Commentary page

Shabbat 94a

This page gathers the commentary on one source unit: the classic commentaries as they are printed, the sources the text cites, the sages named in it and direct links back to the text.

Read the full text in the reader

Babylonian Talmud · folio map

Shabbat 94a

Shabbat 94a. The full printed text of this folio side — 5 numbered segments, about 256 words — with the classic commentaries printed on the page.

Original text

Segment 1

שֶׁשָּׁגַג עַל הָאוֹכָלִין וְהֵזִיד עַל הַכְּלִי. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: וְהָא ״אַף עַל הַכְּלִי״ קָתָנֵי! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: כְּגוֹן שֶׁשָּׁגַג בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה, וְנוֹדַע לוֹ, וְחָזַר וְנוֹדַע לוֹ, וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ.

one acted unwittingly with regard to the food and intentionally with regard to the vessel. He is liable to bring a sin-offering for the food and to receive karet for the vessel. Rav Ashi strongly objects to this. Didn’t the baraita teach: He is liable even for the vessel? Apparently, the liability for the food and the liability for the vessel are identical. Rather, Rav Ashi said: This is referring to a case where one acted unwittingly both with regard to this, the food, and with regard to that, the vessel. And he became aware of one transgression, and then he became aware of the other transgression. And the ruling is dependent upon the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish cited above, with regard to the question whether or not one who unwittingly performed a single transgression twice and became aware of each separately is liable to bring two sin-offerings.

Segment 2

אֶת הַחַי בַּמִּטָּה פָּטוּר אַף עַל הַמִּטָּה. לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין רַבִּי נָתָן הִיא וְלָא רַבָּנַן, דְּתַנְיָא: הַמּוֹצִיא בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וָעוֹף לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, בֵּין חַיִּין וּבֵין שְׁחוּטִין — חַיָּיב. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: עַל שְׁחוּטִין חַיָּיב וְעַל חַיִּין פָּטוּר, שֶׁהַחַי נוֹשֵׂא אֶת עַצְמוֹ. אָמַר רָבָא: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי נָתָן אֶלָּא בִּבְהֵמָה חַיָּה וָעוֹף דִּמְשַׁרְבְּטִי נַפְשַׁיְיהוּ, אֲבָל אָדָם חַי דְּנוֹשֵׂא אֶת עַצְמוֹ — אֲפִילּוּ רַבָּנַן מוֹדוּ.

We learned in the mishna: One who carries out a living person on a bed is exempt even for carrying out the bed. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan and not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as it was taught in a baraita : One who carries out a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, and fowl into the public domain on Shabbat is liable whether they are alive or whether they are slaughtered. Rabbi Natan says: For carrying out slaughtered animals, he is liable, and for carrying out live animals, he is exempt, because a living being carries itself. A living being attempts to lighten the load of the person carrying it and thereby participates in the act of carrying. Rava said: The mishna can be understood even if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Natan only as far as the case of a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, and fowl is concerned because they deaden their weight in an attempt to free themselves from the one carrying them. However, with regard to the fact that a live person carries himself, even the Rabbis agree. Therefore, one who carries a live person out is exempt.

Segment 3

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה לְרָבָא, וְהָא דִּתְנַן: בֶּן בְּתִירָא מַתִּיר בַּסּוּס. וְתַנְיָא: בֶּן בְּתִירָא מַתִּיר בַּסּוּס מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה בּוֹ מְלָאכָה שֶׁאֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו חַטָּאת, וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בֶּן בְּתִירָא וְרַבִּי נָתָן אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ דְּלָא פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי נָתָן אֶלָּא בִּבְהֵמָה חַיָּה וָעוֹף מִשּׁוּם דִּמְשַׁרְבְּטִי נַפְשַׁיְיהוּ, מַאי אִירְיָא בֶּן בְּתִירָא וְרַבִּי נָתָן? וְהָאָמְרַתְּ אֲפִילּוּ רַבָּנַן מוֹדוּ! כִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, בְּסוּס הַמְיוּחָד לְעוֹפוֹת. וּמִי אִיכָּא סוּס הַמְיוּחָד לְעוֹפוֹת? אִין, אִיכָּא דְּבִי זְיָיארִן.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rava: And with regard to that which we learned in a mishna that it is prohibited to sell work animals to gentiles, to prevent a situation where animals still belonging to a Jew would be lent to a gentile who would perform labor with them on Shabbat, but ben Beteira permits selling a horse to a gentile. And it was taught in a baraita : Ben Beteira permits selling a horse for riding because the horse is performing an act for which one is not liable to bring a sin-offering, as riding a horse is not actually a prohibited labor. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Ben Beteira and Rabbi Natan said one, the same, thing. They both hold that an animal with a rider on its back is not considered to be bearing a burden. And if you say that the Rabbis only argue with Rabbi Natan with regard to a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, and fowl because they deaden their weight in an attempt to free themselves, why did Rabbi Yoḥanan say specifically that ben Beteira and Rabbi Natan agree? Didn’t you say that in the case of a person riding a horse even the Rabbis agree? The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Yoḥanan said that ben Beteira and Rabbi Natan said the same thing, he was referring to a horse designated specifically for carrying fowl. The Gemara asks: And is there a horse designated for carrying fowl? The Gemara answers: Yes, there is the horse for carrying a hunter’s falcons [ devei vayadan ].

Segment 4

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי נָתָן בְּכָפוּת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר מַתְנָה לְאַבָּיֵי: וְהָא הָנֵי פָּרְסָאֵי דִּכְמַאן דִּכְפִיתִי דָּמוּ, וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בֶּן בְּתִירָא וְרַבִּי נָתָן אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד! הָתָם, רָמוּת רוּחָא הוּא דְּנָקֵיט לְהוּ. דְּהָהוּא פַּרְדַּשְׁכָא דִּרְתַח מַלְכָּא עִילָּוֵיהּ, וּרְהַט תְּלָתָא פַּרְסֵי בְּכַרְעֵיהּ.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And Rabbi Natan agrees in the case of a person who is bound because he is unable to lighten the load of the person carrying him. Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Abaye: And what of those Persians who are considered as if they were bound because they don heavy armor and always ride horses, and nevertheless Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Ben Beteira and Rabbi Natan said one thing and permitted selling horses even to Persians? The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the Persians, it is not that they are unable to dismount their horses. It is arrogance that keeps them from dismounting their horses. As proof, the Gemara relates: There was that Persian officer [ pardashka ] at whom the king was angry, and he ran three parasangs on foot. Apparently, even Persian horsemen are not considered bound and are capable of walking without their horses.

Segment 5

אֶת הַמֵּת בַּמִּטָּה חַיָּיב וְכֵן כְּזַיִת מִן הַמֵּת וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: פּוֹטֵר הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן

We learned in the mishna that according to the first tanna : One who carries out a corpse on a bed is liable. And similarly, one who carries out an olive-bulk of a corpse, or an olive-bulk of an animal carcass, or a lentil-bulk of a creeping animal is liable. Rabbi Shimon deems him exempt. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said, and Rav Yosef said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Rabbi Shimon would deem exempt

Shabbat 94a

Shabbat 94a

Rashi

Tosafot

Rav Nissim Gaon

Rabbeinu Chananel

Rashba

Meiri

Maharsha (Chidushei Halachot)

Maharam

Penei Yehoshua

Gilyon HaShas

What this page contains

Continue the sequence

Parallel sources

Lessons and study tools

Sages named on this page

Original text