Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 21a
It Is acceptable1 on condition that the inwards are burnt at eventide.2 [Now] ‘If he did sprinkle’ indicates only if it was [already] done, but [it may] not [be done] at the outset. According to Raba it is well, but on Rabbah b. R. Huna's view there is a difficulty? — That is indeed a difficulty. Alternatively you can answer: The shebuth3 of Sabbath is different from the shebuth of a Festival.4 R. Awia the Elder asked R. Huna: Is it permissible to slaughter on a Festival an animal half of which belongs to a heathen and half to an Israelite? — He said to him: It is permitted. The other said: What difference is there between this [case] and the case of vows and freewill-offerings?5 — A raven flies,6 he retorted. When he left, his son Rabbah said to him: Was this not R. Awia the Elder whom you, sir, have praised as a great man?7 — What then was I to do with him? answered he; I am to-day [in the condition of the lover who said] ‘Stay ye me with dainties, refresh me with apples’,8 and he asked me things which require reasoning.9 And what is [really] the reason?10 — An animal half of which belongs to a heathen and half to an Israelite may be slaughtered on a Festival, because it is impossible [to eat] as much as an olive of flesh without slaughtering;11 but vows and freewill-offerings may not be slaughtered on a Festival because when the priests receive their portion,12 they receive it from the table of the Most High.13
R. Hisda said: An animal half of which belongs to a heathen and half to an Israelite is permitted to be slaughtered on a Festival, because as much as an olive of flesh is unattainable without slaughtering; [but] dough belonging half to a heathen and half to an Israelite may not be baked on a Festival for it is possible to divide it at the kneading. R. Hana b. Hanilai raised an objection: Dogs’ dough,14 if the shepherds eat of it, is subject to hallah,15 and one may prepare an ‘erub16 therewith, effect a partnership17 therewith, pronounce a blessing over it,18 and say grace after it,19 and it may be baked on a Festival,20 and a man can fulfil his obligation therewith on Passover.21 But why [may it be baked on a Festival]? Surely it is possible for him to divide it during the kneading! — Dogs’ dough is different since it is possible to appease them [the dogs] with carrion.22
Does then R. Hisda accept the argument of ‘Since’?23 Surely it was stated: He who bakes on a Festival for the weekday, R. Hisda says: He is flagellated; whereas Rabbah maintains: He is not flagellated. R. Hisda says: He is flagellated, [for] we do not say, Since if visitors came to him, it is fit for him [on the festival], it is even now24 [con sidered] fit for him; Rabbah maintains: He is not flagellated, [for] we do maintain [the argument of] ‘Since’?25 — Rather, do not say, ‘Since it is possible [etc.]’, but when, for example, he [the shepherd] has a carcass, so that it is definitely possible to satisfy them [the dogs] therewith.26 They asked of R. Huna: May the [Jewish] inhabitants of the valley27 who are obliged to supply bread28 for the troops, bake [it] on a Festival? — He replied to them: We see’ If they can give some bread [thereof] to a child and they [the soldiers] do not object, then every [loaf] is fit for a child; hence it is permitted; but if not,29 it is forbidden. But surely it was taught: It once happened that Simeon the Temanite did not come to the Academy on the eve [of the Festival]. In the morning Judah b. Baba found him and asked: Why did you not attend yesterday [evening] at the Academy? He replied to him: A troop of soldiers came into our town and wished to plunder the entire city; so we killed a calf for them and fed them and let them depart in peace. Said [Judah] to him: I should be surprised if your gain is not counterbalanced by your loss,30 for surely the Torah said ‘for you’31 but not for heathens. But why so: the [calf] was fit to be eaten [by them]?32 — Said R. Joseph: It was a trefa calf.33 But it was fit for dogs? — Tannaim differ on this; for it was taught: ‘Save that which every soul34 must eat, that only may be done by you’.31 From the implication of the expression ‘every soul’ I might assume also that the soul of cattle is included35 as it is said, ‘And he that smiteth a soul of a beast mortally shall make it good’;36 the text therefore says, ‘for you’
(1) I.e., a valid act.
(2) V. Nazir 28b; Men. 48a.
(3) V. Glos., cf. n. 2.
(4) On a Sabbath it is more stringent.
(5) Which the owners likewise share, as it were with God.
(6) A well-known phrase eluding a question or making an evasive reply.
(7) Why then did you dismiss him insultingly?
(8) Cant. II, 5. He had just finished lecturing and was anticipating the joy of the festive meal.
(9) And I did not feel equal to the task.
(10) This the Talmud proceeds to ask.
(11) Therefore the animal may be slaughtered for the sake of the portion belonging to an Israelite.
(12) The breast and thigh. V. Lev. VII, 34.
(13) As invited guests, without having in the sacrifice any proprietary rights. Therefore the slaughtering of the sacrifice is entirely for God, and hence forbidden.
(14) Which is to be baked for dogs.
(15) For it is called bread. V. Num. XV, 19ff.
(16) I.e., a court ‘erub.
(17) For an alley ‘erub.
(18) Before eating it.
(19) Cf. P.B. pp. 279-280.
(20) On account of the portion which the shepherds are to eat.
(21) With unleavened bread prepared from such dough. V. Hal. I, 8.
(22) So that it may all be for the shepherds, though in fact it will not be.
(23) Since a thing is permitted under certain conditions it is permitted even where these conditions are absent, for in actual fact he has no carrion available and the dough will be eaten in part by the dogs.
(24) Though he has no visitors.
(25) If guests were coming etc.
(26) With the result that the whole dough will be for the shepherds. So according to cur. edd. R. Hananel omits ‘possible’, reading: ‘For he will certainly satisfy them therewith’. On his reading render, ‘Do not say etc. but (say that we speak of) a case when (the shepherd) has etc. cf. MS.M.]
(27) Or (Jewish) villages.
(28) Lit., ‘flour’.
(29) If the soldiers do object.
(30) I.e., the punishment for transgressing the Festival.
(31) Ex. XII, 16.
(32) The owners could have eaten a part of it.
(33) Which is forbidden to Israelites.
(34) So literally. E.V. ‘man’.
(35) For the word ‘soul’ is found in connection with cattle.
(36) Lev. XXIV, 18.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 21b
[intimating] but not for dogs. This is the opinion of R. Jose the Galilean. R. Akiba says: Even the soul of cattle is included; if so, then why does the text say ‘for you’? For you, but not for heathens — And what reason do you see to include dogs and to exclude heathens? I include dogs, since you are responsible for their food, and I exclude heathens because you are not responsible for their food.1
Abaye said to R. Joseph: Now according to R. Jose the Galilean who says ‘for you’ but not for dogs, how can we throw date stones [as fodder] to cattle on a Festival?2 — Said he to him: Because they are fit for fuel. This is well when they are dry, but how is it to be explained when they are moist? — They are fit for a big fire.3 This is well on a Festival, but what will you say with respect to the Sabbath.4 — We may handle them in virtue of bread,5 in accordance with Samuel; for Samuel said: A man may do all he needs in virtue of bread.6
But he7 disagrees with R. Joshua b. Levi; for R. Joshua b. Levi said: One may invite a heathen [to a meal] on a Sabbath, but one may not invite a heathen on a Festival as a preventive measure, lest he may [cook] more on his [the heathen's] account. R. Aha b. Jacob says: Not even on a Sabbath, on account of what is left at the bottom of the cups.8 If so, even [the remains of] our own [wine] too?9 — Ours is fit for fowls.10 Theirs too is fit for fowls? — Theirs is forbidden for any use.11 Let him remove them in virtue of the cups! Did not Raba say: You may remove the brazier on account of the ashes,12 although it contains fragments of wood!13 — There14 they are not prohibited for use, but here15 they are pro hibited for use. R. Aha b. Difti said to Rabina: Let it be like a vessel for excrement!16 — He answered him: May we make excrement at the outset?17 Raba accompanied18 Mar Samuel who lectured: One may invite a heathen [to a meal] on a Sabbath, but one may not invite a heathen on a Festival as a preventive measure lest he will [cook] more on his account. When a heathen visited Meremar and Mar Zutra on a Festival they would say to him: If you are content with that which we have prepared for ourselves it is well; but if not we cannot take extra trouble for your sake.
MISHNAH. BETH SHAMMAI SAY: A MAN MAY NOT HEAT WATER FOR HIS FEET19 UNLESS IT IS ALSO FIT FOR DRINKING;20 BUT BETH HILLEL PERMIT IT. A MAN MAY MAKE A FIRE AND WARM HIMSELF AT IT.
GEMARA. The scholars asked: Who taught this [ruling] about fire? Is it the opinion of all, Beth Shammai drawing a distinction between the benefit of the whole body21 and the benefit of a single limb;22 or does Beth Hillel teach this, while Beth Shammai do not differentiate?23 — Come and hear: Beth Shammai say: A man may not make a fire to warm himself at it; but Beth Hillel permit it.
MISHNAH. IN THREE THINGS RABBAN GAMALIEL WAS STRINGENT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULING OF BETH SHAMMAI: ONE MAY NOT STORE AT THE OUTSET WARM WATER ON A FESTIVAL [FOR THE SABBATH],24 AND ONE MAY NOT SET UP25 A CANDLESTICK ON A FESTIVAL, AND ONE MAY NOT BAKE BREAD IN LARGE LOAVES26 BUT ONLY IN THIN WAFERS. RABBAN GAMALIEL SAID: NEVER DID MY FATHER'S HOUSEHOLD BAKE BREAD IN LARGE LOAVES BUT ONLY IN THIN WAFERS. SAID THEY TO HIM: WHAT CAN WE DO WITH YOUR FATHER'S HOUSEHOLD, WHO WERE STRINGENT TOWARDS THEMSELVES AND LENIENT TO ALL ISRAEL, [PERMITTING THEM] TO BAKE BREAD BOTH IN LARGE LOAVES AND THICK CAKES.
GEMARA. What are the circumstances? If he has set an ‘erub tabshilin, what is the reason of Beth Shammai?27 And if he had not set an ‘erub tabshilin, what is the reason of Beth Hillel?28 — Said R. Huna: In truth I can say that he did not set an ‘erub tabshilin but the Rabbis29 permitted him [to prepare]30 what is necessary for his sustenance; and R. Huna follows his view: for R. Huna said: He who did not set an ‘erub tabshilin, others31 may bake one loaf for him and cook one dish for him
(1) Thus R. Akiba permits the preparation of animal's food, while R. Jose forbids it.
(2) Since they are not fit for human consumption, they should not be allowed to be handled.
(3) A big fire can burn even damp fuel.
(4) When it is forbidden to kindle a fire.
(5) I.e., together with bread.
(6) I.e., handle an article forbidden in itself along with bread, and it does not show disrespect to food.
(7) R. Huna, who permits baking for heathens if a part thereof can be given to a child.
(8) The wine left by the Jew in his cup may be used, and therefore it may be removed, whereas the wine in the cup of the heathen must not be used, and consequently may not be handled either.
(9) May not be removed, because it is unseemly.
(10) By putting pieces of bread into it.
(11) Lest they performed some idolatrous libation therewith.
(12) Which he intended before the Festival to use on the Festival for covering up anything unseemly.
(13) Which are not usable and may not be handled.
(14) With respect to the pieces of wood.
(15) The dregs in the wine cups.
(16) Which may be removed on account of its repulsiveness.
(17) I.e., may we make an object repulsive so as to be permitted to remove it? Surely not!
(18) אדבריה, v. Ta'an, Sonc. ed. p. 60, n. 5.
(19) [Rashi: ‘To wash them’: R. Hananel: ‘To warm them’.]
(20) Kindling on a Festival is permitted for food but not for the purpose of washing.
(21) Regarding this as equivalent to food.
(22) I.e., heating water for his feet.
(23) Between the whole body and a single limb.
(24) Storing counts as cooking.
(25) This appears to mean that if a metal candelabrum fell down, it must not be put up again, this being regarded as building.
(26) Such loaves involve burdensome labour.
(27) Who prohibit.
(28) Who permit.
(29) Adopting Beth Hillel's ruling.
(30) V. n. 7.
(31) [Lit., ‘they’. Others take ‘they’ as referring to the household, including the master himself v. Asheri.]
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 22a
and light [one] candle for him. It was said in the name of R. Isaac: They may also grill a small fish for him. It was taught likewise: He who did not set an erub tabshilin, one may bake one loaf for him and store one dish for him and light [one] candle for him and heat one jug of water for him, while some maintain: They may also grill a small fish for him.1 Raba says: In truth it treats of a case where he did set [an ‘erub tabshilin], but storing [hot water] is different for it is evident that he is doing it for the sake of the Sabbath.2 Abaye raised an objection:3 Hananiah says [that] Beth Shammai maintain: One may bake only if he set an ‘erub of bread and one may cook only if he set an ‘erub of cooked food, and one may store only if he had already warm water stored on the eve of the Festival. But if he had stored water, it is [as implied] at any rate allowed, even though it is evident that he is doing it for the sake of the Sabbath! Therefore said Abaye: [It4 treats of a case] when for example he set an ‘erub for the one5 and did not set an ‘erub for the other,6 and the author is Hananiah according to Beth Shammai.
AND ONE MAY NOT SET UP A CANDLESTICK: What does he do?7 — Said R. Hinena b. Bisna: We are dealing with [a jointed] candlestick composed of parts, [the reason being] because it looks like building;8 for Beth Shammai hold:9 Building applies [also] to utensils and Beth Hillel maintain: Neither building nor pulling down apply to utensils. ‘Ulla visited Rab Judah and his attendant arose and set up the lamp10 [on the Festival]. Rab Judah raised an objection to ‘Ulla: He who puts oil in a [burning] lamp [on a Sabbath] is culpable on account of kindling, and he who draws supplies from it is culpable on account of extinguishing.11 — He replied: I was not paying attention to it.
Rab said: Snuffing [the wick] is permitted [on a Festival]. Abba b. Martha asked Abaye: May one extinguish the lamp for something else?12 — He replied: It is possible [to take place] in another room. What if he has no other room? — It is possible to make a partition. What if he has nothing wherewith to make a partition? — It is possible to cover it [the light] with a vessel. What if he has no vessel? — He replied: It is forbidden.13 He raised an objection: One may not extinguish a log in order to save it,14 but it is permitted [to extinguish it] so that a room or a pot does not become smoky!15 — He replied: This is the opinion of R. Judah,16 but I am speaking according to the view of the Rabbis.17 Abaye asked Rabbah: May one extinguish a conflagration on a Festival? When danger of life is involved I do not ask, for [this] is permitted even on a Sabbath; I only ask when a loss of money [alone] is involved: What is the law? — He replied: It is forbidden. He raised an objection: One may not extinguish a log in order to save it, but it is permitted [to extinguish it] so that the room or a pot does not become smoky!18 — This is the opinion of R. Judah, but I am speaking according to the view of the Rabbis.
R. Ashi asked Amemar: May one [medically] paint the eyes on a Festival? When there is a danger, for example of discharge, pricking [pain], congestion, watering, inflammation or the first stages of sickness, I do not ask, for [then] it is permissible even on the Sabbath;19 I only ask when the sickness is almost cured and it [the painting] is only to give brightness to the eyes:20 What is the law? — He replied: It is forbidden. He raised the objection: ‘You may not extinguish a log [etc.]’ and he answered the same as we have answered.21
Amemar permitted the eye to be painted [medically] by a heathen on a Sabbath. Some say: Amemar himself allowed his eye to be painted by a heathen on a Sabbath. R. Ashi said to Amemar: What is your opinion, because ‘Ulla the son of R. Illai said: All that a sick man needs may be performed by a heathen on a Sabbath? And R. Hamnuna [further] said: In all cases where there is no danger one may tell a heathen to do it? But this is only when he does not himself help him, but you, Sir, assist him by closing and opening the eye! — He replied: R. Zebid made the same objection and I answered him: Helping is of no consequence.
Amemar permitted to paint the eyes on the second day of the New Year's Feast. R. Ashi said to Amemar: But Raba said: On the first day of a Festival Gentiles [only] may busy themselves with a corpse, [but] on the second day Israelites may do it, and even on the two Festival days of the New Year
(1) [According to the rendering adopted here (cf. n. 6) only others are permitted by Beth Hillel to prepare food for him, v. R. Nissim a.l.]
(2) Whereas cooking, even when intended for the Sabbath, may nevertheless appear to be for the Festival.
(3) V. supra 17b.
(4) Our Mishnah which prohibits storing.
(5) I.e., he baked and cooked before the Festival for the purpose of ‘erub.
(6) I.e., he did not store any hot water before the Festival.
(7) Surely this is not a prohibited labour!
(8) If it is put together.
(9) V. supra 10a, 11b.
(10) [Alfasi and Rashi: He inclined it backwards so as to draw off the oil from the wick and caused the light to go out.]
(11) Because the light goes out sooner, and extinguishing is likewise forbidden on a Festival.
(12) A euphemism for marital intercourse.
(13) To put out the light.
(14) I.e., for the sake of thrift.
(15) Consequently we see that in order to derive benefit on a Festival, it is permissible to extinguish.
(16) V. infra 28b where R. Judah maintains that . . . ‘for you’ (Ex. XII, 16) means for all your (permitted) needs.
(17) Who differ from R. Judah. V. ibid.
(18) A conflagration likewise gives forth smoke and causes great inconvenience.
(19) V. A.Z. 28b, Sonc. ed. p. 142.
(20) I.e., to make the eyes sparkle.
(21) Viz. the Baraitha is according to R. Judah.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 22b
which how ever is not the case with respect to an egg?1 — He replied: I hold as the Nehardeans who say: [The same holds good] even with respect to an egg; for what is in your mind: perhaps [the month of] Elul will be intercalated?2 Surely R. Hinena b. Kahana said:3 From the days of Ezra and onward we do not find Elul ever intercalated.
AND ONE MAY NOT BAKE BREAD IN LARGE LOAVES BUT ONLY IN THIN WAFERS: Our Rabbis taught: Beth Shammai say: One may not bake thick bread on Passover,4 but Beth Hillel permit it; and how much is regarded as thick bread? — Said Rab Huna: A handbreadth, for so we find with respect to the Shewbread [that the loaves were] a handbreadth [in thickness].5 To this Rab Joseph demurred: If they allowed6 this for experts,7 did they also permit it to non-experts?8 If they allowed it in the case of well-kneaded bread,9 are they also to allow it with respect to bread which is not well-kneaded?10 If they allowed it in the case of dry wood,11 would they allow it in the case of moist wood?12 If they allowed it in the case of a hot oven,13 would they allow it in the case of a cold oven?14 If they allowed it in the case of a metal oven,15 would they allow it in the case of a clay oven?16 Said R. Jeremiah b. Abba: I asked my teacher (viz., Rab) privately, what is meant by ‘thick bread’ [and he replied:] a large quantity of bread.17 Others say: R. Jeremiah b. Abba said in Rab's name: I asked my teacher (viz., Rabbi the Holy),18 privately, what is meant by ‘thick bread’, [and he replied:] a large quantity of bread. And why do they call it ‘thick bread’? — Because there is more kneading to be done.19 Alternatively: In the district of this Tanna they called a large quantity of bread thick bread — Consider: [the reason is] that he labours unnecessarily.20 [Then] why teach [particularly] about Passover, this should hold good of other Festivals as well? — It is even so, only the Tanna was dealing with Passover. It was taught likewise: Beth Shammai say: One may not bake a large quantity of bread on a Festival, but Beth Hillel permit it.
MISHNAH. HE21 FURTHERMORE GAVE THREE LENIENT RULINGS:22 ONE MAY SWEEP A DINING-ROOM23 AND PUT THE SPICES24 [ON THE FIRE] ON A FESTIVAL, AND ONE MAY PREPARE A ‘HELMETED’ KID ON PASSOVER NIGHT.25 BUT THE SAGES FORBID THESE.26
GEMARA. R. Assi said: The dispute is [only with respect] to perfuming [clothes],27 but when it is for smelling all agree that it is permitted. An objection was raised: One may not sweep a dining-room on a Festival, but in the house of Rabban Gamaliel they did Sweep. R. Eleazar b. Zadok said: Frequently I accompanied my father to the house of Rabban Gamaliel and [observed that] they did not sweep the dining-room on a Festival but they swept it on the eve of the Festival and covered it with sheets. On the morrow when guests came they removed the sheets with the result that the room was automatically swept. They said to him: If so, it is permitted to do the same even on the Sabbath. And one may not put the spices [on the fire] on a Festival, but in the house of Rabban Gamaliel they did put. Said R. Eleazar b. Zadok: Frequently I accompanied my father to the house of Rabban Gamaliel and [observed that] they did not put the spices [on the fire] on a Festival, but they used to bring in iron censers and fill them with the perfume of the incense on the eve of the Festival and stop up the vent-holes on the eve of the Festival. On the morrow when guests came they opened the vent-holes with the resuit that the room was automatically perfumed. They said to him: If so, it is permitted to do the same even on a Sabbath.28 But if stated it was thus stated: R. Assi said: The dispute is when it is for smelling, but when it is for perfuming [clothes] it is forbidden. The scholars asked: May one fumigate29 [fruits] on a Festival? R. Jeremiah b. Abba in Rab's name says: It is forbidden;30 but Samuel says: It is permissible. R. Huna says: It is forbidden because he extinguishes [the charcoal].31 Said R. Nahman to him: Let the Master say because he kindles32 [the spices]? — He answered him: At first he extinguishes and afterwards he kindles.33 Rab Judah says: On charcoal fire it is forbidden,34
(1) The egg laid on the first day may not be eaten on the second. V. supra 6a.
(2) In which case the New Year's Festival will begin on the second day.
(3) V. supra 6a where the words ‘in the name of Rab’ are added.
(4) It was presumed that the reason is lest the dough become leavened during its preparation.
(5) V. Men. 57a.
(6) Lit., ‘said’.
(7) I.e., priests who were acquainted with the preparation of the Shewbread. Cf. Yoma 38a.
(8) Inexperienced bakers might allow the thick dough to become leavened.
(9) Such as was essential for the Shewbread (Men. 76a). Well-kneaded dough does not easily become sour.
(10) There is no guarantee that the dough in private houses would be well-kneaded.
(11) Such as was used in the Temple (v. Ta'an 31a) and which gives a clear fire and bakes quickly.
(12) Which smoulders and does not give forth much heat.
(13) The oven in the Temple was heated daily and never got quite cold.
(14) I.e., an oven that was allowed to get cold and afterwards heated.
(15) Such as was used in the Temple (v. Zeb. 95b) and which gives forth good heat and keeps the heat long.
(16) Surely not! — In the Temple all these favourable conditions were present but they might be absent elsewhere.
(17) More than is necessary for the Festival, thus doing more work than he should.
(18) For this title of Rabbi Judah, the Prince, cf. Shab. p. 118b.
(19) Lit., ‘there is increase in kneading it’.
(20) And not because the dough might become leaven as previously presumed.
(21) Rabban Gamaliel.
(22) Lit., ‘said three things for leniency’.
(23) Lit., ‘couches’ used as dining tables.
(24) For the purpose of perfuming the room. V. Ber. (Cohen) p. 279 n. 6.
(25) I.e., a kid roasted whole with its knees and inwards hanging outside. The Passover-offering was roasted in that manner in the days of the Temple; consequently the Sages forbade this after the destruction of the Temple, since sacrifices might not be brought then. Rabban Gamaliel, however, permits it.
(26) They forbid sweeping because of the filling up of cavities, and they forbid spices because this only applies to epicureans or to people possessing repugnant odours, cf. Keth. 7a (Rashi).
(27) It is then that the Sages prohibit because the perfuming of the clothes is not directly one's personal pleasure.
(28) The Rabbis would never have disagreed in such a case. Since they do disagree, however, R. Gamaliel must have permitted the putting of spices on the fire on the Festival. They must then have assumed either that R. Eleazar b. Zadok's memory was at fault or that R. Gamaliel, while in truth holding that it was permitted, did not act on his view out of deference to the Sages who were in a majority. Incidentally we see that the Sages prohibit it even for smelling.
(29) For eating purposes, by placing them over spices on burning coals.
(30) Because it is only an epicurean luxury.
(31) When sprinkling the spices over it.
(32) And kindling is forbidden unless it is for the general preparation of food.
(33) The first effect of his action is to extinguish (i.e. dim) the coals; that is followed by the spices catching fire; R. Nahman quoted the first only.
(34) For there is both extinguishing and kindling.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 23a
on [hot] sherds1 it is permitted;2 but Rabbah maintains: On [hot] sherds it is also forbidden because he generates a fragrance [in the sherd].3 Rabba and R. Joseph both say: It is forbidden to invert a box [of aromatics] on silken garments on a Festival, because he is producing a fragrance [in the garments]. And why is [this case] different from [the Baraitha]: One may rub it [aromatic wood] and smell it and one may nip off a bit of it and smell it?4 — There the fragrance is indeed present and one only increases the smell, [whilst] here he produces a fragrance [in the garments].
Raba [however] says: On charcoal too it is permitted, [for it is] just as roasting meat on a charcoal [fire].5 R. Gebiha from Be Kathil6 expounded at the door of the Exilarch: Kittura7 is allowed. Amemar said to him: What [is meant by] Kittura? If it means the plaiting of sleeves, [creasing of garments] then it is a craftsman's work;8 and if [it means] to fumigate, it is [surely] forbidden for he indeed extinguishes! — Said R. Ashi to him: In truth [it means] to fumigate, but it is analogous to roasting meat on a charcoal fire. Some teach: Amemar said to him: What is [meant by] Kittura? If it means the plaiting of sleeves, then it is a craftsman's work; and if [it means] to fumigate, it is [surely] forbidden, for he produces a perfume! — Said R. Ashi: I told it to him, and in the name of a great man did I tell it to him: In truth [it means] to fumigate, but it is analogous to roasting meat on a charcoal fire.
AND ONE MAY PREPARE A ‘HELMETED’ KID: It was taught: R. Jose said Theodosius of Rome introduced among the community of Rome the practice of eating a helmeted kid on Passover night. They [the Rabbis] sent [word] to him: If you were not Theodosius, we would have condemned you to excommunication, for you are causing the children of Israel to eat consecrated [animals] outside of Jerusalem. Do you really mean consecrated [animals]?9 — Say rather: [That which is] similar to consecrated [animals].10
MISHNAH. THREE THINGS R. ELEAZAR B. AZARIAH PERMITTED AND THE SAGES FORBADE: HIS COW WAS LED OUT [ON A SABBATH] WITH A LEATHER STRAP BETWEEN HER HORNS,11 AND [HE ALSO RULED THAT] ONE MAY CURRY CATTLE ON A FESTIVAL,12 AND ONE MAY GRIND PEPPER IN A PEPPER MILL.13 R. JUDAH SAYS: ONE MAY NOT CURRY CATTLE ON A FESTIVAL BECAUSE IT MAKES A WOUND THEREBY, BUT ONE MAY COMB;14 BUT THE SAGES SAY: ONE MAY NEITHER CURRY NOR COMB.
GEMARA. Shall it be said that R. Eleazar b. Azariah had [only] one cow, surely Rab — some say, Rab Judah in Rab's name — said: R. Eleazar b. Azariah had given as tithe thirteen thousand calves yearly from his herd? — It was taught: It was not his cow but of a neighbouring lady, and because he did not restrain her, it [is referred to as his].15
AND ONE MAY CURRY CATTLE ON A FESTIVAL. Our Rabbis taught: What is currying and what is combing? Currying is done with a small toothed [comb] and causes wounds; combing is done with a larged toothed [comb] and does not cause wounds; and there are three views with respect to this: R. Judah maintains: An unintentional act16 is forbidden, but currying is done with fine teeth and causes wounds, [while] combing is done with large teeth and does not cause wounds, and we do not preventively prohibit combing on account of currying. The Sages are likewise of R. Judah's opinion that an unintentional act is forbidden, but they preventively prohibit combing on account of currying;17 and R. Eleazar b. Azariah holds as R. Simeon who says: An unintentional act is permitted, [hence] both currying and combing is allowed.
Raba in the name of R. Nahman in the name of Samuel said: — some say, R. Nahman himself said — the halachah is as R. Simeon, since R. Eleazar b. Azariah agrees with him. Said Raba to R. Nahman: Let the Master say the halachah is as R. Judah since the Sages agree with him? — He replied to him: I hold as R. Simeon, and furthermore R. Eleazar b. Azariah agrees with him.
(1) Lit., ‘on a fragment of pottery’.
(2) For extinguishing does not apply here and the kindling is performed in an unusual way, which is not prohibited Biblically (Rashi).
(3) I.e., he creates something new in the sherd which was absent before, and this the Rabbis forbade.
(4) Infra 33b.
(5) Which is permitted, although here too there is extinguishing and kindling while the odour of the meat enters the coals.
(6) On the Tigris, N. of Bagdad. Obermeyer, p. 143.
(7) The word has two meanings (a) plaiting (b) perfuming and he did not specify what he meant.
(8) Which is certainly forbidden.
(9) But they were not consecrated.
(10) V. p. 116, n. 9.
(11) Because he regarded such halter as an ornament. The Sages, however, regarded it as a burden.
(12) With a fine comb.
(13) Lit., ‘in their mill’.
(14) Rashi: with a blunt-toothed wooden comb or scraper.
(15) Lit., ‘is called by his name’.
(16) As the causing of a wound through the combing.
(17) If the former is permitted, people will do the latter too.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 23b
MISHNAH. A PEPPER-MILL IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO DEFILEMENT ON ACCOUNT OF [IT CONSISTING OF] THREE [SEPARATE] UTENSILS;1 ON ACCOUNT OF A RECEPTACLE,2 ON ACCOUNT OF A METAL UTENSIL3 AND ON ACCOUNT OF A SIFTING UTENSIL.4
GEMARA. It was taught: The lower part [becomes defiled] as a receptacle; the middle part as a sifting utensil; the upper part as a metal vessel.
MISHNAH. A CHILD'S GO-CART IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO THE DEFILEMENT OF MIDRAS,5 AND IT MAY BE HANDLED ON SABBATH,6 AND IT MAY BE PULLED ALONG ONLY ON MAT TING.7 R. JUDAH SAYS: NO ARTICLES MAY BE DRAGGED [ALONG THE FLOOR] EXCEPT A WAGON BECAUSE IT [ONLY] PRESSES8 [THE EARTH] DOWN.
GEMARA. A CHILD'S GO-CART IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO THE DEFILEMENT OF MIDRAS, because he [the child] supports himself thereon;9 AND IT MAY BE HANDLED ON SABBATH, because it is considered a utensil;
AND IT MAY BE PULLED ALONG ONLY ON MATTING; only on matting but not on the earth. What is the reason? Because he makes a rut [furrow]:10 the author of this is [therefore] R. Judah who says: An unintentional act is forbidden; for if it were R. Simeon, surely he maintains: An unintentional act is permitted; for it was taught: R. Simeon says: A man may drag along a bed, stool or bench [on the floor], provided he has no intention of making a furrow. [But] read the last clause: R. JUDAH SAYS: NOTHING MAY BE DRAGGED [ALONG THE FLOOR] ON THE SABBATH EXCEPT A WAGON BECAUSE IT [ONLY] PRESSES [THE EARTH] DOWN; Only because it presses it down but it does not make a furrow? — There are two Tannaim11 who differ as to the opinion of R. Judah.
MISHNAH. ONE MAY NOT CATCH FISH FROM A FISHPOND ON A FESTIVAL12 NOR GIVE THEM FOOD,13 BUT ONE MAY CATCH VENISON OR GAME FROM ANIMAL ENCLOSURES AND ONE MAY PUT FOOD BEFORE THEM. RABBAN SIMEON R. GAMALIEL SAYS: NOT ALL ENCLOSURES ARE ALIKE. THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE:
(1) So that even if one part were missing the rest counts as complete utensils and can become unclean (Rashi). Tosaf: if one part became defiled the other parts are not affected.
(2) In contrast to flat wooden vessels which have no hollow for receiving and cannot become unclean. V. Kelim. XI, 1.
(3) V. Kelim. XI, 2. Even a flat metal utensil can become unclean.
(4) V. Kelim. XVI, 3, XVII, 4.
(5) V. Glos.
(6) Since it really is a utensil. That which does not rank as a utensil may not be handled.
(7) In order not to make a rut. Their floors were earthen.
(8) But does not turn it up into a furrow.
(9) It is therefore considered a stool.
(10) I.e., he breaks the surface of the ground, being in the nature of ploughing.
(11) One holds that a go-cart is regarded as any other piece of furniture and may not be dragged along because it may skid and turn up the earth as a plough, and the other holds the wheels only press down the earth but do not make a rut.
(12) Because this could have been done before the Festival.
(13) Because they can look after themselves.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 24a
WHENEVER CHASING IS STILL NECESSARY1 IT IS FORBIDDEN2 BUT WHERE CHASING IS NOT STILL NECESSARY IT IS PERMITTED.
GEMARA. Now the scholars pointed out a contradiction: One may not catch [animals] from enclosures of venison and game on a Festival nor may one put food before them. Thus the rulings on venison are contradictory and those on game are contradictory. As for the rulings on venison, it is well and there is no difficulty, one agreeing with R. Judah, the other with the Sages. For we have learnt: R. Judah says: If [on a Sabbath] one hunts a bird into a tower-trap or a gazelle into a house he is culpable3 —
(only [if he drives it] into a house is he culpable but not into an enclosure).4 But the Sages say: [If he drives] a bird into a tower-trap or a gazelle [even] into a garden, a court or an enclosure [he is culpable].5 But the rulings on game are contradictory! And if you say, this also presents no difficulty, for the one treats of a roofed enclosure and the other of an unroofed enclosure, — surely a house is like a roofed enclosure and [yet] according to both R. Judah and the Sages [he is liable] only [if he drove] a bird into a tower-trap but not into a house! — Said Rabbah b. Huna: We treat here6 of a wild bird which does not submit to taming.7 For the School of R. Ishmael taught: Why is it called free-bird, because it dwells in the house as in the fields.8 Now that you have come to this [explanation],9 there is no contradiction in the rulings on venison, [for] the one refers to a small enclosure; the other, to a large enclosure.10 What is ‘a small enclosure’ [and] what is ‘a large enclosure’? — Said R. Ashi: Whenever one runs after it [the animal] and catches it with one lunge,11 It is a small enclosure, otherwise it is a large enclosure. Alternatively: If there are many corners [whither it can escape] it is a large enclosure, otherwise it is a small enclosure. Alternatively: whenever the shadow of one wall falls upon the other,12 it is a small enclosure, otherwise it is a large enclosure.
RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS: NOT ALL ENCLOSURES ARE ALIKE etc. R. Joseph said in the name of Rab Judah in the name of Samuel: The halachah is as Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel. Abaye said to him: ‘The halachah is [etc.],’ from which it would follow that they [the Sages] dispute it!13 — He said to him: What practical difference does it make to you?14 — He replied to him: Is a lesson to be recited as a sing-song?15
THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: WHENEVER CHASING IS STILL NECESSARY, etc.: What is meant by CHASING IS STILL NECESSARY? Said R. Joseph in the name of Samuel: Whensoever one has to say, ‘Bring a trap so that we may catch it’.16 Said Abaye to him: But what of geese and hens where one [also] says, ‘Bring a net so that we may catch it’, and yet it was taught: He who catches geese, hens or Herodian doves17 he is free! Said Rabbah son of R. Huna in the name of Samuel: These come at night into their coops [for roosting],18 but those do not come at night into their coops. But what of doves of a dovecote and doves of a loft which [likewise] come at night into their coops, and yet it was taught: He who catches doves of a dovecote or doves of a loft or birds nesting in nests19 or in a residence20 is liable? — Rather, said Rabbah son of R. Huna in the name of Samuel: These come at night into their coops and their feeding is your obligation,21 but those come at night into their coops but you are not obliged to feed them. R. Mari says: These are in the habit of fleeing, but those make no attempt to flee. But surely all of them make an attempt to flee! — I mean they are wont to flee to their nests.22
MISHNAH. IF TRAPS FOR WILD ANIMALS, BIRDS OR FISH WERE SET ON THE EVE OF THE FESTIVAL, ONE MAY NOT TAKE FROM THEM ON THE FESTIVAL UNLESS HE KNOWS THAT THEY WERE [ALREADY] CAUGHT ON THE EVE OF THE FESTIVAL; AND IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT A CERTAIN GENTILE BROUGHT FISH TO RABBAN GAMALIEL WHO SAID: THEY ARE PERMITTED, BUT I HAVE NO WISH TO ACCEPT [THEM] FROM HIM.23
GEMARA. You quote an incident to contradict [the teaching of the Mishnah]! — There is a lacuna in the text and learn thus: When a doubt prevails whether it is in mukan,24 it is forbidden, but Rabban Gamaliel Permits it: AND IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT A CERTAIN GENTILE BROUGHT FISH TO RABBAN GAMALIEL, WHO SAID: THEY ARE PERMITTED BUT I HAVE NO WISH TO ACCEPT [THEM] FROM HIM.
Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The halachah is not as Rabban Gamaliel. Some recited it [the statement of Samuel] with reference to the [following] teaching: When a doubt prevails whether it was mukan, Rabban Gamaliel permits and R. Joshua prohibits. Said Rab Judah in the name of Samuel: The halachah is as R. Joshua.
Some [again] recite it with reference to the following teaching:
(1) Lit., ‘whenever the hunting is wanting’, i.e., if the enclosure is large and great effort in pursuing the game is requisite.
(2) Because it is regarded as hunting.
(3) For having transgressed the Sabbath because these are now quite caught. Hunting is forbidden on the Sabbath, but liability is not incurred unless the act of hunting is complete and the animal actually caught.
(4) For there is still effort required to catch the animal.
(5) V. Shab. 106a. Thus all agree that the chasing of a bird into a house does not involve liability, the bird not being regarded as caught.
(6) With respect to chasing a bird on Sabbath.
(7) Even when chased into a house it cannot easily be captured.
(8) Even when in the house it is not domesticated.
(9) That the apparent contradiction in the rulings on game may be reconciled without assuming a controversy of Tannaim.
(10) And both rulings state the view of the Sages.
(11) The space being too small to allow escape.
(12) The walls were of ordinary height.
(13) Which is not the case, for the Sages too draw a distinction between a large enclosure and a small one.
(14) Since the halachah remains true.
(15) Whether correct or not.
(16) I.e., means are still required for catching it.
(17) [Domesticated indoor doves, supposed to have been bred by Herod. V. Krauss, T.A. II, p. 138].
(18) Where it is easy to catch them, and therefore they are regarded as permanently caught.
(19) Lit., ‘pitcher-shaped (vessels)’ put up in walls or cornices as birds’ nests. V. fast., s.v. טפיה
(20) [Var. lec. (a) ‘or residences’; (b) ‘or pits’, v. infra p. 127, n. 16.]
(21) Therefore they are regarded as any domestic animal which is always ready for food.
(22) So that great effort is needed before they are caught.
(23) Because he did not like the man.
(24) I.e., prepared before the Festival. V. Glos.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 24b
One may slaughter [animals] out of enclosures1 on a Festival but not out of hunting-nets or gins;2 R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: If he came on the eve of the Festival and finds them [the nets or gins]3 damaged, [then] it is certain that they were caught on the eve of the Festival and [consequently] they are permitted; but if he came on the Festival and finds them damaged, it is certain that they were caught on the Festival and are [therefore] prohibited. Now this is self-contradictory. [First] you say: If he came on the eve of the Festival and finds them damaged it is certain that they were caught on the eve of the Festival. Hence it is only because he came and found them damaged; but if a doubt exists, they are forbidden. Consider then the latter clause: If he came on the Festival and finds them damaged, it is certain that they were caught on the Festival: Thus it is only because he came and found them damaged [on the Festival]; but if a doubt exists [then I say] they were caught on the eve of the Festival and are [therefore] permitted? — This is what he means: If he came on the eve of the Festival and found them damaged, it is certain that they were caught on the eve of the Festival and are permitted; but if a doubt exists it is regarded as if they had been caught on the Festival and they are forbidden. Said Rab Judah in the name of Samuel: The halachah is as R. Simeon b. Eleazar.
WHO SAID: THEY ARE PERMITTED. For what purpose are they permitted? — Rab says: They are permitted to be received,4 and Levi says: They are permitted to be eaten. Said Rab: A man should never absent himself from the Academy even for a single hour, for I and Levi were both present when Rabbi taught this lesson. In the evening he said: They are permitted to be eaten; but on the [following] morning he said: They are permitted to be received. I who was present in the Academy retracted, [but] Levi who was not present in the Academy did not retract.
An objection is raised: If a Gentile brings a present to an Israelite, even slimy fish or fruit [gathered] on the same day, they are permitted.5 This is well on the view that they are permitted to be received.6 But on the view that they are permitted to be eaten, is then fruit [picked] on the same day permitted to be eaten?7 — Now even according to your reasoning, is then fruit [gathered] on the same day permitted to be handled? But we treat here of fish that are red at the gills8 and of fruit preserved in leaves.9 And why does he call them ‘of the same day’? Because they are [as fresh] as [if they had been gathered] on the same day. R. Papa said: The law is: If a Gentile brought a present10 to an Israelite on a Festival, [then] if there is of that kind still attached to the ground it is prohibited,11 and in the evening it is also prohibited for as long a time as it takes to gather;12 but if there is nothing of the same kind attached to the earth, [then] within the tehum13 it is permitted,
(1) Since they are already there on the eve of the Festival, when they are regarded as fully caught. Lit., ‘dykes’, so called because they contain pools of water for the animals to drink.
(2) Because they may have been caught on the day of the Festival.
(3) [I.e., the long ropes or cords to which the nets proper are attached and which tend to become loosened when an animal is caught at the far distant end].
(4) I.e., to be handled, but not to be eaten.
(5) This teaching is evidently in accordance with Rabban Gamaliel.
(6) For although it is almost definite that they have been gathered on the Festival, yet he permits them only to be received.
(7) Surely not!
(8) They are fresh but have been caught for some time.
(9) To keep them fresh, but which had really been gathered before the Festival.
(10) Of freshly gathered fruit.
(11) Since they were possibly gathered on the Festival.
(12) In order not to benefit from work performed on the Festival.
(13) V. Glos. I.e., if the fruit were brought from within the Sabbath limit.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 25a
but outside the tehum it is prohibited. And what is brought [from outside the tehum] for one Israelite1 is permitted for another Israelite.2 Rabbah son of R. Huna said in Rab's name: If one stops up a pond [from a stream] on the eve of a Festival3 and on the following morning he finds fish therein, they are permitted.4 Said R. Hisda: From the words of our Master5 we learn [that] if a wild beast takes up its abode in an orchard, predetermination [of the young for the Festival] is not necessary.6 Said R. Nahman: Our colleague has fallen among the great.7
(Some say: Rabbah son of R. Huna said: From the words of our Master we learn [that] if an animal takes up its abode in an orchard predetermination is not necessary. Said R. Nahman: The son of our colleague has fallen among the great — There he has not performed an action8 [whereas] here he did perform an action.)9 Does it10 then not require [special] predetermination?11 Surely it was taught: If an animal takes up its abode in all orchard it requires predetermination, and a free bird12 must be tied by her wings13 so that it should not be mistaken for its mother, and this they averred in the name of Shemaiah and Abtalion! — This is [indeed] a refutation.14 Does it then require predetermination? Surely it was taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel agree that if he determined on doves within the nest and finds them in front of the nest they are forbidden;15 this only applies to doves of a dovecote or doves of a loft and birds nesting in nests and pits;16 but geese, hens and Herodian doves17 and animals having their abodes in orchards are permitted and do not require predetermination; and a free-bird must be tied by its wings so that it should not be mistaken for its mother; and those that were tied up and those that have been handled,18 [if found] in pits, houses, dykes or trenches are permitted,19 but [if] on trees they are forbidden lest he climb up and pluck [fruit at the same time]; and those that are tied and those that have been handled, wherever they are found20 are forbidden on account of robbery!21 — Said R. Nahman: There is no difficulty: the one applies to the young bird,22 the other to its mother.23 Is then determination [alone] sufficient for the mother-bird; it still requires to be caught?24 Rather said R. Nahman b. Isaac: Both treat of the young, but the one refers to a garden near the city25 and the other refers to a garden which is not situated near [the city].
MISHNAH. ONE MAY SLAUGHTER [ON A FESTIVAl] AN ANIMAL AT THE POINT OF DEATH ONLY IF THERE IS TIME ENOUGH ON THAT DAY TO EAT THEREOF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE OF ROASTED FLESH.26 R. AKIBA SAYS: EVEN [IF THERE IS ONLY TIME TO EAT] AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE OF RAW FLESH [TAKEN] FROM THE PLACE OF SLAUGHTER.27 IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT28 IN THE FIELD, HE MAY NOT BRING IT IN ON A POLE OR A BARROW,29 BUT HE BRINGS IT IN PIECE BY PIECE IN HIS HAND.
GEMARA. Rami b. Abba said: Flaying and cutting up [is required] in the case of a burnt-offering,30 and the same holds good with respect to butchers:31 the Torah teaches in this good breeding32 that one should not eat flesh before flaying and cutting up. What does he inform us?33 If I were to say that it is to reject the opinion of R. Huna, who said: An animal, when alive, stands in the presumption of a forbidden object until you ascertain how it was slaughtered;34 once it is slaughtered, it stands in the presumption of being permitted until it becomes known to you how it became trefa35 — but surely we have learnt in our Mishnah as R. Huna, for we have learnt: R. Akiba Says: EVEN [IF THERE IS ONLY TIME TO EAT] AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE OR RAW FLESH [TAKEN] FROM THE PLACE OF SLAUGHTER; does it not mean literally ‘from the place where it is slaughtered’?36 — No, it [means] ‘from the place where it digests the food’.37 But R. Hiyya taught: [It means] literally ‘from the place where it is slaughtered’? Rather, Rami b. Abba
(1) Who may not use it
(2) Since the law of tehum is only Rabbinical, the Rabbis were lenient (Rashi).
(3) So that no fish can come in.
(4) Although he did not know before the Festival that they had been trapped, for the fish in the pond are regarded as having been predetermined for use before the Festival.
(5) I.e., Rab.
(6) [They themselves are however forbidden since they need chasing, Asheri.]
(7) He has made a statement about which there is great controversy.
(8) The animal took up its abode of its own accord without the owner of the park enclosing it.
(9) The act of stopping up. An action is a tacit predetermination.
(10) An animal that took up its abode in an orchard.
(11) As inferred by R. Hisda.
(12) Living in a house as well as in a field.
(13) [This kind of bird is very small so that the mother and its young are alike, hence a sign is necessary].
(14) Of R. Hisda.
(15) V. supra 11a.
(16) So Rashi: Cur. edd.: ‘And in a residence’.
(17) V. supra p. 124, n. 1.
(18) Before the Festival, and their owner recognizes them.
(19) On the Festival.
(20) On public property, even not on a Festival.
(21) For the first person that handled them acquired ownership to them.
(22) Which cannot escape.
(23) Its mother, which is larger, requires predetermination.
(24) And should be forbidden on the Festival.
(25) The owner naturally would draw from that, and therefore he is regarded as having tacitly predetermined thereon.
(26) Otherwise it would be preparing food on a Festival for the following day, which is forbidden.
(27) I.e., from the neck without first having to flay the animal and cut it up.
(28) Any animal.
(29) This is not a way of paying due regard to the sanctity of the Festival.
(30) Before the animal is placed on the altar; v. Lev. I, 6.
(31) Before they sell the meat the animal must be flayed and cut up.
(32) ‘The way of the land’.
(33) Does he merely teach good manners or state a prohibition? In the latter case, the reason would be that the animal might be found trefa (v. Glos.) when cut up, whence it follows that he regards an animal as a doubtful trefa even if nothing has been seen to cause this doubt.
(34) The flesh is forbidden so long as it is not known that the animal was slaughtered according to prescribed ritual.
(35) V. Glos. If a cause of trefa is discovered after shechitah, e.g., the lung is pierced, and it is not known whether this happened before shechitah or after, the animal is permitted. Cf. Hul. 9a. Thus he holds that we entertain no doubt at all once the animal is ritually slaughtered.
(36) I.e., from the neck where flaying of the animal is not required. Hence we see that it is permissible to eat of the animal before it is flayed and cut up to discover any internal injury.
(37) The word טבה has the wider significance ‘to destroy and grind up’, and under the term בית טביחתה the digestive organs are to be included, and in order to arrive at them, the animal must be cut up
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 25b
merely teaches us good manners, as it was taught:1 A man should not begin to eat leek or onion from the top side, but from the leaves; and if he did eat, he is a glutton.2 Likewise, a man should not drink his cup of wine in one draught; and if he did so drink, he is a swiller. Our Rabbis taught: He who drinks his beaker in one draught is greedy, in two [draughts] is well-mannered, in three [draughts] is haughty. Rami b. Abba further said: The ivy3 cuts off the feet4 of criminals;5 the [law concerning] young trees6 cuts off the feet of butchers7 and of those cohabiting with menstruous women;8 the lupine9 will cut off the feet of the enemies10 of Israel, for it is said: ‘And the children of Israel again did that which has evil in the sight of the Lord, and served the Baalim, and the Ashtaroth, and the gods of Aram, and the gods of Zidon, and the gods of Moab, and the gods of the children of Ammon, and the gods of the Philistines, and they forsook the Lord, and served him not.’11 From the implication of ‘and they forsook the Lord’, do I not know that ‘they served Him not’? Then why does the text say, ‘and they served him not’? Said R. Eleazar: The Holy One, blessed be He, said: My children have not even treated Me like the lupine12 which is boiled seven times and eaten as a dessert.
A Tanna taught in the name of R. Meir: Why was the Torah given to Israel? Because they are impetuous.13 The School of R. Ishmael taught: ‘At His right hand was a fiery law unto them’;14 the Holy One, blessed be He, said: These are worthy to be given the fiery law. Some say: The laws of these are like fire, for had not the Law been given to Israel no nation or tongue could withstand them. And this is what R. Simeon b. Lakish said: There are three distinguished in strength [fierce]: Israel among the nations,15 the dog among animals, [and] the cock among birds. Some say: Also the goat among small cattle. And some say: Also the caper-bush16 among shrubs.
IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT IN THE FIELD, HE MAY NOT BRING IT IN ON A POLE. Our Rabbis taught: A blind man may not go out [on a Festival] with his staff,17 nor a shepherd with his wallet, neither may a man or a woman go out in a palanquin. But it is not so! For R. Jacob b. Idi sent [word]: In our neighbourhood was an old man who was carried in his sedan-chair, and when they came and asked R. Joshua b. Levi [about this], he said: When a number of people need him it is permitted. And our Teachers relied on the words of Ahi Shakia who related: I brought18 R. Huna from Hini to Shili19 and from Shili to Hini; and R. Nahman b. Isaac narrated: I carried Mar Samuel from the sun into the shade and from the shade into the sun? — There it is as the reason stated: When a number of people need him it is permitted.
R. Nahman said to Hanna b. Adda, Zion's messenger:20 When you go hither make a circuit and go over the Promontory of Tyre21 and visit R. Jacob b. Idi and ask him: What do you say with respect to a palanquin? Before he came there, R. Jacob b. Idi departed this life. When he arrived, he found R. Zerika. He asked him: How do you rule with respect to a palanquin? — He replied: Thus did R. Ammi say: [It is permissible] provided that he is not carried on the shoulders. What means ‘provided that he is not carried on the shoulders’? — Said R. Joseph the son of Raba: By means of alanki.22 But it is not so, for R. Nahman permitted [his wife] Jaltha to be carried in a sedan-chair by means of alanki? — It is different with Jaltha for she was nervous.23 Amemar and Mar Zutra were carried on the shoulders24 on the Sabbath [preceding] the Festival25 on account of nervousness, and some say, on account of troubling the public.26
MISHNAH. IF A FIRSTLING27 FELL INTO A PIT,28 R. JUDAH SAYS: LET AN EXPERT GO DOWN AND INSPECT [IT];
(1) For we find even Tannaim giving instructions with respect to good manners.
(2) Likewise he who eats from the animal before it is flayed is a glutton.
(3) Used for boundary marks. The ivy is used for landmarks because its roots go straight down and do not obtrude into neighbouring land.
(4) I.e., convicts.
(5) Who perpetrate the removal of such landmarks.
(6) V. Lev. XIX, 23.
(7) Who eat of the flesh before the animal has been flayed and cut up and examined.
(8) I.e., before the woman has taken the ritual bath. As patience is required until the fourth year before the fruit is eaten, so We are to have patience and wait until the proper time before enjoying meat or conjugal privilege.
(9) The lupine is so bitter that it is not edible until it has been cooked seven times. So Israel has worshipped the seven idols mentioned in the following verse and was seven times chastened without amending.
(10) A euphemism for Israel itself.
(11) Judg. X, 6.
(12) The lupine after seven boilings is sweet, but although Israel has repented seven times and been forgiven, they still rebel and make me bitter towards them again.
(13) The Law was to discipline them.
(14) Deut. XXXIII, 2.
(15) But the Law tempers their strength.
(16) Because of its rapid growing, for as soon as it is plucked it grows again. V. Shab. 30b.
(17) Because of the disrespect to the Festival, since this is his everyday practice.
(18) In a palanquin.
(19) Hini and Shili are places in Babylon near Sura situated very close to each other.
(20) He was so called because he frequently travelled to Palestine (Rash). Or, perhaps he was something like our modern משולח Palestine at this time was in a decaying state and needed support from abroad.
(21) I.e., along the sea coast.
(22) Poles used to carry burdens on the shoulders of two or more persons, Jast.
(23) Of falling.
(24) In the Beth ha-Midrash, to their seat. [MS.M. adds: by means of alanki].
(25) When it was customary for them to lecture on the Festival laws.
(26) Who would have to stand up and wait until these teachers made their way slowly through the crowd to the platform. But by being carried shoulder high (or by means of alanki) they were quickly carried through the gathering; cf., however, Sanh., Sonc. ed. p. 30, n. 4.
(27) Which may be slaughtered in post-Temple days for consumption by priests only when it has a blemish which would disqualify it for the altar. V. Deut. XV, 19-22.
(28) On a Festival, before the condition of its blemish was exactly known, and it is feared lest it die there.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 26a
IF IT HAD A BLEMISH1 HE MAY BRING IT UP AND SLAUGHTER IT,2 BUT IF NOT, HE MAY NOT SLAUGHTER IT. R. SIMEON SAYS: WHENEVER ITS BLEMISH WAS NOT OBSERVED ON THE DAY BEFORE THE FESTIVAL, IT IS NOT MUKAN.3
GEMARA. Wherein do they differ?4 If we are to say that they differ as to whether one may examine blemishes [on a Festival], R. Judah holding: One may examine blemishes on a Festival, while R. Simeon maintains: One may not examine blemishes on a Festival, then let them dispute whether one may examine blemishes in general [on a Festival]!5 — It is especially necessary [to teach this] with respect to a firstling that fell into a pit; [for] you might have thought that on account of suffering of animals one might have recourse to an artifice and bring it up [from the pit] in accordance with R. Joshua,6 so he informs us [that it is not so]. If so, instead of HE MAY NOT SLAUGHTER IT, it should be stated, ‘He may not bring it up7 and slaughter it!’ — This [teaching] is necessary [only] where he transgressed and brought it [the animal] up; you might think that he may slaughter it, so he informs us [that it is not so]. [But how could he possibly] slaughter it? Surely it is without blemish! — This is necessary [concerning the case] where it received a blemish.8 But it is mukzeh!9 — Rather, [it treats of a case] where it received a temporary [transient] blemish on the eve of the Festival and now [on the Festival] it turned into a permanent blemish; you might have thought that he [the owner] had set his mind upon it10 and he may therefore slaughter it; so he informs us11 [that it is not so]. Our Rabbis taught: A firstling without blemish that fell into a pit. R. Judah the Prince12 says: Let an expert go down [the pit] and examine it; if it has sustained a blemish, he may bring [it] up and slaughter [it],13 but if not, he may not slaughter [it]. R. Simeon b. Menasia said to him: They [the Rabbis]14 indeed said: One may not examine blemishes on a Festival. How [is this15 to be explained]? If it received a blemish on the eve of the Festival,16 one may not examine it on the Festival;17 if it received a blemish
(1) Rashi: If the firstling sustained a defect before the Festival, but it was not known until now whether the defect was such as to disqualify it for the altar.
(2) For its owner probably intended before the Festival to slaughter it on the Festival.
(3) I.e., no expert may go down to examine it, because the pronouncing of the blemish by the expert is regarded by R. Simeon as preparing a vessel, since before the examination of the expert it could not be used on the Festival, or as sitting in judgment, which is not permitted on a Festival (Rashi), v. infra 36a.
(4) It cannot be that they are disputing here with respect to mukzeh, because we have previously learnt that R. Judah prohibits mukzeh and R. Simeon permits it.
(5) Why particularly about a firstling that has fallen into a pit.
(6) V. Shab. 117b.
(7) Since on the present hypothesis this is the main purpose of the teaching.
(8) Through its fall.
(9) Since the firstling had no blemish before the Festival it may not be slaughtered on the Festival on account of mukzeh. V. Glos.
(10) On account of its temporary blemish.
(11) Since the blemish was of a temporary nature, it is regarded as if the firstling had no blemish at all and cannot be intended to be slaughtered.
(12) [Not to be confused with R. Judah in our Mishnah who is R. Judah b. Ila'i].
(13) R. Judah the Prince does not regard the firstling as mukzeh (Rashi).
(14) Of former generations.
(15) [The views of the Rabbis of former generations in which R. Simeon b. Yohai the teacher of R. Simeon b. Menasia is included].
(16) And it is not known whether the blemish was of a temporary nature or permanent.
(17) At the outset. But if it was examined, it may be slaughtered, since on the eve of the Festival it only lacked the expert's examination.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 26b
on the Festival, R. Simeon [b. Yohai] says: This is not mukan.1 But they agree that if it is born [on a Festival] with a blemish it is regarded as mukan.2
Rabbah son of R. Huna expounded: If it is born with a blemish one may examine it at the outset on a Festival. R. Nahman said to him: My father taught: If he transgressed and examined it, it is an examination,3 and you say one may examine it at the outset’!
Abaye said: The opinion of Rabbah son of R. Huna4 is more acceptable, for it [the previous Baraitha] teaches three cases: [viz.,] ‘If it received a blemish on the eve of the Festival you may not examine it on the Festival’; it is only at the outset that you may not [examine], but if it has been done it is well and good; ‘If it received a blemish on the Festival, R. Simeon says: This is not mukan’? i.e., even if it has been examined it still may not [be slaughtered]; and then it states, ‘But they agree that if it is born [on a Festival] with a blemish it is regarded as mukan’, [i.e.,] even at the very outset.5 But surely when R. Oshaia came he brought with him the following teaching: Whether it received the blemish on the eve of the Festival, or whether it received the blemish on the Festival, the Sages6 say: This is not regarded as mukan!7 But then there is a contradiction from the other [Baraitha]!8 — The author of that Baraitha is Adda b. Ucmi who blunders in his teaching.9 R. Nahman b. Isaac said: Our Mishnah also proves this;10 for it states: R. Simeon says: WHENEVER ITS BLEMISH WAS NOT OBSERVED ON THE DAY BEFORE THE FESTIVAL IT IS NOT MUKAN. What means ITS BLEMISH WAS NOT OBSERVED? If I were to say that no blemish was visible at all,11 [then] it is obvious; need this be taught?12 Therefore [it means] that it was not examined by an expert on the eve of the Festival whether it was a passing blemish or a permanent blemish. Nevertheless it teaches IT IS NOT MUKAN;13 understand therefrom [that it is so]. [R.] Hillel14 asked Raba: Does the law of mukzeh apply to a part15 of the Sabbath or not? How can such a contingency arise? If they [the fruit] were fit at twilight16 they were fit;17 and if [at twilight] they were not fit, then they are not fit!18 — It applies to a case where [at twilight] they were fit19 but afterwards became unfit20 and then again became fit.21 What is the law?22 He replied to him: The law of mukzeh applies. He raised an objection: ‘But they agree that if it is born with a blemish it is regarded as mukan’;23 but why? Let us say: This firstling was originally24 fit through its mother;25 when it was born, it became debarred [from use];26 on it being shown to an expert it became permitted!27 — Answered Abaye — some say, R. Safra: It means for example that the experts were present there [at the time of birth].28 Some teach: He replied to him: The law of mukzeh does not apply to a part of the Sabbath. Shall we say [the following] supports him? ‘But they agree that if it is born with a blemish it is regarded as mukan’; now this firstling was originally fit through its mother; when it was born, it became debarred [from use]; on its being shown to an expert it became permitted! — Answered Abaye — some say, R. Safra: It means for example that the experts were present there [at the time of birth].
Come and hear: If one was eating grapes [on a Sabbath] and left some over, which he carried up on the roof to make from them raisins; [or was eating] figs and left some over which he carried up on the roof to make from them dry figs, he may eat of them [on the Festival] only if he had designated them before the Festival;29 the same is true of peaches, quinces and other kinds of fruit.30 Now what are the circumstances? If they were fit,31 why must he designate [them]? If [on the other hand] they were not fit, [then] what even if he does designate them?32 And if you say that he did not know33 whether they were fit or not,34 surely R. Kahana said: [Fruits] set aside [for drying] which had dried [before the eve of the Festival] even if the owners did not know it, are permitted!35 Hence it must surely treat [of a case] where they were fit but [afterwards] became debarred from use and then again became fit, now if you maintain the law of mukzeh does not apply [to such a case] why is it necessary to designate them? — What then: the law of mukzeh does apply? Then what if he does designate them?36 — Rather it treats of a case where they were only half fit,37 some people eating them38 and some not; if he designated them, he made known his mind,39 [but] if he did not designate them he did not make known his mind. R. Zera said: Come and hear [an argument] from beans and lentils; for beans and lentils are in their raw state40 fit for chewing; by putting them in a pot [for cooking] they become inedible;41
(1) And even if an expert did examine it, it still may not be slaughtered. For the reason v. supra p. 132, n. 9.
(2) Since the firstling was never in a condition of prohibition but from its birth was ready for use.
(3) I.e., his decision is valid.
(4) That it may be examined at the outset.
(5) If it were otherwise this clause should have been coupled with the first clause.
(6) I.e., R. Simeon.
(7) So that it is still possible to maintain that the teaching with respect to the firstling being born with a blemish refers only to a case de facto. How could then Abaye support the opinion of Rabbah son of R. Huna in face of this Baraitha?
(8) Brought in support of Rabbah son of R. Huna. Which of these is the more authoritative?
(9) I.e., he is an unreliable authority.
(10) As supporting R. Oshaia.
(11) I.e., that it incurred no blemish at all.
(12) Even R. Judah, R. Simeon's disputant, would agree that it may not be slaughtered; for though he may hold that a blemish may be examined on a Festival, yet he maintains the law of mukzeh.
(13) Even in the case of de facto. Hence the last clause in the Baraitha ‘but they agree that if it is born with a blemish it is regarded as mukan’ also refers only to a case de facto.
(14) A fourth century Amora.
(15) חצי = moiety or a part.
(16) Just before the Sabbath commences.
(17) And there was no part of the Sabbath during which they became mukzeh.
(18) And are certainly forbidden. — The question whether something was fit or not is always decided by its state at twilight.
(19) When for example fruits such as figs or grapes have been set apart for drying, i.e., to become dry figs or raisins,
(during which process they are not edible) but at the commencement of the Sabbath the drying process had finished.
(20) Being swollen and puffed up by rain.
(21) The sun having dried them before the end of the Sabbath.
(22) Does the unfitness of part of the day render them mukzeh for the rest of the day?
(23) V. supra.
(24) I.e., at twilight.
(25) Through the slaughtering of the mother-animal the embryo, though a firstling, is permitted even if it is unblemished. V. Deut. XV, 19.
(26) Until an expert will establish the permanency of its blemish.
(27) Hence this animal too was forbidden for a part of the day, yet it is not accounted mukzeh for the rest of day.
(28) And immediately affirmed that it was a permanent blemish; hence at no time of the day was it mukzeh.
(29) That if he would set aside fruits on the Sabbath or Festival to be dried, he should be allowed to eat them after they were dried.
(30) V. Shab. 45a.
(31) I.e., at twilight.
(32) It is of no avail, for designation cannot change that which is mukzeh to mukan.
(33) At twilight.
(34) And as it was too much trouble for him to find out, he designated them by declaring, ‘I will eat them to-morrow if they are fit’.
(35) To be eaten without requiring any designation.
(36) Why should they be permitted, since the unfitness intervened later.
(37) Lit., ‘fit and not fit’.
(38) In this half fit condition.
(39) That for him they were fit.
(40) Lit., ‘originally’.
(41) So long as they are boiling. Lit., rejected (from use)’.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 27a
and when their cooking is finished they are [again] fit!1 — Said Abaye to him: Then according to your reasoning,2 cooked dishes in general present a difficulty; for usually dishes at twilight are seething3 and [yet] in the evening we eat them!4 But [the truth is] if they [can] become fit through human means, there is no question at all;5 our question6 is only when they become fit through heaven.7 R. Judah the Prince8 had a firstling and sent it [on the Festival] to R. Ammi.9 He however did not want to examine it. Said R. Zerika — some say, R. Jeremiah — to him: [In a dispute between] R. Judah and R. Simeon the halachah is as R. Judah!10 Afterwards he sent it to R. Isaac the Smith. He [too] did not want to examine it. Said R. Jeremiah — some say, R. Zerika — to him: [In a dispute between] R. Judah and R. Simeon the halachah is as R. Judah! Said R. Abba to him: Why did you not allow the Rabbis to act according to R. Simeon? He replied: What support have you?11 — He said to him: Thus did R. Zera say: The halachah is as R. Simeon. A certain person exclaimed: May it fall to my lot to go thither [Palestine] and learn this teaching from the mouth of the Master. When he came thither he met R. Zera and asked him: Did you, Sir, say the halachah is as R. Simeon? — He replied to him: No, I [only] said, his view is to be preferred; for since our Mishnah states: R. SIMEON SAYS: WHENEVER ITS BLEMISH WAS NOT OBSERVED BEFORE THE FESTIVAL IT IS NOT MUKAN; and the Baraitha teaches the same in the name of the Sages,12 it follows that his opinion is to be preferred. How then does the law stand? — Said R. Joseph: Come and hear; for it hangs on strong ropes;13 for R. Simeon b. Pazzi said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi in the name of R. Jose b. Saul in the name of Rabbi in the name of the Holy Congregation of Jerusaiem:14 R. Simeon [b. Menasiah] and his contemporaries have said: The halachah is as R. Meir. They15 have said! But these16 are much older17 than he!18 — Therefore [say], They taught it according to the opinion of R. Meir.19 For we have learnt: If one slaughtered a firstling and [only] afterwards showed its blemish [to an expert], R. Judah permits20 [it], but R. Meir says: Since it was slaughtered without the permission of an expert it is forbidden.21 Consequently R. Meir holds [that] the examination of a firstling is not like the examination of a trefa; [for] the examination of a firstling [must take place] during life, [but] the examination of a trefa [is done] after slaughtering. Hence [it follows that] the examination of a trefa [takes place] even on a Festival, [but] the examination of a firstling [must take place only] on the eve of the Festival.22 Abaye said to him: Do they23 then dispute there on the examining of blemishes [on a Festival]; [surely] they dispute whether he is to be penalized!24 For Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Johanan: In the case of a cataract,25 all agree that it [the animal] is forbidden, because it changes26 [after slaughter]. They differ only with respect to a blemish in the body,27 when R. Meir holds: We preventively prohibit a blemish in the body out of regard to a blemish in the eye;28 while R. Judah is of the opinion: We do not preventively prohibit! Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: The Mishnah also proves [this]. For it states: R. Meir says, Since it was slaughtered without the permission of an expert it is forbidden; conclude therefrom that [R. Meir merely] penalizes [him]. It is thus concluded.
Ammi of Wardenai29 used to examine the firstlings in the household of the Prince;30 one [a blemish] occurred on a Festival, and he did not examine it. They came and told [this] to R. Ammi, who told then,: He did right in not examining it. But it is not so! For R. Ammi himself did examine? — R. Ammi indeed examined it on the day before31
(1) Thus they are exactly parallel to the case under discussion, yet they are certainly permitted when cooked.
(2) That food on the boil is treated as mukzeh.
(3) And therefore unfit to be eaten.
(4) [Despite the well-established principle that whatever is mukzeh at twilight remains mukzeh for the whole Sabbath].
(5) About their becoming mukzeh through their momentary unfitness, Since it is in his power to make them fit — which explains why the beans and lentils as well as the cooked dishes referred to are not considered mukzeh.
(6) Whether mukzeh applies to a part of the Sabbath.
(7) I.e., through the heat of the sun over which he has no control.
(8) I.e., R. Judah II.
(9) To examine whether it had a permanent blemish so that it might be eaten by the priests who ate at the Prince's table.
(10) And R. Judah, in one instance, allows to examine blemishes on a Festival. V. ‘Er. 46b.
(11) To decide the halachah according to R. Simeon.
(12) R. Simeon's opinion is recorded in the Baraitha (supra 26b, ‘when R. Oshaia came etc.’) anonymously in the form of ‘the Sages say’ — this expression indicates that it is the majority ruling.
(13) An idiom meaning, ‘it is based on high authority’. The strong ropes are the great authorities. (Cf. the expression, ‘It is well moored.’) V. A.Z., Sonc. ed. p 34 n. 5. Aliter: High trees (v. Aruch).
(14) V. R.H., Sonc. ed., p. 80, n. 9.
(15) I.e., R. Simeon b. Menasiah and his contemporaries.
(16) The Rabbis who formed the Holy Congregation of Jerusalem.
(17) I.e., belong to an earlier generation.
(18) I.e. R. Simeon b. Menasiah. And it is very unusual for such to report a halachah in the name of a very young man.
(19) It is usual for older scholars to commend younger contemporaries by saying that their opinion coincides with the opinion of some great authority.
(20) To be eaten if the examination proves the blemish to be permanent.
(21) Even though the examination proved the blemish to be permanent. V. Bek. 28a.
(22) Because the examination of the firstling is the allimportant thing and may not be performed on a Festival. Hence R. Judah is in a minority against the opinions of R. Meir and R. Simeon b. Yohai.
(23) R. Meir and R. Judah.
(24) So that even R. Meir may hold that a blemish may be examined on a Festival.
(25) I.e., a skin on the pupil of the eye which gradually causes blindness.
(26) Had the animal been examined before it was slaughtered, the blemish would have appeared transitory, whilst after slaughter it appears permanent.
(27) Which does not vary with the slaughtering of the animal.
(28) And this preventive prohibition is really a penalty for having slaughtered it without permission of an expert.
(29) [On the Eastern Bank of the Tigris near Bagdad, Obermeyer p. 270.]
(30) [In Palestine where Ammi had settled.]
(31) The Festival to see whether the blemish was permanent.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 27b
and on the day of the Festival he only asked how it [the blemish] had come about; just as a certain man1 brought a firstling before Raba on the eve of a Festival towards evening. Raba was sitting and combing his head; he lifted up his eyes and looked at the blemish and said to him: Go now, and come to-morrow. When he came on the following day, he asked him: How did it happen? He replied: Barley was strewn on the one side of the hedge and it [the firstling] was on the other side. As it wanted to eat thereof, it stuck its head [through the hedge] and the hedge tore its lip.2 Said he to him: Perhaps you caused this intentionally? — He replied to him: No. And whence do you know that the intentional causing [of a blemish] renders it forbidden? — For it was taught: There shall not be any blemish therein,3 I only know that no blemish may be therein.4 Whence do I know that one may not indirectly cause [a blemish] to it through something, [for example] that he may not bring dough or pressed figs and put them on the ear in order that a dog may come and take it?5 The text says: ‘Not any blemish’. It says ‘blemish’ and it says ‘any blemish’.6
MISHNAH. IF A BEAST DIED [ON A FESTIVAL] IT MAY NOT BE MOVED FROM ITS PLACE. IT HAPPENED THEY ONCE ASKED R. TARFON CONCERNING THIS AND CONCERNING HALLAH7 THAT BECAME DEFILED;8 HE WENT INTO THE ACADEMY AND INQUIRED, AND THEY ANSWERED HIM: THEY MAY NOT BE MOVED FROM THEIR PLACE.
GEMARA. Shall it be said that we have learnt anonymously not as R. Simeon; for we have learnt: R. Simeon says: One may cut up gourds for cattle and a carcass9 for dogs. R. Judah says: If the animal was not yet dead on the eve of the Sabbath it is forbidden.10 — You can say it [the Mishnah] can even be as R. Simeon, [for] R. Simeon admits that living animals11 that died [on the Sabbath] are forbidden.12 This is ail very well according to Mar b. Amemar in the name of Raba, who said: R. Simeon admits that living animals that died [on the Sabbath] are forbidden.13 But according to Mar the son of R. Joseph in the name of Raba, who says: R. Simeon disputes even in the case of living animals which died [on the Sabbath, maintaining] that they are permitted, what is there to be said? — Ze'iri explained it with respect to a consecrated animal.14 [Our Mishnah] also proves this; for it teaches CONCERNING THIS AND CONCERNING HALLAH THAT BECAME DEFILED; just as hallah is consecrated, so is the animal [one that is] consecrated. Then the reason is that it was consecrated; but if [the animal was] not consecrated it is permitted;15 this is all very well according to Mar the son of R. Joseph in the name of Raba, who says: R. Simeon disputes even in the case of living animals which died [on the Sabbath, maintaining] that they are permitted. But according to Mar b. Amemar in the name of Raba who says: R. Simeon agrees that living animals which died [on the Sabbath] are forbidden, what is there to be said?16 — It treats here of an [animal] that had been in a dangerous condition [on the eve of the Festival], and it is according to the opinion of all.17
MISHNAH. ONE MAY NOT ON THE FESTIVAL BE COUNTED IN AS HAVING A SHARE IN THE ANIMAL18 AT THE OUTSET, BUT [PEOPLE] MAY BE COUNTED IN ON THE EVE OF THE FESTIVAL AS HAVING A SHARE IN THE ANIMAL, AND THEY SLAUGHTER IT19 AND DIVIDE IT BETWEEN THEM.20
GEMARA. What means ONE MAY NOT BE COUNTED IN AS HAVING A SHARE? — Said Rab Judah in the name of Samuel: One may not on a Festival, at the outset, arrange about the price of an animal.21 How should he do it?22 Said Rab: Let him23 bring two animals24 and place them side by side and say: ‘This one is like the other one’.25 It was Likewise taught:26 One may not say to his neighbour: ‘I want to go shares with you [in your animal] to the value of a sela’, I want to go shares with you to the value of two sela's’; but he may say. ‘I want to go shares with you for a half or for a third or for a fourth’.
(1) A priest.
(2) Which counts as a permanent blemish.
(3) Lev. XXII, 21.
(4) I.e., one may not make a blemish.
(5) And injure its ear.
(6) I.e., ‘blemish’ alone would have sufficed; ‘any’ (Heb. kol) is an extension and therefore includes even indirect action.
(7) V. Glos.
(8) Which may not even be used as fuel on a Festival.
(9) I.e., an animal that died on the Sabbath.
(10) V. supra 6b.
(11) I.e., animals that were healthy and strong at the beginning of the Sabbath.
(12) To be moved on the Sabbath. R. Simeon allows an animal to be cut up for dogs only if the same were in a dangerous condition on the eve of the Sabbath or Festival.
(13) V. Shab. 45b.
(14) Which is forbidden to be given to dogs, hence it may not be moved at all, since no use can be made of it.
(15) To cut it up for dogs on Sabbath.
(16) Whose opinion will our Mishnah represent.
(17) Since the owner reckoned on it dying, he intended to give it to the dogs; therefore it was mukan. [Var. lec. omit: ‘And it is according to . . . all’. I.e., the Mishnah which implies that the carcass of a non-consecrated animal that has been in a dangerous condition may be cut up on the Festival is in accordance with R. Simeon, v. Rashi. On the reading of cur. edd., the Mishnah can be also in accordance with R. Judah; for he would agree that, where it had been in a dangerous condition before the Festival, it may be cut up on the Festival, his dispute with R. Simeon concerning only an animal that had been ill but not dangerously so, v. R. Nissim.]
(18) In doing so, it would be like transacting business on a Festival, because they would know its weight and market value.
(19) On the Festival, leaving over the question of price etc. until after the Festival.
(20) [Rashi: ‘He (the butcher) slaughters it’].
(21) As it savours of transacting business. V. infra 37a.
(22) Referring to the second clause of the Mishnah. How do they divide it on a Festival so that they should know afterwards how much each received?
(23) [On Rashi's reading (p. 141, n. 7): ‘How should the butcher do to be able to fix the price after the festival’].
(24) Of equal value, only one of which is to be slaughtered and shared.
(25) And after the Festival they arrange the price of the one that was not slaughtered and pay their shares pro rata for the one that was slaughtered.
(26) That no price may be fixed on a Festival.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 28a
MISHNAH. R. JUDAH SAYS: A MAN MAY WEIGH MEAT [ON A FESTIVAL] AGAINST A UTENSIL OR AGAINST A BUTCHER'S CHOPPER;1 BUT THE SAGES SAY: ONE MAY NOT LOOK ON THE PAIR OF SCALES AT ALL.
GEMARA. What means [NOT] AT ALL? — Said Rab Judah in the name of Samuel: even to protect it [the flesh] from mice2 Said R. Idi b. Abin: This only applies if it [the scales] hang on a hook.3 Rab Judah in the name of Samuel further said: A skilled butcher may not weigh meat [on a Festival] even by hand.4 Rab Judah in the name of Samuel further said: A skilled butcher may not weigh meat [on a Festival] in water.5 Rab Hiyya b. Ashi said: One may not cut a handle in the meat.6 Said Rabina: But with the hand7 it is permitted [to make a handle]. R. Huna said: It is permitted to make a mark on the meat,8 just as Raba son of R. Huna was wont to cut it [the meat] in a triangular shape.9 R. Hiyya and R. Simeon b. Rabbi weighed one portion against [another] portion10 on the Festival.11 According to whom? It is neither according to R. Judah nor according to the Rabbis! For if according to R. Judah, Surely he says: A MAN MAY WEIGH MEAT [ON A FESTIVAL] AGAINST A UTENSIL OR AGAINST A BUTCHER'S CHOPPER; only against a utensil but not against any other thing!12 And if according to the Rabbis, surely they say: ONE MAY NOT LOOK ON THE PAIR OF SCALES AT ALL! — They acted as R. Joshua. For it was taught: R. Joshua says: One may weigh one portion [against] another portion on a Festival. Said R. Joseph: The halachah is as R. Joshua, since we learnt in [Tractate] Bekoroth in accordance with his view. For we have learnt: As to consecrated animals that became disqualified, the benefit of them belongs to the Temple,13 and one may weigh [the meat] portion against portion in the case of the firstling.14 Said Abaye to him: Perhaps it is not so?15 [Perhaps] R. Joshua says this16 only here17 where there is no disrespect to consecrated animals, but not there18 where there is a disrespect to consecrated animals. Alternatively, [perhaps] the Rabbis said this16 only there18 because it does not appear as everyday practice,19 but not here20 which appears like an ordinary transaction.21 Shall it be said that they22 were very particular [with each other]; but there were seven fishes brought to the house of Rabbi and [although] five of them were found in the house of R. Hiyya, yet R. Simeon b. Rabbi did not mind? — Answered R. Papa: Link a [different] person with each of them;23 either it was R. Hiyya and R. Ishmael son of R. Jose or it was R. Simeon b. Rabbi and Bar Kappara.
MISHNAH. ONE MAY NOT WHET A KNIFE ON A FESTIVAL,24 BUT ONE MAY DRAW IT OVER ANOTHER KNIFE25 [TO SHARPEN IT].
GEMARA. R. Huna said: They only taught this of a whet-stone, but it is permitted on a knife-board. Said Rab Judah in the name of Samuel: That which you say that on a [whet-]stone it is forbidden, applies only to sharpening it, but to remove its grease is permitted; whence it follows that on a knife-board even sharpening is permitted. Some taught this26 on the concluding part: ‘it is permitted on a [knife-]board’. — Said Rab Judah in the name of Samuel: That which you said that on a [knife-]board it is permitted, applies only to the removal of its grease, but to sharpen it is forbidden; whence it follows that on a whet-stone even to remove its grease is forbidden. Some taught this on our Mishnah: ONE MAY NOT WHET A KNIFE ON A FESTIVAL. Said Rab Judah in the name of Samuel: They only taught this with respect to sharpening it, but to remove its grease is permitted; whence it follows that to draw it over another knife is permitted even for the purpose of sharpening it. And others taught this on the concluding part [of our Mishnah]: BUT ONE MAY DRAW IT OVER ANOTHER KNIFE. Said Rab Judah in the name of Samuel: They only taught this with respect to removing its grease, but to sharpen it, is prohibited; whence it follows that on a whet-stone even to remove its grease is prohibited.
Who is the authority [of our Mishnah] that on a whet-stone it is forbidden? Said R. Hisda: It is not as R. Judah; for it was taught: The Festival is distinguished from the Sabbath only with respect to the preparing of food alone. R. Judah permits [on a Festival] even the preliminaries for the preparing of food.27 Raba said to R. Hisda: May we lecture in your name that the halachah is as R. Judah? — He replied to him: May it be [God's] will that you lecture all good things of this sort in my name. R. Nehemiah the son of R. Joseph said: I was standing [on a Festival] before Raba who
(1) Putting the meat in one pan of the scale and the utensil in the other. But actual weights may not be used, as it would look like doing business.
(2) Meat may not be put in scales even for that.
(3) It is then prohibited because it appears as if the meat is being weighed.
(4) Because he does the same during the week.
(5) The water being placed in a graduated vessel used for weighing meat by observing the displacement of the water.
(6) A hole by which it is handled.
(7) By digging the fingers into the meat.
(8) So that its ownership might not be mistaken.
(9) When he sent it by a messenger, in order that his household might recognize it, because meat temporarily lost from sight is prohibited. V. B.M. 23a, Sonc. ed. p, 146, n. 5.
(10) When they used to divide meat between them.
(11) In the two pans of a scale. This is not an everyday practice, therefore they held it is permitted.
(12) Such as one portion against another portion which he regards as an everyday practice.
(13) And therefore they may be sold even by weight.
(14) Though it may not be weighed with ordinary weights, because the benefit belongs not to the Temple but to the owner, yet weighing portion against portion is permitted. This proves that weighing portion against portion is not an everyday practice.
(15) Perhaps the two cases are not analogous, as has been assumed.
(16) That one may weigh portion against portion.
(17) In the case of a Festival.
(18) In the case of a firstling.
(19) Because one does not usually sell meat by employing another piece of meat as the weight, and the law of disqualified sacred animals refers to the sale of their meat.
(20) With respect to the division of the meat between the two Rabbis.
(21) For it is not unusual for divisions to be made in this manner and therefore they would forbid this on a Festival.
(22) R. Hiyya and R. Simeon b. Rabbi who divided the meat exactly between them.
(23) Do not say it was these two who were particular about having an equal share, but bring in somebody else.
(24) On a whet-stone.
(25) Because such a method is different from the everyday practice.
(26) Statement of Rab Judah.
(27) And sharpening a knife is such a preliminary.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 28b
was stropping a knife on the edge of a basket and I asked him: Do you, Sir, want to sharpen it or do you want to remove its grease? And he replied to me: To remove its grease. But it was clear to me that he was engaged in sharpening, only he was of the opinion: Thus is the halachah but one does not teach it [publicly].1
Abaye also related: I was standing before the Master2 who was stropping a knife on the edge of a mill and I asked him: Do you, Sir, want to sharpen it or do you want to remove its grease? — And he replied to me: To remove its grease. But it was clear to me that he was engaged in sharpening, but he was of the opinion, Thus is the halachah but one does not teach it [publicly]. The scholars asked: May one show a knife on a Festival to a sage?3 — R. Mari the son of R. Bizna permits, and the Rabbis forbid [it]; but R. Joseph says: A scholar may examine [a knife] for himself4 and lend it to another. R. Joseph further said: If a knife became blunt5 it may be sharpened on a Festival; and this applies only in the case when it can cut with difficulty.6 R. Hisda — some say, R. Joseph — lectured: With respect to a knife dented7 and a spit with the point broken off7 and the sweeping out of a stove and a pot range8 on a Festival we come to the dispute between R. Judah and the Rabbis. For it was taught: The Festival is distinguished from the Sabbath only with respect to the preparing of food alone. R. Judah permits even the preliminaries for the preparing of food. What is the reason of the first Tanna?9 Scripture says, ‘that alone may be done for you,’10 [only] ‘that’ but not the preliminaries [for the preparation]. And R. Judah? — The text says, ‘for you’ for you [means] for all your needs. And the first Tanna; surely it says ‘for you’?11 — He will reply to you: That [text] ‘for you’ [signifies] but not for a heathen. And the other;12 surely it also says ‘that [alone]’? — He will reply to you: ‘That’ is written and ‘for you’ is written, yet there is no contradiction; the one applies to preliminaries which can be performed before the Festival,13 and the other to preliminaries which cannot be performed before the Festival.14 Rab Judah in the name of Samuel said: One may not repair a bent spit on a Festival. This is obvious! — It [the teaching] is necessary even when one can straighten it with the hand.15
Rab Judah in Samuel's name further said: A spit which was used for roasting meat may not be handled on the Festival.16 R. Adda b. Ahabah said in the name of Malkio: He pulls it out [of the joint] and puts it in a corner.17 Said R. Hiyya b. Ashi in R. Huna's name: Providing there is as much as an olive of meat on it. Rabina says: It [the spit] may be handled even though there is no meat on it at all, for it is analogous to the case of a thorn in a public ground.18 R. Hanina19 son of R. Ikka said: [The teachings on] a spit,20 bondmaids,21 and hair-pits22 are by R. Malkio; whereas those on belorith-tresses,23 wood-ashes24 and cheese25 are by R. Malkia.26 R. Papa says: If referring to a Mishnah or a Baraitha27 it is [by] R. Malkia, [but] independent teachings28 are by R. Malkio; and as a mnemonic make use of: The Mishnah is queen.29 Wherein do they differ? They differ in regard to bondmaids.30 MISHNAH. A MAN MAY NOT SAY TO A BUTCHER, ‘WEIGH ME A DINAR'S WORTH OF MEAT’,31 BUT HE SLAUGHTERS [THE ANIMAL] AND SHARES IT AMONG THEM.32
GEMARA. What is he to do?33 — As
(1) So that people might not treat Festivals lightly.
(3) Before slaughtering the animal, the knife must be examined by a sage or an expert to assure that it is free from the slightest notch.
(4) At home.
(5) But there was no sign before the Festival that the knife needed sharpening.
(6) I.e., it was not badly blunt so that it would not require much sharpening; otherwise it is forbidden.
(7) On the Festival.
(8) I.e., sweeping out plaster which had fallen from its walls before the Festival, but which was only just noticed.
(9) I.e., the Rabbis.
(10) Ex. XII, 16. E.V. ‘by you’.
(11) Signifying ‘for all your needs’.
(12) R. Judah.
(13) Such ‘are forbidden as implied in ‘that’.
(14) Such are permitted as implied in ‘for you’.
(15) Without beating it on an anvil. I might think that that does not constitute work.
(16) I.e., it may not be taken out of the joint but the meat is carved from it on the spit; for the spit becomes mukzeh on account of its unseemliness.
(17) Thrust out of harm's way, but not taken there (Rashi).
(18) Which one may remove on a Sabbath, to prevent danger to the public, by carrying it repeatedly short distances, each of which is to be less than four cubits. Similarly the spit may be taken to a place where it can do no harm,. Cf. Shab. 42a.
(19) In the parallel passage in Mak. 21a. It is R. Nahman.
(20) Quoted above, allowing the greasy spit to be put into a corner.
(21) R. Eliezer says (in a Mishnah), even if a wife brought with her one hundred maids of her own, the husband can still insist on her doing work with wool on the ground that idleness is demoralizing. On this R. Malkio comments, the halachah is as R. Eliezer. V. Keth. 59b and 61b.
(22) In Nid. 52a R. Huna says that the two hairs proving puberty must be set in pitlets. On this R. Malkio comments that the pitlets alone even without the hairs are sufficient indication of puberty.
(23) In A.Z. 29a a Baraitha teaches that when an Israelite cuts the hair of a heathen, he should refrain from touching the top-tresses (or crown-lock) because these were usually consecrated to some deity. On this R. Malkia comments that the Israelite should begin to withdraw his hand at a distance of three fingers breadth on every side. On belorith V. Krauss. T.A. I., 645. Cf also Sanh., Sonc. ed. p. 114, n. 5.
(24) In Mak. 21a. R. Malkia says that it is prohibited to powder one's wound with burnt wood ash, because it gives the appearance of an incised imprint which is forbidden according to Lev. XIX, 28.
(25) In A.Z. 35b, R. Malkia, in a discussion why the cheese of a heathen is forbidden (in the Mishnah) says that it is forbidden because its surface is smeared with lard.
(26) The two names Malkio and Malkia can easily be interchanged, hence these two groups were given to assist the memory.
(27) Heb. Mathnitah.
(28) I.e., opinions and dicta heard from eminent teachers and reported by their disciples or visiting scholars as distinguished from what is taught in Mishnah and Baraitha.
(29) The name of the one associated with a Mishnah (and Baraitha) is R. Malkia which name closely resembles the Aramaic word for ‘queen’-malketha.
(30) According to R. Hanina it is attributed to R. Malkio, while according to R. Papa, since it has a reference to a Mishnah, it is attributed to R. Malkia.
(31) The mentioning of money is disallowed.
(32) Without mentioning money.
(33) In order to get the quantity he desires.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 29a
in Sura they say,1 ‘[Give me] a tirta2 or half a tirta’; in Naresh3 they say, ‘[Give me] a helka2 or half a helka; in Pumbeditha they say, ‘[Give me] an uzya2 or half an uzya’; in Nehar Pekod4 and in Matha Mehasia5 they say, [‘Give me] a rib'a2 or half a rib'a.
MISHNAH. A MAN MAY SAY [ON A FESTIVAL] TO HIS NEIGHBOUR, ‘FILL ME THIS VESSEL’, BUT NOT IN A MEASURE. R. JUDAH SAYS: IF IT WAS A MEASURING-VESSEL HE MAY NOT FILL IT. IT IS RELATED OF ABBA SAUL B. BATNITH THAT HE USED TO FILL UP HIS MEASURES ON THE EVE OF A FESTIVAL AND GIVE THEM TO HIS CUSTOMERS ON THE FESTIVAL. ABBA SAUL SAYS: HE USED TO DO SO DURING THE INTERMEDIARY DAYS OF A FESTIVAL6 TOO, ON ACCOUNT OF THE CLEARNESS OF MEASURE;7 BUT THE SAGES SAY: HE USED ALSO TO DO SO8 ON AN ORDINARY DAY FOR THE SAKE OF THE DRAINING OF THE MEASURES.9 GEMARA. What means BUT NOT IN A MEASURE? — Said Rab Judah in Samuel's name, But not in a vessel set aside as a measure; but one may fill a vessel held in reserve10 for measuring.11 Whereupon R. Judah said: One may not fill even a vessel held in reserve as a measure. This proves that where the joy of the Festival is concerned R. Judah is stringent and the Rabbis are lenient; but we know of them to the contrary! For we have learnt: R. Judah says: A man may weigh meat [on a Festival] against a utensil or a butcher's chopper, but the Sages say: One may not look on the pair of scales at all;12 which proves [that] R. Judah is lenient and the Rabbis are stringent! [Hence] there is a contradiction [in the rulings] of R. Judah and a contradiction [in the rulings] of the Rabbis! — R. Judah is not self-contradictory, [for] there13 [it treats of a vessel] not held in reserve as a measure,14 whereas here [it treats of a vessel] which is held in reserve as a measure. The Rabbis too are not self-contradictory, [for] there13 he acts as one acts on an ordinary day,15 [but] here he does not act as one acts on an ordinary day.16 Raba says: What means BUT NOT IN A MEASURE? [It is] that he may not mention to him the name of the measure;17 but one may fill a vessel appointed as a measure. Whereupon R. Judah said: One may not fill a vessel appointed as a measure. This proves that where the joy of the Festival is concerned R. Judah is stringent and the Rabbis are lenient, but we know of them to the contrary! For we have learnt: R. Judah says: A man may weigh meat [on a Festival] against a utensil or a butcher's chopper, but the Sages say: You may not look on the pair of scales at all, which [proves that] R. Judah is lenient and the Rabbis are stringent! [Hence] there is a contradiction [in the rulings] of R. Judah and a contradiction [in the rulings] of the Rabbis! — R. Judah is not self-contradictory, [for] there it is not appointed as a measure, [but] here it is appointed as a measure. The Rabbis too are not self-contradictory, [for] there he acts as one acts on an ordinary day, [but] here he does not act as one acts on an ordinary day; for People are accustomed to pass wine in a measuring-vessel and drink [therefrom].18
IT IS RELATED OF ABBA SAUL B. BATNITH. A Tanna taught: He also used to act thus during [the Intermediary Days of] a Festival on account of disturbing [study] in the Academy.19 Our Rabbis taught: He collected three hundred jugs of wine from the foam of the measures,20 and his associates collected three hundred jugs of oil from the drops of the measures,21 and they brought them to the treasurers [of the Temple] in Jerusalem,22 who said to them: There is no need for you to [do] this.23 They replied to them: We too will have none of it. They said to them: Since you act so stringently with yourselves then apply it to public purposes; for it was taught: If one robbed and he does not know whom he robbed,24 he must apply it to public purposes. What are such? — Said R. Hisda: Wells, ditches and grottos.25 R. Hisda took Rabana Ukba about and lectured:26 A man may not measure barley on a Festival and give it to his animal, but he may scoop up [with his hand] a kab-full or two kabs-full and give it to his animal without fear.27 And the baker may measure spices and put them in his pot so as not to spoil the dish.28 R. Jeremiah b. Abba said in Rab's name: A woman may measure flour on a Festival and make it up into dough in order that she may separate hallah29 generously, but Samuel says: It is forbidden. But the School of Samuel taught:30 It is permitted! — Said Abaye: Now that Samuel says: It is forbidden, and the School of Samuel taught: It is permitted,
(1) When asking for meat on a Festival.
(2) According to Rashi these terms are technical names of the pieces of meat which were carved for retailing. They had different names in different places.
(3) Identical with Nahras or Nahr-sar, on the canal of the same name, on the east bank of the Euphrates. Obermeyer, p. 307.
(4) West of Mehuza, identical with Nehar Malka, situated on the canal of the same name on the west bank of the Tigris. Obermeyer, pp. 273, 275.
(5) A suburb of Sura. V. Obermeyer, p. 297.
(6) The second (or third) to the sixth days of Passover and the second
(or third) to the seventh days of Tabernacles.
(7) So that the froth might settle, thus assuring correct measure, or that the sediment might remain in the measuring vessel. [Var. lec. omit: ON ACCOUNT...MEASURE, v. Rashi.]
(8) I.e., fill the measures a day before.
(9) Lit., ‘squeezing’, ‘wringing out’. He placed his measuring-vessels a-tilt over the vessels of the customers so that no drop should be left behind in the measuring-vessel.
(10) העומד למדה, Lit., ‘which stands for measuring’. [MS.M. העומד על, i.e., a vessel which has the capacity of a certain measure but not intended to be used for measuring, v. D.S.]
(11) In case the real measure is broken or lost; but as yet this reserve has never been used for the purpose.
(12) Supra 28a.
(13) In the case of weighing meat.
(14) The utensil and the hatchet are not vessels serving as weights.
(15) When the weights are not at hand the butcher often uses his implements as weights.
(16) For the new vessel was not yet regarded as a measure (Rashi). [This is difficult: On the reading of MS.M. (supra n. 1): For the vessel is not intended for measuring.]
(17) E.g., pints, quarts or gallons, but only ‘fill this vessel’.
(18) Therefore the filling of such a vessel has not at all the appearance of a sale.
(19) He filled up the measures during the night in order that he may be free to lecture on the day of the Festival. [This might be taken as supplementing the reason stated in the Mishnah: He filled them during the night so that he should not have to wait for the froth to settle and be free to lecture, v. Rashi and supra p. 148, n. 10.]
(20) By not removing the froth he saved so much on each measure. In that way he found that he had saved three hundred jugs full.
(21) By not leaving the measuring vessel to run out into the funnel.
(22) They thought it belonged to their customers. For the whole story cf. Buchler, Types, p. 144.
(23) I.e., to deliver this, since the purchasers have waived all claim thereto.
(24) To whom he wishes to make restitution.
(25) And thus provide water to the general public among whom the robbed person is to be found. Cf. B.K. 94b.
(26) אדבריה. V. Supra p. 111, n. 3.
(27) That he is desecrating the Festival thereby.
(28) Which might occur if he merely guessed at the measure.
(29) V. Glos.
(30) [Rashi: Like R. Hiyya and R. Oshaia, Samuel too had compiled a collection of Tannaitic teachings.]
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 29b
then Samuel's purpose is to inform us the halachah for actual practice.1 Our Rabbis taught: One may not [sift] flour a second time2 on a Festival. In the name of R. Papeus and R. Judah b. Bathyra they said: One may [sift it] a second time;3 but they agree that if a pebble or a splinter fell in, one may sift it again.
A tanna recited in the presence of Rabina: One may not [sift] flour a second time on a Festival, but if a pebble or a splinter fell in, he may pick it out with his hand. He said to him: All the more this is forbidden, because it is in the nature of selecting.4 Raba5 the son of R. Huna Zuti expounded at the gate of Nehardea: One may [sift] flour a second time on a Festival. R. Nahman said to them [his disciples]: Go and say to Abba,6 ‘Take your favours and throw them on thorns’;7 come and see how many sieves are being used in Nehardea. The wife of R. Joseph sifted flour on an inverted sieve.8 He said to her: Take notice that I want good bread.9 The wife of R. Ashi sifted flour on the top side of the table. Said R. Ashi: This my [wife] is the daughter of Rami b. Hama, and Rami b. Hama was a man of [pious] deeds, and unless she had seen this in the home of her parents, she would not have done it.
MISHNAH. A MAN MAY GO TO A SHOPKEEPER WHOM HE GENERALLY PATRONIZES10 AND SAY TO HIM: ‘GIVE ME [SO MANY] EGGS AND NUTS, AND STATING THE NUMBER; FOR THIS IS THE WAY OF A HOUSEHOLDER TO RECKON IN HIS OWN HOME.11
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: A man may go to a cattledealer whom he generally patronizes and say to him: Give me one kid or one lamb; to a butcher whom he generally patronizes and say to him: Give me one shoulder or one leg; to a poultry breeder whom he generally patronizes and say to him: Give me one dove or one pigeon; to a baker whom he generally patronizes and say to him: Give me one loaf or one roll; and to a shopkeeper whom he generally patronizes and say to him: Give me twenty eggs, or fifty nuts, or ten peaches, or five pomegranates, or one Ethrog; provided that he does not mention any measure.12 R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: Provided that he does not mention any sum of money.
MISHNAH. WHEN ONE TAKES JARS OF WINE FROM PLACE TO PLACE, HE MAY NOT CARRY THEM IN A BASKET OR IN A HAMPER,13 BUT HE MAY CARRY [THEM] ON HIS SHOULDER OR IN FRONT OF HIM. LIKEWISE, ONE WHO CARRIES STRAW MAY NOT LET THE BUNDLE [OF STRAW] HANG DOWN OVER HIS BACK, BUT MUST CARRY IT IN HIS HAND; AND ONE MAY START [USING] A HEAP OF STRAW,14
(1) Although theoretically it is permitted, still one should not decide accordingly. Cf. supra 28b.
(2) For this could have been done before the Festival.
(3) The sifting a second time is not considered work.
(4) Which is forbidden on Sabbaths and Festivals. Cf. Shab. 73a.
(5) Var. lec.: Rabbah.
(6) I.e.,to my colleague (Rashi). [Abba is a familiar appelation of Raba (Rabbah), whereby he could be addressed only by a colleague. As R. Nahman could hardly have been his colleague, preference is to be given to MS. M. which reads R. Hama, the head of the Nehardea School at the time; v. Hyman, Toledoth p. 1074].
(7) All know without this that it is allowed. Cf. B.K. 83a; B.M. 63b. V. Keth., Sonc. ed. p. 313, n. 7.
(8) In an unusual way.
(9) You can therefore sift it in the usual way.
(10) Who would trust him to settle the reckoning after the Festival. Lit., ‘with whom he is often’.
(11) Hence mentioning the number does not particularly give it the appearance of purchase.
(12) E.g., pints, quarts or gallons.
(13) For this is the usual way of carrying it.
(14) On a Festival even though he did not designate it before the Festival.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 30a
BUT [ONE MAY] NOT [START USING WOOD] FROM A PENT-HOUSE.1
GEMARA. A Tanna taught: If it is impossible [to carry it] in an unusual way,2 it is permitted [to carry in a basket or hamper]. Raba enacted in Mehuza: Whatever [load] one [usually] carries with a great effort,3 must be carried [on a Festival] on a carrying pole;4 whatever is [usually] carried on a carrying-pole is to be carried [on a Festival] by a yoke;4 whatever is [usually] carried by a yoke, is to be carried [on a Festival] by a hand-barrow;4 whatever is [usually] carried by a hand-barrow [on a Festival] a cloth is to be spread over it;5 but if it is impossible [to vary the usual procedure] it is permitted, for a Master said: If it is impossible [to carry it] in an unusual way it is permitted. R. Hanan b. Raba6 said to R. Ashi: Did the Rabbis say that on a Festival [every work] as far as possible should be done in an unusual way? But these [our] women fill their pitchers with water on a Festival without any alteration and we do not say anything to them! He replied to him: Because it is impossible [in any other way]. [For] how should it be done? If [a woman], who usually draws water in a large pitcher, should have to draw in a small pitcher, then she would have to do more walking!7 If [a woman], who [usually] draws in a small pitcher, should have to draw in a large pitcher, then you would increase her burden! Should she cover the vessel with a [wooden] lid, it might fall off and she will have to carry it!8 Should she bind it fast, it might become unfastened and she would be caused to tie it up again!9 Should she spread a cloth over it,10 it might become soaked in water and she be led to wring it out!11 Therefore, it is impossible [otherwise]. Raba son of R. Hanin said to Abaye: We have learnt: You may not clap the hands or slap the thighs or dance;12 and yet we indeed see that [people] do this and we do not take them to task! — He replied to him: And according to your opinion, that which Rabbah said: A man may not sit down at the entrance of the lehi13 lest an object should roll away and he come to carry it [four cubits in a public thoroughfare];14 yet there are these women who take their waterugs and go and sit at the entrance of an alley and we do not say anything to them! But let Israel [go their way]: it is better that they should err in ignorance than presumptuously;15 here also [I say], Let Israel go their way: it is better that they should err in ignorance than presumptuously. This, however, applies only to a Rabbinical [prohibition] but not to a Biblical [prohibition]. But it is not so; whether it [the prohibition] is Biblical or Rabbinical we do not tell them anything; for the additional time to the Day of Atonement is a Biblical injunction,16 yet people eat and drink until dusk and we do not say anything to them.
AND ONE MAY START [USING] A HEAP OF STRAW. Said R. Kahana: This proves that one may start using [wood] for the first time from a store [on a Festival]. With whom does that agree? With R. Simeon who does not hold [the law of] mukzeh. Then consider the last clause: BUT [ONE MAY] NOT [START USING STORED] WOOD FROM A PENT-HOUSE; this is in accordance with R. Judah who holds [the prohibition of] mukzeh. — We treat here of cedar and cypress wood which are mukzeh on account of monetary loss,17 where even R. Simeon agrees. Some recite this in reference to the last clause [thus]: BUT NOT FROM WOOD FROM A PENT-HOUSE. Said R. Kahana: This proves that one may not start using [wood] for the first time from a store [on a Festival]. With whom does that agree? With R. Judah who holds the prohibition of mukzeh. Then consider the first clause: ONE MAY START [USING] A HEAP OF STRAW; this is in in accordance with R. Simeon who does not hold mukzeh! — There it speaks of rotted straw.18 Rotted straw is indeed capable of being used for clay!19 — When there are thorns in it.20
(1) Lit., ‘which is in the mukzeh (stored away)’. The wood stored there is usually for building purposes and not for fuel, hence it is mukzeh.
(2) If e.g., he needs a great quantity.
(3) On a handspike.
(4) Commentators disagree about these terms. Cf. D.S. ad loc.
(5) Some kind of deviation, so that what is being carried is not seen.
(6) [R. Hanan b. Raba was no contemporary of R. Ashi and hence read with MS.M.: Raba b. Hanin said to Abaye.]
(7) She would have to go several times to draw the water to the amount she requires.
(8) [Var. lec.: It might break and she will carry the fragments, v. Ronsburg, Glosses].
(9) And it is forbidden to make a knot on a Festival, when the knot is in the nature of a repair.
(10) V. supra p. 153, n. 7.
(11) Which is forbidden.
(12) These are forbidden on a Festival as a preventive measure lest he fit up instruments of music. V. infra 36b.
(13) The post of an alley.
(14) Carrying in the alley is permitted, the post converting it by a legal fiction into a private residence. But carrying in the public thoroughfare is of course forbidden.
(15) And therefore we do not tell them this, since in any case they would go on doing the same thing.
(16) The injunction against eating, etc. commences a little before evening, and in Yom. 81b (q.v.) it is deduced that this addition is required by Scriptural law.
(17) They are too good to be used as fire-wood and are only intended for building purposes.
(18) Which being unfit for fodder is automatically intended as fuel, and therefore is not mukzeh.
(19) For building; hence it cannot be regarded as automatically intended for fuel.
(20) Which render it unfit for kneading into clay.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 30b
MISHNAH. ONE MAY NOT TAKE WOOD FROM A HUT BUT ONLY FROM [WHAT IS] ADJACENT TO IT.1
GEMARA. Why may he not [take wood] from the hut:2 because he thereby demolishes a tent!3 Then [if he takes it] from what is adjacent thereto he likewise demolishes a tent!4 — Said Rab Judah in Samuel's name: By the term adjacent understand adjacent to the walls.5 R. Menasiah says: You can even say that they are not adjacent to the walls,6 but this was taught with respect to [tied] bundles.7
R. Hiyya son of Joseph recited in the presence of R. Johanan: One may not take wood [on a Festival] from a hut but only from what is adjacent to it, and R. Simeon permits it. They agree, however, with respect to a Tabernacle on the Feast of Tabernacles that it is forbidden;8 but if he stipulated concerning it,9 everything depends upon his reservation.
‘And R. Simeon permits it;’ but surely he is pulling down a tent! — Answered R. Nahman b. Isaac: We treat here of a collapsed hut and R. Simeon follows his opinion, for he does not hold the prohibition of mukzeh.10 For it was taught: The oil left over in a lamp or in a dish11 is forbidden [to be used on Sabbath], but R. Simeon permits it.12 But what comparison is it? There the man sits and waits for the going out of the lamp,13 but here does then a man sit and wait for his hut to collapse? — Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: We treat here of a tottering hut, so that he had his mind set upon it since the day before.14
‘They agree, however, with respect to a Tabernacle on the Feast of Tabernacles that it is forbidden; but if he stipulated concerning it everything depends upon his reservation.’ Is then a stipulation concerning it of any avail? Surely R. Shesheth said on the authority of R. Akiba: Whence do we know that the wood of the Tabernacle is forbidden [for use] the entire seven days [of the Festival]? From the verse: [On the fifteenth day of the seventh month is] the feast of Tabernacles for seven days unto the Lord.15 And it was taught R. Judah b. Bathyra says: Whence do we know that just as the Festival offering bears the name of Heaven so also the Sukkah [Tabernacle] bears the name of Heaven: Because the text says ‘the feast [hag]16 of tabernacles for seven days unto the Lord’,15 just as the Festival offering is for the Lord17 so is the Sukkah for the Lord!18 Said R. Menasiah the son of Raba:19 The concluding clause20 refers to an ordinary hut,21 but the stipulation with respect to a Festival booth22 is of no avail. Yet is it not [valid] in the case of a Festival booth? Surely it was taught: If one covered it [the Festal booth] according to law and decorated it with hand-made carpets and tapestries, and hung therein nuts, almonds, peaches, pomegranates and bunches of grapes, vines, oils,23 and fine meal, and wreaths of ears of corn, it is forbidden to make use of them until the termination of the last day of the Festival; and if he stipulated thereon, everything depends upon his stipulation!24 — Abaye and Raba both say: This refers to one who says [before the Festival] ‘I will not stand aloof from them25 right through the period of twilight,’ so that the sanctity [of the Festival] did not fall upon them;26 but as to the wood of the Festival booth, since sanctity did fall upon it27 it becomes mukzeh for the entire seven days. But in what respect is this different from what was stated: If one set aside seven Ethrogim28 for the seven days of the Festival,29 Rab says, [After] fulfilling his obligation with each one [of them], they may be eaten immediately;30 and R. Assi says: [After] fulfilling his obligation with each one [of them] they may be eaten on the morrow?31 — There where the nights are separated from the days,32 each day is a separate obligation; but here where the nights are not separated from the days,33 all the [seven] days are regarded as one long day.
(1) The meaning of this is discussed in the Gemara.
(2) I.e., from its roof.
(3) Technically, removing part of a building is regarded as demolishing it.
(4) I.e., to the roof lying on top of it, The removal of that too or of part thereof also constitutes demolishing.
(5) But not built into and part of them; but the wood that lies on the roof, even though not built into the roof, is regarded as part of the covering of the roof.
(6) But adjacent to the roof, i.e., lying on the roof.
(7) Since they were not untied, we see that they were put there for storage, and not to form part of the roof.
(8) Even during the Intermediary days of the Festival.
(9) Before the Festival.
(10) The hut collapsed on the Festival. Now since it was standing just before the Festival commenced, it was then regarded as mukzeh, as it was forbidden then to remove part of it on account of the prohibition of demolishing. Hence the first Tanna holds that even when it collapses it remains forbidden as mukzeh. R. Simeon, however, does not accept the prohibition of mukzeh at all, hence it is permitted.
(11) I.e., a dish of oil placed near a lamp to act as a feed thereto.
(12) For while it was burning one might not remove any of the oil, as technically that constituted extinguishing. Hence the oil is regarded as mukzeh on account of a prohibition and remains forbidden even after the light goes out. R. Simeon permits it, because he rejects the prohibition of mukzeh. Shab. 44a.
(13) Lit., ‘when will his lamp go out’. He knows it will finally go out and therefore he intended to use the residue from the very beginning; hence R. Simeon does not regard it as mukzeh.
(14) I.e., He intended before the Festival that, should the hut collapse on the Festival, he would use its wood; hence it is quite analogous to the residue of the oil in the lamp or dish.
(15) Lev. XXIII, 34. I.e., the entire seven days, it is consecrated ‘unto the Lord’.
(16) The word חג is taken as חגיגה
(17) The animal becomes holy as soon as it was dedicated for a Festival offering.
(18) And may not be used. Hence this is a Biblical prohibition: surely a stipulation cannot nullify such!
(19) [Var. lec. Said R. Menasiah in the name of Samuel.]
(20) ‘If he stipulated, everything depends upon his reservation.’
(21) Which has collapsed on a Festival.
(22) Lit., ‘a booth of a precept’ — i.e., one erected in fulfilment of the scriptural law; v. Lev. XXIII, 42.
(23) I.e., decanters containing wine and oil.
(24) Here we see that the stipulation holds good.
(25) I.e., I accept no interdict in respect of them.
(26) Technically a Festival prohibition falls on an object at the immediately preceding twilight. Hence here he expressly stipulated that this should not happen; therefore it does not become mukzeh.
(27) The preceding stipulation would be of no avail here, since he could not take it at twilight on account of the prohibition of demolishing.
(28) V. Glos. s.v. Ethrog.
(29) One to be used for each day.
(30) Without having to wait till the end of the day. Cf. Suk. 46b. He holds that it was made mukzeh only in respect of that particular duty, and since that has been fulfilled, it is no longer mukzeh.
(31) Thus both agree that their prohibition does not extend to the entire Festival.
(32) The command to take an ethrog (v. Lev. XXIII, 40) has reference only to the day.
(33) Since the precept of dwelling in booths applies to the nights just as well as to the days.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 31a
MISHNAH. ONE MAY BRING IN FROM THE FIELD [FIRE-] WOOD THAT IS GATHERED TOGETHER,1 AND FROM A KARPIF [AN ENCLOSURE] EVEN THOUGH IT IS SCATTERED ABOUT.2 WHAT IS A KARPIF? ANY [ENCLOSURE] ADJOINING THE TOWN; THIS IS THE OPINION OF R. JUDAH. R. JOSE SAYS: ANY [ENCLOSURE] WHICH ONE ENTERS WITH A KEY,3 EVEN IF IT IS [ONLY JUST] WITHIN A SABBATH TEHUM. GEMARA. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: You may take wood only from a collected pile in an enclosure. But we have learnt: FROM AN ENCLOSURE EVEN THOUGH IT IS SCATTERED ABOUT! — Our Mishnah represents the opinion of an individual; for it was taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel do not differ [both agreeing] that one may not take in [wood] that was scattered in the field, and that one may take in [wood] that was piled up in an enclosure; they differ only with respect to scattered [wood] in an enclosure and collected [wood] in a field, when Beth Shammai say: He may not take thereof, and Beth Hillel say: He may take thereof.4
Said Raba: Leaves of shrubs and leaves of the vine-shoots even though they lie in a heap are forbidden, for since if a wind rises it scatters them, they are regarded as if they are scattered. But if he laid a garment over them the previous day,5 it is well.6
WHAT IS A KARPIF etc.? The scholars asked: What does it mean? [Does it mean], ‘Any [enclosure] adjoining the town providing, however, it has a way of entering by a key; whereas R. Jose comes to teach: Since it has a way of entering by a key, even if [only just] within a Sabbath tehum, it is still [a karpif]; or this is perhaps what it means: ‘Any [enclosure] adjoining the town whether it has a way of entering by a key or not; and R. Jose comes to teach: Even if [only just] within a Sabbath tehum [it is a karpif] but only if it has a way of entering by a key; if, however, it has no way of entering by a key it is not [a karpif] even though [the enclosure] adjoins the town? — Come and hear: Since it [the Mishnah] teaches: ‘R. JOSE SAYS: ANY [ENCLOSURE] WHICH ONE ENTERS WITH A KEY, EVEN IF [ONLY JUST] WITHIN A SABBATH TEHUM’, understand therefrom that R. Jose teaches a twofold leniency.7 R. Salla said in the name of Jeremiah: The halachah is as R. Jose in the direction of leniency. MISHNAH. ONE MAY NOT CHOP UP FIREWOOD FROM BEAMS NOR FROM A BEAM WHICH WAS BROKEN ON A FESTIVAL;8 AND ONE MAY NOT CHOP EITHER WITH AN AXE OR WITH A SAW OR WITH A SICKLE BUT ONLY WITH A [BUTCHER'S] CHOPPER.
(1) The wood was piled up before the Festival for that purpose, so that strangers might not take it away.
(2) For even then we may assume that he intended to use it, but did not trouble to collect it because it was enclosed and so guarded.
(3) Lit., ‘a padlocked entrance’.
(4) But the majority of the Rabbis differ and hold that Beth Hillel forbids the taking of scattered wood even from an enclosure.
(5) To keep the wind from scattering them.
(6) For it shows that he intended before the Festival to use them for firewood.
(7) If the enclosure is adjacent to the city there is no need to have an entrance by a key, and if it can be entered by means of a key it is regarded as a karpif even though it is distant from the city to the extent of a tehum.
(8) V. supra 2b.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 31b
But you say [in] the first clause, ONE MAY NOT CHOP UP [WOOD] at all! — Answered Rab Judah in the name of Samuel: There is a lacuna and must be taught thus: ONE MAY NOT CHOP UP FIREWOOD FROM a layer of BEAMS1 NOR FROM A BEAM WHICH WAS BROKEN ON A FESTIVAL; but one may chop up [firewood] from a beam which was broken before the Festival; and when one chops up, ONE MAY NOT CHOP EITHER WITH AN AXE OR WITH A SAW OR WITH A SICKLE BUT ONLY WITH A [BUTCHER'S] CHOPPER.
We have likewise learnt: One may not chop up firewood from a layer of beams nor from a beam which was broken on a Festival, because it was not mukan..
BUT NOT WITH AN AXE. R. Hinena b. Salmia said in Rab's name: They taught this only of its broad end; but with its narrow end2 it is permitted. This is obvious: we have learnt: [BUT ONLY] WITH A [BUTCHER'S] CHOPPER!3 — You might say: This applies to a chopper only, but as for a combined axe and chopper,4 I might say, Since this side is forbidden the other side too is forbidden, so he informs us [that it is not so].
Some teach this with respect to the latter clause: BUT ONLY WITH A [BUTCHER'S] CHOPPER. R. Hinena b. Salmia said in Rab's name: They taught this only of its narrow end, but with its broad end it is prohibited. This is obvious; we have learnt: ONE MAY NOT [CHOP] WITH AN AXE! — You might say: This applies only to an axe alone; but as for a combined chopper and axe, I might say: Since this end is permitted, the other end too is permitted,’ so he informs us [that it is not so].
MISHNAH. IF A [CLOSED] ROOM FULL OF PRODUCE WAS BURST OPEN5 [ON A FESTIVAL] HE MAY TAKE [THE PRODUCE] OUT THROUGH THE BREACH.6 R. MEIR SAYS: HE MAY MAKE A HOLE AT THE OUTSET AND BRING OUT [THE PRODUCE].
GEMARA. Why so? He is indeed pulling down a tent! — Said R. Nahumi b. Adda in the name of Samuel: It treats here of a layer of bricks.7 But it is not so, for R. Nahman said: Bricks left over from a building may be moved on Sabbath, because they are fit for sitting on;8 but if he put them in layers one upon the other, he has certainly determined them for something else! Said R. Zera: They said this9 with respect to a Festival but not with respect to Sabbath. We have likewise learnt: R. Meir says: He may make a hole at the outset and take out; they said this with respect to a Festival but not with respect to Sabbath. Samuel said: One may loosen the knots10 in the ground11 but one may not unravel nor cut12 [the rope]; [the knots in the doors] of utensils, one may loosen and unravel and cut,13 whether on a Sabbath or a Festival. They raised an objection: One may loosen the knots in the ground on the Sabbath but one may not unravel nor cut; but on a Festival one may loosen and unravel and cut! — This represents the view of R. Meir, who says: He may make a hole at the outset and bring out [the produce] but the Rabbis dispute with him, and I say this according to the Rabbis. Do then the Rabbis dispute with him with respect to knots in the ground? Surely it was taught: The Sages agree with R. Meir with respect to knots in the ground that on Sabbath one may loosen but one may not unravel nor cut, while on a Festival one may loosen and unravel and cut!
(1) Because the beams were stored for building purposes and not for firewood.
(2) Lit., ‘its feminine side’ . . . ‘its masculine side’.
(3) This usually has no broad, sharp side.
(4) I.e., where one side is broad, like an axe, and the other narrow, like a butcher's chopper — presumably the choppers were made thus, not like ours nowadays.
(5) I.e., some of the bricks fell out through the pressure.
(6) The produce is not regarded as mukzeh though he would not have been able to get at them had the room not burst open.
(7) Lying loose one upon the other and not built in with mortar.
(8) Hence rank as utensils. — An object not ranking as a utensil may not be handled on the Sabbath.
(9) Viz., the law in our Mishnah.
(10) Lit., ‘seals’.
(11) I. e., the knot in the cord which fastens the door to the rafter to keep it tight and which also points out the trap-door in the floor.
(12) For this would be in the nature of pulling down.
(13) For the law of pulling down does not apply to utensils.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 32a
— He1 ruled as the following Tanna. For It was taught: One may loosen the knots in the ground, but one may not unravel nor cut, whether on a Sabbath or on a Festival; but as to those of utensils — on a Sabbath one may loosen but one may not unravel nor cut; on a Festival one may loosen and unravel and cut. You have justified the first clause; but there is a contradiction from the concluding clause!2 — This represents the opinion of R. Nehemiah who says: All utensils may not be handled except for their normal use.3 If it is R. Nehemiah, why particularly the Sabbath; the same holds good even on a Festival! And if you say that R. Nehemiah makes a distinction between a shebuth4 of the Sabbath and a shebuth of a Festival,5 [I would object], Does he then make a distinction? For one [Baraitha] teaches: One may kindle a fire [on a Festival] with utensils,6 but one may not kindle a fire with fragments of utensils;7 and another [Baraitha] teaches: One may kindle a fire with both utensils and fragments of utensils; and [still] another [Baraitha] teaches: One may not kindle either with utensils or with broken pieces of utensils; and we explained, there is no contradiction: One is according to R. Judah, the other is according to R. Simeon, and the third is according to R. Nehemiah!8 — Two Tannaim dispute about the opinion of R. Nehemiah.9
MISHNAH. ONE MAY NOT HOLLOW OUT A LAMP10 [ON A FESTIVAL], BECAUSE HE WOULD BE MAKING A UTENSIL; AND ONE MAY NOT MAKE CHARCOAL11 ON A FESTIVAL, NOR CUT A WICK IN TWO. R. JUDAH SAYS: ONE MAY SEVER IT WITH A FLAME.
GEMARA. Who teaches that the hollowing out of a lamp constitutes [making] a utensil?12 — Said R. Joseph: It is R. Meir; for it was taught: When is a clay vessel susceptible to defilement? As soon as its form is finished;13 this is the opinion of R. Meir. R. Joshua says: As soon as it is baked in the furnace. Said Abaye to him: Whence does this follow? Perhaps R. Meir is of this opinion only there, because they [the vessels] are fit for receiving things;14 but here15 for what is it fit? — For receiving copper coins.
Some say: Said R. Joseph: It is R. Eliezer son of R. Zadok: For we have learnt: Ironian16 stewpots do not contract defilement when under the same roof as a corpse, but they become defiled if they are carried by one who has an issue.17 R. Eliezer son of R. Zadok says: They are undefiled even if they are carried by one who has an issue, because they are not yet finished in the making.18 Said Abaye to him: Perhaps R. Eliezer son of R. Zadok is of this opinion only there, because they [the stewpots] are fit for receiving things;19 but here for what is it fit? — For receiving copper coins.
Our Rabbis taught: One may not holiow out a lamp and one may not make Ironian stewpots on a Festival. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel permits Ironian stewpots. What means Ironian? — Said Rab Judah: Provincial. What means ‘provincial’? — Said Abaye: Peasants’ trenchers.20
AND ONE MAY NOT MAKE CHARCOAL. This is obvious; for what is it fit?21 — R. Hiyya taught: This is necessary to be taught only with respect to handing them over to the bath attendants on the same day.22 Is it then permissible [for such use] on that day?23 — As Raba explained [elsewhere]: Where it is for perspiring,24 and before the prohibition,25 so also here [it treats of a case] of perspiring and before the prohibition.
NOR CUT A WICK IN TWO [etc.]: Why not with a knife —
(1) R. Samuel who forbids unravelling even on a Festival.
(2) According to the concluding clause one may in the case of vessels only loosen on a Sabbath, whereas Samuel permits even unravelling and cutting too.
(3) Hence, though the cutting is permitted in itself, a knife may not be handled for that purpose. But Samuel disagrees with R. Nehemiah in this.
(4) V. Glos.
(5) Treating the latter less rigorously than the former and consequently the said restriction does not apply to a Festival.
(6) Since being utensils they may be handled, they may also be used for burning.
(7) Being fragments, they may not be handled normally; and though fit for fuel (which under other circumstances would permit them to be handled), this is discounted, since they were not intended for this before the Festival.
(8) R. Judah who holds the prohibition of mukzeh, forbids fragments as fuel; R. Simeon who rejects this prohibition, permits them, while R. Nehemiah, holding that utensils may be handled for their normal use only, forbids even whole utensils This proves that R. Nehemiah's ruling applies to Festivals too.
(9) One holding that he draws a distinction in respect of his ruling between the Sabbath and Festivals; the other, that he does not.
(10) By pressing in the finger into a lump of clay.
(11) This too is technically regarded as a utensil for goldsmiths.
(12) Although the clay is not yet baked in the furnace.
(13) I.e., hollowed out, even before it is hardened in the furnace.
(14) I.e., dry objects, even though they were unfit for liquids.
(15) Being unbaked, it cannot take oil for lighting, as it will soak into it; while it is too small for ordinary dry objects.
(16) For V.L. cf. D.S. The correct reading as well as the exact meaning of this term is uncertain. The Talmud (infra) explains it in the sense of provincial, coarse and unfinished. V. ‘Ed., Sonc. ed. p. 12, n. 9. According to the Commentaries, this stewpot was fashioned like a hollow ball and thus baked in the kiln and afterwards cut into two. Undivided it cannot become unclean through a dead body because the inner space is enclosed and a clay vessel must have a hollow before it can receive defilement. (Cf. Num. XIX, 15).
(17) Cf. Lev. XV, 4 and 12, where a hollow in the vessel is not required.
(18) Viz., their hollowing out, and are therefore not considered utensils. ‘Ed. II, 5. Hence we see that the hollowing out constitutes the making of a utensil, and the same holds good in the Mishnah.
(19) When they are hollowed out.
(20) Which are coarse and unfinished.
(21) They can only be used on the same day for manufacturing works which are forbidden on a Festival.
(22) For the preparation of the bath water.
(23) The Rabbis distinctly forbade taking baths both on Sabbath and Festivals. Cf. Shab. 38a.
(24) Not actually bathing.
(25) Of such perspiring on Sabbath and Festivals. Cf. Shab. 40a.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 32b
because he thereby makes an article;1 then by [severing it] with fire he is also making an article? — R. Hiyya taught: He may sever it with fire [when the wick is] in two lamps.2
Said R. Nathan b. Abba in the name of Rab: One may trim the wick on a Festival. What is meant by trimming? Said R. Hanina b. Salmia [in Rab's name]: To remove the snuff.
Bar Kappara taught: Six things have been taught with respect to a wick, three restrictions and three leniencies. The restrictions are: One may not plait it at the outset on a Festival, and one may not singe it with fire,3 and one may not cut it in two. Leniencies: One may rub it by hand,4 and one may soak it in oil, and one may sever it with fire when it is in two lamps.
R. Nathan b. Abba further said in the name of Rab: The rich men of Babylon will go down to Gehenna; for once Shabthai b. Marinus came to Babylon and entreated them to provide him with facilities for trading and they refused this to him; neither did they give him any food. He said: These are the descendants of the ‘mixed multitude’,5 for it is written, And [He will] show thee mercy and have compassion upon thee,6 [teaching that] whoever is merciful to his fellow-men is certainly of the children of our father Abraham, and whosoever is not merciful to his fellow-men is certainly not of the children of our father Abraham.7
R. Nathan b. Abba further said in the name of Rab: He who is dependent on another's table, the world is dark to him, for it is said: He wandereth abroad for bread. ‘Where is it?’ He knoweth that the day of darkness is ready at his hand.8 R. Hisda says: Also his life is no life.
Our Rabbis taught: There are three whose life is no life and they are: He who is dependent on the table of his neighbour; he whom his wife rules; and he whose body is subject to suffering. And some say: Also he who possesses only one shirt.9 And the first Tanna? — It is possible to examine his garment.10
MISHNAH. ONE MAY NOT BREAK UP A POTSHERD OR CUT PAPER IN ORDER TO ROAST THEREON SALT-FISH;11 NOR MAY ONE RAKE OUT AN OVEN OR A POT RANGE,12 BUT ONE MAY PRESS [THE ASHES] DOWN;13 NOR MAY ONE PLACE TWO JARS SIDE BY SIDE IN ORDER TO SET A SAUCEPAN ON THEM.14 NOR MAY ONE PROP UP A POT WITH A WOODEN WEDGE AND THE SAME APPLIES TO A DOOR; NOR MAY ONE DRIVE CATTLE WITH A STAFF ON A FESTIVAL, BUT R. ELEAZAR SON OF R. SIMEON PERMITS IT.
GEMARA. What is the reason [that one may not break Up a potsherd]? — Because he is making a [new] article.15
NOR MAY ONE RAKE OUT AN OVEN OR A POT RANGE. R. Hiyya b. Joseph recited in the presence of R. Nahman: If it is impossible to bake unless it is raked out it is permitted. A brick fell down in R. Hiyya's wife's oven on a Festival. [So] R. Hiyya said to her: Take notice that I want good bread.16 Raba said to is attendant: Roast a duck for me and mind it does not get burnt.16 Rabina said to R. Ashi: R. Aha from Huzal17 told that they pasted up the oven18 for you, Sir, on a Festival!19 He replied to him: We use20 [the clay from] the bank of the Euphrates,21 and even then only when one had marked out [the clay] on the previous day. Said Rabina: Ashes are permitted.22
NOR MAY ONE PLACE TWO JARS SIDE BY SIDE: Said R. Nahman: It is permissible to arrange the stones of a privy side by side on a Festival.23 Rabbah raised an objection to R. Nahman: ONE MAY NOT PLACE TWO JARS SIDE BY SIDE AND ON THESE SET A SAUCEPAN! — He replied to him: It is different there, for he is making a tent.24 Rabbah Zuta said to R. Ashi: Accordingly it should also be permitted to build a seat25 on a Festival, since he is not making a tent! — He replied to him: There the Torah forbade a permanent building but not a temporary building, but the Rabbis forbade a temporary building on account of a permanent building; but here26 the Rabbis did not enact this prohibition, for the sake of his dignity.
Rab Judah said: It is permitted [to build] a fireheap from above downwards but not from beneath upwards.27
(1) Out of one wick he makes two.
(2) If the two ends of the wick are two lamps he may light it in the middle, since his purpose does not appear to be to divide it but rather to get a light.
(3) To remove any threads or fibres.
(4) To soften it.
(5) Cf. Ex. XII, 38.
(6) Deut. XIII, 18.
(7) The verse ends: as He hath sworn unto thy fathers. Now he translates the part quoted thus: and He will give thee (the spirit of) mercy — i.e., to be merciful to others. Hence, of the person who possesses that, it can be said . . . ‘unto thy fathers’, viz., the Patriarchs; but if one lacks it, ‘Unto thy fathers’ cannot be said of him, and so he must be a descendant of the mixed multitude.
(8) Job XV, 23.
(9) Because he is distressed by vermin.
(10) To cleanse it from vermin.
(11) Which must not lie on the metal of the tripod, as it would be burnt.
(12) If some of its plaster peeled and fell into it. It must not be raked out, as that would constitute the repairing of a utensil.
(13) So that the dough which was pressed to the side of the oven (this was the ancient method of baking) should not come into contact with the old ashes or earth.
(14) Because it looks like setting up a tripod and is in the nature of building.
(15) The broken potsherd is now to serve as a utensil for preventing burning.
(16) I.e., have the oven raked out.
(17) A place between Nehardea and Sura; Obermeyer op. cit. p. 299. V. Keth., Sonc. ed. p. 716, n. 7.
(18) I.e., they filled up the cracks in the oven making it airtight.
(19) But surely mixing the cement for that purpose is forbidden, as a derivative of kneading. V. Shab. 73a.
(20) Lit., ‘we rely’.
(21) The alluvial soil of the bank of the Euphrates is like clay and no further preparation is required. [R. Ashi's home was Matha Mehasia on the right bank of the Euphrates.]
(22) To be mixed with water and used for making the oven airtight, because ‘kneading’ does not apply to ashes.
(23) Two large stones were put side by side, thus forming a kind of seat.
(24) In a technical sense.
(25) אצטבא is a solid seat standing on the ground. Since there is no empty space beneath its top, it does not constitute a tent.
(26) In the case of a privy.
(27) I.e., one may not lay two logs of wood near one another and lay a third above it, since this resembles the building of a tent. He must therefore hold up one log and lay two underneath.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 33a
The same is true also of an egg, a pot, a bed and a jug.1
NOR MAY ONE PROP UP A POT WITH A WOODEN WEDGE AND LIKEWISE WITH A DOOR. Can you possibly mean WITH A DOOR.2 — Say rather: And the same applies to a door.3
Our Rabbis taught: One may not prop up a pot with a wooden wedge and the same applies to a door, for wood is meant [as a rule] only for heating;4 but R. Simeon permits it. Nor may one drive cattle with a staff on a Festival, but R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon permits it. Shall it be said that R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon agrees with his father in rejecting [the prohibition of] mukzeh? — No; in this case even R. Simeon agrees,5 for it looks as though he were going to market.6
Bamboo-cane, R. Nahman forbids7 and R. Shesheth permits. When it is moist none dispute that it is forbidden;8 they [only] dispute when it is dry; he who forbids it says: Wood is made to serve only for kindling;9 he who permits it says, It is one and the same thing whether roasting with it [used as a spit] or whether roasting with its coal.10 Some say: When it is dry none dispute that it is permitted; they [only] dispute when it is moist; he who forbids [it,] it is because it is not fit for fuel,11 and he who permits [it] says, It is fit for a big fire. And the law is: When it is dry it is permitted, when it is moist it is forbidden.
Raba lectured: A woman may not go into a wood-shed to fetch therefrom a brand;12 and a log of wood that was broken [on a Festival] may not be burnt on the Festival, for one may heat with utensils but one may not heat with broken utensils. Shall it be said that Raba is of the same opinion as R. Judah who holds the rule of mukzeh? But surely Raba said to his attendant: Roast me a duck and throw its inwards to the cat!13 — There [it is different]; since they [the inwards] turn putrid, he had intended them [for the cat] from the day before.14
MISHNAH. R. ELIEZER SAYS: A MAN MAY TAKE A CHIP FROM THAT WHICH IS LYING BEFORE HIM15 TO PICK HIS TEETH WITH IT, AND HE MAY COLLECT [CHIPS] FROM THE COURT YARD AND MAKE A FIRE, FOR EVERYTHING IN A COURT IS MUKAN. BUT THE SAGES SAY: HE MAY COLLECT ONLY FROM THAT WHICH IS BEFORE HIM AND MAKE A FIRE. ONE MAY NOT PRODUCE FIRE EITHER FROM WOOD,16 OR FROM STONES,17 OR FROM EARTH,18 OR FROM TILES,19 OR FROM WATER;20 NOR MAY ONE MAKE TILES RED-HOT IN ORDER TO ROAST ON THEM.
GEMARA. Rab Judah said:
(1) When an egg is to be placed on a tripod for baking, the tripod must not be placed on the fire and the egg on it, but it must be held in the hand, the egg placed on it, and then the whole on the fire. — A pot was placed on two barrels with a fire burning underneath. These barrels, however, must not be placed in position first, but the pot must be held in the air and then the barrels put underneath. — Folding beds are likewise: instead of the supports being placed first and then the canvas or skin overlay, as usual, the canvas must be stretched out first and the supports fitted in to it. Finally, when barrels are being stored away, One on top of two, the top one must be held and the other two pushed under it. In each case the usual mode of setting would constitute making a tent.
(2) It was presumed that it means ‘the door may not be used as a prop’.
(3) Viz., a door may not be propped up with a chip. The Mishnah therefore must be translated: And it is likewise so in the case of a door.
(4) Hence it is mukzeh in respect of any other purpose.
(5) That it is prohibited.
(6) Lit., ‘to a dance’, so called because of the crowds assembled at the market.
(7) To be used as a spit on a Festival, on account of mukzeh, for it was not intended before the Festival to use it as a spit.
(8) For it cannot then be used even for eating.
(9) Hence it is mukzeh in respect of any other purpose.
(10) For it is permissible to burn it and use its charcoal for roasting.
(11) Hence it cannot be handled for its natural purpose, and therefore it must not be handled for any other purpose either.
(12) To be used for a poker. For wood can only be employed for kindling and cannot be used as a utensil unless it was so intended before the Festival.
(13) Whereas according to R. Judah the inwards should be forbidden to be handled as mukzeh. Cf. supra 2a, 27b.
(14) Hence R. Judah would agree that the inwards are not mukzeh.
(15) I.e., in the house.
(16) By rubbing two sticks together, because this would be bringing into existence something which was not already made.
(17) By striking flint with steel,
(18) Sulphur or phosphorus.
(19) This clause is omitted in the Mishnayoth.
(20) By using the water in a glass as a mirror to focus the rays of the sun.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 33b
[The prohibition] of making a utensil does not apply to cattle fodder.1 R. Kahana raised an objection to Rab Judah: One may carry about spice-wood for smelling or in order to fan a sick person with it; and he may rub it and smell it but he may not cut off [a piece] in order to smell it;2 and if he did cut off [a piece] he is not culpable, although it is forbidden; he may not cut off [a piece] in order to pick his teeth, but if he did cut off he is liable to a sin-offering!3 — He replied to him: If [the Baraitha had taught that] ‘he is not culpable, yet it is forbidden’, even that would contradict me; how much more so when it states ‘he is liable for a sin-offering’; but that [Baraitha] was taught with respect to hard [spice-wood].4 But is hard [spicewood] capable of being rubbed! — There is a lacuna and must be taught as follows: ‘He may rub it and smell it and he may cut off [a piece] and smell it’. This only applies to soft spice-wood, but he may not cut hard [spice-wood], and if he does cut it, he is not culpable, although it is forbidden; he may not cut off [a piece] in order to pick his teeth, but if he does cut off he is liable to a sin-offering. One [Baraitha] teaches: He may cut off [a piece] and smell it; and another [Baraitha] teaches: He may not cut off in order to smell thereof? — Said R. Zera in the name of R. Hisda: There is no contradiction; one refers to soft [spice-wood]; the other, to hard. To this R. Aha b. Jacob demurred: Why [may he] not [cut off] from hard [spice-wood]?5 In what respect is this different from what we learnt: A man may break open a cask in order to eat of its dry figs, provided that he does not intend to make a utensil [of it].6 And furthermore, Raba son of R. Adda and Rabin son of R. Adda have both related: When we were staying with Rab Judah he broke a branch off7 and gave us each a piece of aloe-wood, although they were [so hard that they were] capable of being used as a handle for a bill or an axe!8 — There is no contradiction; the one is according to R. Eliezer, and the other is according to the Rabbis; for it was taught: R. Eliezer says: A man may take a chip from [wood] lying before him to pick his teeth with it, but the Sages say: He may take [it] only out of a cattle-crib;9 but they both agree that he may not cut off [a piece], and if he did cut off to pick his teeth or to open a door with it,10 if he did it unwittingly on a Sabbath, he is liable to a sin-offering, and if he did it deliberately on a Festival he is liable to receive forty lashes: this is the opinion of R. Eliezer. But the Sages say: Both the one and the other are forbidden only as a shebuth.11 [Now] R. Eliezer12 who says there,13 ‘he is liable to a sin-offering’, [will hold] here [that] he is not culpable, although it is forbidden; the Rabbis who say there, ‘he is not culpable although it is forbidden’ [maintain] here [that] it is permitted at the outset. But does not R. Eliezer accept the teaching, A man may break open a cask in order to eat of its dry figs provided that he does not intend to make a utensil? — Said R. Ashi: That was taught with respect to a barrel whose parts are stuck together with pitch.14
AND HE MAY COLLECT FROM THE COURT: Our Rabbis taught: He may collect from the court and make a fire, for every thing in the court is mukan, provided that he does not make many heaps; but R. Simeon permits [even this]. In what do they differ? — One is of the opinion: It looks as though he were gathering for the morrow and the day after;15 and the other is of the opinion: His pot bears testimony for him.16
ONE MAY NOT PRODUCE FIRE. What is the reason? Because he is creating [something new] on a Festival.
NOR MAY ONE MAKE TILES RED-HOT. What does he do?17 — Said Rabbah b. Bar Hana in the name of R. Johanan: We are dealing here with new bricks [and the prohibition is] because
(1) I.e., straw or stubble and the like may be used as a tooth-pick.
(2) By cutting off a piece, he produces a new surface which yields greater fragrance.
(3) Although some spice-wood can be used as fodder. This contradicts Rab Judah.
(4) Which is unfit for fodder. Hence it does not contradict me at all.
(5) In order to smell. Did then the Rabbis preventively forbid it lest he might cut it off as a utensil?
(6) I.e., he must not break open the bung in such a way as to make a permanent mouth. This we see that no such preventative decree exists.
(7) On a Sabbath in order to smell thereof. The branch was, of course, detached.
(8) Cf. Shab. 146a.
(9) Since it is definitely food, it can therefore be used for any purpose.
(10) I. e. , to use it as a latch.
(11) V. Glos.
(12) The explanation of there being no contradiction is now continued.
(13) With respect to cutting spice-wood.
(14) Therefore it cannot afterwards again be used as a vessel. Cf. Jast. s.v. מוסתקי
(15) Which is certainly forbidden.
(16) I.e., it is quite obvious that he wants the fuel for the Festival.
(17) What forbidden action is there in this?
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 34a
he has yet to examine them.1 Others explain it: Because he has yet to harden them.2 We have learnt elsewhere:3 If one trod upon it [poultry] or knocked it against a wall, or if cattle trampled over it and it still moves convulsively and continues alive for a full day of twenty-four hours, and he then slaughters it, it is ritually fit. Said R. Eleazar b. Jannai in the name of R. Eleazar b. Antigonos: It still has to be examined.4 R. Jeremiah asked of R. Zera: May one slaughter it on a Festival? Should we assume an unsoundness On a Festival5 or not? He replied to him: We have learnt it: NOR MAY ONE MAKE TILES RED-HOT IN ORDER TO ROAST ON THEM; and we raised the point: What does he do? And Rabbah b. Bar Hana in the name of R. Johanan said: We are dealing here with new bricks [and they must not be heated] because he has yet to examine them.6 He said to him: We teach: Because he has yet to harden them.7 It was taught: If one brings the fire [on a Sabbath] and another brings the wood and another puts the pot on the fire and another brings the water and another puts in the seasoning and another stirs, they are all liable.8 But surely it was taught: The last one is liable and the rest are exempt! — There is no contradiction. The one speaks of a case where the fire was brought first; and the other, where the fire was brought last.9 As for all the others, it is well, for they perform an action;10 but he who puts the pot on the fire, what does he do?11 — Said R. Simeon b. Lakish: We treat here of a new pot and they applied here the prohibition of making tiles red-hot. Our Rabbis taught: A new oven and a new pot range are like all other utensils which may be carried about in a court; but one may not smear them with oil or polish them with a rug or cool them with cold water in order to harden them; but if [it is done] for the purpose of baking,12 it is permitted.
Our Rabbis taught: One may scald the head and the feet [of a fowl or animal] or singe them with fire; but one may not cover then, with potter's clay or with earth or with lime,13 nor may one cut off [their hair] with scissors; and one may not cut round vegetables with their [garden] shears,14 but one may trim the artichoke and the cardoon;15 one may heat and bake in a large oven16 and one may warm up water in an antiki17 vessel; but one may not bake in a new large oven lest it crack18 .
Our Rabbis taught: One may not blow up [the fire] with bellows [on a Festival] but one may blow it up with a tube [reed]; one may not condition a spit nor may one sharpen it.
Our Rabbis taught: One may not split a reed in order to roast a salt fish thereon, but one may crack a nut in a rag and we do not apprehend lest it be torn.19
MISHNAH. R. ELIEZER FURTHER20 SAID: A MAN MAY STAND NEAR HIS DRYING FIGS21
(1) Whether they can stand burning, for if they crack they cannot be used and all his labour has been in vain.
(2) By burning; hence when he makes them red-hot he completes their manufacture, and this may not be done on Festival.
(3) Hul. 57a and 57b.
(4) Whether the injury did not make it trefa.
(5) I.e., on account of its stringency and therefore not kill it.
(6) To see if they crack. Hence we see that we do assume an unsoundness on account of the stringency of the Festival.
(7) So that this has no bearing on our problem.
(8) For various breaches of the Sabbath.
(9) In the former case all are liable, for all have committed a breach of the Sabbath; in the latter only the last person performed a culpable act.
(10) As one carries the fire he creates a draught which fans it into a stronger blaze; hence his action technically constitutes kindling. Similarly, he who adds fuel. Pouring in the water and the condiments and stirring all constitute cooking.
(11) He puts it on empty; hence he does not cook at all.
(12) That the bread should not burn.
(13) In order to remove the hair.
(14) The shears with which they are cut from the soil. The prohibition is because one might suspect that the person had only on that day cut them from the ground.
(15) These plants require a good deal of care in their preparation.
(16) Though it involves much labour.
(17) [אנטיכי A water-heating vessel with a fuel compartment (v. Shab. 41a). Though it retains its heat for a long time, extending even beyond the needs of the Festival day on which it is heated, it is nevertheless permitted, v. R. Nissim. The derivation of the word is obscure. Krauss TA, I , p. 73 connects it with Grk, GR. ** v. op. cit. p. 411.]
(18) And the whole labour will be in vain. Unnecessary labour is forbidden on a Festival.
(19) For even if it does get torn it is of no consequence, for one is liable only if the tearing is for the purpose of sewing it up again.
(20) Cf. supra p. 33a.
(21) Heb. mukzeh. Which require designation for the Sabbath.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 34b
ON THE EVE OF A SABBATH IN THE SABBATICAL YEAR1 AND SAY: FROM THIS PART WILL I EAT TO-MORROW.2 BUT THE SAGES SAY: ONLY IF HE MARKS IT OUT AND SAYS, ‘FROM HERE UNTO THERE.’
GEMARA. We have learnt elsewhere:3 If children put away figs4 [in the field] on the eve of Sabbath [for the Sabbath] and they forgot and did not tithe them, [before the Sabbath], they may not be eaten after the Sabbath until they have been tithed.5 And we have also learnt:6 If one was carrying figs through his court for drying,7 his children and the members of his household may make a light meal of them and are exempt [from tithes].8 Raba asked R. Nahman: Does the Sabbath establish a liability to tithes in the case of drying figs,9 seeing that they were not completely ready [for eating]?10 Do we say, Since it is written, And [thou shalt] call the Sabbath a delight,11 it [the Sabbath] establishes a liability even where the commodity is not completely ready [for tithing], or perhaps it [the Sabbath] establishes liability only where the commodity is completely ready [for tithing], but not where the commodity is not yet completely ready? — He replied to him: The Sabbath establishes liability whether the commodity is completely ready [for tithing] or not. He said to him: Say [perhaps] that the Sabbath is like a court? Just as a court establishes liability only where the commodity is completely ready [for tithing],12 so also the Sabbath does not establish liability save where the commodity is completely ready? — He replied to him: We have a distinct teaching that the Sabbath establishes liability both where the commodity is completely ready and where the commodity is not completely ready [for tithing]. Mar Zutra son of R. Nahman said: We have likewise learnt: R. Eliezer further said: A MAN MAY STAND NEAR HIS DRYING FIGS ON THE EVE OF A SABBATH IN THE SABBATICAL YEAR etc.: Thus it is only in the Sabbatical year, when it is free from tithe; but in the other years of the septennate it would be forbidden;13 [and] for what reason? Is it not because the Sabbath establishes liability! — No, there it is different; since he Says, FROM THIS PART WILL I EAT TO-MORROW, he established liability for himself.14 If so, why particularly the Sabbath; this holds good even on a weekday? — This is what he informs us, [namely] that tebel15 is regarded as mukan
(1) V. Lev. XXV, 1-7. In the Sabbatical year fruit is tithe-free.
(2) Such designation is sufficient for he holds the rule of retrospective selection , i.e., a selection made subsequently is of legal effect retrospectively, as though it were made earlier-here, as though he expressly designated the particular figs to-morrow.
(3) Ma'as. IV, 2.
(4) Which were ready for eating and therefore liable for tithing.
(5) Although a light meal of untithed fruit is permitted before it has been brought into the house or the court (v. B.M. 88a), appointing these figs for the Sabbath marks the end of their ingathering and they become liable to tithe.
(6) Ma'as. III, 1.
(7) The preparation of which is not yet complete.
(8) Although they have been brought into the court.
(9) Heb. mukzeh.
(10) Lit., ‘its work (of storing) is not finished’. This clause is explanatory of the word mukzeh, Rashi.
(11) Isa. LVIII, 13.
(12) Cf. Mishnah, Ma'as. III, I cited supra.
(13) To eat the fruit without tithing.
(14) For he has shown that as far as he is concerned its preparation is completed and it is now quite ready for eating.
(15) V. Glos.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 35a
with respect to Sabbath, so that if one transgressed and tithed it, it is fit for use.1 But is not the remainder put back; and we know R. Eliezer to hold that whenever the remainder can be put back, it does not establish liability?2 For we have learnt: If one took olives out of the vat he may dip them in salt one at a time and eat them [untithed]; but if he dipped ten3 [in salt] and placed them before him he is liable.4 R. Eliezer says: [If he takes them] from a clean vat he is liable; from an unclean vat, he is exempt, because he can put back what remains over.5 And we argued on this: What is the difference between the first clause and the last clause?6 And R. Abbahu answered: The first clause treats of a clean vat and an unclean person, so that he cannot put the remainder back;7 the last clause treats of an unclean vat and an unclean person, so that he can put it back! — Our Mishnah too treats of clean drying figs and an unclean person who cannot put it back. But surely they are de facto put back?8 — Rather said R. Simi b. Ashi:9 You speak of R. Eliezer? R. Eliezer follows his opinion [expressed elsewhere]; for he says that [separating] terumah10 establishes liability, how much more so the Sabbath.11 For we have learnt: If terumah had been separated from fruits before they were completely ready [for tithing],12 R. Eliezer forbids a light meal to be made of it, but the Sages permit.13
Come and hear [a support] from the second clause: BUT THE SAGES SAY: ONLY IF HE MARKS IT OUT AND SAYS: FROM HERE UNTO THERE. Thus it is only on the eve of a Sabbath in the Sabbatical year, when it is free from tithe; but in other years of the septennate, it would be forbidden. What is the reason? Surely because the Sabbath establishes liability? — No, there it is different; since he says, FROM HERE UNTO THERE WILL I EAT TOMORROW, he made it liable for tithing. If so, why particularly of Sabbath: this holds good even on a weekday? This is what he informs us, [namely] that tebel is mukan with respect to Sabbath, so that if one transgressed and separated the tithe, it is fit for use. But the following contradicts this: If one was eating a cluster of grapes14 and entered from the garden into the court,15 R. Eliezer says: He may finish [eating it without tithing], [but] R. Joshua maintains: He may not finish. If it was getting dark towards the Sabbath,16 R. Eliezer says: He may finish [eating the cluster of grapes], [but] R. Joshua maintains: He may not finish.17 — There [it is different] as the passage is explained:18 R. Nathan says: When R. Eliezer said, ‘He may finish’, he did not mean that he may finish [eating it] in the court, but he must leave the court and finish [it in his garden]; and when R. Eliezer said, ‘He may finish’, he did not [mean] that he may finish [it] on the Sabbath, but he waits until the termination of the Sabbath and finishes [it]. When Rabin came [from Palestine], he said in the name of R. Johanan: Neither the Sabbath nor [the separating of] terumah nor [bringing the fruit into the] court, nor [the act of] purchasing establish liability save where it was [otherwise] completely ready [for tithing]. ‘The Sabbath’, to reject the opinion of Hillel; for it was taught: if one carries fruit from one place to another19 and the holiness of the [Sabbath] day came upon him, said R. Judah: Hillel alone forbids [it].20
(1) On the Sabbath, for the designation of the day before is valid; and the tithing too is valid, since the prohibition of the tithing on a Sabbath is only Rabbinical.
(2) How much more so is it not liable for tithing when he merely said, ‘From here will I eat to-morrow’.
(3) ‘Ten’ is absent in the Mishnayoth: it thus means, if he dipped a fair number, etc.
(4) By thus placing them all in front of him and not eating each as he dips it into the salt, he shows that he wishes to make a proper meal of them, not a mere snack, and a proper meal is forbidden before tithing.
(5) Ma'as. IV, 3. When he can put the remainder back, even if he takes many he does not mean to make a proper meal, as he may eat a few only; hence he is not liable. But when he cannot put the remainder back, and he takes a number, he evidently intends to eat them all now, and this intention establishes liability to tithes because it will constitute a full and proper meal.
(6) Even in a clean vat one can put back the fruit left over.
(7) Because he renders what he touches unclean, and so this in turn will defile the olives in the vat if he puts it back.
(8) Since they have never been taken out; he merely designated them by word of mouth.
(9) In truth it is not his speech but the Sabbath that establishes liability; nevertheless our Mishnah does not support R. Nahman, because it only quotes the view of R. Eliezer, but the Sages differ.
(10) V. Glos.
(11) But the Sages who differ with respect to terumah differ also with respect to Sabbath.
(12) I.e., before their preparation was complete and therefore not yet liable to tithe.
(13) Ma'as. II, 4. — R. Eliezer holds that the separating of terumah though It was as yet unnecessary, has established a liability to tithes too, though it is not yet completely ready. But the Sages dispute this.
(14) The grapes are tithe-free until they are brought within the owner's court. When yet in the vineyard, the owner may eat of them a slender meal, for their preparation for tithing is regarded complete only when made into wine.
(15) Which makes the grapes liable to tithe, without which even a light meal is now forbidden.
(16) When it is forbidden to tithe. — This is a separate case and does not refer to when he entered the court.
(17) Ter. VIII, 3. Hence it is to be inferred that R. Eliezer does not hold that the Sabbath establishes liability for tithing.
(18) In Tosef. Ter. VII.
(19) This follows the text of the Tosefta, which is preferable to that of our edd. [The Fruit was evidently taken for drying; v. Wilna Gaon Ma'as. III and cf. R. Hananel a.l. Assuming that לקצור ‘to harvest’ in cur. edd. is a scribal error for לקצות ‘to dry’, the reading of cur. edd. yields equally good sense.]
(20) But all the other scholars allow.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 35b
‘Court’, to reject the opinion of R. Jacob, for we have learnt: If one was carrying figs into his court for drying, his children and the members of his household may eat of them a light meal and are exempt [from tithes]; and with respect to this, it was taught: R. Jacob makes him liable for tithing and R. Jose son of R. Judah exempts [him].
‘Terumah’, to reject the opinion of R. Eliezer; for we have learnt: If one separated terumah from fruits before they were completely ready [for tithing] R. Eliezer forbids a light meal to be made of it, but the Sages permit.1
‘Purchasing’ , as it was taught: If one bought figs from an ‘am ha-arez2 in a district where the majority of the people press [them], he may eat thereof a light meal and he tithes them as demai.3 Infer from this three things; infer from this [that] ‘purchasing’ establishes liability only where it was completely ready [for tithing]; infer from this also [that] the majority of the ‘amme ha-arez do tithe [their produce]; and [further] infer from this [that] one should tithe the demai of an ‘am ha-arez even of a commodity whose preparation has not yet been completed. And it4 is to reject that which we have learnt: If one exchanges fruit with his neighbour, the one intending to eat them [as they are] and the other intending to eat them, or the one intending to dry them and the other intending to dry them, or the one intending to eat them and the other intending to dry them, they are both liable.5 R. Judah says: He who intends eating it is liable,6 but he who intends drying it is exempt.7
MISHNAH. ONE MAY LET DOWN FRUIT8 THROUGH A TRAP-DOOR ON A FESTIVAL BUT NOT ON A SABBATH, AND COVER UP FRUIT WITH VESSELS ON ACCOUNT OF THE RAIN; AND LIKEWISE JARS OF WINE AND JARS OF OIL; AND [EVEN] ON A SABBATH ONE MAY PLACE A VESSEL BENEATH THE DROPS OF RAIN.
GEMARA. It was stated: Rab Judah and R. Nathan [dispute]; one recites MASHILLIN9 and the other teaches MASHHILLIN. Said Mar Zutra: The one that recites MASHILLIN does not teach wrongly and the other who recites MASHHILLIN does not teach wrongly. The one that recites MASHILLIN does not teach wrongly for it is written, For thine olives shall drop off, [yishshal];10 and the other who recites MASHHILLIN does not teach wrongly for we have learnt: [If the firstling is a] shahol or a kasol [it may be slaughtered]; ‘shahol’ [means an animal] whose hip has become dislocated11 and ‘kasol’ [means an animal] one of whose hips is higher than the other.12 R. Nahman b. Isaac said: The One that recites MASHIRIN does not teach wrongly and the one that recites MASHHIRIN does not teach wrongly, and the one that recites MANSHIRIN does not teach wrongly. The one that recites MASHIRIN does not teach wrongly, for we have learnt: R. Ishmael says: A Nazirite may not shampoo his head with clay because it makes the hair fall out [mashir];13 and the one that recites MASHHIRIN does not teach wrongly, for we have learnt: The hair-clip [shahor] and the barber's scissors are susceptible to defilement even though they [the two parts] are separated;14 and the one that recites MANSHIRIN does not teach wrongly, for we have learnt: If one's clothes fell [nashru] in the water [on a Sabbath], he may walk in them without fear.15 Alternatively, from the following teaching: What is leket?16 That which was let fall [nashar] at the time of harvesting.17 We have learnt: YOU MAY LET DOWN FRUIT THROUGH A TRAPDOOR ON A FESTIVAL? How much?18 — Said R. Zera in the name of R. Assi — some say, R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan: Like that which we have learnt: One may clear away [on Sabbath as much as] four or five bundles of straw or grain19 on account of guests or to avoid disturbance of study.20 But perhaps it is different there where study would [otherwise] be disturbed, but here where there is no disturbance of study it is not so!21 Or perhaps there [as many as] four or five bundles are allowed [to be cleared away] because the Sabbath is stringent and [people] will not come to treat it lightly, but on a Festival, which is less stringent and people might come to treat it lightly, he may not [move any at all]! Or [argue] in the reverse: There [only four or five are allowed] because no monetary loss is involved, but here where monetary loss is involved22 even more is allowed!
(1) V. supra 35a.
(2) The name given to an illiterate peasant who is under suspicion of not giving tithes from his produce. V. Glos.
(3) ‘Suspect produce’, i.e. produce regarding which it is not known whether the prescribed tithes have been duly set apart by the vendor before selling.
(4) The statement of Rabin in the name of R. Johanan above.
(5) For exchange is a purchase, and this Tanna holds that purchase establishes liability even when the commodity is not completely ready.
(6) For it is ready as far as he is concerned.
(7) For it is not ready for him, and R. Judah holds that purchase itself does not establish liability.
(8) Spread out on the roof for drying.
(9) This and all the following verbs have the significance of letting down.
(10) Deut. XXVIII, 40. Mashillin is from the same root (nashal).
(11) I.e., dropped, and mashhillin therefore has the same sense.
(12) Bek. 40a.
(13) Naz. 42a. V. also Num. VI, 5.
(14) Because each part can be used separately as an instrument for cutting. Kel. XIII, 1. Thus ‘shahor’ has the sense ‘to cause to fall’.
(15) That he may be suspected of having washed them on the Sabbath. Shab. 147a.
(16) Which belongs to the poor.
(17) Pe'ah. IV, 10.
(18) May he clear away that it should not be regarded as extra work?
(19) But no more.
(20) I.e., if one needs the space for guests or disciples. Shab. 126b. Lit., ‘the disturbance of the House of learning’.
(21) I.e., he may not take as many as four or five.
(22) The rain would spoil the fruit.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 36a
[Moreover] we have learnt there:1 But [one may] not [clear away] the store-house; and Samuel said: What means ‘but [one may] not [clear away] the storehouse’? [It means,] But one may not clear away the entire store2 lest he come to level out hollows.3 Now what is the law here?4 [Do I say that] it is forbidden there, on the Sabbath, because it is stringent, but on a Festival which is less stringent it is permitted; or perhaps [I can argue], if there where there is disturbance of study, you say that it is forbidden, here where there is no disturbance of study how much the more? [Furthermore] we have learnt here: ONE MAY LET DOWN FRUIT THROUGH A TRAP-DOOR ON A FESTIVAL; and R. Nahman said: They taught this only with respect to the same roof, but not from one roof to another. And it was likewise taught: One may not move [things] from one roof to another even when the roofs are level with each other.5 Now how is it there [on the Sabbath]?6 [Do I say that] here only it is forbidden, because a Festival is less stringent and [people] might come to treat it lightly, but on a Sabbath which is stringent and [people] will not come to treat it lightly, it is allowed; or perhaps [I can argue], if here, where loss of fruit is involved, you say that it is not [permitted] there, where no damage of fruit is involved, how much the more? [Again] it was taught here:7 He may not let them [the bundles] down through windows with ropes, nor may he bring then, down by means of ladders. How is it there?8 [Do I say that] only here, on a Festival it is forbidden, because no disturbance of study is involved, but [there] on the Sabbath, where there is a disturbance of study, it is allowed: or perhaps [I can argue], if here where damage of fruit is involved, you say that it is forbidden, there where no damage of fruit is involved, how much the more? The questions remain undecided.
AND ONE MAY COVER UP FRUIT. ‘Ulla said: Even a stack of loose bricks.9 R. Isaac said: [Only] fruits which are useable [may be covered]. And R. Isaac follows his opinion [expressed elsewhere]; for R. Isaac said: A utensil may be handled [on Sabbath] only for the benefit of a thing which itself may be handled on the Sabbath.10
We have learnt: ONE MAY COVER UP FRUIT WITH VESSELS; only fruit but not a stack of loose bricks! — The same is true even of a stack of loose bricks; but because he teaches in the first part [of the Mishnah], ONE MAY LET DOWN FRUIT,11 he teaches also in the concluding part, ONE MAY COVER UP FRUIT.
We have learnt: AND LIKEWISE JARS OF WINE AND JARS OF OIL!12 — We are dealing here with tebel.13 This too is logical: for if you maintain [that we are dealing with] jars of wine and oil which are permitted, surely this he already teaches in the first clause, viz., FRUITS!14 — It is especially necessary to teach this with respect to jars of wine and oil; for I might have thought that the Rabbis took into consideration only a great loss,15 but a small loss they did not take into consideration, so he informs us [that it is not so].
We have learnt: ON A SABBATH YOU MAY PLACE A VESSEL BENEATH THE DROPS OF RAIN!16 — [It deals here] with respect to rain fit for use.17 Come and hear: One may spread a mat over bricks on a Sabbath!18 — [It treats of bricks] that were left over from a building and which are fit to sit on.
Come and hear: You may spread a mat over stones on a Sabbath!19 — [It treats] of smoothly pointed stones which are fit for a privy.
Come and hear: One may spread a mat over a beehive on a Sabbath,20 in sunny weather on account of the sun and in rainy weather on account of the rain, provided that he does not intend to capture [the bees]! — There likewise [it treats of a case] where it contains honey.21 R. Ukba of Meshan22 said to R. Ashi: This is well in summer when there is honey [in the hive], but in winter how is it to be explained? — It is especially necessary to teach this with respect to the two honeycombs.23 But these two honeycombs are mukzeh!24 — We deal here with a case where he reserved them [for his use]. But what if he did not reserve them for his use? [It is] forbidden! Then instead of teaching, ‘provided that he does not intend to capture [the bees]’, he should teach a distinction with respect to [the first case] itself,25 [viz.], This applies only when he has reserved them for his use, but if he did not reserve them for his use it is forbidden? — This is what he means to say; even though he has reserved then, [for his use he may cover them with a mat] provided always that he does not intend to capture [the bees]. How have you explained it:26 according to R. Judah who holds the law of mukzeh?27 But say the concluding part: provided that he does not intend to capture [the bees]: this is in accordance with R. Simeon, who says, An unintentional act is permitted!28 — Do you then think [the concluding clause] is according to R. Simeon? Surely Abaye and Raba both said: R. Simeon agrees [that it is forbidden] in the case of ‘Cut off his head but let him not die’.29 — In point of fact, the whole [Mishnah there] is according to R. Judah, and we are dealing here with a case where it [the beehive] has a little window;30 and do not say, ac cording to R. Judah provided that he does not intend to capture [the bees]
(1) Shab. 126b.
(2) I.e. if the store contained only four or five bundles he may not remove them all and thus clear the Boor.
(3) Found in the floor of the barn.
(4) May one clear away the entire barn on a Festival?
(5) When no extra labour in lifting is incurred.
(6) For the sake of guests or the study of the Law?
(7) With respect to clearing bundles on a Festival.
(8) On the Sabbath, may one remove for the sake of guests or the study of the Law?
(9) May be covered up, even though the bricks themselves may not be moved.
(10) Since the bricks may not be handled, nothing else (e.g., a tarpaulin) may be handled to cover them.
(11) I.e. only that which is fit for use on the Sabbath or Festival and hence may be handled.
(12) Implying, but not bricks.
(13) Which, like the bricks, are not useable on a Festival and therefore may not be moved, yet they may be covered. Hence bricks are the same.
(14) For obviously they are alike.
(15) The rain can cause greater damage to fruit than to the jars of wine or oil.
(16) The rain-drops are likewise not useable, and therefore may not be handled, and yet a vessel may be handled for receiving them.
(17) I.e., ordinary rainwater which can be used for watering cattle.
(18) To protect them from rain, although the bricks are for building purposes and may not be moved; cf. Shab. 43a.
(19) Shab. 43a, — it is assumed that these too are not fit for use and therefore may not be handled.
(20) To protect it from the rain, although the beehive itself may not be moved.
(21) And the mat is to protect the honey, which may be handled.
(22) Mesene, a district south-east of Babylon, on the path of the trade route to the Persian Gulf. V. Obermeyer, p. 89ff; B.K., Sonc. ed. p. 566, n. 5.
(23) Which are left behind as food for the bees, v. B.B. 80a.
(24) For they are reserved for the bees, and may not be moved.
(25) When he covered it solely to protect it from the rain.
(26) This law about covering a beehive?
(27) For otherwise you could have answered that it agrees with R. Simeon, who rejects the law of mukzeh.
(28) Provided that the act he is doing is permitted, he is not made to refrain because he may unintentionally also do something forbidden. V. Shab. 50b. Whereas R. Judah is of the opinion that all unintentional act is prohibited.
(29) This is an idiom describing the inevitable result of an unintentional act; i.e., where an unintentional act must inevitably result in a forbidden act, R. Simeon agrees that it is forbidden. Here too, he inevitably captures the bees, so that even R. Simeon should forbid it. V. Keth., Sonc. ed. p. 20, n. 8.
(30) Through which the bees can escape.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 36b
but say rather, provided that he does not make it [the beehive] a trap.1 [But] this is obvious! — You might say [that] catching is forbidden only in respect of a kind of creature which one usually catches, but with respect to the sort which one does not usually catch,2 it is permitted; so he informs us [that it is not so]. R. Ashi says:3 Does he then teach ‘in summer and in winter’? He teaches ‘in sunny weather on account of the sun and in rainy weather on account of the rain’, [i.e.,] in the days of Nisan and in the days of Tishri4 when there is both sun and rain as well as honey present.
ON SABBATH ONE MAY PLACE A VESSEL BENEATH THE DROPS OF RAIN. It was taught: If the vessel became full, he may keep on pouring it out as it fills and put it back again without restraint. In the mill-room of Abaye rain trickled through.5 He came before Rabbah who said to him: Go, bring in your bed there, so that it [the mill] may be regarded by you like a commode6 and [so] take it out. Abaye sat and put himself the question: May then one make of anything a commode at the outset?7 In the meantime Abaye's mill fell to pieces. He said: I well deserve it, for I have transgressed the words of my Master.8 Samuel said. The commode and the chamber-pot may be taken out to the dung-heap [for emptying], and when he brings them back, he is to pour water therein and [then] take them back.9 From this they [the disciples] concluded that one may carry out [the contents of] the commode by means of the vessel but not the ordure itself;10 [but] come and hear [to the contrary]: Once a mouse was found in a scent-box belonging to R. Ashi. R. Ashi said to them: Take it by the tail and bring it out.11
MISHNAH. EVERY [ACT] THAT IS CULPABLE12 ON A SABBATH AS A SHEBUTH,13 [OR] AN OPTIONAL ACT [RESHUTH], [OR] A RELIGIOUS ACT,14 IS ALSO CULPABLE ON A FESTIVAL. THE FOLLOWING ACTS ARE CULPABLE AS A SHEBUTH: ONE MAY NOT CLIMB A TREE, NOR RIDE A BEAST, NOR SWIM IN WATER, NOR CLAP THE HANDS, NOR SLAP [THE THIGHS], NOR DANCE. THE FOLLOWING ARE CULPABLE AS OPTIONAL SECULAR ACTS: ONE MAY NOT JUDGE,15 NOR BETROTH A WIFE, NOR PERFORM HALIZAH,16 NOR PERFORM YIBBUM [CONSUMATE A LEVIRATE MARRIAGE].17 THE FOLLOWING ARE CULPABLE AS RELIGIOUS ACTS: ONE MAY NOT DEDICATE [ANYTHING TO THE TEMPLE], NOR VOW A PERSONAL VALUATION,18 NOR MAKE A VOW OF HEREM,19 NOR SET ASIDE TERUMAH OR TITHES. ALL THESE THINGS THEY [THE RABBIS] PRESCRIBED [AS CULPABLE] ON A FESTIVAL, HOW MUCH MORE [ARE THEY CULPABLE] ON SABBATH. THE FESTIVAl, DIFFERS FROM THE SABBATH ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE PREPARATION OF FOOD ALONE.
GEMARA. ONE MAY NOT CLIMB A TREE; it is a preventive measure lest he pluck [fruit]. NOR RIDE A BEAST; it is a Preventive measure lest he might go without the tehum.20 Then this proves that the law of tehum is Biblical?21 — Rather say, it is a preventive measure lest he cut off a switch.22
NOR SWIM IN WATER; it is a preventive measure lest he might make a swimming bladder.
NOR CLAP THE HANDS, NOR SLAP THE THIGHS, NOR DANCE; it is a preventive measure lest he might repair musical instruments.
THE FOLLOWING ARE CULPABLE AS OPTIONAL SECULAR ACTS: ONE MAY NOT JUDGE: But is he not discharging a religious act?23 — This holds good only where a more capable person is available.24
NOR BETROTH A WIFE. Is he not discharging a religious obligation?25 — It treats of one
(1) By closing also the small aperture.
(2) Bees, as a rule, are not caught with a net.
(3) The text treats of a case,. as previously explained, when there is honey in the hive; and as for the question, In winter there is no honey!
(4) Nisan is the first and Tishri the seventh month of the Jewish Calendar, corresponding to the months of March and September respectively.
(5) The placing of vessels to catch the dripping rain would itself be insufficient to save the mill from damage, unless it were itself removed.
(6) The mill was of clay and the rain would make it dirty and foul.
(7) V. supra 21b.
(8) By questioning his advice.
(9) Since the vessel itself is considered mukzeh on account of its filthiness and may not be carried about.
(10) I.e., to take out the ordure by itself or anything filthy and obnoxious is forbidden.
(11) Showing that it is the unclean thing itself that can be removed.
(12) According to Rabbinical enactment.
(13) V. Glos. The term is generally applied to an action which while not belonging to the category of forbidden labours (V. Shab. 73a) or their derivatives, was nevertheless forbidden either because it might lead to one of these or because it did not harmonize with the general spirit of the Sabbath.
(14) I.e., actions which are normally secular and optional or even in the nature of religious observances, but which are nevertheless forbidden on the Sabbath.
(15) In a lawsuit.
(16) V. Deut. XXV, 9, and Glos. s.v.
(17) The marriage with the wife of a deceased brother. V. Deut. XXV, 5-7.
(18) V. Lev. XXVII, 1-8.
(19) I.e., devote anything to the Lord; V. Lev. XXVII, 28.
(20) V. Glos.
(21) For it is a general rule that a preventive measure is enacted to safeguard a Biblical law only, but not a Rabbinical one. But actually there is a controversy whether the law of tehum is Biblical or only Rabbinical, v. ‘Er. 35.
(22) To use as a whip. Cutting off anything that is growing is certainly prohibited by Biblical law.
(23) To judge is a meritorious deed — hence it should be included in the third category.
(24) So that as far as this person is concerned it is an optional act, though judging in general ranks as a religious obligation.
(25) V. Gen. I, 28.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 37a
who [already] has a wife and children.1
NOR PERFORM HALIZAH, NOR PERFORM YIBBUM. Is he not performing a religious act? — It treats of a case where there is an elder [brother] and it is a [prior] obligation for the elder [brother] to consummate a levirate marriage. And on account of what are all these [forbidden]? — It is a preventive measure lest he write.2
THE FOLLOWING ARE CULPABLE AS RELIGIOUS ACTS: ONE MAY NOT DEDICATE, NOR VOW A PERSONAL VALUATION, NOR MAKE A VOW OF HEREM; [they are forbidden] as preventive measures lest one transact business.3
NOR SET ASIDE TERUMAH OR TITHES. This is obvious!4 R. Joseph taught: It is necessary [to teach this] even in the case of giving them to the priest on the same day [of the Festival].5 This, however, applies only to produce which was tebel6 since the day before; but with respect to produce which is only just now become tebel, as for example to set aside hallah from dough, he may set them [tithes] aside and give them to the priest. Are then these acts7 culpable only as reshuth and not as shebuth?8 And are those acts9 culpable only as religious acts and not as shebuth? Said R. Isaac: He proceeds to a climax;10 not only is an act which is purely a shebuth11 forbidden, but even a shebuth which partakes of an optional [meritorious] act12 is also forbidden; and not only is a shebuth partaking of an optional [meritorious] act forbidden, but even a shebuth partaking of a religious obligation13 is also forbidden.
ALL THESE THINGS THEY FORBADE ON A FESTIVAL [etc.]. But the following contradicts this. One may let down fruit through a trap-door on a Festival but not on a Sabbath!14 — Said R. Joseph: There is no contradiction: the one15 is according to R. Eliezer, the other is according to R. Joshua. For it was taught: If it [an animal] and its young fell into a pit,16 R. Eliezer says: He may bring up one of them in order to slaughter it and must slaughter it; and as for the other, he feeds it in the very place [it fell], so that it should not die. R. Joshua says: He brings up one in order to slaughter it but does not slaughter it, and he uses sub tlety17 and again brings up the second [animal]; and he may slaughter whichever he desires.18 Abaye said to him: Whence [do you know that it is so]? Perhaps R. Eliezer said so only there where one can feed the animal,19 but not here where no feeding is possible.20 Or [perhaps] R. Joshua ruled thus only there, where one can make use of subtlety, but not here where it is not possible to make use of subtlety?21 — Rather said R. Papa: There is no contradiction: the one22 is according to Beth Shammai, the other is according to Beth Hillel. For we have learnt: Beth Shammai say: One may not carry out an infant or a lulab or a Scroll of the Law into public ground; but Beth Hillel permit it.23 But perhaps it is not so! [Perhaps] Beth Shammai ruled thus only there, with respect to carrying out, but not with respect to handling?24 — Is not handling needed for carrying out?25
MISHNAH. CATTLE AND UTENSILS ARE [RESTRICTED TO THE SAME LIMITS] AS THE FEET OF THE OWNERS.26 IF ONE GIVES HIS COW OVER TO HIS SON OR TO A HERDSMAN [TO TEND], THEY27 ARE [RESTRICTED TO THE SAME LIMITS] AS THE FEET OR THE OWNER. [ANY] UTENSILS WHICH HAVE BEEN SET APART FOR [THE USE OR] ONE OF THE BRETHREN IN A HOUSE, ARE [RESTRICTED TO THE SAME LIMITS] AS HIS FEET; BUT [THOSE UTENSILS] WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN SO SET APART, CAN BE TAKEN [ONLY] WHERE [ALL THE BRETHREN] MAY GO.28 IF ONE BORROWS A VESSEL FROM HIS NEIGHBOUR ON THE EVE OF A FESTIVAL, [IT IS RESTRICTED TO THE SAME LIMITS] AS THE FEET OF THE BORROWER; [BUT IF HE BORROWED IT] ON THE FESTIVAL, IT IS AS THE FEET OR THE LENDER. LIKEWISE A WOMAN THAT BORROWED FROM HER NEIGHBOUR CONDIMENTS, WATER OR SALT FOR HER DOUGH, THESE ARE [RESTRICTED TO THE SAME LIMITS] AS THE FEET OF THEM BOTH.29 R. JUDAH EXEMPTS IN THE CASE OF WATER,30 BECAUSE IT IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL.31
GEMARA. Our Mishnah
(1) V. Mishnah. Yeb. 61b.
(2) The betrothal or marriage contracts.
(3) Since these partake somewhat of that nature.
(4) [It is not quite obvious, and Rashi seems to omit the question as well as ‘It is necessary’ in the reply, reading, ‘R. Joseph taught: Even in the case etc.’. V. D.S. a.l.]
(5) Although it is not then evident that the setting aside of the tithes was for his own benefit; rather has it the appearance that he is doing it in the interest of the priest.
(6) V. Glos.
(7) Not judging, etc.
(8) Surely they too are forbidden on account of shebuth for the reason stated supra.
(9) Not dedicating, etc.
(10) Lit., “He says it is unnecessary" etc.’.
(11) Which have no semblance of religious merit in them, such as climbing a tree, etc.
(12) Such as are enumerated in the middle list.
(13) Such as are enumerated in the last list.
(14) Whereas from the end of our Mishnah it is to be inferred that no difference exists between Sabbaths and Festivals except in the preparation of food alone.
(15) Our Mishnah which teaches that every action forbidden on a Sabbath on account of shebuth is also forbidden on a Festival, implying even though it entails a monetary loss.
(16) On a Festival, when one may bring up the animals for slaughtering only. On the other hand, it is forbidden to slaughter an animal together with its young on the same day. Lev. XXII, 28.
(17) By preferring the other animal for slaughter.
(18) V. Shab. 117b, 124a.
(19) So that no monetary loss is incurred.
(20) Perhaps in such a case even R. Eliezer would permit it on a Festival, and yet not on the Sabbath.
(21) I.e., where it is impossible to give the pretence that the proposed action is entirely permissible in itself, even R. Joshua may forbid it.
(22) Our Mishnah.
(23) V. supra 12a. [It is assumed that just as Beth Shammai forbid carrying into the public ground anything not connected with preparation of food, so they would forbid the handling of such things even when money loss is involved].
(24) I.e., moving it from one part of the house to another.
(25) Before an article can be carried out it must be moved and handled, and it was only on that account that handling is forbidden (Rashi). Hence where carrying out is forbidden, handling and moving are likewise.
(26) They may be taken on a Festival only where the owner may go. [On Sabbath and Festivals it is permitted to walk within two thousand cubits in all directions from the boundaries of the town where one lives. Should one wish to walk beyond that limit, he can do so by depositing an ‘erub at the end of the two thousand cubits in the direction he wishes to go, from which point he may again walk another two thousand cubits. Having however gained the two thousand cubit limit in one direction, he forfeits his right of movement in the opposite direction outside the town boundary].
(27) Such animals — the plural is used generically.
(28) I.e., if each brother has a different Sabbath limit, their common utensils are restricted to the area common to them all.
(29) The dough may only be brought to that place where both may go.
(30) I.e., the ownership of the water does not affect the dough.
(31) I.e., it is not noticeable as a separate ingredient and therefore does not affect the status of the dough.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 37b
is not as R. Dosa, for it was taught: R. Dosa says — some say, Abba Saul says: If one buys a beast from his neighbour on the eve of the Festival, even though he did not deliver it to him until the Festival, it is [restricted to the same limits] as the feet of the purchaser; and if one handed over a beast to a herdsman, even though he did not deliver it to him until the Festival, it is [restricted to the same limits] as the feet of the herdsman! — You can even say, it is as R. Dosa, and there is no contradiction: Here it treats of one herdsman and there of two herdsmen.1 This call also be proved; for it teaches TO HIS SON ON TO A HERDSMAN;2 infer from this [that it is so]. Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Johanan: The halachah is as R. Dosa. Did then R. Johanan say thus? But surely R. Johanan has said: The halachah is as an anonymous Mishnah, and we have learnt: CATTLE AND UTENSILS ARE AS THE FEET OF THE OWNERS [etc.]! — Have we not already explained, here it treats of one herdsman and there of two herdsmen! Our Rabbis taught: If two people borrowed one garment jointly,3 one to wear it4 in the morning at the Academy and the other to wear it in the evening5 at a banquet, the one setting an ‘erub on the north [side of the town] and the other on the south [side], [then] the one who set the ‘erub on the north [side] may walk in it to the north [side] only as far as the other who set his ‘erub on the south [side] is allowed to go; and the one who set the ‘erub on the south may wear it to the south only as far as the other who set the ‘erub on the north may go; and if they measured the Sabbath limit exactly,6 then it [the garment] may not be moved from its place.7 It was stated: If two [men] bought a barrel and an animal8 in partnership, Rab says: The barrel is permitted9 but the animal is forbidden;10 Samuel, however, says: The barrel too is forbidden. What is Rab's opinion? If he holds that selection is retrospective,11 then the animal too should be permitted; and if he holds that selection is not retrospective, then the barrel too should be forbidden! In reality he holds that selection is retrospective, but the case of an animal is different, because the territories draw their vitality from one another.12 R. Kahana and R. Assi said to Rab: They [the partners] do not take into account the prohibition of mukzeh, but they do take into account the prohibition of boundary limits!13 Rab was silent. How does the law stand? R. Oshaia says, Selection is retrospective, and R. Johanan maintains: Selection is not retrospective. Does then R. Oshaia hold the law of bererah? But surely we have learnt:14 If a corpse [lay] in a room which has many doors they are all unclean; if one of these [doors] was opened, it alone is unclean and all the others are clean. If he formed the intention to take it [the corpse] out through one of them, or through a window which [measures] four handbreadths square, this gives protection to all the other doors. Beth Shammai Say: Providing that he had formed his intention to take it out before the person died; but Beth Hillel Say: [It holds good] even [if his intention was formed] after the person died. And it was stated thereon: R. Oshaia said: [The statement of Beth Hillel is] with respect to the cleansing of the doors from now and onwards. Only ‘from now and onwards’ but not retrospectively! — Reverse [the authorities]; R. Oshaia Says, selection is not retrospective and R. Johanan maintains: Selection is retrospective. Does then R. Johanan hold that selection is retrospective? Surely R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan: Brothers who have divided [an inheritance] are considered as purchasers15 and must restore [their shares] to one another in the year of Jubilee!16 And if you answer that R. Johanan does not hold that Selection is retrospective in the case of a Biblical [law]17 but with respect to a Rabbinical [law]18 he does hold, [I would object] does he then hold in the case of a Rabbinical [law], but Ayyo taught:19 R. Judah says: A man cannot conditionally reserve for himself two contingencies simultaneously; but if a scholar comes to the East, his ‘erub to the East is valid: if to the West, his ‘erub to the West is valid.20 However, he cannot [stipulate] when there are two scholars coming on different sides.
(1) If there are in the town several herdsmen, the owner cannot know which will take over the beast and therefore it is restricted to the feet of the owner. But if there is only one, it is tacitly assumed that it will be entrusted to him, and therefore it automatically takes his status.
(2) Since the Mishnah states an alternative, we see that the circumstances are such that he is not restricted to one person only, and that is the same as where there are several herdsmen in the town.
(3) Before the Festival.
(4) Lit., ‘to go out in it’.
(5) Of the Festival.
(6) I.e., if each set his ‘erub at the extreme limit of his boundary.
(7) It may not be taken without the town at all (cf. supra p. 188, n. 10).
(8) On the eve of the Festival to be divided on the Festival.
(9) To be carried by each according to his territory limit.
(10) To be carried save in the area where they may both go.
(11) I.e., what each was to receive on the Festival is assumed as having been determined before the Festival.
(12) I.e., the animal is one indivisible whole before it is killed, and the portion which subsequently falls to one could not at the beginning of the Festival be accounted as cut off from the other.
(13) Rashi: We can see that each partner did not put the portion of his other partner so much out of his mind that his own should be forbidden because it drew vitality from his partner's, (for if he had put it out of mind, his partner's portion would be forbidden to him as mukzeh, and his own too, on the present hypothesis, since it draws vitality from the other). Why then should we assume that he does take his partner's portion into account in respect of boundaries? Tosaf. explains this differently.
(14) V. supra 10a, for notes.
(15) I.e., the portion chosen by each brother for himself cannot be considered as having thus retrospectively become the very inheritance designated for him, v. B.K., Sonc. ed. p. 399 and notes.
(16) Because there is no fictitious understanding that the father had given that part to one brother and the other part to the other. Purchased property returns in the year of Jubilee to the former owners. V. Lev. XXV, 8ff. V. B.K. 69b, Git. 25a and 48a.
(17) As for example the law of Jubilee.
(18) As for example the law of tehum.
(19) In ‘Err. 36b a Mishnah teaches that if two scholars were coming near to him, one to the East and one to the West, he may place two ‘erubs and on the Sabbath choose to which of these two he should go. R. Judah, according to Ayyo, disputes this.
(20) I.e., if only one scholar was coming and it was not definite whether he would be coming to the East or to the West.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 38a
And we raised the question: Why is it that he cannot [stipulate] when there are two scholars coming on different sides? Because we do not hold that selection is retrospective; then even [if a scholar came] to the East or to the West we should likewise not maintain that selection is retrospective! And R. Johanan answered: It treats of a case where the scholar had already come.1 Consequently [we see that] R. Johanan does not hold that selection is retrospective! But in reality do not reverse [the authorities]; but R. Oshaia does not hold that selection is retrospective [only] in respect of a Biblical [law], but in respect to a Rabbinical [law] he does hold it. Mar Zutra lectured: The halachah is as R. Oshaia. Samuel said: The ox of a cattle breeder is as the feet of all;2 the ox of a herdsman is as the feet [of the people] of that town.3
IF ONE BORROWS A VESSEL FROM HIS NEIGHBOUR ON THE EVE OF THE FESTIVAL [etc.]. This is obvious! — This is necessary respecting the case when it was not delivered to him until the Festival; you might think that he [the owner] did not place it in his [the borrower's] possession, so he informs us [that it is not so]. This supports R. Johanan; for R. Johanan said: If one borrows a vessel from his neighbour on the eve of a Festival, even though he did not hand it over to him until the Festival, it is as the feet of the borrower.
BUT ON THE FESTIVAL IT IS AS THE FEET OF THE LENDER. This is obvious! — This is necessary respecting the case when he is wont to borrow frequently from him; you might think that he [tacitly] puts it into his [the borrower's] possession, so he informs us [that it is not so]; for he [the owner] might say,4 he will probably find another person and go and borrow from him.
LIKEWISE A WOMAN THAT BORROWED FROM HER NEIGHBOUR: When R. Abba went up [to Palestine], he said: May it be the will [of God] that I may say something which is acceptable. When he came up [to Palestine] he met R. Johanan and R. Hanina b. Pappi and R. Zera — some say, R. Abbahu and R. Simeon b. Pazzi and R. Isaac the Smith; and they were sitting and saying: Why so? Let the water and the salt be nullified in relation to the dough!5 — R. Abba said to them:
(1) So that the selection had already been made for him before Sabbath, though he was not aware where.
(2) Since it may be bought by any man, it may go wherever the purchaser goes.
(3) A cattle breeder sells to people of all districts, whereas a herdsman, though he does not generally sell, does so occasionally to people in the immediate vicinity.
(4) Since he had not asked him.
(5) Hence the dough would be permitted to be carried without reference to the ownership of the water and the salt!
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 38b
If one kab of wheat of one person got mixed up with ten kabs of wheat of another, should the latter eat and be happy?1 They laughed at him. Said he to them: Have I taken away your coats [that you laugh at me]?2 They again laughed at him. Said R. Oshaia: They were right in laughing at him. Why did he not say to them [as an example] of a case of wheat that got mixed up with barley? Because they are of different kinds, and in a mixture of different kinds the rule of neutralization takes effect; then the same is true of wheat that got mixed up with wheat: granted that according to R. Judah it does not become neutralized, but according to the Rabbis it indeed becomes neutralized.3 R. Safra said to him:4 By Moses!5 Is it well what you say?6 Did they not hear what R. Hiyya of Ktesifon7 said in the name of Rab: If one picks out pebbles from his neighbour's threshing floor he must pay him the value of wheat.8 Consequently [it is because] he lessened the measure [of his wheat];9 likewise in this case he has lessened the quantity.10 Said Abaye to him: Does not the Master make a distinction between money which is being claimed and money which is not being claimed?11 — He replied to him: And according to your opinion, that which R. Hisda said: Nebelah12 is neutralized in ritually slaughtered meat,13 because the slaughtered cannot assume the character of nebelah,14 but ritually slaughtered meat is not neutralized in nebelah, because nebelah can assume the character of ritually slaughtered meat.15 Would you likewise [assume that], if it16 has an owner, it does not become neutralized? And if you say it is even so, surely it was taught: R. Johanan b. Nuri said: Ownerless articles acquire their [Sabbath] rest;17 although they had no owner, it is the same as if they had an owner!18 — He replied to him: [Still]19 can you compare the case of a ritual prohibition with a monetary case! In the case of a ritual prohibition, it [the less] is neutralized [in the majority]; but with respect to a monetary case, it is not neutralized [in the majority]. What is now the reason?20 Abaye says: It is a preventive measure lest the dough be made in partnership.21 Raba says: Condiments are used for seasoning and whatever is used for seasoning does not become neutralized.22
(1) Obviously not! Similarly, the salt and water do not lose their identity in spite of the greater value of the flour.
(2) Surely I have said or done nothing absurd.
(3) Cf. Men. 22a. Hence the very basis of his answer was incorrect.
(4) To R. Oshaia (Rashi), cf. however infra p. 194, n. 1.
(5) So Rashi. Or, Moses, well hast thou spoken, ‘Moses’ being a title of honour, as one might say, ‘O great scholar’.
(6) [Aliter ‘It is well what you say’; R. Safra addressing R. Abba.]
(7) On the eastern bank of the Tigris.
(8) Corresponding to the measure of the stones picked out, since these stones are measured up with the wheat for sale.
(9) By taking out the pebbles.
(10) Through the water the quantity of the dough is enlarged and without the water the measure of the dough would be less. Hence if the pebbles, which have no intrinsic value, can nevertheless not be disregarded, surely we cannot disregard the water and the salt.
(11) The pebbles cannot be disregarded and retain their separate identity because their owner claims their value, since a loss has been inflicted upon him. In the Mishnah no such claim is made on the Festival, therefore owing to their lesser value the salt and the water may well be disregarded.
(12) V. Glos.
(13) If of three pieces of flesh, two are from a ritually slaughtered animal and one from a nebelah, then that which is touched by one of these three is not unclean, for we assume that contact has taken place with one of the pieces of the ritually slaughtered animal.
(14) Hence there are two different kinds and the rule of majority prevails.
(15) If the nebelah flesh putrefies, it loses the characteristic of nebelah flesh and does not defile.
(16) The nebelah.
(17) He who finds them may carry them two thousand cubits in every direction but not to the place for which he has set an ‘erub, for that would be beyond two thousand cubits.
(18) This proves that the absence of an owner to claim a thing does not destroy the status of an object in regard to its movements on Sabbaths and Festivals.
(19) Even granted that no distinction is made between objects that have an owner and such as have none, the difficulty presented by our Mishnah still remains.
(20) For the teaching of our Mishnah that condiments, water, and salt do not become neutralized, seeing that here too we are concerned merely with a matter of ritual prohibition — moving beyond the tehum.
(21) And each carry it to his own limit, which is certainly forbidden.
(22) By its very nature.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 39a
And R. Ashi says: Because it is an object which can become [otherwise] permitted;1 and any object which can become [otherwise] permitted is not neutralized even in two thousand [times its quantity].2
R. JUDAH EXEMPTS IN THE CASE OF WATER. Only water and not the salt? But surely it was taught: R. Judah says: Water and salt become neutralized both in dough as well as in cooked food!3 — There is no difficulty; the one treats of salt of Sodom4 and the other of salt of Istria.5 But it was taught: R. Judah says: Water and salt become neutralized in dough but do not become neutralized in cooked food, because of its fluidity!6 — There is no difficulty; the one treats of a thick mass, the other of clear soup.
MISHNAH. A LIVE COAL IS [RESTRICTED TO THE SAME LIMITS] AS ITS OWNER, BUT A FLAME7 CAN BE TAKEN ANYWHERE.8 ONE INCURS A TRESPASS-OFFERING IN RESPECT OF A LIVE COAL OF HEKDESH;9 BUT AS FOR A FLAME [OF HEKDESH], ONE MAY NEITHER BENEFIT FROM IT, NOR INCUR A TRESPASS-OFFERING.10 IF ONE CARRIES OUT A LIVE COAL INTO PUBLIC GROUND [ON A SABBATH] HE IS CULPABLE, BUT [IF HE DOES THE SAME] WITH A FLAME HE IS EXEMPT.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: Five things were said in respect to a live coal: A live coal is [restricted to the same limits] as its owner, but a flame can be taken anywhere; one incurs a trespass-offering in respect to a live coal of hekdesh, but with respect to a flame, one may not benefit from it, nor incur a trespass-offering. A live coal used in idolatrous service is forbidden but a flame is permitted; if one carries out a live coal into public ground [on a Sabbath] he is culpable, but [if he does the same] with a flame he is exempt; he who is under a vow not to benefit from his neighbour, may not make use of his coal but may make use of his flame. Now why is the flame used in idolatrous service permitted and that of hekdesh forbidden? — Idolatrous service is repugnant and people hold themselves very aloof from it, therefore the Rabbis have taken no measures against it; but as hekdesh is not repugnant and people do not hold themselves aloof from it, the Rabbis enacted a preventive measure on its account.11
IF ONE CARRIES OUT A LIVE COAL INTO PUBLIC GROUND [ON A SABBATH] HE is CULPABLE, BUT [IF HE DOES THE SAME] WITH A FLAME HE IS EXEMPT. But it was taught:12 He who takes out a flame of whatever size is culpable! — Answered R. Shesheth: This treats of a case when he brings it [the flame] out on a chip. Then he should be liable on account of the chip! — When it is less than the standard required; for we have learnt: He who carries out wood [is culpable only] if it is sufficient to cook therewith a small egg.13 Abaye says: When he smears a vessel with oil and kindles it. Then he should be liable on account of the vessel! — [We are treating] of a potsherd. Then he should be liable on account of the potsherd! — When it is less than the standard required; for we have learnt: [He is culpable that takes out] a potsherd big enough to place between one board and another;14 this is the opinion of R. Judah.15 But that which we have learnt: ‘If one carries out a flame [on a Sabbath] he is exempt’, how can it occur?16 — If, for example, he brandishes the object [that is burning so that the flame projected] into public ground.17
MISHNAH. [THE WATER FROM] A PRIVATE WELL IS [RESTRICTED TO THE SAME LIMITS] AS ITS OWNER;18 AND [THE WATER FROM A WELL] BELONGING TO THE INHABITANTS OF THAT TOWN IS [RESTRICTED TO THE SAME LIMITS] AS THE PEOPLE OF THAT TOWN; AND [THE WATER FROM A WELL] BELONGING TO THOSE WHO RETURNED FROM BABYLON19 IS [RESTRICTED TO THE SAME LIMITS] AS THE ONE THAT DRAWS.
GEMARA. Raba pointed out a contradiction to R. Nahman: We have learnt: [The water from] a private well is [restricted to the same limits] as its owner; but the following contradicts this: Flowing streams and bubbling springs [have the same restrictions] as anyone!20 — Answered Rabbah: Our Mishnah treats of collected [water].21 It was likewise stated: R. Hiyya b. Abin said in the name of Samuel: [It treats] of collected [water].
AND [THE WATER FROM A WELL] BELONGING TO THOSE WHO RETURNED FROM BABYLON IS AS THE ONE THAT DRAWS. It was stated: If one draws [water] and gives it to his neighbour, R. Nahman says: [It is restricted to the same limits] as the one for whom it was drawn; [but] R. Shesheth maintains: As the one who drew. In what are they disputing? — One is of the opinion that the well is ownerless,22 while the other is of the opinion that the well is held jointly.23
Raba raised the [following] objection to R. Nahman: If one says to his neighbour, Behold, I am herem to you,24 he against whom the vow is made is forbidden;25
(1) After the Festival it can be taken anywhere.
(2) This is a general rule; cf. supra 3b.
(3) [Var. lec., ‘R. Judah exempts in the case of water and salt’.]
(4) The salt of Sodom was thick and hard. V. Krauss op. cit. I, 499ff. Hence it is not neutralized as its presence is always discernable.
(5) A town in Pontus.
(6) Whereas R. Judah's exemption in our Mishnah in the case of water applies also to cooked food with which the condiments mentioned are used.
(7) I.e., if one for example lights a taper at another's flame.
(8) Within the restricted areas belonging to those who carry it.
(9) I.e., belonging to the Sanctuary. V. Lev. V, 14ff.
(10) If one does benefit from it.
(11) If people are permitted to use that, they will also put other articles of hekdesh to secular use, which is forbidden.
(12) V. Ber. 53a.
(13) I.e., the egg of a hen. Shab. 89b.
(14) To keep boards rigid and to avoid warping (Rashi).
(15) Shab. 82a.
(16) For a flame must be carried in something else.
(17) Lit., he throws’, while retaining the thing to which the flame clings.
(18) Like the individual.
(19) The wells that were dug for the use of the exiles who returned from Babylon and hence were regarded as the property of the whole nation.
(20) I.e., one may take them wherever he himself may go.
(21) I.e., a cistern.
(22) The water accordingly belongs to the one that draws, on the principle that a man cannot act as agent to acquire ownerless property on behalf of another person; v. infra p. 199, n. 9.
(23) I.e., it belongs to the whole nation, which includes him for whom the water was drawn, and the drawer of the water merely acts as his agent.
(24) I.e., I am to you as a thing that is banned.
(25) To benefit from the vower.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 39b
[if he said,] Behold, thou art herem, to thee, the vower is forbidden;1 [if he said,] Behold, I am [herem] to thee, and thou to me, both are forbidden to benefit from one another; but [to both] is permitted the use of things that belong to them that came up from Babylon, but the use of things that belong to the citizens of that town is forbidden to both.2 And the following are the things which belong to them that came up from Babylon: The Temple Mount, the [Temple] Chambers, the [Temple] Courts, and a well in the middle of the road.3 The following belong to [the citizens of] that town: The market-square, the Synagogue, and the bath-house.4 Now if you say that a well is held jointly, then why is it permitted? Surely we have learnt: Partners who vowed not to derive benefit from one another may not enter their [common] court-yard to bathe in the well!5 — To bathe in it is indeed [not allowed], but we are treating here of drawing [water]; the one draws of his own and the other draws of his own.6 Does then R. Nahman hold the rule of bererah, but we have learnt: Brothers who are [also] partners,7 when they are liable to surcharge8 they are exempt from cattle-tithe, and when they are liable to cattle-tithe9 they are exempt from the surcharge.10 And in this connection R. ‘Anan said: This11 was taught only in the case when they divided goats for lambs and lambs for goats;12 but if they divided goats for goats and lambs for lambs,13 we say, each receives his share which was designated for him at the very beginning.14 While R. Nahman said: Even if they divided goats for goats and lambs for lambs, we do not say each receives his share which was designated for him at the very beginning!15 — Rather, all agree that the well is ownerless, but they dispute here with respect to the case of one who picks up a lost article on behalf of his neighbour; one is of the opinion that he [the neighbour] acquires title [to it], and the other is of the opinion that he does not acquire [it].16
MISHNAH. IF ONE HAS HIS PRODUCE IN ANOTHER TOWN, THE INHABITANTS OF WHICH HAVE MADE AN ‘ERUB IN ORDER TO BRING TO HIM SOME OF HIS PRODUCE, THEY MAY NOT BRING IT TO HIM;17 BUT IF HE HIMSELF MADE AN ‘ERUB, HIS PRODUCE IS LIKE HIMSELF.18
(1) To benefit from the other.
(2) Because they are both shareholders therein.
(3) Made for the exiles who returned from Babylon to Jerusalem.
(4) Ned. 47b.
(5) [V. Ned. 45b. The words ‘to bathe in the well’ do not occur there, and are omitted here in MS.M.]
(6) I.e., what each draws is regarded as though it had retrospectively been assigned to him, so that the other never had any claim therein. This answer therefore assumes the law of bererah, v. Glos.
(7) partners are exempt from cattle-tithe (cf. Bek. 56b); brothers, on the other hand, who have come into the inheritance of their father, are liable to tithe those cattle that were born when their goods were still undivided.
(8) Every Israelite had to give half a shekel annually to the Temple for the communal sacrifices; this was augmented by an agio, i.e., a kind of premium or surcharge to cover a possible deficiency in the value of the half shekel, since the value of coins depended on their weight. If two partners combine to pay a whole shekel, they still each have to pay the extra agio. On the other hand, a father can give a whole shekel for his two sons without any extra agio. If two brothers have come into the inheritance of their father, they are regarded as brothers, i.e., as successors of a property belonging to one individual, so that they would be liable for cattle-tithe and exempt from the agio, as their father would have been. If they divide the inheritance and afterwards become partners, they are regarded as partners both in respect of the cattle-tithe and of the agio.
(9) I.e., if they have not yet divided the inheritance.
(10) Shek. 1,7; Hul. 25b; Bek. 56b.
(11) I.e., the teaching ‘when they are liable to surcharge they are exempt from cattle-tithe’, indicating that by dividing the estate the brothers are no longer regarded as heirs.
(12) When they deal with each other In a purely business manner, it is then that they are not regarded as heirs but as partners.
(13) I.e., if they are not so strict about the exact monetary value.
(14) I.e., the portion chosen by each brother for himself is considered as having thus retrospectively become the very inheritance designated for him, so that they are still regarded as heirs with respect to the estate though it had been divided.
(15) And therefore by dividing the estate the brothers cease to be regarded any longer as heirs. Thus R. Nahman rejects the law of bererah.
(16) V. B.M. 10a. According to one opinion the water belongs to the one on whose behalf it was drawn, and according to the other opinion it belongs to the drawer. For since the well has the legal status of being ownerless, water drawn from it is like something found.
(17) Because the produce, being his private property, lay under the same restrictions as the owner. Bah emends: whose inhabitants set an ‘erub in order to visit him, they must not bring him of his fruit.
(18) I.e., he may bring his produce home, where his ‘erub permitted him to go to that town.
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 40a
IF ONE INVITED GUESTS TO HIS HOME, THEY MAY NOT TAKE AWAY WITH THEM [ANY] PORTIONS UNLESS HE [THE HOST] HAD ASSIGNED FOR THEM THEIR PORTIONS ON THE EVE OF THE FESTIVAL.
GEMARA. It was stated: If one deposits produce with his neighbour, Rab says: [The produce has the same restrictive limits] as the one with whom they were deposited; but Samuel says: [They have the same restrictive limits] as the one who deposited them. Shall it be said that Rab and Samuel follow their opinions [expressed elsewhere]? For we have learnt: If he brought in1 with permission, the owner of the court-yard is liable. Rabbi says: He is liable only when the owner has undertaken to guard it.2 And R. Huna said in Rab's name: The halachah is according to the opinion of the Sages; whereas Samuel said: The halachah is as Rabbi. Shall it be said that Rab is of the opinion of the Rabbis and Samuel is of the opinion of Rabbi?3 — Rab will say to you: My opinion is even in accordance with Rabbi; for Rabbi holds his opinion there4 because without an explicit declaration he does not undertake supervision,5 but here6 he definitely undertook to look after it. [Also] Samuel will reply [to you]: My opinion is even in accordance with the Rabbis; for the Rabbis hold their opinion there7 because a man wishes it, that his ox should be in the possession of the owner of the court, so that if it does damage he should not be liable; but here,8 does a man then wish that his produce should be in the possession of his neighbour!9 We have learnt: BUT IF HE HIMSELF MADE AN ‘ERUB, HIS PRODUCE IS LIKE HIMSELF. Now if you say [that the produce has the same restrictive limits] as the one with whom it was deposited, even if he himself set an ‘erub, of what avail is it to him?10 — R. Huna replied: In the Academy they declared [that it treats of a case] where he assigned a corner [of his house] to him.11
Come and hear: IF ONE INVITED GUESTS TO HIS HOME, THEY MAY NOT TAKE AWAY WITH THEM PORTIONS UNLESS HE HAD ASSIGNED FOR THEM THEIR PORTIONS ON THE EVE OF THE FESTIVAL. Now if you say [that the produce has the same restrictive limits] as the one with whom it was deposited, even if he assigned [the portions] for them through another person of what avail is it? — Here also, since he assigned [the portions] for them through another person, it is as if he assigned a corner [of his house] to them. Alternatively say: Assignment is different.12 R. Hana b. Hanilai hung up meat13 On the door-bolt.14 He came before R. Huna who said to him: If you yourself hung it up, go and take it away; but if they15 hung it up for you, you may not take it away.16 And even if he himself hung it up, may he then take it away? Surely R. Huna was a disciple of Rab and Rab said: [The produce has the same restrictive limits] as the one with whom it was deposited! — It is different [when he himself hung it up on] the door-bolt, for it is as if he17 assigned for him a corner [of the house]. R. Hillel said to R. Ashi: And if they hung it up for him, may he not take it away? Surely Samuel said: The ox of a cattle-breeder is as the feet of anyone!18 Rabina said to R. Ashi: And if they hung it up for him may he not take it away? Surely Rabbah the son of R. Hana said in the name of R. Johanan: The halachah is as R. Dosa!19 R. Ashi said to R. Kahana: And if they hung it up for him, may he not take it away? Surely we have learnt: Cattle and utensils have the same restrictive limits as the feet of the owners!20 — Rather it is different in the case of R. Hana b. Hanilai, for he was an important man21 and was deeply occupied in his study, and he [R. Huna] said this to him: If you yourself hung it up, then you have an identification mark on it, and you did not let it out of your mind; therefore go and take it away; but if they hung it up for you, then you let it pass out of your mind and you may not take it away.22
MISHNAH. ONE MAY NOT GIVE DRINK AND SLAUGHTER PASTURE ANIMALS,23 BUT ONE MAY GIVE DRINK AND SLAUGHTER HOUSEHOLD ANIMALS. THE FOLLOWING ARE HOUSEHOLD ANIMALS: THEY THAT PASS THE NIGHT IN TOWN. PASTURE ANIMALS ARE SUCH AS PASS THE NIGHT IN [MORE DISTANT] PASTURE GROUND.24
GEMARA. Why does he teach ‘GIVE DRINK AND SLAUGHTER’?25 — He incidentally informs us that a man should water his animal before slaughter on account of the adhesiveness of the skin.26
Our Rabbis taught: The following are pasture animals and the following are household animals. Pasture animals are such as are led out about [the time of] Passover27 and graze in [more distant] meadows, and who are led in at the time of the first rainfall.28 The following are household animals: Such as are led out and graze outside the city-border29 but return and spend the night inside the city-border. Rabbi says: Both of these are household animals; but pasture animals are such as are led out and graze in [more distant] meadows and who do not return to the habitation of men either in summer or in winter. Does then Rabbi accept the prohibition of mukzeh?30 Surely R. Simeon b. Rabbi asked of Rabbi: What is the law, according to R. Simeon, with respect to dates which are set aside for ripening?31 [And] he replied to him: According to R. Simeon
(1) His ox or other objects through which damage was caused in a stranger's court-yard.
(2) B.K. 47b.
(3) I.e.,in the present instance, Rab rules that the produce suffers the same restrictions as their trustee, because he holds as the Rabbis that it belongs to the trustee in respect of guardianship, and therefore it also belongs to him in respect of ritual restrictions.
(4) In B.K.
(5) He merely permitted him to bring in his ox, but did not undertake to guard it.
(6) In the case of the produce.
(7) In B.K.
(8) In the case of the produce.
(9) [MS.M. adds ‘so that the use of them should be prohibited to him (on the Festival)’.]
(10) Since the produce is still in the possession of his trustees in the other town.
(11) I.e., the trustee lent him the corner of his house where the produce was kept; therefore it remained legally in his (the depositor's) possession.
(12) Since its very purpose thereby is that the object so assigned should pass into the assignee's ownership. [MS.M. omits this last passage.]
(13) Given to him by the butchers before the Festival. He was visiting the town on the Festival to deliver a discourse, and was returning to his own place after the lecture.
(14) Of the house of his host.
(15) The host's household.
(16) The reason is soon explained.
(17) His host with whom the meat was left.
(18) Likewise here too, since the butchers naturally have in mind that it is to belong to any purchaser as from the eve of the Festival.
(19) Cf. supra 37b. Similarly here the movements of the meat should be determined by his limits.
(20) V. supra 37a.
(21) I.e., a great scholar.
(22) Because meat (temporarily) hidden from sight is forbidden unless it is recognized by an identification mark. Such an identification mark would however have been noticed only by him himself, and not by the host's house hold who were not immediately concerned with the meat].
(23) On account of mukzeh.
(24) And so cannot come within the definition of ‘what is set in read iness’.
(25) Surely the whole question is only about slaughtering, since even pasture animals may be given drink on Festivals.
(26) In order that the skin may more easily be flayed.
(27) The month of Nisan, i.e., March-April.
(29) In the environs and suburbs of the town.
(30) For the prohibition of slaughtering pasture animals on a Festival is due to mukzeh, and therefore it is assumed that since Rabbi defines pasture animals, he accepts this prohibition.
(31) Lit., ‘burst dates’. May they be eaten on Festivals?
Talmud - Mas. Beitzah 40b
only dry figs and raisins1 come under the category of mukzeh! — If you like, say: These2 also are like dry figs and raisins. And if you like, say: He [Rabbi] answered him3 according to the opinion of R. Simeon, but he himself is not of this opinion.4 Alternatively, say: He [Rabbi] said this according to the opinion of the Rabbis. According to my view, there is [absolutely] no mukzeh; but even on your view, you should agree with me at all events that such [animals] as are led out and graze about the time of Passover and who are led in at the time of the first rainfall are household animals. And the Rabbis replied to him: No, such are pasture animals.
(1) Because they were formerly edible and have been set aside for drying.
(2) Animals which shun the habitation of men.
(3) His son.
(4) He himself extended the law of mukzeh even to these.
Directory of Sedarim and Tractates