## Shabbat Daf 28b

###### Shabbat 28b:1
[Shabbat 28b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/28b:1)

אָתְיָא בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר מִנּוֹצָה שֶׁל עִזִּים, שֶׁאֵין מִטַּמֵּא בִּנְגָעִים — מִטַּמֵּא בְּאֹהֶל הַמֵּת, עוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁמִּטַּמְּאָה בִּנְגָעִים — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁמִּטַּמְּאָה בְּאֹהֶל הַמֵּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is derived through an *a fortiori* inference from goats’ hair.** Although goats’ hair **does not become ritually impure from leprosy,** it does **become ritually impure as a tent over a corpse;** with regard to **the hide of a non-kosher animal that becomes ritually impure from leprosy, is it not the case that it becomes ritually impure as a tent over a corpse?**


###### Shabbat 28b:2
[Shabbat 28b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/28b:2)

וְאֶלָּא הָא דְּתָנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף לֹא הוּכְשְׁרוּ בִּמְלֶאכֶת שָׁמַיִם אֶלָּא עוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה בִּלְבַד — לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? לִתְפִילִּין. תְּפִילִּין בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בְּהוּ ״לְמַעַן תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת ה׳ בְּפִיךָ״, מִן הַמּוּתָּר בְּפִיךְ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Since the conclusion was that the hide of even a non-kosher animal can become ritually impure as a tent over a corpse, it is not necessary to assume that the covering of the Tabernacle was made specifically from the hide of a kosher animal. **And,** if so, **that which Rav Yosef taught: Only the hide of a kosher animal was suitable for heavenly service, for what *halakha*** is that relevant, as it is clearly not relevant to the Tabernacle? The Gemara replies: This *halakha* was stated with regard **to phylacteries,** which may be prepared only from the hide of a kosher animal. The Gemara asks: **Phylacteries?** Why did Rav Yosef need to state that *halakha*? It is **written explicitly with regard to them:** “And it shall be for a sign unto you upon your hand, and for a memorial between your eyes, **that the law of the Lord may be in your mouth”** (Exodus 13:9). The Sages derived from there that the phylacteries must be prepared **from that which is permitted** to be eaten **in your mouth.**


###### Shabbat 28b:3
[Shabbat 28b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/28b:3)

אֶלָּא לְעוֹרָן. וְהָאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שִׁין שֶׁל תְּפִילִּין הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Gemara explains that this *halakha* of Rav Yosef was said only with regard **to the leather** of the boxes that house the phylacteries, which must be crafted from the hide of a kosher animal. It was not referring to the parchment on which the portions of the Torah inserted into the phylacteries are written. The Gemara asks: **Didn’t Abaye say:** The obligation to make a letter ***shin*** protruding **on the phylacteries** of one’s head is a ***halakha*** transmitted **to Moses from Sinai?** Since Torah law addresses the boxes of the phylacteries, presumably their legal status is parallel to that of the parchment and the prohibition against preparing them from the hide of a non-kosher animal is by Torah law as well.


###### Shabbat 28b:4
[Shabbat 28b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/28b:4)

אֶלָּא לְכוֹרְכָן בְּשַׂעֲרָן וּלְתוֹפְרָן בְּגִידָן. הָא נָמֵי הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי הוּא, דְּתַנְיָא: תְּפִילִּין מְרוּבָּעוֹת — הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי, נִכְרָכוֹת בְּשַׂעֲרָן וְנִתְפָּרוֹת בְּגִידָן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Gemara explains that Rav Yosef’s *halakha* comes to teach that one must **tie** the parchments upon which the portions of the Torah are written in the phylacteries **with** a kosher animal’s **hair, as well as sew** the phylacteries **with** a kosher animal’s **sinews.** The Gemara asks: The source of **these** *halakhot* is **also** a ***halakha*** transmitted **to Moses from Sinai, as it was taught** in a *baraita*: The requirement that **phylacteries** must be **square** is a *halakha* transmitted **to Moses from Sinai,** as is the requirement that they must be **tied with their hair and sewn with their sinews.**


###### Shabbat 28b:5
[Shabbat 28b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/28b:5)

אֶלָּא לִרְצוּעוֹת. וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק רְצוּעוֹת שְׁחוֹרוֹת הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי? נְהִי דִּגְמִירִי שְׁחוֹרוֹת, טְהוֹרוֹת מִי גְּמִירִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Gemara says that Rav Yosef came to teach with regard **to** the *halakha* of **the straps** of the phylacteries. The Gemara asks: **Didn’t Rabbi Yitzḥak say:** The **straps** of the phylacteries must be **black** is a *halakha* transmitted **to Moses from Sinai?** The Gemara responds: **Although we learned** this *halakha*, which states that the straps must be **black, did we** also **learn** that they must be from **kosher** animals? Rav Yosef was certainly referring to straps when he said that all heavenly service must be performed with the hides of kosher animals.


###### Shabbat 28b:6
[Shabbat 28b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/28b:6)

מַאי הָוֵי עֲלֵהּ דְּתַחַשׁ שֶׁהָיָה בִּימֵי מֹשֶׁה? אָמַר רַבִּי אִלָּעָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר: תַּחַשׁ שֶׁהָיָה בִּימֵי מֹשֶׁה בְּרִיָּה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ הָיָה, וְלֹא הִכְרִיעוּ בּוֹ חֲכָמִים אִם מִין חַיָּה הוּא, אִם מִין בְּהֵמָה הוּא. וְקֶרֶן אַחַת הָיְתָה לוֹ בְּמִצְחוֹ, וּלְפִי שָׁעָה נִזְדַּמֵּן לוֹ לְמֹשֶׁה וְעָשָׂה מִמֶּנּוּ מִשְׁכָּן וְנִגְנַז.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** the halakhic conclusion reached **about** this matter of the ***taḥash* that existed in the days of Moses? Rabbi Ela said** that **Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said** that **Rabbi Meir used to say:** The ***taḥash* that existed in the days of Moses was a creature unto itself, and the Sages did not determine whether it was a type of undomesticated animal or a type of domesticated animal. And it had a single horn on its forehead, and** this *taḥash* **happened** to come **to Moses for the moment** while the Tabernacle was being built, **and he made** the covering for **the Tabernacle from it. And** from then on, the *taḥash* **was suppressed** and is no longer found.


###### Shabbat 28b:7
[Shabbat 28b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/28b:7)

מִדְּקָאָמַר קֶרֶן אַחַת הָיְתָה לוֹ בְּמִצְחוֹ, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ טָהוֹר הָיָה, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: שׁוֹר שֶׁהִקְרִיב אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן קֶרֶן אַחַת הָיְתָה לוֹ בְּמִצְחוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְתִיטַב לַה׳ מִשּׁוֹר פָּר מַקְרִין מַפְרִיס״. ״מַקְרִין״ תַּרְתֵּי מַשְׁמַע! אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק — ״מַקְרָן״ כְּתִיב. וְלִיפְשׁוֹט מִינֵּיהּ דְּמִין בְּהֵמָה הוּא? כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא ״קֶרֶשׁ״ דְּמִין חַיָּה הוּא וְלֵית לֵיהּ אֶלָּא חֲדָא קֶרֶן — אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר מִין חַיָּה הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **From** the fact **that it is said** that the *taḥash* **had a single horn on its forehead, conclude from this** that it was kosher, **as Rav Yehuda said** in a similar vein: The **ox that Adam, the first** man, **sacrificed** as a thanks-offering for his life being spared, **had a single horn on its forehead, as it is stated: “And it shall please the Lord better than a horned [*makrin*] and hooved ox”** (Psalms 69:32). The word *makrin* means one with a horn. The Gemara asks: On the contrary, ***makrin* indicates** that it has **two** horns. **Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:** Despite the fact that it is vocalized in the plural, **it is written *mikeren*** without the letter *yod* to indicate that it had only a single horn. The Gemara asks: If so, **let us resolve from** the same *baraita* that just as it was derived from the ox of Adam, the first man, that an animal with one horn is kosher, derive that an animal with one horn **is a type of domesticated animal.** The Gemara answers: **Since there is** the ***keresh* which is a type of undomesticated animal, and it has only a single horn, it** is also possible **to say** that the *taḥash* is **a type of undomesticated animal.** This dilemma was not resolved.


###### Shabbat 28b:8
[Shabbat 28b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/28b:8)

**מַתְנִי׳** פְּתִילַת הַבֶּגֶד שֶׁקִּיפְּלָהּ וְלֹא הִבְהֲבָהּ, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: טְמֵאָה הִיא, וְאֵין מַדְלִיקִין בָּהּ. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר טְהוֹרָה הִיא, וּמַדְלִיקִין בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **The wick of a garment,** i.e., cloth made into a wick for a lamp, **that one folded it** into a size and shape suitable for a wick, **but did not** yet **singe it** slightly in order to facilitate its lighting, **Rabbi Eliezer says:** This wick is **ritually impure.** With regard to the laws of ritual impurity, it can, like other garments, still become ritually impure **and one may not light with it** on Shabbat. **Rabbi Akiva says: It is ritually pure and one may** even **light with it** on Shabbat.


###### Shabbat 28b:9
[Shabbat 28b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/28b:9)

**גְּמָ׳** בִּשְׁלָמָא לְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה, בְּהָא פְּלִיגִי: דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר קִיפּוּל אֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל, וּבְמִילְּתַיהּ קַמָּיְיתָא קָיְימָא. וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר קִיפּוּל מוֹעִיל, וּבַטּוֹלֵי בַּטְּלַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **Granted, with regard to ritual impurity,** the reasons for their disagreement are clear and **this is** their **dispute: Rabbi Eliezer holds** that **folding** alone **is ineffective** in altering the identity of the garment **and it retains its original status.** It can become ritually impure like any other garment. **Rabbi Akiva holds** that **folding is effective, and it negates** its garment status, and therefore, it can no longer become ritually impure.


###### Shabbat 28b:10
[Shabbat 28b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/28b:10)

אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן הַדְלָקָה בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא, וְכֵן אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: הָכָא בְּשָׁלֹשׁ עַל שָׁלֹשׁ מְצוּמְצָמוֹת עָסְקִינַן, וּבְיוֹם טוֹב שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת עָסְקִינַן. דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר: מַסִּיקִין בְּכֵלִים וְאֵין מַסִּיקִין בְּשִׁבְרֵי כֵלִים. וּדְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דְּעוּלָּא, דְּאָמַר עוּלָּא: הַמַּדְלִיק צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּדְלִיק בָּרוֹב הַיּוֹצֵא. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר קִיפּוּל אֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל, וְכֵיוָן דְּאַדְלֵיק בֵּיהּ פּוּרְתָּא הָוְיָא לֵיהּ שֶׁבֶר כְּלִי, וְכִי קָא מַדְלֵיק — בְּשֶׁבֶר כְּלִי קָמַדְלֵיק. וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר קִיפּוּל מוֹעִיל, וְאֵין תּוֹרַת כְּלִי עָלָיו, וְכִי קָמַדְלֵיק — בְּעֵץ בְּעָלְמָא קָמַדְלֵיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However, with regard to lighting** on Shabbat **what is** at the crux of their **dispute? Rabbi Elazar said** that **Rav Oshaya said, and Rav Adda bar Ahava said likewise: Here we are dealing with** a cloth that is **precisely three by three fingerbreadths and we are dealing with a Festival that occurred on Shabbat eve. And everyone is of** the opinion that the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, who said that on a Festival one may** only **kindle** a fire **with** whole **vessels,** as it is permitted to carry them and they do not have set-aside [*muktze*] status; **however, one may not kindle** a fire **using broken vessels,** i.e., vessels that broke on the Festival. Since they broke on the Festival itself, they are classified as an entity that came into being [*nolad*] on the Festival, and the *halakha* prohibits moving them. **And,** similarly, **everyone is of** the opinion that the *halakha* is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Ulla,** as **Ulla said: One who lights** a lamp **must light most** of the wick **that protrudes** from the lamp. Based on these assumptions, the dispute in the mishna can be understood as follows: **Rabbi Eliezer holds** that **folding** alone **is ineffective** in negating the wick’s vessel status, **and once** one **lights** only **a small part of it, it** thereby **becomes a broken vessel,** as part of it burns and the remainder is less than three by three fingerbreadths. A smaller cloth is no longer considered significant. Since he is required to light most of the protruding wick and, as mentioned above, it is prohibited to light broken vessels, he may not light the folded garment. **And Rabbi Akiva held** that **folding is effective and,** immediately when he folded it, the garment **no longer has the status of a vessel.** It was not considered a vessel even before he lit it, **and when he lights** it, it is as if **he were lighting plain wood,** not a vessel that broke on the Festival.


###### Shabbat 28b:11
[Shabbat 28b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/28b:11)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, הַיְינוּ דְּתָנֵינָא: ״שָׁלֹשׁ עַל שָׁלֹשׁ מְצוּמְצָמוֹת״ וְלָא יָדַעְנָא לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said, that is what I learned: Three by three exactly. And I did not know to what *halakha*** this was relevant. Rav Yosef received from his teachers that the *baraita* is referring to a case of three by three exactly, and he did not know why it was significant to establish the *baraita* in a case of exactly three by three and no more.


###### Shabbat 28b:12
[Shabbat 28b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/28b:12)

וּמִדְּקָא מְתָרֵץ רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סְבִירָא לֵיהּ. וּמִי אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds incidentally: **And from the fact** that **Rav Adda bar Ahava interpreted** this mishna **in accordance** with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, conclude from this** that **he holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda. Did Rav Adda bar Ahava** actually **say this? Didn’t Rav Adda bar Ahava** himself **say:**