Shabbos 37 – שבת לז

Click here to view text of Daf (can be minimized to view alongside player)

Download Video (mp4)

Download Audio

Diagram 1   Diagram 2   Diagram 3

Today’s Daf Yomi Question:

The Gemara explains that Rav Sheshes needed to teach us the diyuk (inference) in the Mishna that bread which crusted is permitted.  Rashi adds that this diyuk was not self-evident.  However the Mishna seems to state clearly that the issur is merely if it won’t crust before Shabbos, which clearly implies that crusting is the benchmark.  Why is this not self-evident?

Click here to reply / view answers

 

4 thoughts on “Shabbos 37 – שבת לז

  1. R. Sheshess actually only says that tavshil that is not cooked kol tzorcho may be left on the kirah. The mishna on 19b is talking about a timespan– k’dei sheyikramu paneah mi’beod yom. Seems to me that it’s Rava who attaches the mishnah of bread which had sufficient time to crust to the statement of Rav Sheshess. The diyuk seems to be that the crusting would not necessarily be equated to kol tzorcho since a)practically speaking, bread that is merely crusted may be raw inside and b) it doesn’t have to be that the possiblility of crusting (k’dei sheyikramu) equals kol tzorcho. Yet (between Rava’s and R. Sheshess’ statements) the temporal possiblility of crusting actually is taken as establishing the time of kol tzorcho. Another way to say this is that the chiddush is that the possiblility of crusting = only using a kdeirah that crusted = kol tzorcho.

    • ‘Mitztamek’ means that the food was already fully cooked and is now in the process of over-cooking; the word ‘mitztamek’ literally means ‘condensing’ or ‘shriveling’. Mitztamek v’yafa lo means that this over-cooking is actually benefiting the food by improving its taste etc. – Mitztamek v’ra lo means that the added cooking is ruining the item.

  2. The Gemara is not really saying that we need Rav Sheishes to tell us this Diyuk, and Rashi is not necessarily saying that we wouldn’t know it on our own. The Gemara is saying that Rav Sheishes is telling us the Diyuk, which Rashi explains that after all is doesn’t say straight out. When an Amora announces what a Mishna already said we have a Kasha, what is he telling us. But, an Amora might announce an Halacha which would be pretty clear from a Mishna but he wants to make sure you didn’t miss it.

    Otherwise, the Kasha here is actually Tosafos’ Kasha. It seems to bother Tosafos that Rav Sheishes would bother to tell us a Diyuk which is a very straightforward.

    If you want to answer Tosafos’ Kasha on Rashi’s Pshat, we can say that Rav Sheishes wanted to make sure that nobody will understand that Mishna to mean that when there is enough time for the bread to brown you may put it in but must remove it before Shabbos.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>