Click here to view text of Daf (can be minimized to view alongside player)
Download Audio (smaller file size)
Today’s Daf Yomi Question:
The Mefarshim explain that the words of the Mishna “Bame madlikin” are in reference to the Mitzva of Ner Shabbos (see R”O Bartenura). How is this indicative in these words, perhaps the Mishna is simply stating a halacha regarding any flame on Shabbos?
Click here to reply / view answers
WHY DOES THE MISHNA START Bame madlikin AND THEN BAME EIN MADLIKIN AND GOES ON TO SAY EVERY THING THAT YOU CANNOT LIGHT WITH AND NO MENTION THE BEST ITEMS TO LIGHT WITH THE MISHNA SHOULD OF STARTED BAME EIN MADLIKIN
You ask two points:
1) Why does the Mishna begin by explaining ‘ein madlikin’ which is second, as opposed to ‘bame madlikin’ which is stated first. Indded Tosfos says that sometimes the Mishna will begin explaining the second part of the opening statement rather than the first.
2) Why don’t we find at all a list of suitable materials mentioned in this Perek. Perhaps the reason for this is that they are numerous, as they include any material that is not mentioned as unsuitable. In short, once we rule out these specific ones, all else is kosher (This concept is found also in Chullin 63b that the Torah only lists the non-kosher birds since they are fewer than the kosher birds – and indeed anything not on the non-kosher list is permitted). This may also be another answer for the first question as well.
Why does the Mishna (on daf 20b) state Bameh Madlikin and then doesn’t list the wicks/oils permitted, only the ones forbidden (Bameh Ein Madlikin)?
Why does the Mishna even entertain Chelev, if it’s assur MiDoraisa? And if we say it’s only assur BeAchila, then why does the Mishna continue to state cooked Chelev? Wouldn’t Chelev cooked in one’s Keli render the Keli treif?
Perhaps your question can be divided into two pints:
1) Why does the Mishna begin by explaining ‘ein madlikin’ which is second, as opposed to ‘bame madlikin’ which is stated first. Indded Tosfos says that sometimes the Mishna will begin explaining the second part of the opening statement rather than the first.
2) Why don’t we find at all a list of suitable materials mentioned in this Perek.
Perhaps the reason for this is that they are numerous, as they include any material that is not mentioned as unsuitable. In short, once we rule out these specific ones, all else is kosher (This concept is found also in Chullin 63b that the Torah only lists the non-kosher birds since they are fewer than the kosher birds – and indeed anything not on the non-kosher list is permitted). This may also be another answer for the first question as well.
Regarding Chelev, perhaps the Mishna can also be referring to Chelev of a Chaya which is permitted
I didn’t get what the pisilas hamidbar is, is there a modern day plant to get an idea?
The Metargem on Rashi translates it as ‘brennesstele’ which is interpreted as being today’s Nettle plant – a plant with leaves that are covered with prickly hairs. The Aruch says it was used to treat a cold…
Can you explain the answer to the question at the bottom of the Daf regarding the MIshna switching over from pasul wicks to pasul fuels? Wax is wax. It is a fuel source not a wick? How can it be OK in some form but pasul in another?
It seems that when the wax is formed into a wick (i.e. candle) the flame burns the fuel more directly (and it can also successfully feed off a solid piece of wax), as opposed to being fed up through a wick where it needs to properly dissolve and travel up to the flame like oil which it doesn’t do successfully.
That’s what it seems to say; I’m just not sure how that would work. Solid wax does not travel up a wick. Liquid wax is oil. A flame burns wax by melting it at the rate it consumes it. If the heat of the fire does not reach the wax it will not melt and the wick will either burn down to the point where it can melt wax and use it for fuel or it will go out.
Upon further investigation, perhaps it can be explained as follows: Rashi states that the Gemara prohibits a solid piece of wax from being inserted into the ‘ner’ which was the container from which the wick protruded. This would require the wax to fully dissolve and be properly absorbed so that it could travel up the wick to the flame. Perhaps a candle is different since the flame is in very close proximity to the wax, the wax need not be fully absorbed into the wick but merely bind to the wick in a somewhat small measure, which already allows the flame to feed off the wick with the wax integration. Further scientific research is perhaps in place here…
Why isnt it suitable in oil form? There are plenty of times for example that a candle melts turns into oil and the flame stays lit until the wick finishes absorbing/using up the oil
Perhaps it can be explained as follows: Rashi explains that the Gemara prohibits a solid piece of wax from being inserted into the ‘ner’ which was the container from which the wick protruded. This would require the wax to fully dissolve and be properly absorbed so that it could travel up the wick all the way to the flame. Perhaps a candle is different since the flame is in very close proximity to the wax, the wax need not be fully absorbed into the wick but merely to bind to the wick in a somewhat small measure, which already allows the flame to feed off the wick with the wax integration. Further scientific research is perhaps in place here…
At any rate, the Bach states that today’s high-quality wax may be used even in oil form, since we see that indeed it produces a very successful flame.
halachah lmaisah—-when putting up a chulent erev shabbos in a crockpot —how much does it have to be cooked before shabbos so that one is not over any issurim? Is there a difference if u line the inside with a layer of tin-foil? is one layer enough also?
Food in a crock-pot needs to be a third cooked before Shabbos. I f the crock-pot is lined with foil, then it is not necessary. However, this would raise another concern of ‘hatmanah’ (since the food is now wrapped by the foil) and requires that the container (w/ the food) be lifted off the floor of the crock-pot to create an air gap between container and foil (this can be done by placing balls of foil underneath to lift it.
when it talks about the burning of a single log the gemorah brings a machlokes rav says u need most of the wood meaning the inside must get burned and others say only the circumference so rav papa says therefore the halacha is you need both but what i would like to understand is what does he mean u need both if the log is mostly burned like shitas rav then doesnt that automatically include that the circumference will be burned?
It appears that the two opinions (thickness / circumference) are not arguing over a kula or chumra, but rather two distinct forms of the log being affected, with each one possibly taking place before the other. Thus, saying that we require thickness does not imply anything regarding the state of the log’s circumference.
המשנה אומרת שבבית המוקד היו מותרין להצית את האור ולא גזרו שמא יכבה ויבא להבעיר בשבת ובגמרא מסביר משום שכהנים זריזים הם, וקשה לי הלא אין שבות במקדש, ואולי שזהו גופא טעמא דאין שבות במקדש משום זריזותן של כהנים, מה אומר הרבי?
(הדין של אין שבות במקדש הוא רק במקום צורך גבוה וצורך קרבנות ולא לדבר שהוא צורך הכהנים כמו מדורת בית המוקד. וכן כותב רש”י עירובין (קב:) ד”ה כאן וכאן אסור, וכמו שמבואר בגמ’ ביצה (יא: בערך י”ג שורות מסוף העמוד