of skills that most if not all teachers have not been adequately trained. Secondly, we learn from Levi that it doesn’t hurt to be quick on your feet to get you out have a tight spot. He probably knew his father’s position on excessive security. Last of all, we learn that a device that provides excessive security is not considered a burden.

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi teaches two life lessons TB Shabbat 51

With today’s daf TB Shabbat 51 we finish the fourth chapter of our massechet and began the fifth chapter. Up to now we been dealing with all the issues surrounding insulating (הטמנה) hot food before Shabbat so that we may enjoy hot food on Shabbat. Now the Gemara asks the question whether the same rules apply to cold food as well. We shall learn that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi changed his mind and permits something that he once prohibited.

“Rav Huna said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: It is prohibited to insulate cold food on Shabbat to keep it cold. The Gemara raises an objection: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted cold food to be insulated on Shabbat? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This statement was made before he heard the ruling of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei; that statement in the baraita was made after he heard it. As in that incident where Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sat and said: It is prohibited to insulate cold food on Shabbat to keep it cold, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said before him: Father permitted insulating cold food on Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: I retract my previous statement, as the Elder, Rabbi Yosei, has already issued a ruling on this topic, and I defer to his ruling.

“Rav Pappa said: Come and see how much they loved each other. Had Rabbi Yosei still been alive, he would have been subordinate to and sitting before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi as his student, as Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, who took his father’s place and was as great a Torah scholar as his father, was subordinate to and sitting before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi as his student. And, nevertheless, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The Elder has already issued a ruling on this topic, and he deferred to Rabbi Yosei’s ruling.” (Sefaria.org translation)

I think we should all learn two things from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. First, there’s nothing wrong about changing your mind. New facts or personal growth should free a person to change a position. Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote in his essay “Self-Reliance” “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” Secondly, we learn that we should treat every human being and that includes our subordinates with love and respect.

Chapter 5 deals with another aspect of transferring (הוצאה והכנסה) from one domain to another. We know that not only we are obligated to rest on the Shabbat, but also “your son or daughter, your male or female slave, or your cattle,…” (Exodus 20:10) What does it mean that our cattle must observe the Sabbath? Obviously, they are allowed to pasture, uproot and eat grass for that is their food even though we are prohibited from uprooting anything that grows from the ground on Shabbat. We are prohibited to do anything with the animal that would be our violation of Shabbat. We may place something that serves or protects the animal as it goes out, but we cannot put something on animal that isn’t for the animal’s sake. That would be considered a burden (מַשּׂאוֹי) and forbidden.

“Due to the mitzva to rest one’s animals on Shabbat, one’s animal may not go out into the public domain bearing a burden. However, an object designated to protect the animal or to prevent it from fleeing is not considered a burden; therefore, an animal bearing objects that serve that purpose may go out into the public domain.

MISHNA: The mishna asks: With what may an animal go out into the public domain on Shabbat and with what may it not go out” (Sefaria.org translation)

Now with this introduction tomorrow we will continue our journey through the fifth chapter.

Which bathroom do you use? TB Shabbat 50

One of the discussions on today’s daf TB Shabbat 50 deals with washing a man’s face when he has a beard on Shabbat. The underling principle is one may not wash his face with something that would remove any hair from his beard. But what really interests me is the story of Ameimar, Mar Zutra, and Rav Ashi.


 “Rav Sheshet said: Washing with berada is permitted on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is berada? Rav Yosef said: It is a mixture of one-third aloe, one-third myrtle, and one-third violets. Rav Neemya bar Yosef said: Everywhere that there is a mixture with no majority of aloe, it may well be used. Even if the mixture contains more than a third aloe, as long as it constitutes less than a majority, it does not cause hair to fall out.


“The Gemara relates that Ameimar, Mar Zutra, and Rav Ashi were sitting on Shabbat, and they brought berada before them for washing. Ameimar and Rav Ashi washed with it; Mar Zutra did not wash. They said to him: Doesn’t the Master hold in accordance with that which Rav Sheshet said: Washing with berada is permitted on Shabbat? Rav Mordekhai, who was also there, said to them: Except for him, the Master; i.e., do not draw conclusions from Mar Zutra, as he does not hold that one is permitted to use berada, even on a weekday.


“Mar Zutra holds in accordance with that which was taught in a baraita: A person may scrape off dried excrement crusts and scabs of a wound that are on his flesh because of the pain that they are causing him. However, if he does so in order to clean and beautify himself, it is prohibited. According to the tanna of this baraita, it is prohibited to adorn or beautify oneself, as the verse: “Neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment” (Deuteronomy 22:5) prohibits dressing or conducting oneself in the manner of women.


“The Gemara asks: And Ameimar and Rav Ashi, who permit use of berada, in accordance with whose opinion do they hold? They hold in accordance with that which was taught in a baraita: A person must wash his face, his hands, and his feet every day for the sake of his Maker, as it is stated: “The Lord has made everything for His own purpose” (Proverbs 16:4). Every beautiful thing that exists in the world sings the praise of God Who created beautiful things. Therefore, it is appropriate for one to beautify himself in praise of God.” (Sefaria.org translation)


According to Rashi on the verse Dt 22:5 found in TB Nazir 59a cross dressing would lead to promiscuous behavior. Men who crossed dressed and used cosmetics like a woman could freely mingle with women and that would lead trouble with a capital “T.” To me this sounds a lot like the arguments why transgender men really want to use the women’s washroom. We know that this reasoning is fallacious. The reason why transgender people choose a wash room has to do with the gender a person identifies with and nothing else. Consequently, I believe a person should use the washroom of the gender s/he identifies with and not the one s/he is born with.


By the way, the halacha is according to the baraita one must wash one’s face, hands, and feet and  beautify oneself in praise of God. (Rambam, Sefer Mada’ Hilchot Da’ot Chapter 3)

Wonder of wonders, miracle of miracles TB Shabbat 49

We come across one of the most famous vignettes in the Talmud in today’s daf TB Shabbat 49. Just a little background before we go and study the text. Today the tefillin boxes containing the scrolls are hard and we generally put them on for the morning service, Shacharit. Back in Talmudic times their tefillin were not like ours. The boxes that contain the scrolls were soft and men wore them all day long.

Under the leadership of Bar Kochba the Jews rebelled against the Roman Empire the second time between 132-135 C.E. Ultimately, the Romans crushed the rebellion but at a great cost. Knowing that the Jews were a stubborn people and were likely to rebel again, they did everything in their power to prevent this from happening. They made Jerusalem a pagan city, renamed it as Aelia Capitolina, and prohibited Jews from entering it. They also promulgated laws prohibiting the observance of Judaism on pain of death. During the Yom Kippur service we read about the 10 martyred rabbis of this period who continued to observe and teach the Torah and paid the ultimate price. Rabbi Akiva is the most well-known of these martyrs. Now onto the story.

“GEMARA: Since doves’ wings were mentioned in the mishna, the Gemara cites a related story: Rabbi Yannai said: Donning phylacteries requires a clean body, like that of Elisha, Man of Wings. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the statement that donning phylacteries requires a clean body? Abaye said: It means that one may not break wind while donning them. Rava said: It means that one may not sleep in them.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Tosefot gives a third reason we don’t wear tefillin at night lest we fall asleep with them on. Tefillin are as holy as a Torah scroll because they are identical in many ways. The tefillin boxes contain four different passages from the Torah. These passages are written exactly as a Torah scroll is written, on parchment, with special natural ink, and with a quill by a scribe. Since the tefillin are holy we should always be mindful of what they symbolize and mean. When we are asleep, we cannot be mindful of them at all. Consequently, Jewish law forbids wearing tefillin at night.

“The Gemara asks: And why did they call Elisha Man of Wings? Because on one occasion the evil kingdom of Rome issued a decree against Israel that, as punishment, they would pierce the brain of anyone who dons phylacteries. Nevertheless, Elisha would don them and defiantly go out to the marketplace. One day, an official [kasdor] who was appointed to enforce the decree saw him; Elisha ran away from him, and the official ran after him. When the official reached him, Elisha removed the phylacteries from his head and held them in his hand. The officer asked him: What is that in your hand? Elisha said to him: It is merely a dove’s wings. A miracle was performed: He opened his hand, and, indeed, it was found to be a dove’s wings. Therefore, in commemoration of this miracle, they would call him Elisha, Man of Wings.”  (Sefaria.org translation)

Today’s daf also gives to explanations how the rabbis came to the conclusion that there were 39 prohibited activities (מלאכות). “Rabbi Ḥanina bar Ḥama said to them: They correspond to the labors in the Tabernacle. All types of labor that were performed in the Tabernacle are enumerated as primary categories of labor with respect to Shabbat. However, other labors, even if they are significant, are not enumerated among the primary categories of labor since they were not performed in the Tabernacle. Rabbi Yonatan, son of Rabbi Elazar, said to them that so said Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yosei ben Lakonya: They correspond to the instances of the words labor, his labor, and the labor of, that appear in the Torah a total of forty-less-one times.” (Sefaria.org translation)   I encourage you to go to Shabbat 49b to continue learning about this disagreement.

Insulation that's too effective TB Shabbat 48

Today we begin the fourth chapter of massechet Shabbat with TB Shabbat 48. Obviously, there’s nothing like a nice hot meal on Shabbat. This chapter deals with the question of insulating (הטמנה) the pot to keep the contents warm. There are two different categories of insulation. The first are those things that increase the heat, דבר שמוסיף הבל. The second are those things that only preserve the heat, דבר שאינו מוסיף הבל. Insulation that increases the heat is forbidden to use before and on Shabbat lest you stoke the coals to increase the heat because you want the cooking to continue. One is allowed to use insulation that just preserves the heat before Shabbat but not on Shabbat.

“The mishnayot that follow list those materials in which such a pot may be insulated on Shabbat eve and those materials in which it may not be insulated.

MISHNA: In what may one insulate a pot of cooked food on Shabbat eve, and in what may one not insulate it? One may neither insulate it in the solid residue of produce that has been pressed free of its oil, nor in manure, nor in salt, nor in lime, nor in sand, whether those materials are moist or whether they are dry. All of these materials spontaneously generate heat when piled for an extended period. Therefore, they add heat to a pot insulated in them. And one may neither insulate a pot in straw, nor in the residue of grapes that have been pressed for their juice, nor in soft material, e.g., from tattered clothing, nor in grass, when these materials are moist. However, one may insulate a pot in them when they are dry.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Solid oil residue, manure, straw, residue of grapes, soft material, and grass when wet ferments and goes through a chemical process that creates heat. When submerging the pot in salt, lime, and sand removes the air and creates a new compound. This process also creates heat.

The Gemara asks the question whether the Mishna limits the solid residue from olive oil or prohibits other kinds of solid residue like sesame oil.  “A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Did we learn with regard to the residue of olives in the mishna, but the residue of sesame seeds that were pressed for their oil, which produces less heat, may well be used for insulating food on Shabbat eve? Or, perhaps, we learned with regard to the residue of sesame in the mishna, and all the more so insulating food in the residue of olives is prohibited?” (Sefaria.org translation)

The conclusion is sesame oil is also forbidden to insulate the pot; however, the rabbis recognize that different oils have different heat properties. One is forbidden to put a pot on the solid residue of olives, but is permitted to put a pot on the solid residue of sesames. “Actually I can say to you that with regard to actual insulation, the residue of sesame is also prohibited. However, with regard to causing heat to rise, i.e., heating food that is not actually insulated in it, but merely resting upon it, the residue of olives causes heat to rise. Therefore, it is prohibited even to place cooked food upon it. However, the residue of sesame does not cause heat to rise to that extent. Therefore, it is permitted to place food upon it.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The bases of muktseh TB Shabbat 47

With today’s daf TB Shabbat 47 we finished the third chapter of massechet Shabbat. As we have learned Rabbi Yehuda holds an expansive understanding of muktseh. Something becomes muktseh because of a prohibition (מקצה מחמת איסור), muktseh because it’s disgusting (מקצה מחמת מיאוס), and the extension of the prohibition of erev Shabbat (for example, since the oil lamp was lit Friday afternoon before Shabbat, it remains muktseh throughout all of Shabbat). Rabbi Shimon has a very limited understanding of muktseh. Something is only muktseh when a prohibition is currently involved. Although Rabbi Shimon does not permit somebody to move a lit oil lamp on Shabbat, once the flame goes out he will permit moving the lamp.

The Gemara introduces a new concept today to answer a question posed to Rabbi Shimon’s position. Why would Rabbi Shimon forbid moving a lit oil lamp and Shabbat? We originally thought the reason why he would forbid moving a lit oil lamp was the fear of extinguishing the flame, one of the 39 prohibited actions and Shabbat.  This is not a satisfactory reason because Rabbi Shimon also holds the position that one is not liable for an unintentional consequence of an action although the unintentional act itself is forbidden on Shabbat. Since the extinguishing of the flame by moving the oil lamp on Shabbat was just an unintentional consequence, the Gemara asks why Rabbi Shimon would prohibit moving the oil lamp.

“Abaye raised a contradiction before Rav Yosef: Did Rabbi Shimon actually say that when a lamp is extinguished, it is permitted to move it on Shabbat? By inference: After it is extinguished, yes, moving it is permitted; so long as it is not extinguished, no, moving it is prohibited. What is the reason that it is prohibited to move a burning candle? It is due to concern that perhaps, as he moves the lamp, the flame will be extinguished. However, is Rabbi Shimon really concerned that a flame will be extinguished under those circumstances? Didn’t we learn that Rabbi Shimon stated a principle: An unintentional act, a permitted action from which an unintended prohibited labor ensues on Shabbat, since he did not intend to perform the prohibited action, is permitted” TB Shabbat 46b (Sefaria.org translation)

Rava introduces the new concept, the basis for a prohibited object (בסיס לדבר אסור) to explain why Rabbi Shimon would prohibit moving the lit oil lamp on Shabbat. “Rava said a different explanation for Rabbi Shimon’s prohibition in the case of an oil lamp: Leave the candle, oil, and wick, since they became a base for a prohibited object. Even Rabbi Shimon agrees that a flame burning on Shabbat is set-aside. Since it is prohibited to move the flame, moving the lamp, oil, and wick is also prohibited.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara goes on to teach that if the base contains both something forbidden and permitted, one is allowed to move the base because of the permitted object. “Didn’t we learn in a mishna: A person may carry his son in his hands and even if the son has a stone, which is prohibited to carry, in his hands; or, one may carry a basket with a stone inside it? And Rabba bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: We are dealing with a basket that is full of fruit. Due to the fruit, carrying the stone is also permitted. The reason for the leniency is because there is fruit inside the basket; however, if there is no fruit inside it, no, one may not move it. ” (Sefaria.org translation)

Why I never watch all those celebrity roasts TB Shabbat 46

Today’s daf TB Shabbat 45 relates a strange and disturbing story. Rav Avya happened to come to Rava’s house. His feet were dirty with clay and he put them on the bed before Rava. Rava became angry at him for dirtying the bed and, therefore, sought to torment him with questions that he could not answer. Rava said to him: What is the reason that Rabba and Rav Yosef both said that with regard to a naphtha lamp, too, that it is permitted to move it? Rav Avya said to him: Since it is suitable to cover a vessel with it. Rava said to him: But if that is so, all pebbles in the yard may also be carried ab initio on Shabbat, since it is suitable to cover a vessel with them. Rav Avya said to him: There is a distinction between these cases. This, the lamp, the status of a vessel applies to it and there are leniencies that apply to vessels with regard to the halakhot of set-aside. These, the pebbles, the status of a vessel does not apply to it, as they are a raw material. Carrying them is prohibited unless designated for a specific purpose before Shabbat. Was it not taught in a baraita that bracelets, nose-rings and rings, although it is prohibited to go out into the public domain wearing them on Shabbat, they are like all the vessels that may be moved in the courtyard; in the private domain, one may move them and they are not set-aside. And Ulla said: What is the reason that it is permitted to move nose-rings in the yard? It is because the status of a vessel applies to it. Apparently, vessel status is sufficient to permit moving it on Shabbat. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Thank God that Rava did not embarrass Rav Avya and Rav Avya managed to successfully answer Rava’s questions.” (Sefaria.org translation)

I can understand why Rava was upset with Rav Avya because he put his dirty feet on the bed. What I don’t understand is why he just didn’t ask him to remove his fee from the bed. That’s what Judy tells me all the time when I forget to take off my shoes when I’m lying down. What bothers me even more is Rava’s desire to torment and embarrass Rav Avya.  This goes against everything I’ve learned what yiddishkeit teaches us how we treat one another because we are created in God’s image, בצלם א-לוהים.

Rav Hisda taught: Great is human, גדול כבוד הבריות. (TB Shabbat 81) Although we shall study this Mishna in Baba Metzi’a in greater detail when we reach it in the spring of 2024 God willing, now is a good time to introduce it. “Just as there is a prohibition against exploitation [ona’a] in buying and selling, so is there ona’a in statements, i.e., verbal mistreatment. The mishna proceeds to cite examples of verbal mistreatment. One may not say to a seller: For how much are you selling this item, if he does not wish to purchase it. He thereby upsets the seller when the deal fails to materialize. The mishna lists other examples: If one is a penitent, another may not say to him: Remember your earlier deeds. If one is the child of converts, another may not say to him: Remember the deeds of your ancestors, as it is stated: “And a convert shall you neither mistreat, nor shall you oppress him” (Exodus 22:20).”TB Baba Metzi’a 58b (Sefaria.org translation)

Since we are all created in God’s image, we must be careful how we treat and speak to one another.

Why can Conservative synagogues can be so different from one another TB Shabbat 45

If you really think about it, the Mishnah is a strange codebook of laws. You would think that a codebook would delineate what is absolutely permitted and what is absolutely forbidden clearly so that there will be no misunderstanding what a person is allowed or forbidden to do. But the Mishnah includes real differences of opinion. For example, yesterday we learned that Rabbi Yehuda has a very broad understanding of what is muktseh (מוקצה) while Rabbi Shimon’s concept of muktseh is very limited in scope. Rabbi Shimon holds that something is only muktseh while it is set aside for the purpose of the mitzvah. Once it no longer serves that purpose, one may make move it. Both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon agree one must not move a lit oil lamp on Shabbat. Only Rabbi Shimon allows the oil lamp to be moved when the light is extinguished by itself.

My teacher Dr. Shaye D. Cohen explained the reason why. When the Second Temple stood in Jerusalem, there were many different Jewish sects. The most famous of these were the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and the Zealots. There was no compromise. Each group said that you follow my way or hit the highway. After the second Temple was destroyed, the rabbis of the Mishnah realized that such deep divisions amongst the Jewish people would destroy the possibility of renewing Jewish life and saving the concept of the Jewish peoplehood. Consequently to be as inclusive as possible, they admitted to their corpus of laws different opinions.

Sometimes a different opinion can be relied upon as proved in today’s daf TB Shabbat 45. The Gemara tries to ascertain whether Rav, the Babylonian amora, subscribes to Rabbi Yehuda’s or Rabbi Shimon’s position.

“And does Rav really hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that it is prohibited to move an object that is set-aside? Didn’t they raise a dilemma before Rav: What is the ruling with regard to moving a Hanukkah candle from before the ḥabarei, Persian Zoroastrian fire priests, on Shabbat? Those priests prohibited lighting fires on certain days. In order to prevent them from discovering that he lit Hanukkah candles it was necessary to quickly move them. And he said to them: One may well do so. Apparently, Rav does not hold that there is a prohibition of set-aside. The Gemara answers: This is not a proof, as exigent circumstances are different and Rav permitted this due to the danger involved. As Rav Kahana and Rav Ashi said to Rav on this matter: Is that the halakha? He said to them:  Rabbi Shimon is worthy to rely upon in exigent circumstances like this one.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Even if Rav holds Rabbi Yehuda’s position, he agrees one may rely on Rabbi Shimon’s position in exigent circumstances.

This concept of different authentic opinions animates the Conservative movement. A Conservative Rabbi will submit a question of Jewish law to the Rabbinical Assembly’s The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS). “According to the rules of the law committee set by the Rabbinical Assembly’s and, which a תשובה (responsa) receives at least six votes it is considered an official opinion of the CJLS. Six votes represents 25% of the committee, and as such represents a valid position within the Conservative rabbinate. There are times, than, when papers are approved with significant opposition and at times even with contrary positions that are also approved by at least six votes, making them also official opinions.” (Responsa 1991-2000, Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Conservative Movement, page x)  

That is why there is a wide differences of observance between Conservative synagogues. There just following different official opinions of the Conservative movement.

I’m not touching that. It’s yucky! TB Shabbat 44

There are two levels of Jewish law, The more stringent laws are in the Torah itself or directly derived from the Torah. We say these laws are de’oraita (דאורייתא). The men of the Great Assembly taught: “make a fence to safeguard the Torah, a םיג לתורה” (Avot 1:1) Consequently, the rabbis enacted laws to distance a person from violating a Torah law and these laws can be less stringent. These laws are known as de’rabbanan,דרבנן. Since these laws are less stringent, they may be violated to protect a Torah law. A good example comes from yesterday’s daf TB Shabbat 43.

A house is on fire and there is a corpse inside. A debate ensues whether you are allowed rescue the corpse by removing the dead body in an atypical way from that burning house on Shabbat. Everybody agrees that removing something in an atypical is forbidden. “Rather, this is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish (who permits the removal in an atypical way): Since a person is agitated about his deceased relative and is concerned about maintaining the dignity of the dead, if you do not permit him to move the corpse in an atypical manner, he will come to extinguish the fire. The Sages permitted performing an act prohibited by rabbinic law so that one will not come to transgress a Torah prohibition. Rabbi Yehuda ben Sheila said that Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yohanan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish with regard to the issue of rescuing a corpse from a fire.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The laws of mukseh,  מוקצהare de’rabanan and today’s daf TB Shabbat 44 defines two different kinds of mukseh. The first is
מוקצה מחמת איםור something set a side because of a prohibition. The second is
מוקצה מחמת מיאוס something that is set aside because it is disgusting and touching it detracts from the spirit of Shabbat.

“GEMARA: The Sages taught the dispute in the mishna in greater detail in a Tosefta: One may move a new oil lamp on Shabbat but not an old one; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: All oil lamps may be moved on Shabbat except for an oil lamp that they kindled on that Shabbat. Rabbi Meir does not hold that one must distance himself from objects that are disgusting. However, since the lamp was burning on Shabbat, it may not be moved, as it is an object set aside due to prohibition for the entire Shabbat. Rabbi Shimon says: All lamps may be moved except for an oil lamp that is burning on Shabbat. If the flame was extinguished, one is permitted to move it. However, a cup and a bowl and a lantern that are full of oil with a wick lit in them, one may not move them from their place even after the flame is extinguished.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rabbi Yehudah forbids moving an old oil lamp because the use makes it disgusting to touch i.e. מוקצה מחמת מיאוס. Rabbi Meir forbids moving a lit oil lamp because by doing so he may accidently extinguish the flame on Shabbat which is one of the 39 prohibited types of work on Shabbat. This oil lamp is  מוקצה מחמת איםור. Rabbi Shimon is more stringent in some cases than Rabbi Meir and more lenient in some cases than Rabbi Yehudah. 

The egg and I TB Shabbat 43

Today’s daf Shabbat 43 teaches two important principles concerning mukseh (מוקצה). The first principle deals with preparedness. One has to prepare everything before Shabbat for use on Shabbat. If you didn’t have in mind to use the item on Shabbat, you can’t use it on Shabbat because it is mukseh. Mukseh comes the Hebrew root קצה which means side meaning it has been put aside not to be used. Now we can better understand Rav Hisda’s position.


“Rav Hisda said: Although the Sages said that one may not place a vessel beneath a hen preparing to lay an egg on Shabbat on an inclined surface, in order to receive its egg and prevent it from breaking when it falls; however, they permitted overturning a vessel onto an egg on Shabbat so that it will not be trampled and break. (TB Shabbat 42b)


“Rav Yosef said: This is the reasoning of Rav Hisda, who allowed covering a hen’s egg, but not placing a vessel underneath the hen, in order to receive the egg when it is laid: Because by receiving the egg in the vessel, he negates a vessel’s preparedness. Initially, the vessel was available for any use. Since it now contains an egg that may neither be used nor moved, the vessel too may no longer be carried. It is tantamount to breaking the vessel.” (Sefaria.org translation)


The egg is mukseh davka because it came into existence during Shabbat. There was no way you could have in mind to use a non existent egg on Friday for the follow day, Shabbat. When the mukseh egg lands in the vessel, the vessel becomes mukseh on account of the egg. Rashi explains that the vessel is compared to a broken one. Once a vessel is broken and can’t be used for its original purpose, the vessel becomes mukseh.


But if you need the space underneath the mukseh item, one may move it. Once you move it, you can place the mukseh item anywhere you want. This is the second principle.

“Come and hear what was taught in a baraita: With regard to both an egg that was laid on Shabbat and an egg that was laid on a Festival, one may neither move it to cover a vessel with it, nor to support the legs of a bed with it. However, one may cover it with a vessel so that it does not break. This is contrary to Rabbi Yitzhak’s opinion. Here too, it is referring to a vessel that one seeks to move because he requires its location. Since he was permitted to move it from its place, he is also permitted to cover an egg with it.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Just don't just yell "Fire!" TB Shabbat 42

We have finished the first half of the third chapter and now are transitioning to a new topic. The first five and one half dappim of the chapter deal with laws of cooking before and on Shabbat. From now to the end of the chapter we shall be delving into the concept of mukseh, מוקצה, things that are not set aside for Shabbat use. More about this concept as we finish continue on our journey in chapter three.

 To understand today’s daf TB Shabbat 42 one has to understand the arguments between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon. In the case of an unintentional act (מלאכה שאינה מתכונת), i.e., a permitted action from which a prohibited labor inadvertently ensues Rabbi Yehuda says that it is forbidden and Rabbi  Shimon permits. An example of מלאכה שאינה מתכונת is a person is dragging a heavy chair and inadvertently creates a furrow which is one of the 39 categories of work. In the case of labor not necessary for its own sake (מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה) Rabbi Yehuda says the person is obligated to bring a sin offering because he did do one of the 39 categories of work. Rabbi Shimon teaches that this action is forbidden, but freed from bringing any sacrifice. An example of מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה would be digging a hole (which is one of the 39 categories of work) only for the sake for the dirt that’s removed.

“Shmuel says: One may extinguish a piece of white-hot metal in a public area on Shabbat so that the masses will not be injured? That is because the piece of white-hot metal is not actual fire and extinguishing it is prohibited by rabbinic decree, not Torah law. The Sages did not issue decrees in situations where there is concern for public safety. However, one may not extinguish a red-hot wood coal because extinguishing it is prohibited by Torah law. And if it would enter your mind that Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, it should even be permitted to extinguish wood as well. When one extinguishes the coal, he intends neither to perform a prohibited labor nor to derive any benefit. He merely intends to prevent the coal from causing injury. Extinguishing the coal is a labor not necessary for its own sake. Rabbi Shimon says that one who performs a labor not necessary for its own sake is exempt. The Gemara responds: In the case of an unintentional act, Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. In the case of labor not necessary for its own sake, he holds that he is liable, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.” (Sefaria.org translation)

I’m glad to report that one is not only allowed to extinguish a piece of white-hot metal in a public area on Shabbat so that the public will not be injured according to Shmuel, but most poskim also permit one to extinguish wood as well on Shabbat so that the public will not be injured agreeing with Shmuel’s position on מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. (Shulchan Aruch, Orech Hayyim 334:27)

Common sense wins the day!

Another reason to avoid a teacher TB Shabbat 41

Today’s daf Shabbat 41 tells why a student was avoiding his teacher.

“Speaking of bathing and its halakhot, the Gemara relates: Rabbi Zeira was avoiding being seen by his teacher, Rav Yehuda, as Rabbi Zeira sought to ascend to Eretz Yisrael and his teacher disapproved. As Rav Yehuda said: Anyone who ascends from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael transgresses a positive commandment, as it is stated: “They shall be taken to Babylonia and there they shall remain until the day that I recall them, said the Lord” (Jeremiah 27:22). Based on that verse, Rav Yehuda held that since the Babylonian exile was by divine decree, permission to leave Babylonia for Eretz Yisrael could only be granted by God. Rabbi Zeira did not want to discuss his desire to emigrate with Rav Yehuda, so that he would not be forced to explicitly disobey him. Nevertheless, he said: I will go and hear something from him and then I will leave. He went and found Rav Yehuda standing in the bathhouse and telling his servant: Bring me natron [neter] with which to wash, bring me a comb, open your mouths and let out air, and drink from the water of the bathhouse. Rabbi Zeira said: If I had come only to hear this matter from Rav Yehuda, it would suffice for me.” (Sefaria.com translation)

Reading Rabbi Yehuda’s position saddens me. Note that not everybody held that opinion. Ramban, Rabbi Moses Nachmanides (1194-1270, Spain), writes that settling the land of Israel is one of the 613 commandments. “The fourth mitzvah that we were commanded [is] to conquer the land that God gave to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and not to abandon it to the hands of other nations or to emptiness.” (Commentary on Maimonides’ Codification of Biblical Precepts) He quotes this verse as his proof text: “And you shall dispossess of the land and dwell in it,because I have given you the land to possess it.” (Numbers 33:53) He cites a Gemara as further proof.

“The Sages taught: A person should always reside in Eretz Yisrael, even in a city that is mostly populated by gentiles, and he should not reside outside of Eretz Yisrael, even in a city that is mostly populated by Jews. The reason is that anyone who resides in Eretz Yisrael is considered as one who has a God, and anyone who resides outside of Eretz Yisrael is considered as one who does not have a God. As it is stated: “To give to you the land of Canaan, to be your God” (Leviticus 25:38). The Gemara expresses surprise: And can it really be said that anyone who resides outside of Eretz Yisrael has no God? Rather, this comes to tell you that anyone who resides outside of Eretz Yisrael is considered as though he is engaged in idol worship. And so it says with regard to David: “For they have driven me out this day that I should not cleave to the inheritance of the Lord, saying: Go, serve other gods” (I Samuel 26:19). But who said to David: Go, serve other gods? Rather, this comes to tell you that anyone who resides outside of Eretz Yisrael is considered as though he is engaged in idol worship.” (Sefaria.org translation)

We are fortunate to live in era when Israel exists and it is no longer dangerous to move there. All we have to do is hop on an El Al plane and we are there. Jewish life and culture flourishes there. Jewish life is unique because it is the Jewish state in our ancient homeland. Israel runs according to Jewish time. How Israelis respond to issues and problems of the day as a majority with political power to this new reality is Israel’s Jewish challenge. 

We modern Jews wrestle with a lot of the mitzvot whether or how we observe them. I don’t believe that every Jew must move to Israel. I do believe that a serious Jew should wrestle with the mitzvah of making aliyah and settling the Land of Israel like he/she does with every other mitzvah..

In case you are wondering exactly what Rabbi Zeira learned by over hearing Rabbi Yehudah, I shall quote the continuation of today’s Gemara.

“The Gemara analyzes the lessons learned from this story. Granted, when Rav Yehuda said: Bring me natron, bring me a comb, he was teaching us that mundane matters are permitted to be spoken in the bathhouse, even in the sacred language. When he said: Open your mouths and let out air, that too is in accordance with that which Shmuel said, as Shmuel said: Heat produces heat. The hot air that one inhales causes him to sweat more quickly. However, drink the water of the bathhouse, what benefit is there in doing that? The Gemara answers: As it was taught in a baraita: One who ate and did not drink at all, what he ate becomes blood and that causes the onset of intestinal disease.” (Sefaria.org translation) I doubt that is true, but many medical sources today recommends drinking 8 glasses of water a day.

"My library" TB Shabbat 40

In the course of telling a story about Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the editor of the Mishnah, Wednesday’s daf TB Shabbat 40 teaches us a practical halakha. Even though a person is supposed to meditate upon the words of the Torah day and night, there are some inappropriate places where we are prohibited to think or discuss Torah because it either is a dirty and smelly place or a place where people are naked. The two places are a bathroom or a shevitz.

“Rav Yitzhak bar Avdimi said: One time I followed Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi into the bathhouse on Shabbat to assist him, and I sought to place a jar of oil in the bathtub for him, to heat the oil somewhat before rubbing it on him. And he said to me: Take water from the bath in a secondary vessel and place the oil into it. The Gemara remarks: Learn from this comment of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi three halakhot: Learn from it that oil is subject to the prohibition of cooking. This explains why he prohibited placing it in the bathtub. And learn from it that a secondary vessel is not hot and does not cook. And learn from it with regard to oil that warming it is tantamount to cooking it.

“How did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi do this? How did he teach his student halakha in the bathhouse? Didn’t Rabba bar bar Hana say that Rabbi Yohanan said: In all places, it is permitted to contemplate Torah matters except for the bathhouse and the bathroom? And if you say that he spoke to him in a secular language, didn’t Abaye say: Secular matters are permitted to be spoken in the sacred language, Hebrew, even in the bathhouse, and sacred matters may not be spoken in the bathhouse even in a secular language? The Gemara answers: It was permitted for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi to conduct himself in that manner because he was preventing an individual from violating a prohibition, which is different.” (Sefaria.com translation)

I heard a story that Dr. Saul Lieberman, one of the greatest talmudist in the 20th century, kept his Greek literature and philosophy in the bathroom, since he could not study Torah there. I call my bathroom “my library.” That’s where I read all my secular magazines like Sports Illustrated, Time, and Smithsonian for the same reason. Sometimes when I’m reading an interesting article and spending a long time in “my library” that Judy asks if I am ok or whether I have fallen in.

I’m so used to reading in the bathroom that I’m startled when I visit somebody’s bathroom and there is no reading material. I just wonder what they do in there.

So that's where hell is! What about heaven? TB Shabbat 39 (with a little help from TB Bava Batra 74a)

Today’s daf TB Shabbat 39 clarifies some of the rules concerning cooking (בִּישול) on Shabbat. Cooking is one of the 39 prohibited types of work on Shabbat. Cooking is generally defined by making food edible over or in a fire. All derivatives of fire (תּוֹלְדוֹת אֵש) are also prohibited by the Torah. Consequently, if you heat up metal by fire and then cook something on that metal on Shabbat, you’re violating the prohibition of cooking. However, using the sun’s direct heat to cook something is permissible since this is not the usual way of cooking. What about a derivative of the sun?

“Rav Naḥman said: With regard to heating food in the sun itself, everyone agrees that one is permitted to place food in the sun to heat it, as it is certainly neither fire nor a typical form of cooking. Likewise, with derivatives of fire, i.e., objects that were heated by fire, everyone agrees that it is prohibited to heat food with them, as heating with them is tantamount to heating with fire itself. Where they argue is with regard to heating with derivatives of the sun, i.e., objects heated with the heat of the sun. This Sage, who represents the opinion of the Rabbis, holds that we issue a decree prohibiting a person to heat with derivatives of the sun due to derivatives of fire, which are prohibited. People have no way of knowing how the cooking vessel was heated. If the Sages permit the use of objects heated in the sun, people will come to permit use of objects heated by fire as well. And this Sage, Rabbi Yosei, holds that we do not issue a decree. Even though it is prohibited to heat with derivatives of fire, heating with derivatives of the sun is permitted.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Mishna on TB Shabbat 38b reports a very interesting story about the citizens of Tiberias. “The mishna relates a story about the people of the city of Tiberias, and they ran a cold-water pipe [silon] through a canal of hot water from the Tiberias hot springs. They thought that by doing so, they could heat the cold potable water on Shabbat. The Rabbis said to them: If the water passed through on Shabbat, its legal status is like that of hot water that was heated on Shabbat, and the water is prohibited both for bathing and for drinking. And if the water passed through on a Festival, then it is prohibited for bathing but permitted for drinking. On Festivals, one is even permitted to boil water on actual fire for the purposes of eating and drinking.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The question arises whether Rabbi Yosei agrees or disagrees with the sages in this case. What is the source of the heat that heating up the hot Springs? At first glance the source doesn’t appear to be a flame so we would think that here too Rabbi Yosei would disagree with the sages and permit the hot water to be used.  Surprisingly Rabbi Yosei agrees with the sages because the source of the hot springs is indeed heated by a flame. “Rabbi Yosei said to them: That is not so. That incident involved derivatives of fire, as the hot springs of Tiberias are hot because they pass over the entrance to Gehenna They are heated by hellfire, which is a bona fide underground fire. This is not the case with derivatives of the sun, which are not heated by a fire at all.” TB Shabbat 39b (Sefaria.org translation)

Now we know where the entrance of hell is. Do we know where heaven is? The Gemara hints that heaven is also accessible here on earth. “And Rabba bar bar Hana said: Once we were traveling in the desert and we were accompanied by a certain Arab would take dust and smell it and say:  This is the road to such and such a place, and that is the road to such and such a place…This Arab also said to me: Come, I will show you the place where the earth and the heavens touch each other. I took my basket and placed it in a window of the heavens. After I finished praying, I searched for it but did not find it. I said to him: Are there thieves here? He said to me: This is the heavenly sphere that is turning around; wait here until tomorrow and you will find it.” TB Bava Batra 73b-74a (Sefaria.org translation)

Where does heaven and earth touch? Since we don’t have that Arab anymore as our guide, I think that Uncle Remus and his Br’er Rabbit points us in the right direction. Remember the story how Br’er Rabbit tricks Br’er Fox and Br’er bear to throw him into the briar patch. What Br’er Fox and Br’er think is a horrible fate turns out that the briar patch is Br’er Rabbit’s laughing place and he was laughing at them. One of the lessons of the story is everybody has his or her own laughing place and they are not necessarily the same place. Likewise I think that each and every one of us has his or her own place where heaven and earth touch. All we have to do is go out and find it.