Shabbos 41 – שבת מא

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 differentiates between covering oneself when facing the public, on account of modesty, whereas on his way down to the river that is not allowed.  Since the concept of tznius doesn’t necessarily depend on presence of other people, but rather on Hashem’s presence (See Shulchan Aruch O”Ch 2,2); if there indeed seems to be a tznius concern here, why wouldn’t this apply in any circumstance?

Click here to reply / view answers


11 thoughts on “Shabbos 41 – שבת מא

  1. what is the halachah based on today’s daf in terms of touching ones’ arvah when urinating to make sure one’s urine goes into the toilet and not other places –is it permitted in such instances?

    • The best way to achieve this is to direct the organ by handling the sack beneath it, otherwise through direct contact with the very tip of the organ only (see Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim Siman 3,15).

      • Is it also assur to just take the aver out to urinate but then leave it alone. So while urinating there is no grasping done. I assume that is permitted.

    • Good point. The Gemara in Kesubos (111a) records the debate between Rav Yehdua and Rav Zeira regarding this very topic, and notes the various disagreements between them on how to interpret the pesukim which lead to their respective halachaic conclusions. That would seem to indicate that Rav Zeira was not a talmid of Rav Yehuda but rather a colleague. This also seems to be apparent by the fact that he attended the bathhouse when Rav Yehuda was present – something which would be forbidden for a talmid to do (see Pesachim 51a).

      However Tosfos in Chullin (13a D”H Ba’a) refers to our Gemara as the basis for the fact that indeed Rav Zeira was a ‘talmid’ of Rav Yehuda. Upon closer inspection of tosfos’ context however, it seems that Tosfos there is discussing various historical factors of age and seniority, and not necessarily concepts of Rav and Talmid in their halachic perspectives. Perhaps Rav Zeira was considered a ‘Talmid Chaver’ (Junior Colleague – this concept is cited in Brachos 27b, six lines down)) who although younger in age and scholarship than Rav Yehuda, maintained his own halachic rulings and was not bound to Rav Yehuda’s.

        • Rashi says he was afraid ‘shema yigzor alav’ – he was concerned lest Rav Yehuda issue a gezeira against his going. Perhaps defying an outright decree (of someone who is greater in stature) is more stringent than merely disagreeing privately. Despite all the above…your point is really well taken, and we have discussed it at the Kollel today, thanks for the insight.

  2. In the first Mishna on 41a it talks about the mulyar and the antichi. Please can you explain whether these things are comparable to the electric urns which we use today. If they are in fact similar, then why are we allowed to use electric urns, since the urn is certainly not garuf, the heating element cannot be removed.

    • 1) According to Rashi’s explanation, the Mishna seems to be discussing the din of Shehiya (leaving water on a heat emitting substance over Shabbos), which according to Shulchan Aruch is allowed when the food or liquid is halfway (or at least a third) cooked. Therefore we may fill an urn before Shabbos provided the water gets heated before Shabbos.
      2) According to the Ran (and perhaps Tosfos) the Mishna is simply teaching the difference between Mulyar which is to be treated as a Kli Rishon, and Antichi which is considered a Kli Sheini. This certainly holds true with our urns as well, which have a din of Kli Rishon (since the actual heating/cooking takes place in there).

  3. What type of comparison is the army to R abahu…at wartime the troops are busy with war therefore they are not opening jews wine..n/t to do with being afraid…r abahu was afraid of drowning that why there is no hirhur when he touched himself?

    • Great point. The Gemara (Avoda Zara 71a) says although they are suspected of moral assault nevertheless they are not suspected of being menasech the wine to Avoda Zara, since ‘they are available for this and not for that’. Rashi explains that the Yetzer for aveira is greater than the Yetzer to be menasech. Apparently it’s not really a question of time-availability but rather the intensity of their desire to do Yayin Nesech, which is mitigated by the fright of war. In our case as well, his awkward state of mind precludes hirhur from surfacing.

Leave a Reply

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