Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 51a
on account of kil'ayim,1 or the seventh year,2 or tithes,3 and they may be removed on the Sabbath.4 This is indeed a refutation.5
MISHNAH. IF IT [A POT] WAS NOT COVERED' WHILE IT WAS YET DAY, IT MAY NOT BE COVERED AFTER NIGHTFALL.6 IF IT WAS COVERED BUT BECAME UNCOVERED, IT MAY BE RECOVERED. A CRUSE MAY BE FILLED WITH [COLD] WATER AND PLACED UNDER A PILLOW OR BOLSTER.7
GEMARA. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: Cold [water, food, etc.8 may be hidden.; Said R. Joseph, What does he inform us? We learnt: A CRUSE MAY BE FILLED WITH [COLD] WATER AND PLACED UNDER A PILLOW OR A BOLSTER. Abaye answered him: He tells us much. For if [we learnt] from the Mishnah [alone], I might argue: That applies only to an object which it is not customary to store away,9 but not to an object which it is customary to store away.10 Therefore he informs us [that it is not so]. R. Huna said on Rabbi's authority: Cold [water, food, etc.] may not be hidden.11 But it was taught: Rabbi permitted cold [water, etc.] to be hidden?-There is no difficulty: the one [ruling was given] before he heard it from R. Ishmael son of R. Jose; the other after he heard it [from him]. For Rabbi sat and declared: Cold [water, etc.] may not be hidden. Said R. ishmael son of R. Jose to him, My father permitted cold [water] to be hidden. Then the Elder12 has already given a ruling, answered he.13 R. Papa observed: Come and see how much they loved each other! For were R. Jose alive, he would have sat submissively before Rabbi, since R. Ishmael son of R. Jose, who occupied his father's place,14 sat submissively before Rabbi,15 yet he [Rabbi] said, Then the Elder has already given a ruling.16
R. Nahman said to his slave Daru: Put away cold water for me,17 and bring me water heated by a Gentile18 cook19 When R. Ammi heard thereof, he objected. Said R. Joseph: Why should be have objected? He acted in accordance with his teachers, one [act] being according to Rab, and the other according to Samuel. According to Samuel, for Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: Cold [water, etc.] may be hidden. According to Rab, for R. Samuel son of R. Isaac said in Rab's name: Whatever can be eaten in its natural state,20 raw, is not subject to [the interdict against] the cooking of Gentiles. But he [R. Ammi] held that an important man is different.21
Our Rabbis taught: Though it was said, One may not store [food] after nightfall even in a substance which does not add heat, yet if one comes to add,22 he may add. How does he do it?23 R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: He may remove the sheets and replace them with blankets, or remove the blankets and replace them with sheets.24 And thus did R. Simeon b. Gamaliel say: Only the self-same boiler was forbidden;25 but if it [the food] was emptied from that boiler into another, it is permitted: seeing that he cools it,26 will he indeed heat it up!27 If one stored [food] in and covered [it] with a substance that may be handled on the Sabbath, or if he stored [it] in something that may not be handled on the Sabbath, but covered [it] with something that may be handled on the Sabbath, he may remove [the covering] and replace it.28 If one stored [food] in and covered [it] with a substance that may not be handled on the Sabbath, or if he stored (it] in something that may be handled on the Sabbath, but covered it with something that may not be handled on the Sabbath, provided it was partly uncovered, he may take it [out] and replace [it];29 but if not,
(1) V. Glos. This does not constitute the planting of diverse seeds.
(2) If these are from the sixth year and are placed in the earth in the seventh, they are not subject to the laws of seventh year produce.
(3) Having been tithed before they were placed in the earth they are not to be retithed on removal, as though this were a new harvest.
(4) On this account the proviso is made that some of the leaves must be uncovered, for otherwise it would be necessary to remove the earth, which may not be done. But the other statements hold good even if they are entirely covered (Rashi and Tosaf.).
(5) For it is not stated that the earth must be loosened before the Sabbath. (14) I.e., put away in something to retain its heat.
(6) V. supra 34a.
(7) To prevent the sun from reaching and warming it.
(8) V. preceding note.
(9) To heat it, as for instance cold water; therefore it may be hidden in order to keep it cold.
(10) For if permission is given to hide it in order to keep it cold, the reverse too may be regarded as permitted.
(11) To keep it cool.
(12) The Sage, referring to R. Jose.
(13) And I retract.
(14) I.e., he was as great as his father (Rashi).
(15) As a disciple before his master.
(16) Thus showing deference to his views.
(17) On the Sabbath.
(18) Lit., 'Syrian'.
(19) On weekdays. Food cooked by Gentiles is forbidden. R. Nahman showed that this interdict does not apply to boiled water.
(20) Lit., 'as it is raw'.
(21) He should be more stringent for himself.
(22) Another covering.
(23) In which the pot is wrapped.
(24) According as he desires more or less heat.
(25) I.e., food may not be stored after nightfall in the same pot in which it was cooked.
(26) By emptying it from one pot into another.
(27) Surely there is no fear of this, which is the reason for the usual prohibition (supra 34a); hence it is permitted.
(28) Since the cover can be removed, one can take hold of the pot.
(29) Since there is something by which he can grasp it.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 51b
it may not be removed and replaced. R. Judah said: Thoroughly beaten flax is the same as foliage.1 A boiler may be placed upon a boiler, and a pot upon a pot,2 but not a pot upon a boiler,3 or a boiler upon a pot;4 and the mouth [thereof]5 may [also] be daubed over with dough:6 not in order to make them7 hotter, but that [their heat] may be retained. And just as hot [food] may not be hidden, so may cold [food] not be hidden. Rabbi permitted cold [food] to be hidden. And neither snow nor hail may be broken up on the Sabbath in order that the water should flow, but they may be placed in a goblet or dish, without fear.8
MISHNAH. WHEREWITH MAY AN ANIMAL GO OUT [ON THE SABBATH], AND WHEREWITH MAY IT NOT GO OUT? A CAMEL MAY GO FORTH WITH A BIT, A DROMEDARY [NE' AKAH] WITH ITS NOSE-RING [HOTEM], A LYBIAN ASS WITH A HALTER, A HORSE WITH ITS CHAIN, AND ALL CHAINWEARING ANIMALS MAY GO OUT WITH THEIR CHAINS AND BE LED BY THEIR CHAINS, AND [WATER OF LUSTRATion] MAY BE SPRINKLED UPON THEM, AND THEY MAY BE IMMERSED IN THEIR PLACE.9
GEMARA. What is meant by a NE'AKAH WITH A HOTEM? - Said Rabbah b. Bar Hanah: A white [female] camel with its iron nose-ring.
A LYBIAN ASS WITH A HALTER. R. Huna said: That means a Lybian ass with an iron halter.10 Levi sent money to Be Hozae11 for a Lybian ass to be bought for him. [But] they parcelled up some barley and sent it to him, to intimate to him that an ass's steps depend on barley.12
Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: They [the scholars] transposed them [in their questions] before Rabbi: What about one animal going forth with [the accouterment] of the other? As for a dromedary [ne'akah] with a bit, there is no question; since it is not guarded thereby, it is a burden.13 The problem is in respect of a camel with a nose-ring. How is it: Since a bit is sufficient, this [the nose-ring] is a burden; or Perhaps an additional guard is not called a burden? Said R. Ishmael son of R. Jose before him, Thus did my father rule: Four animals may go out with a bit: a horse, mule, camel and ass. What does this exclude? Surely it excludes a camel [from being led out] with a nose-ring? - No: it excludes a dromedary [ne'akah] with a bit. In a Baraitha it was taught: A Lybian ass and a camel may go out with a bit.
This is dependent on Tannaim: A beast may not go forth with a muzzle;14 Hananiah said: It may go forth with a muzzle and with anything whereby it is guarded. To what is the reference? Shall we say, to a large beast? is a muzzle sufficient! But if a small beast is meant, is a muzzle insufficient?15 Hence they must surely differ in respect to a cat: the first Tanna holds: since a mere cord is sufficient, it [a muzzle] is a burden;16 while Hananiah holds, Whatever is an additional guard is not called a burden. R. Huna b. Hiyya said in Samuel's name: The halachah, is as Hananiah. Levi son of R. Huna b. Hiyya and Rabbah b. R. Huna were travelling on a road, when Levi's ass went ahead of Rabbah b. R. Huna's, whereupon Rabbah b. R. Huna felt aggrieved.17 Said he [Levi], I will say something to him, so that
(1) It adds heat, and therefore food may not be put away in it even before the Sabbath.
(2) A boiler is of copper, and a pot is of earthenware.
(3) That is the corrected text.
(4) Var. lec.: and a pot upon a boiler, but not a boiler upon a pot. [The reason for the distinction is not clear and Rashi explains because a pot being of earthenware retains more effective heat which it communicates to the boiler of copper. Tosef. Shab. VI, however reads: and a pot upon a boiler and a boiler upon a pot. V. Asheri and Alfasi].
(5) [I.e., of the lower vessel, v. R. Hananel].
(6) Kneaded before the Sabbath.
(7) [I.e,. the contents of the upper vessel].
(8) Of desecrating the Sabbath, though they may melt there.
(9) To whom the law of Sabbath rest applies. V. Ex. XX, 10; Deut. V, 14. If the chain becomes ritually unclean, the ceremony of sprinkling (v. Num. XIX, 14 seq.) and immersion (tebillah) may be performed while they are on the animal.
(10) The words used in the Mishnah had become unfamiliar to the Babylonian amoraim and needed explaining.
(11) A district on the caravan route along the Tigris and its canals. The modern Khuzistan, a province of S.W. Persia, Obermeyer, Landschaft, pp. 204ff.
(12) I.e., barley is the proper food for asses. - Rashi: they returned the money, not wishing to send an ass so far. (5) [I.e., the appurtenances mentioned in the Mishnah.
(13) And must certainly not be led out with it.
(14) Or, collar.
(15) It is a complete guard in itself, and there can be no reason for prohibiting it.
(16) Therefore it is forbidden.
(17) He thought that Levi had acted intentionally, which was disrespectful, for Rabbah b. R. Huna was a greater scholar.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 52a
his mind may be appeased. Said he: An ass of evil habits, such as this one, may it go forth wearing a halter on the Sabbath? - Thus did your father say in Samuel's name, he answered him, The halachah is as Hananiah.1
The School of Manasseh taught: If grooves are made between a goat's horns, it may be led out with a bit on the Sabbath.2 R. Joseph asked: What if one fastened it through its beard:3 since It is painful [to the goat] to tug at it,4 it will not come to do so;5 or perhaps it may chance to loosen and fall, and he will come to carry it four cubits in the street? The question stands over.
We learnt elsewhere: Nor with the strap between its horns.6 R. Jeremiah b. Abba said: Rab and Samuel differ therein: One maintains: Whether as an ornament or as a guard, it is forbidden; while the other rules: As an ornament it is forbidden; as a guard it is permitted. R. Joseph observed: It may be proved that it was Samuel who maintained: As an ornament it is forbidden; as a guard it is permitted. For R. Huna b. Hiyya said in Samuel's name: The halachah is as Hananiah.7 Said Abaye to him, On the contrary, It may be proved that it was Samuel who maintained: Whether as an ornament or as a guard it is forbidden. For Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: They transposed them [in their questions] before Rabbi: What about one animal going forth with [the accoutrement] of the other? Said R. Ishmael b. R. Jose before him, Thus did my father rule: Four animals may go out with a bit: A horse, mule, camel and ass. What does it exclude?8 Surely it excludes a camel [from being led out] with a nose-ring?9 Delete the latter on account of the former.10 And what [reason] do you see to delete the latter on account of the former? Delete the former on account of the latter! - Because we find that it was Samuel who ruled: As an ornament it is forbidden; as a guard it is permitted. [For it was stated:]11 R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in Rab's name: Whether as an ornament or as a guard it is forbidden; while R. Hiyya b. Abin said in Samuel's name: As an ornament it is forbidden; as a guard it is permitted.
An objection is raised: If it [the red heifer] was tied up in a loft by a cord,12 it is fit.13 Now if you say that it is a burden, surely Scripture saith, Upon which never came yoke?14 - Abaye answered: This is when it is led from one town to another.15 Raba said: The red heifer is different, because its value is high. Rabina said: This refers to an intractable [animal].16
A HORSE WITH ITS CHAIN, etc. What is GO OUT and what is LED? - R. Huna said: [It means,] They may either go out [with the chain] wound round them,17 or led [by the chain]; while Samuel maintained: [It means,] They may go out led [by the chain], but they may not go out [with the chain] wound round them. In a Baraitha it was taught: They may go out [with the chain] wound round then, [ready] to be led.18
R. Joseph said: I saw the calves of R. Huna's house go forth with their cords19 wound about them, on the Sabbath. When R. Dimi came,20 he related in R. Hanina's name: The mules of Rabbi's house went forth with their reins on the Sabbath. The scholars propounded: 'Wound about them', or 'led'?- Come and hear: When R. Samuel b. Judah came, he related in R. Hanina's name: The mules of Rabbi's house went forth on the Sabbath with their reins wound about them. Said the Rabbis before R. Assi, This [dictum] of R. Samuel b. Judah is unnecessary, [because] it may be deduced from R. Dimi's [statement]. For should you think that R. Dimi meant 'led', it would follow from Rab Judah's [statement] in Samuel's name. For Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: They [the scholars] transposed them [in their questions] before Rabbi: What about one animal going forth with [the accoutrement] of the other? Said R. Ishmael son of R. Jose before him, Thus did my father rule: Four animals may go out with a bit: a horse, mule, camel, and ass!21 - Said R. Assi to them, This [R. Samuel b. Judah's statement] is necessary. For if it were derived from Rab Judah's [dictum], I could argue: He [R. Ishmael Son of R. Jose] stated it before him, but he did not accept it. Hence R. Dimi's statement informs us [that he did]. And if there were R. Dimi's [alone], I could argue: It means 'led', but not merely 'wound round'; hence R. Samuel b. Judah's [statement] informs us [otherwise].
AND, [WATER OF LUSTRATION] MAY BE SPRINKLED UPON THEM, AND THEY MAY BE IMMERSED IN THEIR PLACE. Are we to say that they can contract uncleanness? But we learnt: A man's ring is unclean,22 but the rings of animals and utensils and all other rings
(1) Hence even if it is an extra guard it is permitted.
(2) Which is fastened to the grooves. But otherwise it is forbidden, because It can easily slip off the head, which is very narrow, and its owner may carry it in the street.
(3) Making a circle of the beard and inserting the bit through it.
(4) On account of the beard.
(5) Hence we may assume that it is safe there, and is permitted.
(6) V. infra 54b.
(7) Hence he holds that an extra guard is permitted, and this includes the strap between a cow's horns.
(8) v. supra 51b.
(9) That being forbidden because it is an extra guard. Since Samuel quotes it with evident approval, it is his view too.
(10) Because these two statements of Samuel are contradictory.
(11) Other edd. omit the bracketed passage, and substitute: What is our decision on the matter? - It was stated:
(12) Or, the reins.
(13) For its purpose; v. Num. XIX, 2 Seq.
(14) Num. XIX, 2. A burden is a yoke.
(15) The cord or reins are then required as an ordinary, not an additional, guard.
(16) According to both answers, what would be an extra guard elsewhere is only an ordinary one here.
(17) Even that is permitted.
(18) I.e., either that it must be wound round it loosely, so that one can insert his hand between the animal's neck and the chain and grasp it; or that a portion of the cord must be left free, whereby the animal may be led.
(19) Lit., 'bit'.
(20) V. p. 12, n. 9.
(21) V. supra 51b.
(22) I.e., it is liable to uncleanness.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 52b
are clean!1 - Said R. Isaac: It [our Mishnah] refers to such as pass from [being] men's ornaments to [become] animals' ornaments;2 while R. Joseph said: [They3 become unclean] because a man leads the animal by them. [For] was it not taught: An animal's staff4 of metal5 is susceptible to uncleanness.' What is the reason? Since a man beats [the animal] with it. So here too; [they are unclean,] because a man leads [the animals] by them.
AND THEY MAY BE IMMERSED IN THEIR PLACE. But there is an intervention?6 - Said R. Ammi: It means that he beat them out.7 Shall we say that R. Ammi holds as R. Joseph? For if as R. Isaac, who maintained that it refers to such as pass from [being] men's ornaments to [become] animals' ornaments; since he beat them out, he has performed an act, and their uncleanness vanishes. For we learnt: All utensils enter upon their uncleanness by intention, but are relieved from their uncleanness only by a change-effecting act!8 - He holds as R. Judah, who maintained, An act to adapt [an object] is not [considered] an act.9 For it was taught: R. Judah said: A change-effecting act was not mentioned10 where it adapts [the object], save where it spoils it. In a Baraitha it was taught: It [our Mishnah] refers to [chains] with movable links.11
A certain disciple from Upper Galilee asked R. Eleazar: l have heard that a distinction is drawn between one ring and another?12 Perhaps you heard it only in reference to the Sabbath;13 for if in connection with uncleanness, they are all alike.14 Now, in connection with uncleanness, are they all alike? Surely we learnt: A man's ring is unclean, but the rings of animals and utensils and all other rings are clean.15 - He16 too was referring to men's [rings]. And are all men's [rings] alike? Surely it was taught: A ring made to gird one's loins therewith or to fasten [the clothes about] the shoulders is clean, and only a finger [ring] was declared to be unclean! - He too was referring to finger rings. And are all finger rings alike? Surely we learnt: If the ring is of metal and its signet is of coral,17 It Is unclean; if it is of coral while the signet is of metal, it is clean.18 - He too referred to [rings] wholly of metal.
He asked him further: l have heard that we distinguish between one needle and another? Perhaps you heard it only in respect to the Sabbath,19 for if in the matter of uncleanness, they are all alike. Now, in the matter of uncleanness, are they all alike? Surely we learnt: If the eyehole or the point of a needle is removed, it is clean! - He referred to a whole [needle]. And are all whole [needles] alike? Surely we learnt: If a needle gathers rust and it hinders the sewing, it is clean; if not, it is unclean. And the School of R. Jannai said: Providing that its mark is perceptible.20 He referred to a bright [needle]. But are all bright [needles] alike? Surely it was taught; A needle, whether containing an eyehole or not, may be handled on the Sabbath;21 while a needle with an eyehole was specified only in respect to uncleanness.22 Surely Abaye interpreted it according to Raba as referring to unfinished utensils!23
MISHNAH. AN ASS MAY GO OUT WITH ITS CUSHION IF IT IS TIED TO IT.24 RAMS MAY GO OUT COUPLED [LEBUBIN]. EWES MAY GO OUT [WITH THEIR POSTERIORS] EXPOSED [SHEHUZOTH], TIED [KEBULOTH], AND COVERED [KEBUNOTH]; GOATS MAY GO OUT [WITH THEIR UDDERS] TIED UP. R. JOSE FORBIDS IN ALL THESE CASES, SAVE EWES THAT ARE COVERED. R. JUDAH SAID: GOATS MAY GO OUT [WITH THEIR UDDERS] TIED IN ORDER TO DRY UP,25 BUT NOT TO SAVE THEIR MILK.26 gemara.
(1) Because they do not rank either as utensils or ornaments, v. Kel. XIII.
(2) And they had become unclean as human ornaments. But when they are animals' ornaments they cannot become unclean, though they retain the defilement contracted before.
(3) The appurtenance mentioned in our Mishnah.
(4) With which it is beaten.
(5) Flat wooden implements are not susceptible to defilement.
(6) Nothing must come between the object that is immersed and the water; but here the neck of the animal intervenes.
(7) Sc. the rings, halters, etc., were beaten thin, so that they fit loosely about the animal and leave room for the water to touch it on all sides.
(8) Utensils become unclean only from when they are quite finished for use; if they still require smoothing, scraping, etc., they are not liable to uncleanness, unless their owner declares his intention to use them as they are. On the other hand, having done so, it is not enough that he subsequently declares that he will not use them, in order to relieve them from their susceptibility to defilement, unless he actually begins smoothing them. Or, if the utensils are unclean, it is insufficient for their owner to state that he will not use them any more, so that they should lose the status of utensils and become clean, but must render them unfit for use by an act, e.g., break or make a hole in them.
(9) To annul the status of a utensil. Hence he can agree with R. Isaac in the explanation of the Mishnah.
(10) In this connection.
(11) Loosely joined and fitting roomily round the animal's neck, so that the water can enter.
(12) In respect to what is that drawn?
(13) Where a distinction is made between a signet ring and an ordinary one; v. infra 59a.
(14) Lit., 'this and this are one'.
(15) V. supra 52b.
(16) R. Eleazar.
(17) Probably a species of cedar-tree.
(18) Only a metal ring becomes unclean, the matter being determined by the ring itself, not the signet. This shows that a distinction is drawn also in connection with uncleanness between finger ring and finger ring.
(19) For carrying a needle with an eye in it from public or private ground or vice versa one is liable to a sin-offering but not if it has no eye.
(20) I.e., providing it is recognizable as a needle - only then is it unclean. Others: providing that the mark of the rust is perceptible when one sews with it - that is regarded as hindering the sewing and makes it clean.
(21) Like any other utensil.
(22) This shows that there is a distinction in connection with defilement between needle and needle also.
(23) I.e., if it is unfinished and a hole is still to be punched therein, it is not liable to defilement. But if it is thus finished off without an eye, e.g., as a kind of bodkin, it is a utensil and liable to uncleanness, no distinction being drawn in connection with defilement between needle and needle. In connection with Sabbath, however, even the former may be handled, for one may decide to use it in its unfinished state, e.g., as a toothpick or for removing splinters from the flesh, and so it ranks as a utensil.
(24) The cushion is to protect it from the cold.
(25) To cease giving milk.
(26) A pouch is sometimes loosely tied round the udder to prevent the milk from dripping; hence it may fall off and therefore R. Judah forbids it (v. 53a). But in the second case it is tied very tightly.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 53a
Samuel said: Providing it was tied thereto since the eve of the Sabbath. R. Nahman observed, Our Mishnah too proves it, as it states: An ass may not go out with its cushion if it is not tied thereto.1 How is this meant? Shall we say that it is not tied thereto at all, - then it is obvious, lest it fall off and he come to carry it? Hence It must mean that it was not tied to it since the eve of the Sabbath, whence it follows that the first clause2 means that it was tied thereto since the eve of the Sabbath. This proves it.
It was taught likewise: An ass may go out with its cushion when it was tied thereto on the eve of the Sabbath, but not with its saddle, even if tied thereto on the eve of the Sabbath. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: With its saddle too, if it was tied to it since the eve of the Sabbath,3 providing, however, that he does not tie its band thereto,4 and providing that he does not pass the strap under its tail.5
R. Assi b. Nathan asked R. Hiyya b. R. Ashi: May the cushion be placed on an ass on the Sabbath?6 It is permitted, replied he. Said he to him, Yet wherein does this differ from a saddle? He remained silent. Thereupon he refuted him:7 One must not move by hand the saddle upon an ass, but must lead it [the ass] up and down in the courtyard until it [the saddle] falls off of its own accord. Seeing that you say that it must not [even] be moved, can there be a question about placing it [on the ass]?8 - Said R. Zera to him, Leave him alone: he agrees with his teacher. For R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in Rab's name: A fodder-bag may be hung around [the neck of] an animal on the Sabbath, and how much more so [may] a cushion [be placed on its back): for if it is permitted there for [the animal's] pleasures how much more so here, that it is [to save the animal] suffering!9 Samuel said: A cushion is permitted, a fodder-bag is forbidden.10 R. Hiyya b. Joseph went and related Rab's ruling before Samuel. Said he: If Abba11 said thus, he knows nothing at all in matters pertaining to the Sabbath.
When R. Zera went up [to Palestine], he found R. Benjamin b. Jephet sitting and saying in R. Johanan's name: A cushion may be placed on an ass on the Sabbath. Said he to him, 'Well spoken! and thus did Arioch teach it in Babylon too.' Now, who is Arioch? Samuel!12 But Rab too ruled thus? - Rather he had heard him conclude: Yet a fodder-bag may not be hung [around the animal's neck] on the Sabbath. Thereupon he exclaimed, 'Well spoken! And thus did Arioch teach it in Babylon.'13
At all events, it is generally agreed that a cushion is permitted: wherein does it differ from a saddle? - There it is different, as it may possibly fall off of its own accord.14 R. Papa said: The former15 is to warm it [the ass]; the latter16 is in order to cool it.17 Where it needs warming it suffers; but where it needs cooling it does not. And thus people say: An ass feels cold even in the summer solstice.18
An objection is raised: A horse must not be led out with a fox's tail,19 nor with a crimson strap between its eyes.20 A zab must not go out with his pouch,21 nor goats with the pouch attached to their udders,22 nor a cow with a muzzle on its mouth,23 nor may foals [be led out] into the streets with fodder-bags around their mouths; nor an animal with shoes on its feet, nor with an amulet, though it is proven;24 and this is a greater stringency in the case of an animal than in that of a human being.25 But he may go out with a bandage on a wound or with splints on a fracture; and [an animal may be led out] with the after-birth hanging down;26 and the bell at the neck must be stopped up,27 and it may then amble about with it in the courtyard.28 At all events it is stated, nor may foals [be led out] into the street with fodder-bags around their mouths': thus only into the street is it forbidden, but in a courtyard it is well [permitted]. Now, does this not refer to large [foals], its purpose being [the animals' greater] pleasure?29 - No: it refers to small ones, the purpose being [to obviate] suffering.30 This may be proved too, because it is taught
(1) V. infra 54b.
(2) Sc. the present Mishnah.
(3) The saddle too affords some warmth.
(4) The band with which the saddle is fastened around the ass's belly. Rashi: lest it appear that he intends placing a burden upon it.
(5) Which is generally placed there to prevent the saddle and burden from slipping forward or backward
(6) Not to be led out with it, but to warm it.
(7) Thinking that his silence meant that no answer was necessary, the difference being too obvious.
(8) Surely not!
(9) Suffering from cold.
(10) The animal of course must be fed, but the fodder can be placed on the ground, and it is a mere luxury to hang the nose-bag around its neck.
(11) An affectionate and reverential name for Rab - 'father'. Others maintain that his name was Abba Arika, while Rab was a title - the teacher par excellence - , the equivalent of Rabbi as the title of R. Judah ha-nasi.
(12) V. Kid., Sonc. ed., p. 189 n. 11.
(13) Whereas Rab forbade it.
(14) And the owner may carry it in the street; supra.
(15) Sc. the cushion.
(16) Sc. the removing of the saddle.
(17) When it becomes overheated through its burden. But in any case an ass cools very rapidly.
(18) Tammuz is the fourth month of the Jewish year, generally corresponding to mid June-July.
(19) Rashi: it was suspended between its eyes to ward off the evil eye; cf. Sanh., Sonc. ed., _ p. 623, n. 2. Animals too were regarded as subject thereto.
(20) Suspended as an ornament.
(21) V. Supra 11b.
(22) Either to catch the milk that may ooze out, or to protect the udders from thorns, etc.
(23) It was muzzled until it came to its own fields, so that it should not browse in other peoples' land.
(24) I.e., three animals had been healed thereby. Generally speaking, Judaism is opposed to superstitious practices (v. Sanh. 65b, 66a; M. Joseph, Judaism as Creed and Life, pp. 79-81; 384); nevertheless, the Rabbis were children of their time and recognized the efficacy of such practices and took steps to regulate them.
(25) This is now assumed to refer to an amulet; a human being may wear a proven amulet; infra 61a.
(26) Not having been removed yet.
(27) With cotton, wool, etc., to prevent if from ringing, which is forbidden on the Sabbath.
(28) But not in the street, v. infra 54b.
(29) Though they can stretch their necks and eat from the ground. This contradicts Samuel.
(30) It is difficult for very young foals to eat from the ground.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 53b
analogous to an amulet.1 This proves it.
The Master said: 'Nor with an amulet, though it is proven'. But we learnt: 'Nor with an amulet that is not proven'; hence if it is proven, it is permitted? - That means proven in respect of human beings but not in respect of animals. But can they be proven in respect of human beings yet not in respect of animals? - Yes: for it may help man, who is under planetary influence, but not animals, who are not under planetary influence.2 If so, how is this 'a greater stringency in the case of an animal then in the case of a human being'?3 - Do you think that that refers to amulets? It refers to the shoe.4
Come and hear: One may anoint [a sore] and scrape [a scab] off for a human being, but not for an animal. Surely that means that there is [still] a sore, the purpose being [to obviate] pain? - No. It means that the sore has healed,5 the purpose being pleasure.6
Come and hear: If an animal has an attack of congestion. It may not be made to stand in water to be cooled; if a human being has an attack of congestion, he may be made to stand in water to be cooled?7 - 'Ulla answered: It is a preventive measure, on account of the crushing of [medical] ingredients.8 If so, the same should also apply to man? - A man may appear to be cooling himself.9 If so, an animal too may appear to be cooling itself? - There is no [mere] cooling for an animal,10 Now, do we enact a preventive measure in the case of animal? But it was taught: 'If it [an animal] is standing without the tehum,11 one calls it and it comes',12 and we do not forbid this lest he [thereby] come to fetch it? - Said Rabina: It means, e.g., that its tehum fell13 within his tehum.14 R. Nahman b. Isaac said: The crushing of ingredients itself15 is dependent on Tannaim. For it was taught: If an animal ate [an abundance of] vetch,16 one must not cause it to run about in the courtyard to be cured; but R. Josiah17 permits it.18 Raba lectured: The halachah is as R. Josiah.
The Master said: 'A zab may not go out with his pouch, nor goats with the pouch attached to their udders.' But it was taught: Goats may go out with the pouch attached to their udders? Said Rab Judah, There is no difficulty: Here it means that it is tightly fastened;19 there it is not tightly fastened. R. Joseph answered: You quote Tannaim at random!20 This is a controversy of Tannaim. For we learnt: GOATS MAY BE LED OUT [WITH THEIR UDDERS] TIED UP. R. JOSE FORBIDS IN ALL THESE CASES, SAVE EWES THAT ARE COVERED. R. JUDAH SAID: GOATS MAY BE LED OUT [WITH THEIR UDDERS] TIED UP IN ORDER TO GO DRY, BUT NOT IN ORDER TO SAVE THEIR MILK.21 Alternatively, both are according to R. Judah: in the one case it is in order that they may go dry; in the other it is for milking.22 It was taught: R. Judah said: It once happened that goats in a household of Antioch23 had large udders, and pouches were made for then, that their udders should not be lacerated.
Our Rabbis taught: It once happened that a man's wife died and left a child to be suckled, and he could not afford to pay a wet-nurse, whereupon a miracle was performed for him and his teats opened like the two teats of a woman and he suckled his son. R. Joseph observed, Come and see how great was this man, that such a miracle was performed on his account! Said Abaye to him, On the contrary: how lowly was this man, that the order of the Creation24 was changed on his account!25 Rab Judah observed, Come and see how difficult are men's wants [of being satisfied]. that the order of the Creation had to be altered for him! R. Nahman said: The proof is that miracles do [frequently] occur, whereas food is [rarely] created26 miraculously.
Our Rabbis taught: It once happened that a man married a woman with a stumped hand, yet he did not perceive it in her until the day of her death. Rabbi observed: How modest this woman must have been, that her husband did not know her! Said R. Hiyya to him, For her it was natural;27 but how modest was this man, that he did not scrutinize his wife!
RAMS MAY GO OUT COUPLED [LEBUBIN]. What is lebubin? R. Huna said: coupled. How is it indicated that LEBUBIN implies nearness? For it is written, Thou hast drawn me near,28 my sister, my bride.29 'Ulla said: It refers to the hide which is tied over their hearts30 that wolves should not attack them.31 Do then wolves attack rams only but not ewes? - [Yes.] because they [the rams] travel at the head of the flock. And do wolves attack the head of the flock and not the rear? - Rather [they attack rams] because they are fat. But are there no fat ones among ewes? Moreover, can they distinguish between them? - Rather it is because their noses are elevated and they march along as though looking out [for the wolf].32 R. Nahman b. Isaac said, It means the skin which is tied under their genitals, to restrain them from copulating with the females. Whence [is this interpretation derived]? Because the following clause states: AND EWES MAY GO OUT SHEHUZOTH. What is SHEHUZOTH? With their tails tied back33 upwards, for the males to copulate with them: thus in the first clause it is that they should not copulate with the females, whilst in the second it is for the males to copulate with them. Where is it implied that SHEHUZOTH denotes exposed? In the verse, And behold, there met him a woman
(1) The purpose of which is not pleasure but the avoidance of sickness.
(2) The planetary influence was regarded as in the nature of a protecting angel; v. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 629, n. 10.
(3) For a man too may go out only with an amulet proven for humans.
(4) With which an animal may not be led out, though that is permitted for men.
(5) Lit., 'is finished'.
(6) To mollify the slight rawness which remains; that rawness, however, does not really cause suffering.
(7) On the Sabbath. This proves that in the case of an animal, even to obviate its sufferings. it is forbidden.
(8) This is forbidden on the Sabbath, save where life is in danger. If cooling in water is permitted. it will be thought that crushing ingredients is likewise permitted.
(9) Not for medical purposes.
(10) It is not customary to take an animal for cooling save for medical purposes.
(11) V. Glos.
(12) V. infra 151a.
(13) Lit., 'was swallowed up'.
(14) When an animal is entrusted to a cowherd, its tehum is that of the cowherd, i.e., it may go only where the cowherd may go. Here the owner's tehum stretched beyond that of the cowherd; hence he may call the animal that strayed beyond its own tehum, for even if he forgets himself and goes for it, he is still within his own boundaries. Nevertheless he may not actually go for it, because when one (a man or a beast) goes beyond his tehum, he becomes tied to that spot and may only move within a radius of four cubits from it; hence the owner must not actually lead the animal away, but may only call it. (One can extend his tehum by placing some food at any spot within the two thousand cubits, whereupon he may then walk a further two thousand cubits from that spot. Here the owner had extended his tehum, but not the cowherd).
(15) I.e., whether any other form of healing is forbidden as a preventive measure, lest one come to crush ingredients too.
(16) Which made it constipated.
(17) v. marginal gloss cur. edd. R. Oshaia.
(18) The first Tanna forbids it as a preventive against the crushing of ingredients, while R. Josiah declares this preventive measure unnecessary.
(19) And there is no fear of its falling off, so that the owner may carry it.
(20) Aliter: have you removed Tannaim from the world, v. Rashi.
(21) Thus this is disputed in our Mishnah, and so possibly in the Baraithas too.
(22) Rashi: to preserve the milk in its pouch. Ri: both are to protect the udders from being scratched by thorns, but in the one case it is desired that the goats shall go dry; then it is permitted, since it is tied very tightly; but in the other it is desired that the goats shall remain milkers; then it is forbidden, because it is lightly tied.
(23) The capital of Syria.
(24) Lit., 'the beginning'; i.e., nature.
(25) In Ber. 20a Abaye himself regards miracles wrought for people as testifying to their greatness and merit. Rashi observes that his lowliness lay in the fact that a means of earning money was not opened to him.
(26) So Rashi.
(27) It is natural for a woman to cover herself, particularly when it is in her own interest.
(28) Heb. libabtini (E.V. Thou hast ravished my heart).
(29) Cant. IV, 9.
(30) Heb. leb, which 'Ulla takes to be the root of lebubin.
(31) Thus he translates: RAMS MAY GO OUT with their hides over their hearts. Wolves usually seize beasts at the heart (Rashi).
(32) Which rouses its ire, Var. lec.: ke-budin, like bears, i.e., proudly and fiercely. V. D.S.
(33) Heb. she'ohazin, lit., 'we catch up'
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 54a
exposed1 and wily of heart.2
EWES MAY GO OUT TIED [KEBULOTH]. What is KEBULOTH? - With their tails tied downwards, to restrain the males from copulating with them. How is it implied that kabul3 denotes non-productively? - Because it is written, What cities are these which thou hast given me, my brother? And he called them the land of Cabul, unto this day.4 What is 'the land of Cabul'? - Said R. Huna: It contained inhabitants who were smothered [mekubbolin] with silver and gold. Said Raba to him, If so, is that why it is written, and they pleased him not?5 because they were smothered with silver and gold they pleased him not! - Even so, he replied; being wealthy and soft-living, they would do no work. R. Nahman b. Isaac said, It was a sandy region.6 and why was it called Cabul? Because the leg sinks into it up to the ankle, and people designate it an ankle-bound land which produces no fruit.
[AND COVERED] KEBUNOTH. What is KEBUNOTH? - It means that they [the sheep] are covered for the sake of the fine wool.7 As we learnt: [The hue of] a rising is like white wool.8 What is white wool? - Said R. Bibi b. Abaye: Like pure wool [from a sheep] which is covered from birth9 in order to produce fine wool.
AND GOATS MAY BE LED OUT [WITH THEIR UDDERS] TIED UP. It was stated: Rab said: The halachah is as R. Judah; while Samuel said: The halachah is as R. Jose. Others learn this controversy independently. Rab said: If it is in order to go dry, it is permitted. but if it is for milking it is forbidden; while Samuel said: Both are forbidden. Others learn it in reference to the following: Goats may go out [with their udders] tied up in order to go dry, but not for milking. On the authority of R. Judah b. Bathyra it was said: That is the halachah; but who can vouch10 which is for going dry and which is for milking? And since we cannot distinguish [between them], both are forbidden. Said Samuel, - others say. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: The halachah is as R. Judah b. Bathyra. When Rabin came,11 he said in the name of R. Johanan: The halachah is as the first Tanna.12
MISHNAH. AND WHEREWITH MAY IT NOT GO OUT? A CAMEL MAY NOT GO OUT WITH A PAD [TIED TO ITS TAIL] OR 'AKUD OR RAGUL,;13 AND SIMILARLY OTHER ANIMALS. ONE MUST NOT TIE CAMELS TOGETHER AND PULL [ONE OF THEM]. BUT HE MAY TAKE14 THE CORDS IN HIS HAND AND PULL [THEM]. PROVIDING HE DOES NOT TWINE THEM TOGETHER.
GEMARA. It was taught: A camel must not go out with a pad tied to its tail, but it may go out with a pad tied to its tail and its hump.15 Rabbah son of R. Huna said: A camel may be led out with a pad tied to its after-birth.16
OR 'AKUD OR RAGUL. Rab Judah said: 'AKUD means the tying of hand and foot17 together, like Isaac the son of Abraham; RAGUL means that the forefoot must not be bent back on to the shoulder and tied. An objection is raised: 'Akud refers to the two forefeet or the two hindfeet [tied together]; ragul means that the forefoot must not be bent back on to the shoulder and tied? - He interprets as the following Tanna. For it was taught: 'Akud means the tying together of the forefoot and the hindfoot, or of the two forefeet or the two hindfeet; ragul means that the forefoot must not be bent back on to the shoulder and tied. Yet it is still not the same: as for the first and the last clauses, it is well; but the middle one is difficult?18 - Rather [he maintains] as the following Tanna. For it was taught: 'Akud means the tying of hand and foot, like Isaac the son of Abraham; ragul means that the forefoot must not be bent back on to the shoulder and tied.
ONE MUST NOT TIE CAMELS TOGETHER. What is the reason? - Said R. Ashi: Because it looks as if he is going to the fair.
BUT HE MAY TAKE [etc.]. R. Ashi said: This was taught only in respect to Kil'ayim.19 Kil'ayim of what? Shall we say, kil'ayim of man?20 Surely we learnt: A man is permitted to plough and pull with all of them .21 But if it means kil'ayim of the cords,22 - surely we learnt: If one fastens [two pieces together] with one fastening,23 it is not a connection?24 - After all, it means kil'ayim of the cords, but this is its teaching: providing that he does not twine and knot [them together].25
Samuel said: Providing that a handbreadth of a cord does not hang out of his hand.26 But the School of R. Ishmael taught, Two handbreadths? - Said Abaye, Now that Samuel said one handbreadth, while the School of R. Ishmael taught two handbreadths, Samuel comes to inform us the halachah in actual practice.27
(1) Heb. Shith zonah, which is regarded as connected with SHEHUZOTH. E.V.: With the attire of a harlot.
(2) Prov. VII, 10.
(3) Sing. masc. of kebuloth.
(4) I Kings IX, 13.
(5) Ibid. 12.
(6) Jast.: the land of Humton, a district of northern Palestine.
(7) That the wool should be of a fine, silky texture.
(8) The reference is to Lev. XIII, 2.
(9) Lit., 'its first day'.
(10) Lit., 'cast lots'.
(11) V. p. 12, n. 9
(12) In our Mishnah that both are permitted.
(13) This is explained in the Gemara.
(14) Lit., 'insert'.
(15) In the first case it can slide off (v. supra 53a top). but not in the second.
(16) The camel refrains from pulling at it, because it is painful; hence it will not fall off.
(17) In the case of an animal, the forefoot and the hindfoot.
(18) For this Tanna includes the tying together of the two forefeet or the two hindfeet in the term 'akud, whereas according to Rab Judah, who> gives the analogy of Isaac, only the tying of the forefoot to the hindfoot is thus designated.
(19) V. Glos. The prohibition of twining them together cannot refer to the Sabbath.
(20) When he winds the cords round his hand, he may pull at something simultaneously with the camels; thus they act in unison, and this may be regarded as two different species working together, which is forbidden, v. Deut. XXII, 10. On this supposition the Mishnah must be translated: providing he does not wind them (round his hand).
(21) Sc. various animals, and this does not constitute kil'ayim.
(22) In case some are of wool, while others are of flax; when twined together they become kil'ayim, and as he holds them, they warm his hands, which is the equivalent of 'wearing' (v. Deut. XII, 11).
(23) I.e., if he joins two pieces of cloth, one of wool and the other of linen, with a single stitch or knot.
(24) Hence when he twines the cords together they are not kil'ayim.
(25) This is a double fastening, which renders the combination kil'ayim.
(26) For then it looks like a separate cord which he is carrying.
(27) I.e., to be on the safe side we rule one handbreadth, yet no prohibition is violated for less than two.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 54b
But it was taught: Providing that he lifts it a handbreadth from the ground?1 - That was taught of the cord between.2
MISHNAH. AN ASS MAY NOT GO OUT WITH A CUSHION, WHEN IT IS NOT TIED TO IT, OR WITH A BELL, EVEN IF IT IS PLUGGED, OR WITH A LADDER[-SHAPED YOKE] AROUND ITS NECK, OR WITH A THONG AROUND ITS FOOT. FOWLS MAY NOT GO OUT WITH RIBBONS, OR WITH A STRAP ON THEIR LEGS; RAMS MAY NOT GO OUT WITH A WAGGONETTE UNDER THEIR TAILS,3 EWES MAY NOT GO OUT PROTECTED [HANUNOTH].4 OR A CALF WITH A GIMON,5 OR A COW WITH THE SKIN OF A HEDGEHOG,6 OR WITH THE STRAP BETWEEN ITS HORNS. R. ELEAZAR B. 'AZARIAH'S COW USED TO GO OUT WITH A THONG BETWEEN ITS HORNS, [BUT] NOT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE RABBIS.
GEMARA. What is the reason?7 - As we have said.8
OR WITH A BELL., EVEN IF IT IS PLUGGED UP. Because it looks like going to the fair.
OR WITH A LADDER [-SHAPED YOKE] AROUND ITS NECK. R. Huna said: That is a jaw bar.9 For what purpose is it made? For where it has a bruise, lest it chafe it afresh.10
OR WITH A STRAP ON THEIR LEGS. It is put on him [the ass] as a guard.11 FOWLS MAY NOT GO OUT WITH RIBBONS. Which are put on them, for a sign, that they should not be exchanged.
OR WITH A STRAP. Which is fastened on them to restrain them from breaking utensils.12
RAMS MAY NOT GO OUT WITH A WAGGONETTE. [Its purpose is] that their tails may not knock [against rocks, etc.].
EWES MAY NOT GO OUT PROTECTED [HANUNOTH]. R. Aha b. 'Ulla sat before R. Hisda, and he sat and said: When it is sheared, a compress is saturated13 in oil and placed on its forehead that it should not catch cold. Said R. Hisda to him: If so, you treat it like Mar 'Ukba!14 But R. Papa b. Samuel sat before R. Hisda,15 and he sat and said: When she kneels for lambing two oily compresses are made for her, and one is placed on her forehead and the other on her womb, that she may be warmed. Said R. Nahman to him, If so, you would treat her like Yaltha!16 But said R. Huna, there is a certain wood in the sea towns called hanun, whereof a chip is brought and placed in her nostril to make her sneeze, so that the worms in her head should fall out. If so, the same [is required] for males? - Since the males butt each other, they fall out in any case. Simeon the Nazirite said: A chip of the juniper tree [is placed in its nostril]. As for R. Huna, it is well: hence HANUNOTH is mentioned. But according to the Rabbis, what is the meaning of HANUNOTH? - That an act of kindness is done for it.17
NOR MAY A CALF GO OUT WITH A GIMON. What is the meaning of A CALF WITH A GIMON? - Said R. Huna: A little yoke.18 Where is it implied that 'GIMON' connotes bending?19 In the verse, Is it to bow down his head as a rush [ke-agmon]?20
NOR A COW WITH THE SKIN OF A HEDGEHOG. It is placed upon it to prevent hedgehogs21 from sucking it. NOR WITH THE STRAP BETWEEN ITS HORNS. On Rab's view, whether as an ornament or as a protection, it is forbidden; on Samuel's view, as an ornament it is forbidden, as a protection it is permitted.22
R. ELEAZAR B. 'AZARIAH'S COW. Did he have [but] one cow? Surely Rab-others state, Rab Judah in Rab's name - said: The tithe of R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah's flocks amounted to thirteen thousand calves annually? - It was taught: This was not his,23 but a female neighbour of his; yet since he did not protest thereat, it was designated his.24
Rab and R. Hanina, R. Johanan and R. Habiba taught [the following] (In the whole of the Order Mo'ed25 whenever this pair26 occur some substitute R. Jonathan for R. Johanan)27 Whoever can forbid his household [to commit a sin] but does not, is seized28 for [the sins of] his household; [if he can forbid] his fellow citizens, he is seized for [the sins of] his fellow citizens; if the whole world, he is seized for [the sins of] the whole world. R. Papa observed, And the members of the Resh Galutha's [household]29 are seized for the whole world. Even as R. Hanina said, Why is it written, The Lord will enter into judgement with the elders of his people, and the princes thereof:30 if the Princes sinned,
(1) Implying that there is no limit to the length that may hang out of his hand.
(2) Between the man and the camel. If it trails nearer to the ground, it looks as though he is carrying a cord.
(3) This refers to a species of ram whose tail was very fat, to preserve which it was yoked to a waggonette.
(4) v. Gemara.
(5) Discussed in the Gemara.
(6) Tied round its udder.
(7) For the prohibition relating to the cushion.
(8) Supra 53a.
(9) Jast.: a bandage or bar under the jaw.
(10) I.e., it should let it heal.
(11) To prevent the legs from knocking each other.
(12) The two legs were tied together; hence it could not run about and cause damage.
(13) Lit., 'hid'
(14) The head of the Beth din. - A sheep will not be treated with such care.
(15) Rashal reads: R. Nahman.
(16) His wife.
(17) Deriving HANUNOTH from hanan, to be gracious, kind.
(18) To accustom it to bend its head under the yoke when it grows up.
(19) V. preceding note.
(20) Isa. LVIII,5.
(21) 'Believed to suck and injure the udders of cattle' (Jast).
(22) V. supra 52a.
(23) Sc. the cow referred to in the Mishnah.
(24) Lit., 'it was called by his name'.
(25) V. Introduction to this Order, in this volume.
(26) I.e., these four names.
(27) This is a parenthetic observation by the Talmud (Tosaf.).
(28) Just as a pledge is seized for non-payment of debt. I.e., he is punished.
(29) V. p. 217. n. 7.
(30) Is'. Ill, 14.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 55a
how did the elders sin? But say, [He will bring punishment] upon the elders because they do not forbid the princes.
Rab Judah was sitting before Samuel. [when] a woman came and cried before him,1 but he ignored her. Said he to him, Does not the Master agree [that] 'whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry, but shall not be heard'?2 'O keen scholar!'3 he replied. 'Your superior [will be punished] with cold [water]. but your superior's superior [will be punished] with hot.4 Surely Mar 'Ukba, the Ab-Beth din5 is sitting!' For it is written, O house of David, thus saith the Lord. Execute judgement in the morning, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor, lest my fury go forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doing, etc.6
R. Zera said to R. Simeon, Let the Master rebuke the members of the Resh Galutha's suite. They will not accept it from me, was his reply. Though they will not accept its returned he, yet you should rebuke them. For R. Aha b. R. Hanina said: Never did a favourable word7 go forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, of which He retracted for evil, save the following, where it is written, And the Lord said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark [taw] upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof, etc.8 The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Gabriel,9 Go and set a taw10 of ink upon the foreheads of the righteous, that the destroying angels may have no power over them; and a taw of blood upon the foreheads of the wicked, that the destroying angels may have power over them. Said the Attribute of Justice11 before the Holy One, blessed be He, 'Sovereign of the Universe! Wherein are these different from those?' 'Those are completely righteous men, while these are completely wicked,' replied He. 'Sovereign of the Universe!' it continued, 'they had the power to protest but did not.' 'It was fully known12 to them that had they protested they would not have heeded them.'13 'Sovereign of the Universe!' said he, 'If it was revealed to Thee, was it revealed to them?' Hence it is written, [Slay utterly] the old man, the young and the maiden, and little children and women; but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my Sanctuary [mikdashi]. Then they began at the elders which were before the house.14 R. Joseph recited: Read not mikdashi but mekuddashay [my sanctified ones]: this refers to the people who fulfilled the Torah from alef to taw.15 And straightway, And behold, six men came from the way of the upper gate, which lieth toward the north, every man with his slaughter weapon in his hand; and one man in the midst of them clothed in linen, with a writer's inkhorn by his side. And they went in, and stood beside the brazen altar.16 Was then the brazen altar [still] in existence?17 - The Holy One, blessed be He, spake thus to them; Commence [destruction] from the place where song is uttered before Me.18 And who were the six men? - Said R. Hisda: Indignation [Kezef], Anger [Af], Wrath [Hemah], Destroyer [Mashhith] Breaker [Meshabber] and Annihilator [Mekaleh]. And why taw? - Said Rab: Taw [stands for] tihyeh [thou shalt live], taw [stands for] tamuth [thou shalt die]. Samuel said: The taw denotes, the merit of the Patriarchs is exhausted [tamah].19 R. Johanan said: The merit of the Patriarchs will confer grace [tahon].20 While Resh Lakish said: Taw is the end of the seal of the Holy One, blessed be He. For R. Hanina said: The seal of the Holy One, blessed be He, is emeth [truth]. R. Samuel b. Nahmani said: It denotes the people who fulfilled the Torah from alef to taw.21
And since when has the merit of the Patriarchs been exhausted? - Rab said, Since the days of Hosea the son of Beeri, for it is written, [And now] will I discover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers, and none shall deliver her out of mine hand.22 Samuel said. Since the days of Hazael, for it is said, And Hazael king of Syria oppressed Israel all the days of Jehoahaz;23 and it is written, But the Lord was gracious unto them, and had compassion upon them, and had respect unto them, because of the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them, neither cast he them from his presence until now.24 R. Joshua b. Levi said: Since the days of Elijah, for it is said, And it came to pass at the time of the offering of the evening oblation, that Elijah the prophet came near, and said, O Lord, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou art God in Israel, and that I am thy servant, and that I have done all these things at thy word.25 R. Johanan said: Since the days of Hezekiah, for it is said, Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with judgement and with righteousness for henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts shall perform this.26
R. Ammi said: There is no death without sin,27 and there is no suffering without iniquity. There is no death without sin, for it is written, The soul that sinneth, it shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son, the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him, etc.,28 There is no suffering without iniquity, for it is written, Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.29
(1) About a wrong done to her.
(2) Prov. XXI, 13.
(3) Or, man of long teeth.
(4) I.e., I, your superior, will go unscathed, because there is a higher court than mine, viz., Mar 'Ukba's. which should really take the matter up.
(5) The father, i.e., the head of the Beth din.
(6) Jer. XXI, 12. From this Samuel deduced that only the head, with whom lay the real power, would be punished.
(7) Lit., 'a good attribute'.
(8) Ezek. IX, 4.
(9) Gabriel, 'man of God', is mentioned in the Book of Daniel VIII, 16-26; IX, 21-27. He was regarded as God's messenger, who executes His will on earth.
(10) The last letter of the Hebrew alphabet.
(11) Justice was often hypostasized as an independent being.
(12) Lit., 'it was revealed and known'.
(13) Lit., 'accepted (it) from them'.
(14) Ezek. IX, 6.
(15) The first and the last letters of the alphabet - as we say from Alpha to Omega'. Nevertheless they were included, because they had failed to protest. Thus the Almighty retracted from His original intention, the change being for evil.
(16) Ibid. 2.
(17) According to tradition Solomon hid it and substituted an earthen altar for it; v. I Kings VIII, 64 and Zeb. 59b.
(18) I.e., start with the Levites, who utter song to the accompaniment of musical instruments of brass.
(19) The merit of the Patriarchs, which acted as a shield for the wicked, is at an end.
(20) Samuel explains the taw on the wicked; R. Johanan that on the righteous.
(21) V. n. 2.
(22) Hos. II, 12; 'and none', i.e., their merit
(23) II Kings XIII, 22.
(24) Ibid. 23. 'Until now' implies, but no longer.
(25) I Kings XVIII, 36. Here too this day implies a limitation.
(26) Isa. IX, 6. 'The zeal, etc.' implies, but not the merit of the Patriarchs, this being exhausted by now.
(27) One's sins cause his death.
(28) Ezek. XVIII, 20.
(29) Ps. LXXXIX, 33.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 55b
An objection is raised: The ministering angels asked the Holy One, blessed be He: 'Sovereign of the Universe! Why didst Thou impose the penalty of death upon Adam?' Said He to them, I gave him an easy command, yet he violated it.' 'But Moses and Aaron fulfilled the whole Torah,' they pursued - 'yet they died'. 'There is one event to the righteous and to the wicked; to the good, etc.,1 He replied .2 - He maintains as the following Tanna. For it was taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Moses and Aaron too died through their sin, for it is said, Because ye believed not in me[...therefore ye shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them]:3 hence, had ye believed in Me, your time had not yet come to depart from the world.4
An objection is raised: Four died through the serpent's machinations,5 viz., Benjamin the son of Jacob, Amram the father of Moses, Jesse the father of David, and Caleb the son of David. Now, all are known by tradition, save Jesse the father of David, in whose case the Writ gives an explicit intimation. For it is written, And Absalom set Amasa over the host instead of Joab. Now Amasa was the son of a man whose name was Ithra the Israelite, that went in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah Joab's mother.6 Now, was she the daughter of Nahash? Surely she was the daughter of Jesse, for it is written, and their sisters were Zeruiah and Abigail?7 Hence it must mean, the daughter of one who died through the machinations of the nahash [serpent].8 Who is [the author of this]? Shall we say, the Tanna [who taught] about the ministering angels? - Surely there were Moses and Aaron too! Hence it must surely be R. Simeon b. Eleazar, which proves that there is death without sin and suffering without iniquity. Thus the refutation of R. Ammi is [indeed] a refutation.
R. Samuel b. Nahman said in R. Jonathan's name: Whoever maintains that Reuben sinned is merely making an error, for it is said, Now the sons of Jacob were twelve,9 teaching that they were all equal.10 Then how do I interpret, and he lay with Bilhah his father's concubine?11 This teaches that he transposed his father's couch,12 and the Writ imputes [blame] to him as though he had lain with her. It was taught, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: That righteous man was saved from that sin and that deed did not come to his hand.13 Is it possible that his seed was destined to stand on Mount Ebal and proclaim, Cursed be he that lieth with his father's wife,14 yet this sin should come to his hand? But how do I interpret, and he lay with Bilhah his father's concubine'? He resented his mother's humiliation. Said he, If my mother's sister was a rival to my mother, shall the bondmaid of my mother's sister be a rival to my mother? [Thereupon] he arose and transposed her couch. Others say, He transposed two couches, one of the Shechinah and the other of his father.15 Thus it is written, Then thou defiledst, my couch on which [the Shechinah] went up.16
This is dependent on Tannaim. Unstable [Pahaz] as water, thou shalt not excel:17 R. Eliezer interpreted: Thou wast hasty [Paztah], thou wast guilty [Habtah] thou didst disgrace [Zaltah]. R. Joshua interpreted: Thou didst overstep [Pasatah] the law, thou didst sin [Hatatha], thou didst fornicate [Zanitha]. R. Gamaliel interpreted: Thou didst meditate [Pillaltah],18 thou didst supplicate [Haltah], thy prayer shone forth [Zarhah]. Said R. Gamaliel, We still need [the interpretation of] the Modiite. R. Eleazar the Modiite19 said, Reverse the word and interpret it: Thou didst tremble [Zi'az'atha], thou didst recoil [Halitha], thy sin fled [Parhah] from thee.20 Raba - others state, R. Jeremiah b. Abba interpreted: Thou didst remember [Zakarta] the penalty of the crime, thou wast [grievously] sick [Halitha],21 thou heldest aloof [Pirashta] from sinning.
(Mnemonic: Reuben, the sons of Eli, the sons of Samuel, David, Solomon, and Josiah.)22 R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Jonathan's name: Whoever maintains that the sons of Eli sinned is merely making an error, for it is said, And the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, priests unto the Lord, were there.23 Now he agrees with Rab, who said, Phinehas did not sin. [Hence] Hophni is likened to Phinehas: just as Phinehas did not sin, so did Hophni not sin. Then how do I interpret, and how that they [sc. Eli's sons] lay with the women?24 Because they delayed their bird-offerings25 so that they did not go to their husbands,26 the Writ stigmatizes them as though they had lain with them.
It was stated above, 'Rab said, Phinehas did not sin,' for it is said, and Ahijah, the son of Ahitub, Ichabod's brother, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eli, the priest of the Lord, etc.27 Now, is it possible that sin had come to his hand, yet the Writ states his descent? Surely It is said, The Lord will cut off to the man that doeth this, him that waketh ['er] and him that answereth, out of the tents of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the Lord of hosts:28 [this means:] if an Israelite,29 he shall have none awakening [i.e., teaching] among the Sages and none responding among the disciples; if a priest, he shall have no son to offer an offering? Hence it follows that Phinehas did not sin. But it is written, 'how that they lay [etc.']? - 'He lay' is written.30 But it is written, Nay, my sons; for it is no good report that I hear?31 - Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: My son is written.32 But it is written, ye make [the Lord's people] to transgress?33 - Said R. Huna son of R. Joshua, It is written, he causes them to transgess.34 But it is written, sons of Belial?35 - Because Phinehas should have protested to Hophni but did not, the Writ regards him as though he [too] sinned.
R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Jonathan's name: Whoever maintains
(1) Eccl. IX, 2.
(2) Showing that death may come without sin.
(3) Num. XX, 12.
(4) On the view that they died sinless, this deduction is made: but had ye believed, you would have led the assembly into the land, etc. The punishment therefore was that they would not lead, not that they should die, which would have been disproportionate to their fault (Maharsha).
(5) I.e., because the serpent caused Adam and Eve to sin, but not on account of their own sin. - This is not to be confused with the doctrine of Original sin, which is rejected by Judaism, v. B.B., Sonc. ed., p. 86, n. 11.
(6) II Sam. XVII, 25.
(7) I Chron. II, 16. 'Their sisters' refers to the sons of Jesse; v. preceding verse.
(8) It may be observed that the Talmud calls this an explicit intimation.
(9) Gen. XXXV, 22.
(10) Lit., 'balanced as one' - they were all equal in righteousness.
(12) Placing it in Leah's tent; v. infra.
(13) He did not even have the opportunity.
(14) Deut. XXVII; 20; v. 13.
(15) Rashi: Jacob set a couch for the Shechinah in the tents of each of his wives, and where the Shechinah came to rest, there he spent the night.
(16) Gen. XLIX, 4. This translation is based on the change of person from second (defiledst) to third (went), which implies a different subject for 'went'.
(18) To be saved from sin.
(19) Of Modim, some fifteen miles north of Jerusalem.
(20) All treat the word Pahaz (E.V. unstable) as a mnemonic, each letter indicating a word. Thus R. Eliezer and R. Joshua maintain that he sinned, while the others hold that his nobler feelings triumphed.
(21) Through defying his lust.
(22) V. p. 149, n. 6.
(23) I Sam. I, 3.
(24) lbid. II, 22.
(25) After childbirth; v. Lev. XII, 6-8.
(26) They had to wait in Shiloh until their birds were sacrificed.
(27) lbid. XIV, 3.
(28) Mal. II, 12.
(29) I.e., not a priest.
(30) ישכבן, defectively, and to be treated as 3rd. person singular; cf. Arabic ending in an].
(31) I Sam. II, 24.
(32) The sing. and the plural are the same in Heb. He must mean that the earlier traditional reading was my son.
(34) [מעבירם: M.T. has מעבירים, but in a number of places the Talmud version differs from ours. V. Tosaf and Marginal Gloss].
(35) Ibid. 12.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 56a
that Samuel's sons sinned is merely erring. For it is said, And it came to pass when Samuel was old... that his sons walked not in his ways:1 thus, they [merely] walked not in his ways, yet they did not sin either. Then how do I fulfil, 'they turned aside for lucre'?2 That means that they did not act like their father. For Samuel the righteous used to travel to all the places of Israel and judge them in their towns, as it is said, And he went from year to year in circuit to Beth-el, and Gilgal, and Mizpah; and he judged Israel.3 But they did not act thus, but sat in their own towns, in order to increase the fees of their beadles4 and scribes.5
This is a controversy of Tannaim: 'They turned aside for lucre': R. Meir said, [That means,] They openly demanded their portions.6 R. Judah said: They forced7 goods on private people. R. Akiba said: They took an extra basket of tithes by force. R. Jose said: They took the gifts by force.8
R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Jonathan's name: Whoever says that David sinned is merely erring, for it is said, And David behaved himself wisely in all his ways: and the Lord was with him.9 Is it possible that sin came to his hand, yet the Divine Presence was with him? Then how do I interpret, Wherefore hast thou despised the word of the Lord, to do that which is evil in his sight?10 He wished to do [evil], but did not. Rab observed: Rabbi, who is descended from David, seeks to defend him, and expounds [the verse] in David's favour. [Thus:] The 'evil' [mentioned] here is unlike every other 'evil' [mentioned] elsewhere in the Torah. For of every other evil [mentioned] in the Torah it is written, 'and he did,' whereas here it is written, .'to do': [this means] that he desired to do, but did not. Thou hast smitten Uriah the Hittite with the sword:11 thou shouldst have had him tried by the Sanhedrin,12 but didst not. And hast taken his wife to be thy wife: thou hast marriage rights in her.13 For R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Jonathan's name: Every one who went out in the wars of the house of David wrote a bill of divorcement for his wife, for it is said, and bring these ten cheeses unto the captain of their thousand, and look how thy brethren fare, and take their pledge ['arubatham].14 What is meant by 'arubatham? R. Joseph learned: The things which pledge man and woman [to one another].15 And thou hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon:11 just as thou art not [to be] punished for the sword of the Ammonites, so art thou not [to be] punished for [the death of] Uriah the Hittite. What is the reason? He was rebellious against royal authority, saying to him, and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open field [etc].16
Rab said: When you examine [the life of] David, you find nought but 'save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.'17 Abaye the Elder pointed out a contradiction in Rab['s dicta]: Did Rab say thus? Surely Rab said, David paid heed to slander? The difficulty remains.
[To revert to] the main text: 'Rab said, David paid heed to slander,' for it is written, And the king said unto him, where is he? And Ziba said unto the king, Behold, he is in the house of Machir the son of Ammiel, belo da bar [in Lo-debar].18 And it is written, Then David sent, and fetched him out of the house of Machir the son of Ammiel, millo dabar [from Lo-debar].19 Now consider: he [David] saw that he [Ziba] was a liar; then when he slandered him a second time, why did he pay heed thereto? For it is written, And the king said, And where is thy master's son? And Ziba said unto the king, Behold, he abideth at Jerusalem [: for he said, To-day shall the house of Israel restore me the kingdom of my father].20 And how do we know that he accepted it [the slander] from, him? Because it is written, Then said the king to Ziba, Behold, thine is all that pertaineth unto Mephibosheth. And Ziba said, I do obeisance; let me find favour in thy sight, my lord, O king.21
But Samuel maintained: David did not pay heed to slander, [for] he saw self-evident things in him,22 For it is written, And Mephibosheth the son of Saul came down to meet the king; and he had neither dressed his feet, nor trimmed his beard, nor washed his clothes, etc.23 While it is written, And it came to pass, when he was come to Jerusalem to meet the king, that the king said unto him, Wherefore wentest thou not with me, Mephibosheth? And he answered, My Lord, O king, my servant deceived me: for thy servant said, I will saddle me an ass, that I may ride thereon, and go with the king, because thy servant is lame,
(1) I Sam. VIII, 1, 3.
(3) Ibid. VII, 16.
(4) Who are sent to summon the litigants. On hazzan v. p. 41, n. 7.
(5) Who record the pleas, arguments, verdicts, etc.
(6) They were Levites, and personally demanded the tithes. Owing to their exalted position their demands were acceded to, while the humbler Levites might starve. But they did not actually pervert judgment. - R. Meir's interpretation may have been called forth by the troublous times before the overthrow of the Jewish state, when many High Priests abused their positions by such extortion; v. Halevi, Doroth I, 5, pp. 4 seq.
(7) They compelled people to be their business agents.
(8) Either the priestly dues, viz., the shoulder, cheeks, and maw of animals, though they were not priests; or the Levitical dues, sc. the first tithes, their sin being that they used force.
(9) Ibid. XVIII, 14.
(10) II Sam. XII, 9.
(11) II Sam. Xli, 9.
(12) The great court; v. Sanh. 2a.
(13) Lakah, the verb employed here, denotes marriage; cf. Deut. XXIV, 1.
(14) I Sam. XVII, 18.
(15) Lit., 'him and her', sc. the marriage. I.e., take away their marriage - cancel it by means of a divorce. - The divorce was conditional, in the sense that it became retrospectively valid if the husband died. Thus, since Uriah died, she was a free woman from the time he went out, and was not married when David took her.
(16) II Sam. XI, 11. Thus he disobeyed David's order to go home.
(17) I Kings XV, 5. Rashi: his only sin lay in encompassing Uriah's death, but not in taking Bathsheba (as explained above). From the context, however, it appears that Rab does not exculpate him from adultery with Bathsheba, but means that David was guilty of no other sin save that in connection with Uriah, which naturally includes his behaviour with Bathsheba. On that view Rab rejects Rabbi's exegesis (That too appears from Rab's prefacing remark: 'Rabbi who is descended, etc.').
(18) II Sam. IX, 4.
(19) Ibid. 5. Maharsha: belo dabar is translated: He (Mephibosheth son of Jonathan and grandson of Saul) has words, i.e., makes unloyal accusations against you. But David found that he was millo dabar, i.e. , he had not made such accusations. Thus Ziba's charges were unfounded. This explains the Gemara that follows.
(20) Ibid. XVI, 3.
(21) Ibid. 4.
(22) Which substantiated Ziba's charges. Thus it was not a mere acceptance of slander.
(23) Ibid. XIX, 24.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 56b
And he hath slandered thy servant unto my lord the king; but my lord the king is as an angel of God: do therefore what is good in thine eyes. For all my father's house were but dead men before my lord the king: yet didst thou set thy servant among them that did eat at thine own table. What right therefore have I yet that I should cry and more unto the king? And the king said unto him, Why speakest thou any more of thy matters? I say, Thou and Ziba divide the land. And Mephibosheth said unto the king, Yea, let him take all, forasmuch as my lord the king is come in peace unto his own house.1 He said [thus] to him: I prayed,2 when wilt thou return In peace? Yet thou treatest me so. Not against thee have I resentment, but against Him who restored thee in peace!3 Hence it is written, And the son of Jonathan was Meribbaal:4 was then his name Merib-baal? Surely it was Mephibosheth? But because he raised a quarrel [meribah] with his Master,5 a Heavenly Echo went forth and rebuked him, Thou man of strife, [and] the son of a man of strife! Man of strife, as we have stated. Son of a man of strife, for it is written, And Saul came to the city of Amalek, and strove in the valley.6 R. Manni said: [That means,] concerning the matter of the valley.7
Rab Judah said in Rab's name: When David said to Mephibosheth, 'Thou and Ziba divide the land,' a Heavenly Echo came forth and declared to him, Rehoboam and Jeroboam shall divide the kingdom.8 Rab Judah said in Rab's name: Had not David paid heed to slander, the kingdom of the House of David would not have been divided, Israel had not engaged in idolatry,9 and we would not have been exiled from our country.10
R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Jonathan's name: Whoever maintains that Solomon sinned is merely making an error, for it is said, and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father:11 it was [merely] not as the heart of David his father, but neither did he sin. Then how do I interpret, For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart?12 That is [to be explained] as R. Nathan. For R. Nathan opposed [two verses]: It is written, For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart,' whereas it is [also] written, and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father, [implying that] it was [merely] not as the heart of David his father, but neither did he sin? This is its meaning: his wives turned away his heart to go after other gods, but he did not go.13 But it is written, Then would14 Solomon build a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab?15 - That means, he desired to build, but did not.16 If so, Then Joshua built [yibneh] an altar unto the Lord,17 [does this too mean,] he desired to build but did not! Hence it [surely means] that he [actually] built; so here too it means that he built? - Rather it18 is as was taught: R. Jose said, and the high places that were before Jerusalem, which were on the right hand of the mount of corruption, which Solomon the king of Israel had builded for Ashtoreth the abomination of Moab.19 Now, is it possible that Assa came and did not destroy them, then Jehoshaphat, and he did not destroy them, until Josiah came and destroyed them! But surely Assa and Jehoshaphat destroyed all the idolatrous cults in Palestine? Hence [the explanation is that] the earlier are assimilated to the later: just as the later did not do, yet it was ascribed to them, to their glory, so the earlier ones too did not do, yet it was ascribed to them, to their shame.20 But it is written, And Solomon did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord?21 - But because he should have restrained his wives, but did not, the Writ regards him as though he sinned.
Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: Better had it been for that righteous man to be an acolyte to the unmentionable,22 only that it should not be written of him, 'and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord'.
Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: When Solomon married Pharaoh's daughter, she brought him a thousand musical instruments and said to him, Thus we play23 in honour of that idol, thus in honour of that idol, yet he did not forbid her.
Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: When Solomon married Pharaoh's daughter, Gabriel descended and planted a reed in the sea, and it gathered a bank around it, on which the great city of Rome was built.24 In a Baraitha it was taught: On the day that Jeroboam brought the two golden calves, one into Bethel and the other into Dan, a hut was built,25 and this developed into Greek Italy.26
R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Jonathan's name: Whoever maintains that Josiah sinned is merely making an error, for it is said, And he did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and walked in all the ways of David his father.27 Then how do I interpret, and like unto him there was no king before him, that returned [shab] to the Lord with all his heart etc.?28 [This teaches] that he revised every judgment which he had pronounced between the ages of eight and eighteen.29 You might say that he took from one and gave to another:30 therefore it is taught, 'with all me'odo [his might]', [teaching] that he gave of his own.31 Now, he disagrees with Rab. For Rab said: There was no greater penitent than Josiah in his generation and a certain person in ours; and who is that? Abba the father of R. Jeremiah b. Abba, and some say Aha the brother of Abba the father of Jeremiah b. Abba. (For a Master said: R. Abba and Aha were brothers). R. Joseph said: And there is yet another in our generation. And who is he? 'Ukban b. Nehemiah the Resh Galutha.32 And he is 'Nathan with the ray of light.'33 R. Joseph said: I was sitting at the session and dozing, and saw in a dream how one [an angel] stretched out his hand and received him. [
(1) II Sam. XIX, 25-30.
(2) Lit., 'said'.
(3) Thus he confirmed Ziba's accusation. For David regarded Mephibosheth's unkempt appearance too as a sign that he grieved over his return.
(4) I Chron. VIII, 34; IX, 40.
(5) Be'alaw fr. ba'al.
(6) I Sam. XV, 5.
(7) Saul argued: If the Torah decreed that a heifer should have its neck broken in the valley on account of a single murdered man (Deut. XXI, 1-9), how much greater is the sin of slaying all these Amalekites! (v. Yoma 22b). Thus he strove against God's command.
(8) This agrees with Rab's view (supra a) that David paid heed to slander and acted unjustly. Hence this punishment.
(9) The first step to idolatry was Jeroboam's setting up of the golden calves in order to maintain the independence of his kingdom (v. I Kings XII, 26 seq.).
(10) As a punishment for idolatry.
(11) I Kings XI, 4.
(13) His wives attempted to seduce him, but failed.
(14) E.V. 'did'.
(15) I Kings XI, 7.
(16) Yibneh is imperfect, denoting uncompleted action; v. Driver's Hebrew Tenses, ch. III, 21 seq.
(17) Josh. VIII, 30.
(18) The statement that Solomon did not sin.
(19) II Kings XXIII, 13. This refers to the religious reformations of Josiah.
(20) Josiah merely removed the idols that were reintroduced after the deaths of the former two kings, but not all idols, since they had already been destroyed, yet it is all attributed to him. So Solomon too was not responsible for the building of the idolatrous high places; nevertheless, since he did not veto them, they are ascribed to him.
(21) I Kings XI, 6.
(22) Lit., 'something else' - i.e., to an idol, receiving pay for drawing water and hewing wood in its service, etc., though not believing in it.
(23) Lit., 'do'.
(24) This, of course, is an allegory. Solomon's unfaithfulness laid the seeds for the dissolution of the Jewish State.
(25) On the site of Rome.
(26) This term was particularly applied to the southern portion of Italy, called Magna Graecia, Cf. Meg. 6b in the ed. Ven. (omitted in later ed.): Greek Italy, that means the great city of Rome, v. Meg., Sonc. ed., p. 31, nn. 5-6.
(27) II Kings XXII. 2.
(28) Ibid. XXIII, 25. Shab really means that he repented, and thus implies that he first sinned.
(29) I.e., from his accession until the finding of the Book of the Law, i.e. , the Torah (v. XXII, 1-8). He revised his judgments in the light of the Torah, and shab is translated accordingly.
(30) In the course of this revision.
(31) Me'odo me'od is translated money, wealth, in the Talmud. Cf. Sanh. 74a on Deut. VI, 5 (Sonc. ed., p. 502).
(32) V. p. 217, n. 7.
(33) Jast.: a repentant sinner with a halo; others: whom an angel seized by his forelock (accepting his repentance and bringing him to God).
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 57a
MISHNAH. WHEREWITH MAY A WOMAN GO OUT, AND WHEREWITH MAY SHE NOT GO OUT?1 A WOMAN MAY NOT GO OUT WITH RIBBONS OF WOOL, LINEN RIBBONS, OR FILLETS ROUND HER HEAD;2 NOR MAY SHE PERFORM RITUAL IMMERSION WHILST WEARING THEM, UNLESS SHE LOOSENS THEM. [SHE MAY NOT GO OUT] WITH FRONTLETS,3 GARLANDS [SARBITIN], IF THEY ARE NOT SEWN,4 OR WITH A HAIR-NET [KABUL]5 INTO THE STREET,6 OR WITH A GOLDEN CITY,7 OR WITH A NECKLACE [KATLA]. OR WITH EAR-RINGS, OR WITH A FINGER - RING WHICH HAS NO SIGNET, OR WITH A NEEDLE WHICH IS UNPIERCED. YET IF SHE GOES OUT WITH THESE], SHE IS NOT LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING.8
GEMARA. Who mentioned anything about ritual immersion?9 - Said R. Nahman b. Isaac in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: He [the Tanna] states what is the reason. [Thus:] what is the reason that A WOMAN MAY NOT GO OUT WITH WOOL RIBBONS OR LINEN RIBBONS? Because the Sages ruled, SHE MAY NOT PERFORM RITUAL IMMERSION WHILST WEARING THEM, UNLESS SHE LOOSENS THEM. And since she may not perform ritual immersion on weekdays while wearing them, she may not go out [with them] on the Sabbath, lest she happen to need immersion by ritual law10 and she untie them, and so come to carry them four cubits in the street.
R. Kahana asked Rab: What of openwork bands?11 - Said he to him, You speak of something woven:12 whatever is woven, no prohibition was enacted [in respect thereof].13 It was stated likewise: R. Huna son of R. Joshua said: Whatever is woven, no prohibition was enacted [in respect thereof]. Others state, R. Huna son of R. Joshua said: I saw that my sisters are not particular about them,14 What is the difference between the latter version and the former? - There is a difference where they are soiled. On the version that no prohibition was enacted for anything that is woven, these too are woven. But according to the version which bases it on [not] being particular; since they are soiled, one does indeed object to them.15
We learnt elsewhere: And the following constitute interpositions in the case of human beings: Wool ribbons, linen ribbons, and the fillet round maidens' heads.16 R. Judah said: [Ribbons] of wool or of hair do not interpose. because the water enters through them.17 R. Huna observed: And we learnt all with reference to maidens' heads.18 R. Joseph demurred: What does this exclude? Shall we say it excludes [ribbons] of the neck, - and of what [material]? Shall we say, it excludes wool: [The question can be raised] if soft [material] on hard19 forms an interposition, is there a question of soft upon soft?20 Again. if it excludes linen ribbons, [one might ask] if hard upon hard constitutes an interposition, is there a question of hard upon soft?21 Rather, said R. Joseph. this is R. Huna's reason, because a woman does not strangle herself.22
Abaye refuted him: Maidens may go out with the threads through their ears,23 but not with fillets round their necks. Now if you say that a woman will not strangle herself, why not with fillets round their necks?24 - Said Rabina:
(1) On the Sabbath. The general rule is that a woman may wear superfluous garments which are ornamental, save some which the Rabbis prohibited for fear that she might remove them for a friend's inspection and admiration, carrying them meanwhile in the street. Those which are not considered ornamental constitute a burden, and are always forbidden.
(2) 'Her head' applies to all three. These are for tying the hair.
(3) Ornaments worn on the forehead.
(4) To the wig which was generally worn.
(5) The Gemara discusses these. V. also T.A. I, 188 and note a.l.
(6) But she may wear it in a courtyard, whereas all the others are forbidden even in a courtyard, lest she forget herself and go out into the street; v. infra 64b.
(7) An ornament which contained a picture of Jerusalem.
(8) Because all these are ornaments, hence only Rabbinically prohibited; v. n. I .
(9) The reference to immersion is apparently irrelevant.
(10) I.e., if the first evening, when she is permitted to take a ritual bath after menstruation to enable her to cohabit with her husband, falls on the Sabbath.
(11) Chains or cords formed in network fashion. These cannot be tied very tightly; hence the question is whether they need be loosened before a ritual bath and by corollary, must not be worn on the Sabbath, or not.
(12) I.e., a network.
(13) In connection with Sabbath, since they need not be removed for immersion.
(14) To remove them before bathing. This shows that they know that the water enters through the network. Consequently it is unnecessary to remove them before a ritual bath, and they may be worn on the Sabbath.
(15) And is particular to remove them.
(16) When one takes a ritual bath, nothing must interpose between the water and his body. If one of these is worn it does interpose, rendering the bath invalid.
(17) And reaches the skin.
(18) I.e., the wool and linen ribbons also mean those that are used for tying the hair.
(19) Sc. the hair, which is hard in comparison with the skin of the neck.
(20) Surely not, for it is more clinging, making it more difficult for the water to enter.
(21) Linen ribbon is regarded as hard in comparison with wool.
(22) Though ribbons cling more closely to flesh than to hair when tied with equal strength, they are always worn more loosely around the neck, for the reason stated.
(23) They are inserted there after the ear is pierced for ear-rings to prevent the hole from closing up.
(24) For they need not be removed before a ritual bath, being loose; v. p. 267. n. 5.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 57b
The reference here is to a broad band1 which a woman ties very tightly,2 as she is pleased to have a fleshy appearance.3
'R. Judah said: [Ribbons] of wool or of hair do not interpose, because the water enters through them.' R. Joseph said in the name of Rab Judah in Samuel's name: The halachah is as R. Judah in respect of ribbons of hair. Said Abaye to him: 'The halachah [is thus]' implies that they differ thereon?4 And should you say, Had he not known the first Tanna to treat of ribbons of hair [too], he would not have treated thereof either: but perhaps he argued with them from analogy:5 just as you agree with me in the matter of ribbons of hair, so should you agree with me in respect of wool ribbons? It was stated: R. Nahman said in Samuel's name: The Sages agree with R. Judah in respect to ribbons of hair. It was taught likewise: Ribbons of wool interpose; ribbons of hair do not interpose. R. Judah maintained: [Ribbons] of wool or of hair do not interpose. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: Our Mishnah too proves this. For it teaches: A woman may go out with ribbons of hair, whether of her own [hair] or of her companion's.6 Who is the authority [for this]? Shall we say. R. Judah - even ribbons of wool too [are permitted]? Hence it must surely be the Rabbis, which proves that they do not disagree in respect of ribbons of hair. This proves it.
[SHE MAY] NOT [GO OUT] WITH FRONTLETS [TOTEFETH]. What is TOTEFETH? - Said R. Joseph: A charm containing balsam.7 Said Abaye to him: Let it be [regarded] as an approved amulet, and hence permitted? Rather said Rab Judah on Abaye's authority: It is an ornament of beads.8 It was taught likewise: A woman may go out with a gilded hair-net,9 a totefeth, and with sarbitin that are fastened to her. What is totefeth and what is sarbitin? - Said R. Abbahu: A totefeth encompasses her [head] from ear to ear; sarbitin reach to her cheeks. R. Huna said: poor women make them of various dyed materials; wealthy women make them of gold and silver.
NOR WITH A HAIR-NET [KABUL]. R. Jannai said: I do not know what is this [kabul]: whether we learnt of a slave's chain, but a wool hair-net10 is permitted; or perhaps we learnt of a wool hair-net and how much more so a slave's neckchain?11 Said R. Abbahu: Reason supports the view that we learnt of a wool hair-net. And it was taught likewise: A woman may go out into a courtyard with a kabul and a clasp [istema].12 R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: [She may go out] with a kabul into the street too. R. Simeon b. Eleazar stated a general rule: Whatever is [worn] beneath the net, one may go out therewith: whatever is [worn] above the net, one may not go out with it.13
What is istema? - Said R. Abbahu: Bizyune. What is bizyune? Said Abaye in Rab's name: That which imprisons the flying [locks].14 Our Rabbis taught: Three things were said of an istema: It is not subject to [the interdict of] kil'ayim.15 it is not defiled by leprosy,16 and one may not go out with it into the street. On the authority of R. Simeon it was said: It is also not subject to [the interdict against]
(2) Lit., 'chokes or strangles herself'.
(3) In eastern countries that constitutes beauty. Being broad, the band does not injure her.
(4) But the first Tanna says nothing about this!
(5) Lit., 'he said to them, "just as".'
(6) V. infra 64b.
(7) Rashi: to ward off the evil eye.
(8) Jast.: obsidian beads.
(9) For if she removes it, her hair is uncovered; hence she is unlikely to remove it.
(10) Or wig.
(11) The term Kabul bears both meanings.
(12) To keep the hair in order under the net or wig.
(13) Thus he refers to the kabul as something above the hair band. Hence it can only mean the hair-net.
(14) I.e., a clasp or buckle.
(15) V. Glos. This may contain diverse materials. Rashi: because it is not spun; Riba: because it is hard, in which case the Rabbis did not impose a prohibition.
(16) I.e., if leprosy breaks out in the istema. The reason is that it is not technically a garment.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 58a
But Samuel maintained: We learnt of a slave's neck-chain. Now, did Samuel say thus? Surely Samuel said: A slave may go out with a seal round his neck,2 but not with a seal on his garments? There is no difficulty: in the one case [the reference is] where his master set it upon him; in the other where he set it upon himself.3 How have you explained this latter [dictum] of Samuel? that his master set it upon him! Then why [may he] not [go out] with the seal on his garment? - Lest it break off, and he be afraid and fold it [the garment] and put it over his shoulder.4 This is as R. Isaac b. Joseph, who said in R. Johanan's name: If one goes out on the Sabbath with a folded garment slung over his shoulder, he incurs a sin-offering. And [this is] as Samuel said to R. Hinena b. Shila: No scholar of the house of the Resh Galutha5 may go out with a cloak bearing a seal, except you, because the house of the Resh Galutha is not particular about you.6
It was stated above: 'Samuel said: A slave may go out with a seal around his neck, but not with the seal on his garments.' It was taught likewise: A slave may go out with a seal around his neck, but not with the seal on his garments. But the following contradicts this: A slave may not go out with the seal around his neck, nor with the seal on his garments; and neither are susceptible to defilement.7 [He may] not [go out] with the bell around his neck, but he may go out with the bell on his garments, and both are susceptible to defilement.8 An animal may not go out with a seal around its neck nor with a seal on its covering, nor with the bell on its covering nor with the bell around its neck,9 and none of these are susceptible to defilement.10 Shall we say that in the one case his master had set it upon him, while in the other he had set it upon himself?11 - No. In both cases his master had set it upon him, but one refers to a metal [seal] while the other refers to a clay [seal].12 And [this is] as R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: That about which the master is particular,13 one [a slave] may not go out with it; that about which the master is not particular, one may go out with it. Reason too supports this, since it is stated: 'none of these are susceptible to defilement'. Now, if you say [that the reference is to] metal [seals], it is well; [hence] only these are not susceptible to defilement, but their utensils14 are. But if you say that we learnt of clay [seals], [it might be asked] are only these not susceptible to defilement, whereas their utensils15 are? Surely it was taught: Utensils of stone, dung, or earth do not contract uncleanness either by Biblical or by Rabbinical law.16 Hence it follows that the reference is to metal [seals]. This proves it.
The Master said: '[He may] not [go out] with the bell around his neck, but he may go out with the bell on his garment.' Why not with the bell around his neck; [presumably] 'lest it snap off and he come to carry it: then also in the case of the bell on his garment let us fear that it may snap off and he come to carry it? - The reference here is to one that was woven [sewn] into it. And [this is] in agreement with R. Huna the son of R. Joshua, who said: Concerning whatever is woven they enacted no prohibition.17
The Master said: 'An animal may not go out with a seal around its neck, with a seal on its covering, nor with a bell around its neck nor with a bell on its coat, and none of these are susceptible to defilement.' Now, does not an animal's bell contract uncleanness? But the following contradicts it: An animal's bell is unclean,18
(1) The wearing of bridal crowns was forbidden as a sign of mourning for the destruction of the Temple; v. Sot. 49a.
(2) This is the slave's neck-chain.
(3) In the former case he fears to remove it; hence he may wear it. But he is not afraid to remove it in the latter case, and possibly will.
(4) He may fold the garment to hide the absence of the signet, fearing that his master may accuse him of having purposely removed it in order to pass as a free man.
(5) V. p. 217. n. 7.
(6) From this it appears that some scholars wore a badge to indicate that they belonged to the retinue of the exilarch, and were possibly in the position of his clients. He was also evidently very particular about this, so that if the seal fell off one might fold up the garment to hide its absence.
(7) Because they are neither ornaments nor useful utensils, but merely badges of shame.
(8) These are ornamental.
(9) v. supra 54b for the reason.
(10) They are not ornamental for the animal.
(11) V. p. 270, n. 6.
(12) It is shown below that this must refer to a metal seal; hence even if his master set it upon him he may not go out with it, for should it accidentally snap off the slave would be afraid to leave it in the street on account of its value, but would bring it home, which is forbidden. But the value of a clay seal is negligible, whilst if his master set it upon him he is certainly afraid to remove it; hence he may go out with it. Consequently, the prohibition in the Mishnah, which treats of a clay seal, must refer to one that he set upon himself.
(13) On account of its value.
(14) I.e., the general appointments of an animal, its accoutrement and equipment, which rank as utensils.
(15) Of clay.
(16) Lit., 'the words of the scribes; v. Kid., Sonc. ed., p. 79, n. 7. These clay seals were not glazed or
(17) I.e., if something is woven into a garment, it may be worn on the Sabbath without fear of its falling off. V. supra 57b.
(18) I.e., liable to uncleanness.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 58b
but a door bell is clean.1 A door [bell] appointed for an animal['s use] is unclean; an animal [bell] appointed for [fixing] to a door, even if attached to the door and fastened with nails, is unclean; for all utensils enter upon their uncleanness by intention, but are relieved from their uncleanness only by a change-effecting act?2 - There is no difficulty: in the one case [the reference is] where it has a clapper: in the other where it has no clapper.3 What will you: if it is a utensil, then even if it has no clapper [it is unclean]; if it is not a utensil, does the clapper make it one? Yes, as R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Johanan's name, Viz.: How do we know that a metal object which causes sound is unclean?4 Because it is said, Everything [dabar] that may abide the
burnt in a kiln, to be regarded as pottery, which can be defiled. Thus there is no point in teaching that they are free thereof, for no utensil of similar make is susceptible. fire, ye shall make go through the fire:5 even speech [dibbur - i.e., sound] must pass through the fire.6
How have you interpreted it? as referring to [a bell] without a clapper! Then consider the middle clause: 'Nor with a bell around his neck, but he may go out with a bell on his garments, and both can contract uncleanness.' But if it has no clapper, can it become defiled? Surely the following contradicts this: If one makes bells for the mortar,7 for a cradle,8 for the mantles of Scrolls,9 or for children's mantles, then if they have a clapper, they are unclean; if they have no clapper,10 they are clean. If their clappers are removed,11 they still retain their uncleanness.12 - That is only in the case of a child, where its purpose is [to produce] sound.13 But in the case of an adult, it is an ornament for him even without a clapper.
The Master said: 'If their clappers are removed, they still retain their uncleanness.' What are they fit for?14 Said Abaye: [They are still utensils,] because an unskilled person can put it back. Raba objected: A bell and its clapper are [counted as] connected.15 And should you answer, This is its meaning: Even when they are not connected, they are [counted as] connected,16 - surely it was taught: A shears of separate blades17 and the cutter of a [carpenter's] plane are [counted as] connected in respect of uncleanness, but not in respect of sprinkling. Now we objected, What will you: if they are [counted as] connected, [they should be so] even in respect of sprinkling too; [if they count] not as connected, they should not [be so] even in respect of defilement either? And Rabbah answered: By Scriptural law, when in use they are [counted as] connected in respect of both defilement and sprinkling; when not in use, they are [counted as] connected in respect of neither defilement nor sprinkling. But they [the Rabbis] enacted a preventive measure in respect of defilement when they are not in use on account of defilement when they are in use; and in respect of sprinkling, when they are in use, on account of when they are not in use!18 Rather said Raba,
(1) The door being part of the house, it is not a utensil, and hence cannot become unclean; the bell, in turn, is part of the door.
(2) V. p. 238, n. 9. Here too the bells were left unchanged.
(3) If it has a clapper it is susceptible to defilement as a utensil.
(4) I.e., it ranks as a utensil.
(5) Num. XXXI, 23.
(6) In order to cleanse it, which shows that it is liable to defilement. This connects dabar (E.V. thing) with dibbur, speech, i.e., a sound-producing object is a utensil.
(7) In which the spices are pounded for use as frankincense in the Temple. Sound was thought to add to the efficacy of crushing; v. Ker. 6b.
(8) To amuse the baby or lull it to sleep.
(9) Of the Torah. It was customary to adorn these with bells.
(10) From the very outset.
(11) After the bells were defiled.
(12) Because they do not lose the status of utensils and become as broken utensils through the removal of the clapper.
(13) Hence without a clapper its purpose is not fulfilled, and it is not a utensil.
(14) That they are not regarded as broken utensils.
(15) And rank as a single utensil, so that if once becomes unclean the other is too. (This is, of course, when they are together.) Similarly, if one is besprinkled (v. Num. XIX, 18f), the other becomes clean. This shows that when they are separated, each is but a fragment of a utensil, though an unskilled person can replace it, and should therefore be clean.
(16) Exactly as the sense in Abaye's explanation.
(17) Lit., 'joints'.
(18) For notes v. supra 48b and 49a. Now, obviously this must all refer to where the parts are joined, since we compare these utensils when not in use to same when in use. Hence it is implied that when not actually together they do not become defiled even by Rabbinical law, because each is regarded as a fragment, though all unskilled person can join them.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 59a
[The reason is] because they1 are fit for beating on an earthen utensil.2 It was stated likewise: R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: [The reason is] because they are fit for beating on an earthen utensil. R. Johanan said: Because they are fit for giving a child a drink of water therein.
Now, does not R. Johanan require [that it shall be fit for] a usage of its original nature?3 Surely it was taught: And everything whereon he sitteth [shall be unclean];4 I might think that if he [the zab] overturns a se'ah5 and sits upon it, or a tarkab6 and sits upon it, it is unclean: hence it is stated, 'whereon he sitteth', teaching, [only] that which is appointed for sitting, excluding this, where we say to him, 'Get up, that we may do our business!'7 R. Eleazar said: In cases of midras8 we say. 'Get up, that we may do our business'; but we do not say in the case of the defilement of the dead, 'Get up, that we may do our business!'9 But R. Johanan maintained: In the case of defilement through the dead too we say. 'Get up, that we may do our business!'10 - Reverse the former.11 But what [reason] do you see to reverse the former; reverse the latter?12 - Because we know R. Johanan to require [fitness for] usage of its original nature For we learnt an animal's shoe, [if] of metal, is unclean.13 For what is it fit? - Rab said: It is fit for drinking water therein in battle.14 R. Hanina said: It is fit for anointing oneself with oil from, it in battle.15 R. Johanan said: When one is fleeing from the field of battle, he places this [shoe] on his [own] feet and runs over briars and thorns.16 Wherein do Rab and R. Johanan differ? - Where it is repulsive.17 R. Johanan and R. Hanina differ where it is [too] heavy.18 NOR WITH A GOLDEN CITY, what is meant by, WITH A GOLDEN CITY? - Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: A golden Jerusalem.19
(1) The bells that had their clappers removed.
(2) Then they produce a bell-like sound just as when they have a clapper. Hence It is a utensil like before, and so remains unclean. But when the parts of a shears or of a plane are separated, they cannot be used at all.
(3) Where a utensil is damaged or divided, does not R. Johanan hold that in order to remain unclean or susceptible to defilement it must still be fit for the same usage as before, it being insufficient that it shall merely be fit for some purpose?
(4) Lev. XV, 6. The reference is to a zab, q.v. Glos.
(5) A measure of capacity. V. Glos.
(6) Half a se'ah.
(7) I.e., the zab would be told that the measure is needed for its main purpose; hence it is not unclean. This shows that as a general principle every article is regarded from the point of view of its original and primary function.
(8) Lit., 'treading'. The uncleanness caused by a zab's treading, leaning against, or weighing down upon an article, even if he does not actually touch it with his body. This includes sitting.
(9) I.e., in respect of an article's defilement through a corpse, or by a person who was himself defiled by a corpse, we do not say that in order to become unclean or remain unclean it shall be fit for its main purpose, but even if one has to say to the person using it, 'Get up, that we may do our business' it is still subject to the laws of uncleanness.
(10) Thus he insists that it shall be fit for its original function. Rashi maintains that this can refer only to a utensil which is broken or divided after becoming defiled; it does not remain unclean unless fit for a usage of its original nature. R. Han. holds that it refers to its defilement from the very outset.
(11) Transpose the reasons given by R. Jose b. Hanina and R. Johanan.
(12) Transpose the views of R. Johanan and R. Eleazar.
(13) I.e., liable to become unclean.
(14) On a field of battle where no other utensils may be available, one can take up water in the cavity of the shoe into which the animal's foot fits.
(15) This is a necessary part of one's toilet in the hot eastern countries; v. T.A., I, 229-233. The shoe might serve as an improvised oil pot.
(16) Thus R. Johanan justifies its uncleanness only because it is still fit for a usage of the original nature.
(17) For drinking. Hence, on Rab's view it is not subject to defilement, but on R. Hanina's it is. Rab disregards its possible use as an oil container, holding that soldiers dispense with oil on a field of battle.
(18) For running. According to R. Hanina it is nevertheless susceptible to defilement, but not according to R. Johanan.
(19) An ornament with the picture or the engraving of Jerusalem; v. T.A., I, p. 662, n. 961.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 59b
such as R. Akiba made for his wife.1
Our Rabbis taught: A woman must not go out with a golden city, and if she does, she incurs a sin-offering: this is R. Meir's view. The Sages maintain: She may not go out [therewith], but if she does, she is not liable. R. Eliezer ruled: A woman may go out with a golden city at the very outset. Wherein do they differ? - R. Meir holds that it is a burden; while the Rabbis hold that it is an ornament, [and it is forbidden only] lest she remove it to show [to a friend], and thus come to carry it [in the street];2 but R. Eliezer reasons: Whose practice is it to go out with a golden city? [That of] a woman of rank; and such will not remove it for display.
As for a coronet,3 Rab forbids it;4 Samuel permits it. Where it is made of cast metal, all agree that it is forbidden;5 they differ about an embroidered stuff:6 one Master holds that the cast metal [sewn on to it] is the chief part;7 while the other Master holds that the embroidered stuff is the chief part.8 R. Ashi learnt it in the direction of leniency. As for an embroidered stuff, all agree that it is permitted. They differ only about what is made of cast metal: one Master holds [that it is forbidden] lest she remove it in order to show, and [thus] come to carry it; while the other Master holds: Whose practice is it to go out with a coronet? That of a woman of rank; and such will not remove it for display.
R. Samuel b. Bar Hanah said to R. Joseph: You explicitly told us in Rab's name that a coronet is permitted.9
Rab was told: A great, tall, and lame man has come to Nehardea, and has lectured: A coronet is permitted. Said he: Who is a great tall man who is lame? Levi. This proves that R. Afes is dead10 and R. Hanina [now] sits at the head [of the Academy], so that Levi has none for a companion,11 and therefore he has come hither.12 But perhaps R. Hanina had died, R. Afes remaining as before, and since Levi [now] had no companion he had come hither? - Had R. Hanina died, Levi would indeed have subordinated himself to R. Afes.13 Moreover, it could not be that R. Hanina should not rule.14 For when Rabbi was dying he ordered, 'Let Hanina son of R. Hama sit at the head.' And of the righteous men it is written, Thou shalt also decree a thing, and it shall be established unto thee.15
Levi lectured in Nehardea: A coronet is permitted; [whereupon] there went forth twenty-four coronets from the whole of Nehardea. Rabbah b. Abbuha lectured in Mahoza:16 A coronet is permitted: [whereupon] there went forth eighteen coronets from a single alley.17 Rab Judah said in the name of R. Samuel:18 A girdle [kamra] is permitted.19 Some say, That means of embroidered stuff,20 and R. Safra said: It may be compared to a robe shot through with gold.21 Others say, It means of cast metal; whereon R. Safra observed: It may be compared to a royal girdle.22 Rabina asked R. Ashi: What about wearing a kamra over a [plain] girdle [HEMYANA]? - You ask about two girdles! he replied.23 R. Ashi said: As for a piece of a garment, if it has fringes, it is permitted;24 if not, it is forbidden.
NOR WITH A KATLA. What is a KATLA? - A trinket holder.25
NEZAMIM. [That is] ear-rings.
NOR WITH A FINGER-RING THAT HAS NO SIGNET. This [implies that] if it has a signet, she is liable;26 hence it proves that it is not an ornament. But the following contradicts this: Women's ornaments are unclean.27 And these are women's ornaments: Necklaces, ear-rings and finger-rings, and a finger-ring, whether it has a signet or has no signet, and nose-rings? - Said R. Zera, There is no difficulty: one agrees with R. Nehemiah; the other with the Rabbis. For it was taught: If it [the ring] is of metal and its signet is of coral, it is unclean; if it is of coral while the signet is of metal, it is clean.28 But R. Nehemiah declares it unclean. For R. Nehemiah maintained: In the case of a ring, follow its signet; in the case of a yoke, go by its carved ends;29 [
(1) V. Ned. 50a.
(2) Thus it is only Rabbinically forbidden, and involves no sacrifice.
(3) A wreath or chaplet worn on the forehead. Some were entirely of gold or silver; others of silk shot through with gold or silver.
(4) To be worn by a woman in the street on the Sabbath.
(5) This being very costly, a woman is more likely to remove it to show to her friends.
(6) I.e., where the chaplet or coronet is of a stuff with gold or silver embroidery, which would contain pieces of cast metal too.
(7) And therefore a woman may be tempted to remove and show it.
(8) And that is not worth showing. The translation follows what seems to be Rashi's interpretation. Jast.: they differ in respect of what is made of beaten, wrought metal, opp. to cast metal. One Master holds that what is made of cast metal is original (or perhaps, reading מיקר, v. MS.M., more precious), while the other holds the reverse.
(9) Hence R. Ashi's version must be correct, for on the other version there is no case where Rab permits it.
(10) Lit., 'his soul has gone to rest'.
(11) Lit., 'to be by his side'. On R. Afes' accession as head of the Academy R. Hanina, who would not recognize him as his superior, pursued his studies outside, where he was joined by Levi; v. Keth. 103b.
(12) Levi being in no way inferior to R. Hanina, he could not accept him as a head, and so he has come hither. Zuri, I. S. Toledoth, First Series, Bk. 2 pp. 137-139 observes that Levi was probably born in Babylon, whither he was now returning to resettle.
(13) Who was his senior.
(14) As head of the academy. Lit., 'there is no way or path that R. Hanina' etc.: i.e., it is impossible.
(15) Job XXII, 28.
(16) The famous town on the Tigris where Raba had his great academy; v. Obermeyer, pp. 161-186,
(17) V. I. S. Zuri, op. cit., Part I, Bk. 3, pp. 19-27 on the significance of numbers. He maintains that eighteen is often used symbolically to denote a large number. - Mahoza was a very wealthy town, owing to its central position and the great caravan and shipping trade that passed through it; this is reflected in the present statement. Obermeyer, p. 173.
(18) Var. lec.: Mar Judah in the name of R. Shesheth, v. D.S.
(19) Kamra was a costly girdle, made either of solid gold or of cloth adorned with gold and precious stones (Rashi).
(20) V. p. 276, n. 7.
(21) There is no fear of either being removed.
(22) Which was likewise made of beaten gold. Rashi: all Israel are princes, and worthy to wear such belts.
(23) Rashi: That is certainly forbidden, for one is superfluous and a burden. Rashi quotes another interpretation to the effect that it is permitted, but prefers the first.
(24) For by their means it can be firmly tied to the wearer, so that it will not fall off and necessitate its being carried in the street.
(25) A band or necklace on which beads, trinkets, etc., are suspended.
(26) The deduction is from the end of the Mishnah.
(27) I.e., susceptible to defilement.
(28) V. supra 52b for notes.
(29) Jast. Rashi: Two rods fitted into the yoke the breadth of an ox's shoulder apart. Jast.: if they are broken off, the yoke ceases to be susceptible to defilement. Rashi: if they are of metal, the yoke is susceptible to defilement. The yoke itself is a straight piece of wood, and wood utensils are not subject to uncleanness unless they possess a cavity which, e.g., can hold water.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 60a
in the case of a rack,1 go after its nails;2 in the case of a ladder, go after its rungs; in the case of a weighing machine, go after its chains.3 But the Sages maintain: Everything depends on the support.4
Raba said: It is taught disjunctively:5 if it has a signet, it is a man's ornament; if it has no signet, it is a woman's ornament. R. Nahman b. Isaac answered: Do you oppose uncleanness to the Sabbath!6 [In respect to] uncleanness, the Divine Law said, utensils [fit] for work,7 and this [a signet ring] is a utensil. But the Sabbath [interdiction] was imposed by the Divine Law on account of the burden: if it has no signet, it is an ornament; if it has a signet, it is a burden.
NOR WITH A NEEDLE WHICH IS UNPIERCED. What is it fit for?8 - Said R. Joseph: Since a woman tidies9 her hair with it [it is therefore ornamental]. Said Abaye objected: Let it be as a garter, which is clean, and hence permitted?10 But R. Adda of Naresh11 interpreted it before R. Joseph: Since a woman parts her hair with it, [it is ornamental]. What is it fit for on the Sabbath?12 - Said Raba: It has a golden plaque at the end thereof:13 on weekdays she parts her hair therewith, [while] on the Sabbath she lets it lie against her forehead.14
MISHNAH. A MAN MAY NOT GO OUT WITH A NAIL-STUDDED SANDAL, NOR WITH A SINGLE [SANDAL]. IF HE HAS NO WOUND ON HIS FOOT;15 NOR WITH TEFILLIN, NOR WITH AN AMULET, IF IT IS NOT FROM AN EXPERT, NOR WITH A COAT OF MAIL [SHIRYON], NOR WITH A CASQUE [KASDA], NOR WITH GREAVES [MEGAFAYYIM]. YET IF HE GOES OUT, HE DOES NOT INCUR A SIN-OFFERING.16
GEMARA. A NAIL-STUDDED SANDAL: What is the reason? - Said Samuel: It was at the end of the period of persecution.17 and they [some fugitives] were hiding in a cave. They proclaimed, 'He who would enter, let him enter,18 but he who would go out, let him not go out.'19 Now, the sandal of one of them became reversed, so that they thought that one of them had gone out and been seen by the enemies, who would now fall upon them. Thereupon they pressed against each other,20 and they killed of each other more than their enemies slew of them. R. Ila'i b. Eleazar said: They were stationed in a cave when they heard a sound [proceeding] from above the cave. Thinking that the enemy was coming upon them, they pressed against each other and slew amongst themselves more than the enemy had slain of them. Rami b. Ezekiel said: They were stationed in a Synagogue, when they heard a sound from behind the synagogue. Thinking that the enemy was coming upon them, they pressed against each other and slew amongst themselves more than the enemy had slain of them. In that hour it was enacted: A man must not go out with a nail-studded sandal.21 If so, it should be forbidden on weekdays too? - The incident happened on the Sabbath.22 Then let it be permitted on Festivals! Why did we learn:
(1) Placed outside a shop and fitted with nails and hooks for exhibiting goods.
(2) If they are of metal, the whole is susceptible to uncleanness.
(3) The machine itself was of wood.
(4) E.g., the ladder depends on its frame, not on the rungs, etc. - Hence, according to R. Nehemiah the signet is the chief part of the ring, and since a signet is not ornamental, a sin-offering is incurred. But the Rabbis hold that the ring itself is the chief part, and that is an ornament.
(5) Lit., 'to
(separate) sides'. The clause 'and a ring whether it has a signet etc.' is not included in the definition of 'women's ornaments'.
(6) He likewise treats the clause 'and a ring etc.' as independent of the preceding but as referring to the general laws of uncleanness.
(7) Num. XXXI. 51; i.e., which have a definite function.
(8) How can it be regarded as an ornament? V. p. 266, n. 1.
(9) Lit., 'gathers up': if some wisps of hair stray out from under her wig, they are wound about this needle or bodkin and pushed back (Rashi). Tosaf.: the needle is thrust through the wig to keep the hair in order and prevent it from straying out. 'Aruch reads: ogedeth, she fastens.
(10) V. infra 63a. So here too, since the bodkin is required to keep the hair in order, and uncovered hair is considered disgraceful (v. Sanh. 58b), a woman will certainly not remove it for display.
(11) Identical with Nahras or Nahr-sar, on the canal of the same name, which was a tributary falling into the Euphrates on its eastern bank; Obermeyer, pp. 307 seq.
(12) When parting the hair is forbidden.
(13) One end was needle-like while the other was flattened and broadened into a plaque.
(14) She thrusts the needle end into her wig, letting the other end come over her forehead as an ornament.
(15) Either because he may be suspected of carrying the other sandal under his garments (T.J.), or because he may evoke ridicule, which will cause him to remove and carry it. But when one foot is wounded, there is no fear of this. V. Rashi.
(16) Because these are garments in war, hence do not rank as burdens.
(17) So Jast. Rashi: There were fugitives from persecution. [The reference is generally held to be to the Syrian persecutions under Antiochus Epiphanes; v. Berliner, Hoffmann Magazin XX, p. 123].
(18) As he could see beforehand whether the enemies' spies were on the watch.
(19) For fear of spies, lest their whereabouts be disclosed.
(20) Panic stricken, in order to flee.
(21) According to Samuel, because this had led them astray. According to R. Ila'i b. Eleazar and Rami b. Ezekiel, because the carnage had been wrought by their nail-studded sandals.
(22) The interdict was felt to be in memory of the disaster rather than through actual fear of its repetition, and therefore confined to the Sabbath.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 60b
But one may not [send] a nail-studded sandal or an unsewn shoe [on Festivals]?1 - What is the reason of the Sabbath?2 Because there is a gathering [of people]. So on Festivals too there is a gathering. But there is a gathering on a public fast day:3 let it be forbidden [then too]? - The incident happened on a day of assembly when there is an interdict [against work]; but here it is [a day of] assembly when it is permitted [to work]. And even according to R. Hanina b. Akiba who maintained, They enacted a prohibition only in respect of the Jordan and a ship, just as the incident that occurred:4 that applies only to the Jordan, which differs from other rivers;5 but Festivals and the Sabbath are alike, for we learnt: There is no difference between Festivals and the Sabbath save in respect of food consumption.6 Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: They learnt this only [where the nails are] to strengthen [the sandal], but where they are ornamental, it is permitted.7 And how many [nails] constitute an ornament? - R. Johanan said: Five on each; R. Hanina maintained: Seven on each8 and one on [each of] the straps; according to R. Hanina, there are three on each side9 and one in the strapping.
An objection is raised: For an inclining sandal10 one inserts seven [nails]; this is R. Nathan's view. But Rabbi permits thirteen.11 As for R. Hanina, It Is well: he rules as R. Nathan. But whose view does R. Johanan state? - He rules as R. Nehorai. For it was taught, R. Nehorai said: Five are permitted, but seven are forbidden. Efah said to Rabbah b. Bar Hanah: You, as disciples of R. Johanan, should act as R. Johanan; but we will act as R. Hanina.
R. Huna asked R. Ashi: What of five [nails]? - Even seven are permitted, he answered him. What of nine? Even eight are forbidden, was his reply. A certain shoe-maker asked R. Ammi: What if it is sewn from within?12 It is permitted, replied he, but I do not know what is the reason.13 Said R. Ashi, And does not the Master know what is the reason?14 Since it was sewn from within, it becomes a shoe:15 the Rabbis enacted a decree in respect to a sandal, but in respect of a shoe they did not enact any decree.
R. Abba b. Zabda asked R. Abba b. Abina: What if he arranged them [the nails] zigzag-shape?16 - It is permitted, he answered him. It was stated likewise: R. Jose b. R. Hanina said: If they are arranged zigzag-shape, it is permitted.
R. Shesheth said: If the whole of it [the sole] is covered with nails [underneath] so that the ground should not wear it away. it is permitted. It was taught in accordance with R. Shesheth, A man may not go out wearing a nail-studded sandal, nor may he stroll [in it] from house to house,17 and even from bed to bed. But it may be handled in order to cover a utensil or support the legs of a bed therewith;18 but R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon forbids this.19 If most of its nails are fallen out, but four or five are left, it is permitted; while Rabbi permits it up to seven. If one covers it with leather underneath and drives nails into it on top, it is permitted.20 If one arranges them [the nails] zigzag-fashion,21 or flattens [them] out, or points [them],22 or covers the whole of it with nails so that the ground should not wear it out, it is permitted. Now, this is self-contradictory: You say, if most of the nails are fallen out, [implying], even if many are left [it may be worn]; then it is taught, only four or five, but not more? - Said R. Shesheth, There is no difficulty: in the one case they are scooped out; in the other they are pulled out.23
'[If] four or five [are left], it is permitted.' Seeing that it is permitted [with] five, need four be stated? - Said R. Hisda: [It means] four in a small sandal and five in a large sandal.
'While Rabbi permits it up to seven.' But it was taught: Rabbi permits it up to thirteen? An inclining [sandal] is different.24 Now that you have arrived at this [distinction], on R. Johanan's view too there is no difficulty: an inclining [sandal] is different.25
R. Mattenah - others state, R. Ahadboi b. Mattenah in R. Mattenah's name - said: The halachah is not as R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon. But that is obvious: [where] one disagrees with many, the halachah is as the majority? - You might argue, R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon's view is logical here;26 hence we are informed [that we do not follow him].
R. Hiyya said: But that l would be dubbed a Babylonian who permits forbidden things,27 I would permit more. And how many, - In Pumbeditha they say, Twenty-four; in Sura, twenty-two. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: And your sign [to remember this is]: by the time he [R. Hiyya] travelled from Pumbeditha to Sura28 two [nails] were missing [from his sandals].
NOR WITH A SINGLE [SANDAL]. IF HE HAS NO WOUND [or, BRUISE] ON HIS FOOT.
(1) V. Bez. 14b. These may not be sent because they cannot be used for the Festival. - A sandal (סנדל) consists only of a sole and straps, while a shoe (מנעל) has uppers in addition, Levi, Worterbuch, s.v. סנדל.
(2) Why was it forbidden then?
(3) V. Ta'an. 15a.
(4) V. Hag. 23a. It once happened that the purification water (v. Num. XIX, 9 Seq.) was carried in a boat over the Jordan, when a portion of a corpse was found in the bottom of the boat, whereby the water itself was defiled. The Rabbis maintain that it was then enacted that the water of lustration must not be carried over any river, whether in a boat or over a bridge. But R. Hanina disputes this, as quoted. It might therefore be thought that in the matter under discussion he maintains that there was no prohibition in respect to Festivals.
(5) In breadth, depth, current, etc.
(6) Lit., 'food for a person', which may be prepared on Festivals (Ex. XII, 16) but not on the Sabbath.
(7) To go out wearing the sandal on the Sabbath. Nails are normally put in to strengthen the sandal, and such must have been worn on the occasion of the tragedy; hence the decree was only in respect of same.
(8) But if there are more, their purpose is to strengthen, not ornamental.
(9) Of the sandal, one at the heel and the other at the toe.
(10) The sole of which is thicker at one side than at the other. It is leveled by nails inserted at the thin end.
(11) These too are ornamental, not for strength. But if there are more, the sandal may not be worn on the Sabbath, as above.
(12) Rashi. i.e., a leather shoe was placed inside a sandal and sewn thereto.
(13) He had heard this ruling, but did not know why.
(14) [MS.M. omits 'but I do not know' and 'does not the Master ... reason'. This reading is preferable as R. Ashi and R. Ammi were not contemporaries].
(15) A sandal (סנדל) is merely a sole, while a shoe (מנעוך) has uppers too.
(16) Kalbus is a tongs or pinchers, which presumably opened X-wise.
(17) Probably from room to room in the same house, where each room has a separate occupant.
(18) Because it ranks as a utensil; v. Supra 46a, p. 211.
(19) Lest he put it on.
(20) Because the sandal is not exactly similar to that which caused the disaster.
(21) Bah deletes this.
(22) These refer to the tops of the nails (Rashi).
(23) If they are levelled down, leaving marks of nails on the sole, then even if more than four or five are left it is permissible, since the sandal was obviously not made like this originally. But if they are clean pulled out, leaving no mark on the wood of the sole, the sandal may appear to have been originally manufactured thus, and therefore not more than five are permitted. Others reverse the translation, but the sense remains the same.
(24) All are necessary to level it up, and none are for strength.
(25) V. supra.
(26) V. p. 283, n. 4.
(27) He was a Babylonian who went to study in Palestine; Suk. 20a. This may indicate that the Palestinians on the whole were stricter.
(28) On his way to Palestine.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 61a
Hence if he has a wound on his foot, he may go out. With which of them does he go out?1 - R. Huna said: With that [worn on the foot] which has the wound. This proves that he holds that the purpose of the sandal is [to save him] pain. Hiyya b. Rab said: With that [worn] where there is no wound. This proves that he holds that it is employed as a luxury, while this [foot] that has a wound, its wound is evidence for it.2 Now, R. Johanan too holds as R. Huna. For R. Johanan said to R. Shamen b. Abba: Give me my sandals. When he gave him the right one, he [R. Johanan] observed, You treat it as though it had a wound.3 [No]. Perhaps he agrees with Hiyya b. Rab, and he meant thus: You treat the left [foot] as through it had a wound? Now, R. Johanan [here] follows his general view. For R. Johanan said: Like tefillin, so are shoes: just as tefillin [are donned] on the left [hand], so are shoes [put on] the left [foot first]. An objection is raised: When one puts on his shoes, he must put on the right first and then the left? - Said R. Joseph: Now that it was taught thus, while R. Johanan said the reverse, he who acts in either way acts [well].4 Said Abaye to him: But perhaps R. Johanan did not hear this Baraitha, but if he had heard it, he would have retracted? Or perhaps he heard it and held that the halachah is not as that Mishnah?5 R. Nahman b. Isaac said: A God-fearing person satisfies both views. And who is that? Mar, the son of Rabina. What did he do? He put on the right foot [sandal] but did not tie it. Then he put on the left, tied it, and then tied the right [sandal]. R. Ashi said: I saw that R. Kahana was not particular.
Our Rabbis taught: When one puts on his shoes, he must put on the right first and then the left; when he removes [them], he must remove the left [first] and then the right.6 When one washes, he must [first] wash the right [hand, foot] and then the left. When one anoints [himself] with oil,7 he must anoint the right and then the left. But one who desires to anoint his whole body must anoint his head first, because it is the king of all the limbs.8
NOR WITH TEFILLIN. R. Safra said: Do not think that this is [only] according to the view that the Sabbath is not a time for tefillin; but even on the view that the Sabbath is a time for tefillin,9 one must not go out [with them], lest he come to carry them [four cubits] in the street.10 Others learn this in reference to the last clause: YET IF HE GOES OUT, HE DOES NOT INCUR A SIN OFFERING: Said R. Safra: Do not think that this is [only] according to the view that the Sabbath is a time for tefillin; but even on the view that the Sabbath is not a time for tefillin, he is [nevertheless] not liable to a sin-offering. What is the reason? He treats it as a garment.11
NOR WITH AN AMULET, IF IT IS NOT FROM AN EXPERT. R. Papa said: Do not think that both the man [issuing it] and the amulet must be approved; but as long as the man is approved, even if the amulet is not approved.12 This may be proved too for it is stated, NOR WITH AN AMULET, IF IT IS NOT FROM AN EXPERT; but it is not stated, if it is not approved.13 This proves it. Our Rabbis taught: What is an approved amulet? One that has healed [once], a second time and a third time; whether it is an amulet in writing or an amulet of roots, whether it is for an invalid whose life is endangered or for an invalid whose life is not endangered. [It is permitted] not [only] for a person who has [already] had an epileptic fit, but even [merely] to ward it off.14 And one may tie and untie it even in the street, providing that he does not secure it
(1) Wearing the sandal on which foot?
(2) For the sandal is obviously being worn merely as a luxury, and no one will suspect him of carrying the other (v. p. 280, n. 4) which he is not wearing, because he cannot put it on on account of the wound.
(3) R. Johanan holds that the left sandal must be put on first (infra). Hence if he put on the right, the other foot would have to be left unshod, and people would think that his right foot was wounded. Thus he holds with R. Huna that the sandal is donned on the wounded foot as a protection.
(4) [It is left to each individual to decide for himself whether to assign pride of place to the right or left side each enjoys in some respects distinction over the other. V. Tosaf.].
(5) It is really a Baraitha, not a Mishnah.
(6) The right half of the body being stronger, more honour must be shown to it. Removing the left first is likewise a mark of honour to the right, for the right shoe remains longer on the foot.
(7) V. p. 275, n. 8.
(8) I.e., the most important.
(9) V. 'Er. 95b.
(10) In his hand, in case of need.
(11) By donning it in the usual manner.
(12) It may be worn on the Sabbath.
(13) Heb. mumheh describes both the practitioner who issues it and the charm itself. The Mishnah, however, refers only to the former.
(14) Even if the wearer has not actually suffered but fears an attack of epilepsy.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 61b
with a ring or a bracelet and go out therewith into the street, for appearances sake.1 But it was taught: What is an approved amulet? One that has healed three men simultaneously?2 - There is no difficulty: the one is to approve the man; the other is to approve the amulet.3 R. Papa said: It is obvious to me that if three amulets4 [are successful for] three people, each [being efficacious] three times,5 both the practitioner6 and the amulets are [henceforth] approved. If three amulets [are successful for] three people, each [being efficacious] once, the practitioner is [henceforth] approved, but not the amulets. If one amulet [is efficacious] for three men, the amulet is approved but not the practitioner. [But] R. Papa propounded: What if three amulets [are efficacious] for one person?7 The amulets are certainly not rendered approved: but does the practitioner become approved or not? Do we say, Surely. he has healed him! Or perhaps, it is this man's fate8 to be susceptible to writings?9 The question stands over.
The scholars propounded: Have amulets sanctity or not? In respect of what law? Shall we say, in respect of saving them from a fire?10 Then come and hear: Benedictions11 and amulets, though they contain the [divine] letters and many passages from the Torah, may not be saved from a fire, but are burnt where they are. Again, if in respect to hiding,12 - Come and hear: If it [the Divine Name] was written on the handles of utensils or on the legs of a bed,13 it must be cut out and hidden.14 Rather [the problem is] what about entering a privy with them? Have they sanctity, and it is forbidden; or perhaps they have no sanctity, and it is permitted? - Come and hear: NOR WITH AN AMULET, IF IT IS NOT FROM AN EXPERT. This [implies that] if it is from an expert, one may go out [with it]; now if you say that amulets possess sanctity, it may happen that one needs a privy, and so come to carry it four cubits in the street?15 The reference here is to an amulet of roots.16 But it was taught. Both a written amulet and an amulet of roots? - The reference here is to an invalid whose life is endangered.17 But it was taught: 'Both an invalid whose life is endangered and one whose life is not endangered'? - Rather [this is the reply]: since it heals even when he holds it in his hand, it is well.18
(1) If secured with a ring or a bracelet it looks like being worn as an ornament, which it is not, and it would be forbidden to wear it as such.
(2) 'Simultaneously' is absent from Rashi's version, but present in cur. edd. and Tosaf., which explains that it refers to three amulets (presumably of exactly the same pattern) worn by three men. Whereas by the previous definition it is sufficient if it has healed three times, even the same person.
(3) In order that the practitioner may rank as an expert, he must have healed three different men with three different amulets; these three men would be suffering from three diverse maladies, and the amulets likewise would be different, i.e., contain different charms. Whatever amulet he subsequently issues is approved. The second Baraitha must now accordingly be translated thus: What is an amulet of an approved person? (An amulet issued by) one who has healed three persons. But the first Baraitha refers to the approving of the amulet itself; once it has healed three times, whether the same person or three different persons suffering from the same complaint, it is now approved for all men. Or, the same charm can now be written by any man, and it is approved.
(4) Each with a different charm and all written or prepared by the same man.
(5) Even for the same person.
(6) Who prepared them.
(7) V. p. 286, n. 7.
(8) Lit., 'planetary destiny', v. infra 156a, h.
(9) Sc. written amulets. But the practitioner might not be successful for another.
(10) That if a fire breaks out in a house, it shall be permitted to carry these into a courtyard which is not formally joined to the house by means of an 'erub (v. Glos.). Nothing may be taken out of a house into this courtyard, except sacred writings, to save them from fire; infra 115a.
(11) In writing.
(12) When sacred writings are worn out and not fit for use, they may not be thrown away or burnt, but must be 'hidden', i.e., buried; Meg. 26b.
(13) For magical purposes; v. A. Marmorstein in MGWJ. (1928), pp. 391 seq.
(14) Thus whatever contains the Divine Name must be treated as sacred in this respect.
(15) He may have to remove it in order to deposit it somewhere and carry it thither.
(16) This certainly does not possess sanctity, since the Divine Name is not there.
(17) If the amulet is removed. He may take it into a privy even if it possesses sanctity.
(18) Permitted as a kind of cure. For even if one does carry it in the street in his hands, it is not a culpable act.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 62a
But it was taught: R. Oshaia said: Providing one does not hold it in his hand and carry it four cubits in the street? But the reference here is to [an amulet that is] covered with leather.1 But tefillin are leather-covered,2 yet it was taught: When one enters a privy, he must remove his tefillin at a distance of four cubits and then enter? There it is on account of the [letter] shin, for Abaye said: The shin of tefillin is a halachah of Moses at Sinai.3 Abaye also said: The daleth of tefillin is a halachah of Moses at Sinai. Abaye also said: The yod of tefillin is a halachah of Moses at Sinai.4
NOR WITH A SHIRYON, NOR WITH A KASDA, NOR WITH MEGAFAYYIM. SHIRYON is a coat of mail. KASDA, - Rab said: It is a polished metal helmet.5 MEGAFAYYIM, - Rab said: These are greaves. MISHNAH. A WOMAN MAY NOT GO OUT WITH A NEEDLE THAT IS PIERCED, NOR WITH A RING BEARING A SIGNET, NOR WITH A KOKLIAR,6 NOR WITH A KOBELETH,7 NOR WITH A BALSAM PHIAL; AND IF SHE DOES GO OUT, SHE IS LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING; THIS IS R. MEIR'S VIEW.8 BUT THE SAGES RULE THAT SHE IS NOT CULPABLE IN THE CASE OF A KOBELETH AND A BALSAM PHIAL.
GEMARA. 'Ulla said: And it is the reverse in the case of a man.9 Thus we see that 'Ulla holds that whatever is fit for a man is not fit for a woman, and whatever is fit for a woman is not fit for a man.10 R. Joseph objected: Shepherds may go out [on the Sabbath] with sackcloths;11 and not only of shepherds did they [the Sages] say [thus], but of all men, but that it is the practice of shepherds to go out with sacks.12 Rather said R. Joseph. 'Ulla holds that women are a separate [independent] people.
Abaye put an objection to him: If one finds tefillin,13 he must bring them in14 pair by pair;15 [this applies to] both a man and a woman. Now if you say that women are a separate people, surely it is16 a positive command limited in time, and from all such women are exempt?17 - There R. Meir holds that night is a time for tefillin, and the Sabbath [too] is a time for tefillin: thus it is a positive precept not limited by time, and all such are incumbent upon women. But it is carrying out in a 'backhanded' manner?18 - Said R. Jeremiah: The reference is to a woman who is a charity overseer.19 Raba said [to him]: You have answered the case of a woman; but what can be said of a man?20 Said Raba, [This is the answer:] Sometimes a man gives a signet-ring to his wife to take it to a chest, and she places it on her hand21 until she comes to the chest. And sometimes a woman gives a non-signet ring to her husband to take it to an artisan to be repaired, and he places it on his hand until he comes to the artisan.22
NOR WITH A KOKLIAR, NOR WITH A KOBELETH. What is a KOKLIAR? - Said Rab: A brooch.23 KOBELETH? - Said Rab: A charm [bead] containing phyllon; and thus did R. Assi explain it : A charm containing phyllon.
Our Rabbis taught: She may not go out with a kobeleth, and if she does, she incurs a sin-offering, this is R. Meir's view; while the Sages maintain: She may not go out, but if she does, she is not culpable. R. Eliezer ruled: A woman may go out with a kobeleth at the very outset. Wherein do they differ? R. Meir holds that it is a burden. Whereas the Rabbis hold that it is an ornament, and [she hence may not wear it at the outset] lest she remove it for display, and so come to carry it. But R. Eliezer argues: Whose practice is it to wear this? A woman with an unpleasant odour;24 and such a woman will not remove it for display, and so will not come to carry it four cubits in the street. But it was taught: R. Eliezer declares [her] non culpable on account of a kobeleth and a flask of spikenard oil?25 - There is no difficulty: the one [ruling] is in reference to R. Meir; the other, in reference to the Rabbis. [Thus:] when referring to R. Meir, who maintained that she is liable to a sin-offering, he [R. Eliezer] said to him that she is not culpable. When treating of the Rabbis who maintained that there is no culpability, yet it is forbidden, he ruled that it is permitted at the outset.
(1) Or, skin. This may be taken into a privy.
(2) I.e., the strips of parchment bearing the Biblical passages are encased in leather capsules.
(3) V. supra 28b, p. 123. n. 7. Thus part of the Divine Name itself is uncovered; therefore one may not enter a privy with it.
(4) The strap of the head-phylactery is knotted at the back of the head in the shape of a daleth (ד); that of the hand-phylactery forms a noose and is knotted near the capsule in the shape of a yod (י). Cf. Heilprin. Seder ha-Doroth, I, p. 208 ed. Maskileison. Warsaw, 1897. Thus the three together make up the word שדי Almighty. Tosaf., however, s.v. iha, deletes Abaye's last two statements on the daleth and yod.
(5) Jast. Rashi: a leather helmet worn under the metal helmet.
(6) A pin of the shape of a cochlea, which is a part of the inner ear.
(7) 'Aruch reads: kokeleth, a perfume charm.
(8) He regards these as burdens, not ornaments.
(9) This refers to a ring. If it bears a signet he is not culpable; if not, he is.
(10) So that what is an ornament for one is a burden for the other.
(11) As a protection from the rain.
(12) This shows that even when people are not in the habit of wearing it, yet since it is an ornament for one it is the same for the other.
(13) In the street on the Sabbath.
(14) To a safe place, where they will not be exposed to misuse.
(15) I.e., he dons one pair on the hand and the head as they are usually worn, and walks with them as with an ordinary article of attire to his destination; then he returns and does the same with the second pair, and so on. This is R. Meir's view: Erub. 96b.
(16) The precept of donning tefillin.
(17) V. Kid. 29a. The difficulty is based on the assumption that tefillin are not to be worn on the Sabbath, nor at night. Since women are exempt, and at the same time they rank as a separate people, tefillin can surely not be accounted for them an article of attire?
(18) V. p. 188, n. 2. This raises a difficulty on the Mishnah. Why is a woman culpable for going out wearing a signet ring, seeing that this is not the usual manner of carrying out an object? [Liability is incurred only when the work done is performed in the usual manner.]
(19) Lit., 'treasurer'. She impresses the seal of her signet ring upon her orders for charity disbursements. Thus she usually wears the ring on her finger, and that is her way of carrying it out into the street. Yet since women do not generally wear such rings, this cannot be regarded as an ornament. - It is interesting to observe a woman occupying this position.
(20) 'Ulla states that a man is culpable for wearing a non-signet ring; but that too is a backhanded manner?
(21) I.e., on her finger.
(22) Thus in both cases this becomes the usual manner of carriage. Hence the reference in the Mishnah is to any woman, not particularly a treasurer.
(23) V. note on Mishnah.
(24) Which the kobeleth counteracts.
(25) This implies that they may nevertheless not be worn.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 62b
And what is [this reference to] R. Meir?1 - As it was taught: A woman may not go out with a key in her hand, and if she does, she incurs a sin-offering; this is R. Meir's view. R. Eliezer holds her non-culpable in the case of a kobeleth and a flask of spikenard oil. Who mentioned a kobeleth?2 - There is a lacuna, and it was thus taught: And she may likewise not go out with a kobeleth or a flask of spikenard oil; and if she does, she incurs a sin-offering: this is R. Meir's view. R. Eliezer holds her non-culpable in the case of a kobeleth and a flask of spikenard oil. When is that said? When they contain perfume;3 but if they do not contain perfume, she is culpable.4 R. Adda b. Ahabah said: This implies that if one carries out less than the statutory quantity of food in a utensil, he is culpable. For when it [the flask] does not contain perfume, it is analogous to less than the statutory quantity [of food carried out] in a utensil, and yet it is taught that she is culpable.5 R. Ashi said: In general I may hold that there is no liability, but here it is different, because there is nothing concrete at all.6 And anoint themselves with the chief ointments:7 Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: This refers to spikenard oil. R. Joseph objected: R. Judah b. Baba forbade spikenard oil too, but they [the Sages] did not agree with him.8 Now if you say [that the prophet's objection] is on account of its being a luxury,9 why did they not agree with him? Said Abaye to him, Then on your view, when it is written, that drink in bowls of [mizreke] wine,10 [which] R. Ammi and R. Assi - one interpreted it [as meaning] kenishkanim,11 while the other said, It means that they threw [mezarkim] their goblets to each other12 - is that too forbidden? Surely Rabbah son of R. Huna visited the house of the Resh Galutha,13 who drank from a kenishkanim, yet he said nothing to him!14 But whatever provides both enjoyment and rejoicings, the Rabbis forbade; but that which is a luxury but not associated with rejoicing, the Rabbis did not forbid.
That lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch themselves [seruhim] upon their couches.15 R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: This refers to people who urinate before their beds naked.16 R. Abbahu derided this: If so, is that why it is written: Therefore shall they now go captive with the first that go captive:17 because they urinate before their beds naked they shall go captive with the first that go captive! Rather said R. Abbahu: This refers to people who eat and drink together, join their couches, exchange their wives, and make their couches foul [maserihim] with semen that is not theirs.
R. Abbahu7 said - others say, In a Baraitha it was taught: Three things bring man to poverty. viz., urinating in front of one's bed naked, treating the washing of the hands with disrespect,18 and being cursed by one's wife in his presence. 'Urinating in front of one's bed naked': Raba said, This was said only when his face is turned to the bed: but if it is turned in the opposite direction, we have nought against it. And even when his face is turned to the bed, this was said only when it is on to the ground;19 but if it is into a vessel, we have nought against it. 'And the treating of the washing of the hands with disrespect': Raba said, This was said only when one does not wash his hands at all; but if he washes them inadequately,20 we have nought against it. (But this is not so, for R. Hisda said: I washed with full handfuls of water and was granted full handfuls of prosperity).21 'And being cursed by one's wife in his presence': Said Raba: [That is when she curses him] on account of her adornments.22 But that is only when he has the means but does not provide them.23
Raba son of R. Ilai lectured: What is meant by, Moreover the Lord said, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty?24 That means that they walked with haughty bearing.25 And walk with outstretched necks26 - they walked heel by toe.27 And wanton [mesakrothh] eyes:28 they filled their eyes with stibium and beckoned.29 Walking and mincing: they walked, a tall woman by the side of a short one. And making a tinkling [te'akasnah] with their feet: R. Isaac of the School of R. Ammi said: This teaches that they placed myrrh and balsam in their shoes and walked through the market-places of Jerusalem , and on coming near to the young men of Israel, they kicked their feet and spurted it on them, thus instilling them with passionate desire like with serpent's poison.30
And what is their punishment? - As Rabbah b. 'Ulla lectured: And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet spices [bosem] there shall be rottenness:31 the place where they perfumed themselves [mithbasmoth] shall be decaying sores. And instead of a girdle a rope [nikpeh]: the place where they were girded with a girdle shall become full of bruises [nekafim]. And instead of well-set hair baldness: the place where they adorned themselves shall be filled with bald patches. And instead of a stomacher [pethigil] a girding of sackcloth: the openings that lead to [sensual] joy32 shall be for a girding of sackcloth. Branding [ki] instead of beauty: Said Raba, Thus men say, Ulcers instead of beauty.
Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab [wesipah] the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion.33 R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: This teaches that leprosy broke out in them: here is written wesipah; whilst elsewhere it is written, [This is the law for all manner of plagues of leprosy ...] and for a rising and for a scab [sapahath].34 And the Lord will lay bare [ye'areh] their secret parts:35 Rab and Samuel - one maintained: This means that they were poured out like a cruse;36 while the other said: Their openings became like a forest.
Rab Judah said in Rab's name: The men of Jerusalem were vulgar. One would say to his neighbour, On what did you dine to-day: on well-kneaded bread or on bread that is not well kneaded;37 on white wine38 or
(1) Where is R. Meir's view found without that of the Rabbis that R. Eliezer should refer exclusively to his ruling?
(2) R. Eliezer's ruling does not bear upon R. Meir's statement.
(3) Then they are ornaments.
(4) Because they are burdens.
(5) V. 76b; also 93b for an opposing view. Liability is incurred for carrying out any quantity of perfume, no matter how little. Now even a flask without any perfume at all contains its fragrance: this fragrance may be regarded as less than the minimum quantity of food which imposes liability, and R. Eliezer rules that when it is together with the utensil it does involve culpability. - The opposing view on 93b is that the utensil is merely subordinate in purpose to the food, and since the food does not impose liability, the utensil does not either.
(6) Mere fragrance is not a concrete object; hence the utensil cannot be subordinate to it, but is an independent article, for which liability is incurred. But even a very small quantity of food may render the utensil subordinate to it.
(7) Amos VI, 6.
(8) This was during the Hadrianic persecutions, when luxuries were proscribed.
(9) The people, by setting their minds on such things, disregarded the essentials, viz., the teachings of the prophets.
(11) A cup with spouts, enabling several persons to drink from it; v. T.A. II, pp. 280 and 64 1 (n. 237).
(12) Both derive mizreke from zarak, to throw, the first holds that the wine was 'thrown', i.e., passed from one spout to the other. - Thus the prophet criticizes this too as an unnecessary luxury.
(13) V. p. 217. n. 7.
(14) In reproof.
(15) Ibid. 4.
(16) Translating seruhim that act indecently.
(17) Ibid. 7.
(18) Eating without washing the hands.
(19) Their floors were of earth.
(20) Lit., 'he washes and does not wash', - i.e., he uses the barest minimum.
(21) Lit., 'goodness'. This shows that water must be used generously.
(22) Because he refuses them.
(23) Cf. this with Raba's statement supra 32b, 33a.
(24) Isa. III, 16.
(25) Lit., 'erect stature'.
(27) I.e., with short mincing steps. One who walks with outstretched neck must take short steps, because he cannot see his feet (Rashi).
(29) To the men.
(30) Reading 'akus (serpent) and connecting te'akasnah with it by a play on words.
(31) lbid. 24.
(32) Reading pethigil as an abbreviation for pethahim (openings) of gilah (joy).
(33) Isa. Ill, 17.
(34) Lev. XIV, 56.
(35) Isa. Ill, 17.
(36) I.e., they discharged an abundance of matter. Ye'areh (E. V. lay bare) is translated, will empty; cf. Gen. XXIV, 20: and She emptied (wate'ar) her pitcher.
(37) The whole is a vulgar metaphor for the satisfaction of one's lust.
(38) Gurdeli fr. garad, to scrape, means scraper, a nickname for an inferior white wine.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 63a
on dark [i.e., mustard-coloured] wine; on a broad couch or on a narrow couch; with a good companion or with a poor companion? R. Hisda observed: And all these are in reference to immorality.
Rahabah said in R. Judah's name: The [fuel] logs of Jerusalem were of the cinnamon tree, and when lit their fragrance pervaded the whole of Eretz Israel. But when Jerusalem was destroyed they were hidden, only as much as a barley grain being left, which is to be found in the queen's collections of rarities.1
MISHNAH. A MAN MUST NOT GO OUT WITH A SWORD, BOW, SHIELD, LANCE [ALLAH], OR SPEAR; AND IF HE DOES GO OUT, HE INCURS A SIN-OFFERING. R. ELIEZER SAID: THEY ARE ORNAMENTS FOR HIM. BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN, THEY ARE MERELY SHAMEFUL, FOR IT IS SAID, AND THEY SHALL BEAT THEIR SWORDS INTO PLOWSHARES, AND THEIR SPEARS INTO PRUNING HOOKS: NATION SHALL NOT LIFT UP SWORD AGAINST NATION, NEITHER SHALL THEY LEARN WAR ANY MORE.2 A KNEE-BAND [BERITH] IS CLEAN, AND ONE MAY GO OUT WITH IT ON THE SABBATH; ANKLE-CHAINS [KEBALIM] ARE UNCLEAN,3 AND ONE MAY NOT GO OUT WITH THEM ON THE SABBATH.
GEMARA. What is, WITH AN ALLAH? - A lance.
R. ELIEZER SAID: THEY ARE ORNAMENTS FOR HIM. It was taught: Said they [the Sages] to R. Eliezer: Since they are ornaments for him, why should they cease in the days of the Messiah? Because they will not be required, he answered, as it is said, nation shall not lift up sword against nation. Yet let them exist merely as ornaments? - Said Abaye. It may be compared to a candle at noon.4
Now this disagrees with Samuel.5 For Samuel said, This world differs from the Messianic era only in respect to servitude of the exiled, for it is said, For the poor shall never cease out of the land.6 This supports R. Hiyya b. Abba,7 who said, All the prophets prophesied only for the Messianic age, but as for the world to come, the eye hath not seen, O Lord, beside thee [what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him].8 Some there are who state: Said they [the Sages] to R. Eliezer:
Since they are Ornaments for him, why should they cease in the days of the Messiah? In the days of the Messiah too they shall not cease, he answered. This is Samuel's view, and it disagrees with R. Hiyya b. Abba's.
Abaye asked R. Dimi - others state, R. Awia, - others again state, R. Joseph [asked] R. Dimi - and others state, R. Awia whilst others state, Abaye [asked] R. Joseph: What is R. Eliezer's reason for maintaining that they are ornaments for him? - Because it is written, Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O mighty one, Thy glory and thy majesty.9 R. Kahana objected to Mar son of R. Huna: But this refers to the words of the Torah?10 - A verse cannot depart from its plain meaning, he replied.11 R. Kahana said: By the time I was eighteen years old I had studied the whole Shas,12 yet I did not know that a verse cannot depart from its plain meaning.13 until to-day. What does he inform us? - That a man should study and subsequently understand.14
(Mnemonic: Zaruth.)15 R. Jeremiah said in R. Eleazer's name: When two scholars sharpen each other in halachah,16 the Holy One, blessed be He, gives them success, for it is said, and in thy majesty [wa-hadareka] be successful:17 read not wa-hadareka but wa-hadadeka [thy sharpening]. Moreover, they ascend to greatness, as it is said, 'ride on prosperously' [successfully]. One might think [that this is so] even if it is not for its own sake, therefore it is taught, 'In behalf of truth'. I might think [that this is so] even if he becomes conceited; therefore it is taught, 'and meekness of righteousness'. But if they do thus, they are privileged to acquire18 the Torah, which was given by the right Hand,19 as it is said, and thy right hand shall teach thee awe-inspiring things.20 R. Nahman b. Isaac said: They will obtain the things which were promised at the right hand of the Torah. For Raba b. R. Shila said - others state, R. Joseph b. Hama - said in R. Shesheth's name: What is meant by the verse, Length of days is in her right hand, In her left hand are riches and honour:21 is there in her right hand length of days only, but not riches and honour? But to those who go to the right hand thereof there is length of days, and riches and honour a fortiori; but for those that go to the left hand thereof there is riches and honour, but not length of days.22
R. Jeremiah said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish:23 When two scholars are amiable to each other in [their discussions in] halachah, the Holy One, blessed be He, gives heed to them, for it is said, Then they that feared the Lord spake [nidberu] one with another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard;24 now speech [dibbur] can 'only mean [with] gentleness, for it is said, He shall subdue [yadber] the peoples under us.25 What is meant by, and that thought upon his name?26 - Said R. Ammi: Even if one thinks of doing a good deed but is forcibly prevented and does not do it, the Writ ascribes it to him as though he did it.
R. Hinena b. Idi said: Whoever fulfils a precept as it is commanded,27 no evil tidings are told to him, for it is said, Whoso keepeth the commandment shall know no evil thing.28 R. Assi - others state, R. Hanina - said: Even if the Holy One, blessed be He, makes a decree, He annuls it,29 for it is said, Because the king's word hath power; and who may say unto him, what doest thou;30 in proximity to which [is written,] Whoso keepeth the commandment shall know no evil thing.31
R. Abba said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish: When two scholars pay heed to each other in halachah, the Holy One, blessed be He, listens to their voice, as it is said, Thou that dwellest in the gardens, The companions hearken to thy voice: Cause me to hear it.32 But if they do not do thus, they cause the Shechinah to depart from Israel, as it is said, Flee, my beloved, and be thou like, etc.33
R. Abba said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish: When two disciples form an assembly34 in halachah,35 the Holy One, blessed be He, loves them, as it is said, and his banner over me was love.36 Said Raba: Providing they know the features of a subject;37 providing also that there is no greater [scholar] in the town from whom to learn.
R. Abba also said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish: He who lends [money] is greater than he who performs charity;38 and he who forms a partnership39 is greater than all. R. Abba also said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish: [Even] if a scholar is vengeful and bears malice like a serpent.40 gird him on thy loins;41 [whereas even] if an 'am ha-arez is pious, do not dwell in his vicinity.42
R. Kahana said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish - others state, R. Assi said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish - others state, R. Abba said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish: He who breeds a wild dog in his house keeps loving kindness away from his house,43 as it is said, To him that is ready to faint [lamos]
(1) Jast. Rashi: of Queen Zimzemai.
(2) Isa. II, 4.
(3) 'Clean' and 'unclean' mean not susceptible and susceptible to uncleanness respectively.
(4) Being unnecessary then, it is not beautiful either. Thus, when war will be abolished, the instruments of war will not be adornments. Now, however, that they may be needed, they are also ornamental.
(5) Sc. the view that they will cease to be in the days of the Messiah.
(6) Deut. XV, 11 . This implies that poverty will continue in the Messianic era. Hence the prophets' tidings of a new state of affairs cannot refer to the Messianic era, which will be the same as the present, save in this matter.
(7) Sc. the Baraitha which states that weapons of war will cease to exist in the Messianic age.
(8) Isa. LXIV, 3. - The conception of the future world is rather vague in the Talmud. In general, it is the opposite of עולם הזה, this world. In Ber, I, 5, 'this world' is opposed to the days of the Messiah, and this in turn is differentiated here from the future world. The following quotation from G. Moore, 'Judaism' (Vol. 2, p. 389) is apposite: 'Any attempt to systematize the Jewish notions of the hereafter imposes upon them an order and consistency which does not exist in them'.
(9) Ps. XLV, 4.
(10) 'Thy sword' is metaphorical for learning, which is Israel's weapon. It is indicative of the peace-loving spirit of the Rabbis and their exaltation of Torah that they regarded it as axiomatic that such a verse could not be taken literally.
(11) Granted that it is metaphorical, yet the Torah would not have been likened to the sword, unless the latter were ornamental.
(12) An abbreviation of shishah sedarim, the six orders into which the Talmud is divided: v. supra 31a. [MS.M. Talmud, Shas being a correction by the censor].
(13) [In the narrative and poetical passages v. Chayyes. Z. H. Glosses].
(14) Even when one does not understand all he learns he should nevertheless study, and understanding will come eventually.
(15) V. p. 110, n. 1 . For the explanation of this Mnemonic v. Hyman, Toledoth, p. 18.
(16) By means of debating, etc.
(17) Ibid. 5.
(18) Zakah implies to acquire through one's merit.
(19) V. Deut. XXXIII, 2.
(20) Ps. XLV, 5.
(21) Prov. III, 16.
(22) Rashi:'... to the right hand' means that they study the Torah profoundly and intensively, just as the right hand is the stronger for work; alternatively, it refers to those who study the Torah for its own sake. '... to the left hand' implies the opposite of these.
(23) Otherwise known as Resh Lakish.
(24) Mal. III, 16.
(25) Ps. XLVII, 3. Subdue implies lowliness, which in turn implies gentleness.
(26) Mal. III, 16.
(27) In the proper spirit.
(28) Eccl. VIII, 5.
(29) 'He' may refer either to God or to the observer of the precept, who is given power to annul God's decree - a daring thought. The former interpretation is indicated in the parallel passage in B.M. 85a
(Sonc. ed., p. 488); the latter in M.K. 16b; but v. Weiss, Dor, I, p. 145.
(30) Ibid. 4.
(31) I.e., in spite of the king's word, viz., God's decree, whoso keepeth, etc.
(32) Cant. VIII, 13. The Song of Songs was allegorically interpreted as a dialogue between God and Israel. 'In the gardens' thus means in the academies, and when one scholar hearkens to another's voice, God says. 'Cause me to hear it'.
(33) Ibid. 14.
(34) Rashi, deriving the word from degel, a flag, i.e., who come under one flag. Tosaf. in A.Z. 22b, s.v. רגלא, interprets: even when two students outwit each other by sophistries, without seeking the real truth, yet God loves them.
(35) In the absence of a teacher.
(36) Ibid. II, 4.
(37) I.e., they have a general understanding of the subjects to be studied, so that a teacher is not indispensable.
(38) Rashi: because the poor man is not ashamed to borrow. Also perhaps because one generally lends a larger sum than he would give as charity, and that may suffice to make the poor man independent.
(39) With a poor man, providing the capital for him to trade with on agreed terms. Lit., 'who throws (money) into a
(40) The serpent was probably given that character on account of its part in the sin of Adam and Eve; cf. also Ta'an., Sonc. ed., 8a, Yoma 23a.
(41) Cleave to him, for you will benefit by his scholarship.
(42) His piety is tainted by his ignorance, which may influence his neighbour too. Cf. Ab. II, 6 (Sonc. ed., p. 15, n. 5).
(43) The poor are afraid to call. Thus he can show no lovingkindness to them, nor can he earn the love of God.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 63b
kindness should be shewed from his friend;1 and in Greek a dog is called lamos.2 R. Nahman b. Isaac said: He also casts off the fear of Heaven from himself, as it is said, and he forsaketh the fear of the Almighty.3
A certain woman entered a house to bake. The dog barked at her, [whereupon] her child4 moved [from its place]. Said the householder to her, 'Fear not: his fangs and claws have been extracted.' 'Take your favours and throw them on the thorns,' she retorted, 'the child has already moved.'
R. Huna said: What is meant by the verse, Rejoice, O young man, In thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgement?5 Thus far are the words of Evil Desire; thereafter are the words of Good Desire.6 Resh Lakish said: Thus far the reference is to study;7 thereafter, to good deeds.8 A BERITH IS CLEAN. Rab Judah said: A berith is a bracelet.9 R. Joseph objected: A BERITH IS CLEAN, AND ONE MAY GO OUT WITH IT ON THE SABBATH; but a bracelet is [liable to become] unclean? - He meant this: A berith stands in the place of a bracelet.10
Rabin and R. Huna were sitting before R. Jeremiah, and R. Jeremiah was dozing. Now Rabin sat and said: A berith is on one [leg]; whilst kebalim [ankle-chain] is on two.11 Said R. Huna to him, Both are on two, but a chain is placed between them and they become kebalim [anklets]. Does then the chain turn it into a utensil?12 And should you answer, This is in accordance with R. Samuel b. Nahmani, for R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Jonathan's name: How do we know that a metal object which causes sound is unclean? Because it is said: Everything [dabar] that may abide the fire, ye shall make go through the fire:13 even speech [dibbur - i.e., sound] is implied.14 - As for there, it is well: it [the utensil] is needed for sound15 and it performs an action;16 but here, what action does it perform?17 - Here too it performs an action, for Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: There was a certain family in Jerusalem that had large steps, whereby their virginity was destroyed. So they made them leg-suspenders and placed a chain between them, that their steps should not be large, and then their virginity was not destroyed. R. Jeremiah awoke at that and exclaimed to them, Well spoken!18 and thus did R. Johanan say [too].
When R. Dimi came,19 he said in the name of R. Johanan: How do we know that woven [material] of whatever size is [liable to become] unclean? From the ziz.20 Said Abaye to him, Was then the ziz woven? But it was taught: The ziz was a kind of golden plate two fingerbreadths broad, and it stretched round [the forehead] from ear to ear, and upon it was written in two lines 'yod he' above and 'Holy lamed' below.21 But R. Eliezer son of R. Jose said: I saw it in the city of Rome,22 and 'Holy unto the Lord' was written in one line.23 When R. Dimi went up to Nehardea, he sent word: The things that I told you were erroneous. But in truth it was thus said on R. Johanan's authority: How do we know that an ornament of whatever size is [liable to become] unclean? From the headplate. And how do we know that woven material of whatever size is unclean? From [the phrase] or raiment.24
Our Rabbis taught: Woven stuff of whatever size is unclean, and an ornament of whatever size is unclean. [An object partly] woven and [partly] an ornament of whatever size is unclean.25 A sack goes beyond a garment, in that it is unclean as woven material.26 Raba said: Woven stuff of whatever size is unclean: this is [deduced] from, 'or raiment'. An ornament of whatever size is unclean: [this is learnt] from the headplate. [An object partly] woven and [partly] an ornament of whatever size is unclean: this is [deduced] from, every serviceable utensil.27 Said one of the Rabbis to Raba, But that is written in reference to Midian?28 We learn
(1) Job. VI, 14.
(2) Perhaps from the Gk. **. Thus he translates: on account of a (wild) dog, love is kept back from one's neighbour.
(4) She was pregnant.
(5) Eccl. XI, 9.
(6) From 'Rejoice' to 'thine eyes' is spoken by the Tempter (sin personified), urging man to sin; 'but know thou, etc.' is the warning of Good Desire, man's better nature (Rashi). Maharsha explains it differently.
(7) Lit., 'the words of the Torah'.
(8) Rejoice in your youth, when you can study, and apply your heart and eyes. i.e. , your full understanding, to same. But know that you will be judged for non-fulfilment of the precepts learned by you in your studies.
(9) For the hand.
(10) It corresponds to a bracelet, i.e., the bracelet encircles the arm while the berith encircles the foot.
(11) V. Krauss, T.A. I, pp. 205 and 665 (n. 977) on these terms.
(12) That it is susceptible to uncleanness, as taught in the Mishnah. Surely not!
(13) Num. XXXI, 23.
(14) V. supra 58b for notes.
(15) E.g., a bell.
(16) Viz., it makes a sound.
(17) Though, of course, it holds up the stockings, that does not make it a utensil, which must serve an independent function, whereas this is merely an adjunct, as it were, to the stockings.
(18) Lit., (with כה understood) 'thy strength be well'.
(19) V. p. 12, n. 9.
(20) The headplate worn by the High Priest, v. Ex. XXVIII, 36ff. Though quite small, it was counted among the High Priest's adornments, and was therefore susceptible to uncleanness.
(21) I.e., the Divine Name on the upper line and 'Holy unto' on the lower line.
(22) Whither it was taken after the destruction of the Temple.
(23) From this Baraitha we see that the ziz was not of woven material.
(24) Lev. XI, 32. 'Or' is an extension.
(25) Tosaf. observes that this implies that nevertheless some minimum is required in the size of woven material and ornaments.
(26) This is explained below.
(27) Num. XXXI, 51 (E. V.: all wrought jewels).
(28) Which treats of defilement through the dead. Such is graver than uncleanness through dead reptiles (sherazim), which it is sought to prove here.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 64a
the meaning of utensil' [here] from [the employment of] 'utensil' there, answered he.1 'A sack goes beyond a garment, in that it is unclean as woven material.' Is then a garment not woven material? - This is its meaning: A sack goes beyond a garment, for though it is not of woven material, yet it is unclean.2 For what is it fit? - Said R. Johanan: A poor man plaits three threads [of goats' hair]3 and suspends it from his daughter's neck.
Our Rabbis taught: [And upon whatsoever any of them . . . doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood ... or] sack:4 I know it only of a sack:5 how do we know to include a horse cover and the saddle band?6 Therefore it is said, 'or sack'.7 I might think that I can include ropes and cords;8 therefore 'sack' is stated: just as a sack is spun and woven, so must everything be spun and woven.9 Now, concerning the dead it is stated, and all that is made of skin, and all work of goats' hair ... ye shall purify yourselves:10 this is to include a horse cover and the saddle band.11 I might think that I can include ropes and cords. (But it [the reverse] is logical:12 [the Divine Law] teaches defilement by a dead reptile, and it teaches defilement by the dead: just as when it teaches defilement by a reptile, it declares unclean only that which is spun and woven; so when it teaches defilement by the dead, it declares unclean only that which is spun and woven. How so! If it is lenient in respect to defilement through a reptile, which is lighter, shall we be lenient13 in respect to defilement by the dead, which is graver?)14 Therefore 'raiment and skin' is stated twice, to provide a gezerah shawah.15 Thus: raiment and skin are mentioned in connection with reptiles,16 and also in connection with the dead:17 just as the 'raiment and skin' which are mentioned in connection with reptiles, it [Scripture] declares unclean only that which is spun and woven, so the 'raiment and skin' which are stated in connection with the dead, it declares unclean only that which is spun and woven;18 and just as 'raiment and skin' which are stated in connection with the dead, anything made of goats' hair is unclean, so 'raiment and skin' which are stated in connection with reptiles, anything made of goats' hair is unclean.19 Now, I know it only of that which comes from goats: how do I know to include what is produced from the tail of a horse or a cow? Therefore it is stated, 'or sack'.20 (But you have utilized it in respect of a horse cover and saddle bands? - That was only before the gezerah shawah was adduced; but now that we have the gezerah shawah, it [sc. the 'or'] is superfluous.)21 And I know this only in the case of a reptile: how do we know it in respect to defilement by the dead? But it is logical:22 [Scripture] declares uncleanness through the dead, and also declares uncleanness through reptiles: just as when it declares uncleanness through the dead, it treats that which is produced from the tail of a horse or cow as that which is made of goats' hair, so when it declares uncleanness through the dead, it treats that which is produced from the tail of a horse or a cow as that which is made of goats' hair. How so! If it [Scripture] includes [this] in defilement until evening, which is extensive, shall we include [it] in seven days' defilement, which is limited?23 Therefore 'raiment and skin' are stated twice, to provide a gezerah shawah. 'Raiment and skin' are stated in connection with reptiles, and 'raiment and skin' are stated also in connection with the dead; just as raiment and skin,' which are stated in connection with reptiles, that which comes from the tail of a horse or cow is treated as that which is made of goats' hair, so 'raiment and skin' which are stated in connection with the dead, that which is produced from the tail of a horse or cow is treated as that which is made of goats' hair. And this must be redundant.24 For if it is not redundant, one can refute [the deduction]: as for a reptile, that is because it defiles by the size of a lentil.25 In truth, it is redundant. For consider: a reptile is likened to semen, for it is written, a man whose seed goeth from him,26 in proximity to which it is written, or whosoever toucheth any creeping thing;27 while in respect to semen it is written, and every garment and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation;28 then what is the purpose of 'raiment and skin' written by the Divine Law in connection with reptiles? Infer from this that its purpose is to leave it redundant.29 Yet it is still redundant [only] on one side:30 this is well on the view that where it is redundant on one side we can learn [identity of law] and cannot refute [the deduction]; but on the view that we can learn, but also refute,31 what can be said? - That [stated] in connection with the dead is also redundant. For consider: the dead is likened to semen, for it is written, 'and whoso toucheth anything that is unclean by the dead, or a man whose seed goeth from him'; while in respect to semen it is written, 'and every garment and every skin, whereon shall be the seed of copulation. What then is the purpose of 'raiment and skin' written by the Divine Law in connection with the dead? Infer from this that its purpose is to leave it redundant.
And we have brought the Lord's oblation, what every man hath gotten, of jewels of gold, ankle chains, and bracelets, signet-rings, ear-rings, and armlets.32 R. Eleazar said: 'Agil is a cast of female breasts; kumaz is a cast of the womb. R. Joseph observed: Thus it is that we translate it33 mahok, [meaning] the place that leads to obscenity [gihuk]. Said Rabbah to him, It is implied in the very Writ itself: Kumaz=here [Ka-an] is the place [Mekom] of unchastity [Zimmah].34
And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host.35 R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: Moses said to Israel: 'Maybe ye have returned to your first lapse [sin]?'36 'There lacketh not one man of us,37 they replied. 'If so,' he queried, 'Why an atonement?' 'Though we escaped from sin,' said they. 'yet we did not escape from meditating upon sin.' Straightway, 'and we have brought the Lord's offering'38 The School of R. Ishmael taught: Why were the Israelites of that generation in need of atonement? Because
(1) Concerning defilement by dead reptiles it is written, every utensil wherewith any work is done (Lev. XI, 32), and the meaning of 'utensil' is learnt from 'utensil' mentioned in connection with the dead, where ornaments are referred to. Tosaf explains the passage differently: But that ... Midian, i.e., it treats of the spoil of Midian and has no bearing upon uncleanness at all? To which Raba replied that as 'utensil' in Lev. XI, 32 refers to uncleanness, so 'utensil' in Num. XXXI. 51 provides a teaching on uncleanness, notwithstanding that this does not appear so from the context.
(2) The words are explained: ... it is unclean as woven material though it is not woven. - By 'sack' a few plaited strands of goats' hair is meant.
(3) Which are first spun.
(4) Lev. XI, 32. - The reference is to defilement by dead reptiles (sherazim).
(5) Which is usually worn by shepherds.
(6) The band with which the saddle or housing of a horse is fastened to its belly. Others: the housing itself. It was made of goats' hair spun and woven.
(7) 'Or' is an extension.
(8) Used for measuring. These were of unspun plaited goats' hair.
(9) Before it is susceptible to uncleanness.
(10) Num. XXXI, 20. These become unclean through contact with the dead.
(11) 'All' is an extension.
(12) This is a parenthesis. A verse will be quoted to show that they are not included, but before that it is parenthetically argued that it is logical not to include them, so that no verse for their exclusion is required. But it is shown that logic does not suffice to exclude them, so that a verse is required.
(13) I.e., shall we deduce a lenient ruling by analogy?
(14) Surely not! Hence logic does not prove the exclusion of cords and ropes, and therefore a verse is necessary.
(15) V. Glos.
(16) Lev. XI, 32.
(17) Num. XXXI, 51. E.V. garment.
(18) Though an analogy between the two cannot be drawn, as shown, because the uncleanness of one is graver than that of the other, yet one can deduce equality of law through the gezerah shawah.
(19) Providing it is spun and woven.
(20) 'Or' being an extension.
(21) For the susceptibility of a horse cover and a saddle band to uncleanness follows from the gezerah shawah, on the same lines as before.
(22) V. p. 302, n. 11; the same applies here.
(23) Uncleanness through a reptile ceases on the evening after the defiled object is subjected to ritual immersion, but uncleanness caused by the dead lasts seven days (v. Lev. XI, 32; Num. XIX, 11 seq.). Now, defilement until evening is extensive, in that it can be caused by many agencies, e.g., reptiles, the carcase of all animal (nebelah), semen, the touch of a zab and the touch of one who is himself unclean through the dead. Therefore it is logical that many objects too shall be susceptible to such uncleanness. But seven days' defilement is limited to the direct action of a corpse; hence it is probable that it does not extend to many objects either. Therefore the fact that what is made from the tail of a horse or cow is subject to defilement by reptiles is no warrant that it is also liable to defilement through the dead.
(24) In a gezerah shawah the word used as a basis of deduction must be redundant (mufneh). Otherwise the deduction may be refuted if a point of known dissimilarity is found between the two subjects which are linked by the gezerah shawah. On this redundancy there are two views: (i) the redundancy is required in one passage only; (ii) the redundancy is necessary in both subjects. - There is a third view, that of R. Akiba, that no redundancy at all is required in order to make the deduction conclusive and incapable of being refuted.
(25) Whereas the smallest portion of corpse to defile must be the size of an olive. In this matter defilement by a reptile is more stringent, and thus it may also be more stringent in the matter under discussion.
(26) Lev. XXII, 4.
(27) (Ibid. 5. Proximity indicates likeness in law.
(28) Lev. XV, 17. Thus raiment and skin are defiled by semen, and therefore by reptiles too.
(29) For the gezerah shawah.
(30) I.e.,in one of the two passages.
(31) V. p. 656, n. 2.
(32) Num. XXXI, 50.
(33) Metargeminan, i.e., in the Targum, the Aramaic version of the Scriptures. The citation given here by R. Joseph is from the Targum ascribed to Onkelos the proselyte.
(34) Treating Kumaz as an abbreviation.
(35) Ibid. 14.
(36) When they sinned with the daughters of Moab; v. Num. XXV.
(37) Ibid. 49.
(38) V. 50, to make atonement for their impure thoughts.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 64b
they gratified their eyes with lewdness. R. Shesheth said: Why does the Writ enumerate the outward ornaments with the inner?1 To teach you: Whoever looks upon a woman's little finger is as though he gazed upon the pudenda.2
MISHNAH. A WOMAN MAY GO OUT WITH RIBBONS MADE OF HAIR,3 WHETHER THEY ARE OF HER OWN [HAIR] OR OF HER COMPANIONS, OR OF AN ANIMAL, AND WITH FRONTLETS AND WITH SARBITIN4 THAT ARE FASTENED TO HER. [SHE MAY GO OUT] WITH A HAIR-NET [KABUL] AND WITH A WIG5 INTO A COURTYARD; WITH WADDING IN HER EAR, WITH WADDING IN HER SANDALS,6 AND WITH THE CLOTH PREPARED FOR HER MENSTRUATION; WITH A PEPPERCORN, WITH A GLOBULE OF SALT AND ANYTHING THAT IS PLACED IN HER MOUTH,7 PROVIDING THAT SHE DOES NOT PUT IT IN HER MOUTH IN THE FIRST PLACE ON THE SABBATH, AND IF IT FAILS OUT,8 SHE MAY NOT PUT IT BACK. AS FOR AN ARTIFICIAL TOOTH, [OR] A GOLD TOOTH,9 - RABBI PERMITS BUT THE SAGES FORBID IT.
GEMARA. And it is necessary [to state all the cases].10 For if we were told about her own [hair], that might be because it is not ugly; but as for her companions', which is unbecoming.11 I might say [that it is] not [permitted].12 While if we were informed about her companions', that might be because she is of her own kind; but an animal's, that is not of her own kind, I might say [that it is] not [permitted].13 Thus they are necessary.
It was taught: Providing that a young woman does not go out with an old woman's [hair], or an old woman with a young woman's.14 As for an old woman [not going out] with a young woman's hair, that is well, because it is an improvement for her; but [that] a young woman [may not go out] with an old woman's [hair]. why [state it], seeing that it is unsuitable for her?]15 - Because he teaches of an old woman's [going out] with a young woman's [hair], he also teaches of a young woman's [going out] with an old woman's hair.
WITH A HAIR-NET AND A WIG INTO A COURTYARD. Rab said: Whatever the Sages forbade to go out therewith into the street, one may not go out therewith into a courtyard,16 except a hair-net and a wig. R. 'Anani b. Sason said on the authority of R. Ishmael son of R. Jose: It is all like a hair-net. We learnt: WITH A HAIR-NET AND A WIG INTO A COURTYARD. As for Rab, it is well; but according to R. 'Anani b. Sason it is a difficulty? - On whose authority does R. 'Anani b. Sason say this? On that of R. Ishmael son of R. Jose! R. Ishmael son of R. Jose is a Tanna, and can disagree.17
Now, according to Rab, why do these differ? - Said 'Ulla, [They are permitted] lest she become repulsive to her husband.18 As it was taught: And she that is sick shall be in her impurity:19 the early Sages20 ruled: That means that she must not rouge nor paint nor adorn herself in dyed garments; until R. Akiba came and taught: If so, you make her repulsive to her husband, with the result that he will divorce her! But what [then] is taught by, 'and she that is sick shall be it, her impurity'? She shall remain in her impurity until she enters Into water.21
Rab Judah said in Rab's name: Wherever the Sages forbade [aught] for appearances' sake, it is forbidden even In one's innermost chambers.22
We learnt: Nor with a bell, even if it is plugged.23 And it was elsewhere taught.24 One may plug the bell around its [the animal's] neck and saunter with it in the courtyard?25 - It is [a controversy of] Tannaim. For it was taught:
(1) In this verse, according to the translation given above of 'agil and kumaz.
(2) The first is where the finger-ring is worn, and since it is enumerated, it follows that even for looking upon that they needed atonement.
(3) With which she dresses her hair.
(4) V. supra 57b.
(5) Lit., 'strange (false) curls'.
(6) I.e., any soft substance to ease the foot.
(7) Before the commencement of the Sabbath.
(8) On the Sabbath.
(9) Rashi regards these as one: an artificial tooth of gold.
(10) Referring to ribbons of hair.
(11) I.e, ribbons made of another woman's hair may not match her own.
(12) She may be ridiculed and thereby tempted to remove it, and thus carry it in the street.
(13) For there the disharmony is even more striking.
(14) Young hair on old - e.g. black on grey - or vice versa is ugly, and so the wearer might remove it in the street.
(15) No young woman would dream of wearing ribbons made from an old woman's hair. - The translation follows one interpretation given in Tosaf. Tosaf. offers another, which is based on a reversed order of the text.
(16) Lest she forget herself and go out into the street too.
(17) It is axiomatic that an amora cannot disagree with a Tanna, but another Tanna of course can. The Mishnah certainly disagrees with R. 'Anani b. Sason, but it does not matter, as he is supported by another Tanna.
(18) Hence some ornaments must be permitted.
(19) Lev. XV, 33. The reference is to a menstruant.
(20) Lit., 'elders'.
(21) I.e., until she has a ritual bath.
(22) E.g., one must not lead on Sabbath a number of animals tied together, lest he be suspected of going to market with them (supra 54a). Accordingly he may not do so even in the utmost privacy.
(23) V. supra 54b Mishnah.
(24) Var. lec.: and it was taught thereon.
(25) This refutes Rab, for though it may not be done publicly in the street, it may be done privately in one's courtyard.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 65a
He may spread them out in the sun, but not in the sight of people; R. Eleazar and R. Simeon forbid it.1
AND WITH THE WADDING IN HER EAR. Rami b. Ezekiel learnt: Providing it is tied to her ear.
AND WITH THE WADDING IN HER SANDALS. Rami b. Ezekiel learnt: Providing it is tied to her sandal.
AND WITH THE CLOTH SHE PREPARED FOR HER MENSTRUATION. Rami b. Ezekiel thought to say, Providing it is fastened between her thighs. Said Raba, Even if it is not tied to her: since it is repulsive, she will not come to carry it.2 R. Jeremiah asked R. Abba: What if she made a handle for it?3 - It is permitted, replied he.4 It was stated likewise: R. Nahman b. Oshaia said in R. Johanan's name: [Even] if she made a handle for it, it is permitted.
R. Johanan used to go out with them5 to the Beth Hamidrash, but his companions disagreed with him.6 R. Jannai would go out with it into a karmelith7 but all his contemporaries disagreed with him. But Rami b. Ezekiel learnt: Providing it is tied to her ear?8 - There is no difficulty: in the one case it is firmly placed;9 in the other it was not.10
WITH A PEPPERCORN, AND WITH A GLOBULE OF SAlt. A peppercorn is for [counteracting] the [evil] breath of the mouth; a globule of salt is for the gum.11
AND WITH ANYTHING THAT SHE PLACES12 IN HER MOUTH. [Sc.] ginger, or cinnamon.
AN ARTIFICIAL TOOTH, [OR] A GOLD TOOTH, - RABBI PERMITS BUT THE SAGES FORBID IT. R. Zera said: They taught this only of a gold [tooth], but as for a silver one, all agree that it is permitted.13
Abaye said: Rabbi, R. Eliezer, and R. Simeon b. Eleazar all hold that whatever detracts from a person['s appearance], one will not come to display it. Rabbi, as stated.14 R. Eliezer, for it was taught: R. Eliezer declares [her] non-culpable on account of a kobeleth and a flask of spikenard oil.15 R. Simeon b. Eleazar, for it was taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar stated a general rule: Whatever is [worn] beneath the net, one may go out therewith; whatever is [worn] above the net, one may not go out with it.16
MISHNAH. SHE MAY GO FORTH WITH THE SELA'17 ON A ZINITH [CALLUS]. YOUNG GIRLS18 MAY GO OUT WITH THREADS, AND EVEN WITH CHIPS IN THEIR EARS.19 ARABIAN WOMEN MAY GO FORTH VEILED, AND MEDIAN WOMEN MAY GO FORTH WITH THEIR CLOAKS THROWN OVER THEIR SHOULDERS.20 INDEED, ALL PEOPLE [MAY DO LIKEWISE]. BUT THAT THE SAGES SPOKE OF NORMAL USAGE.21 A WOMAN MAY WEIGHT [HER CLOAK] WITH A STONE, NUT, OR COIN, PROVIDING THAT SHE DOES NOT ATTACH THE WEIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE ON THE SABBATH.
GEMARA. What is ZINITH? A growth caused by the soil.22 And why particularly a sela'? Shall we say that anything hard is beneficial thereto? Then let a shard be prepared for it? Again, if it is on account of the corrosion,23 let a metal foil be used? But if it is on account of the figure,24 let him use any circular plate?25 Said Abaye: This proves that all [these things] are beneficial for it.26
YOUNG GIRLS MAY GO OUT WITH THREADS. Samuel's father did not permit his daughters to go out with threads, nor to sleep together; and he made mikwa'oth27 for them in the days of Nisan, and had mats placed in the days of Tishri.28 'He did not permit them to go out with threads'. But we learnt, YOUNG GIRLS MAY GO OUT WITH THREADS! - The daughters of Samuel's father had coloured ones.29 'He did not permit them to sleep together'. Shall we say that this supports R. Huna? For R. Huna said: Women that commit lewdness with one another are unfit for the priesthood.30 -
(1) This refers to one whose garments are accidentally wetted on the Sabbath. The first Tanna forbids them to be spread out in the sight of the people, lest they suspect him of having washed them on the Sabbath, yet he permits it to be done privately, thus agreeing with the Baraitha just quoted. While R. Eleazar and R. Simeon forbid it even in private, which agrees with Rab.
(2) If it drops out.
(3) Sewing on to it a piece that she could hold in her hand. This is not repulsive, and so she may carry it.
(4) It is repulsive none the less.
(5) Sc. the wadding in his ear, because he had a copious discharge of pus, and with wadding in his sandals. This must be the explanation according to cur. edd. which reads 'with them'; this appears to be Alfasi's version too (v. Korban Nethanel on Asheri a.l.). Rashi reads: with it, and refers it to the first mentioned.
(6) Rashi: because he did not have it tied to his ear.
(7) V. Glos. and supra 6a.
(8) Whereas R. Johanan did not have it tied to his ear.
(9) [In which case tying to the ear is not necessary. Hence the practice of R. Johanan.
(10) Rami b. Ezekiel refers to the latter case.
(11) Jast. Rashi: toothache.
(12) Sic. The reading in the Mishnah is slightly different.
(13) Rashi: a gold tooth being valuable, the woman may take it out of her mouth for display, and meanwhile carry it in the street; but this does not apply to a silver tooth.
(14) This being the reason that he permits a gold tooth, in spite of its being valuable.
(15) V. supra 62a.
(16) V. supra 57b.
(17) A coin.
(18) Lit., 'daughters'.
(19) To prevent the hole pierced for ear-rings from closing up.
(20) Parap, p.p. parup. f.p. perupoth, means to fasten a garment over the shoulder by attaching a weight to its overhanging corner (Jast.).
(21) Arabian and Median women affect these fashions.
(22) The pressure or chafing of the ground on the foot causing a wound or a bunion.
(23) Of the metal, which softens the callus.
(24) Stamped on the coin, which may protect the growth.
(25) Rashi: of wood, upon which a figure is impressed.
(26) Viz., the hardness, corrosion, and the figure, and only a coin possesses all three.
(27) Mikweh, pl. mikwa'oth, ritual bath.
(28) A mikweh made of collected rain water is efficacious only if its water is still, not running or flowing. But 'a well or spring, with its waters gushing forth from its source, is efficacious even when they flow onward. Now, during the whole year the river may contain more rain water or melted snow (which is the same) than its own natural waters; consequently it is all considered as rain water, which does not cleanse when in a running state. But in Tishri when the rains have ceased, nor is there any melted snow in the river, it is like a well or spring, and even though running its waters are efficacious. - According to this the river's rise is caused mainly by rain. - Hence in Nisan he did not permit them to take their ritual bath in the river, but made special enclosed baths for them. But in Tishri they could perform their ablutions in the river. Yet since the bed of the river is miry, and should the feet sink into it, the water cannot reach the soles, thus rendering the immersion invalid, he placed mats on the river bed for them to stand on (Rashi). R. Tam a.l. and Rab in Ned. 40b explain: he hung up mats on the shore, to serve as a screen.
(29) Which they might remove and show.
(30) Sc. to marry a High Priest, who must marry none but a virgin (Lev. XXI, 13), for their lewdness destroys their virginity. Though there were no High Priests in his days, he nevertheless objected to this on grounds of decency, and therefore may have taken steps to prevent it. - V. Weiss, Dor, II, 23.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 65b
No: it was in order that they should not become accustomed to a foreign body. 'And he made a mikweh for them in the days of Nisan'. This supports Rab, for Rab said: Rain in the West [Palestine] is strongly testified to by the Euphrates;1 and he [Samuel's father] feared that the rainwater might exceed the running water.2 Now, he differs from Samuel, who said: A river increases in volume from its beds.3 But this conflicts with another [statement] of his. For Samuel said: No water purifies when flowing, save the Euphrates in the days of Tishri alone.4
A WOMAN MAY WEIGHT [HER CLOAK] WITH A STONE, etc. But you say in the first clause, that she may weight it?5 - Said Abaye: The second clause refers to a coin.6 Abaye asked: May a woman evade [the Sabbath prohibition] by weighting [her cloak] with a nut in order to carry it out to her infant child on the Sabbath? This is a problem on the view of both him who maintains that an artifice may be used and him who holds that an artifice may not be used.7 It is a problem on the view that all artifice may be used in the case of a conflagration: that is only there, because if you do not permit it to him, he will come to extinguish it; but here, if you do not permit it, one will not come to carry it [sc. the nut] out.8 Or perhaps, even on the view that all artifice may not be used; there that is a normal way of carrying [clothes] out;9 but here this is not a usual way of carrying it, and therefore I might say that it is well.10 The question stands over.
MISHNAH. A STUMP-LEGGED PERSON MAY GO FORTH WITH HIS WOODEN STUMP:11 THIS IS R. MEIR'S VIEW;
(1) Rashi: for when it rains in Palestine the water flows down to Babylon and causes the swelling of the Euphrates. Obermeyer, p 45 and n. 2 rejects this on hydrographical grounds, and explains that in most cases the rains in northern Mesopotamia in the Taurus range, where the Euphrates has its source, are the precursors of rain in Palestine. - Thus Rab too holds that the swelling of a river is caused chiefly through rain.
(2) I.e., the added rain water might exceed the normal volume of the river, in which case it is all regarded as rain water; v. p. 310, n. 11.
(3) Lit., 'rock'. Though it seems to swell through the rains, actually more water gushes upward from the river bed than is added by the rain.
(4) Which is in accordance with his father and with Rab.
(5) Which certainly means that she may do so in the first place on the Sabbath, since the preceding clause has already taught that she may wear a weighted cloak.
(6) Which may not be handled on the Sabbath.
(7) V. infra 120a.
(8) Hence it is possibly forbidden.
(9) E.g., clothes; merchants wear the clothes they have to sell (Rashi).
(10) Since the first is the normal way of carrying, when one puts on more than he requires the excess is a mere burden, carried out in the normal manner; hence it is forbidden. But in the case under discussion, even if a person intentionally carries a nut out thus, without any subterfuge, he does not transgress by Biblical law and is not liable to a sin-offering, which is incurred only for doing a thing in its normal fashion. Hence a subterfuge may be permitted even by Rabbinical law (R. Jacob Emden, Novellae).
(11) A log of wood hollowed out to receive the stump.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 66a
WHILE R. JOSE FORBIDS IT. AND IF IT HAS A RECEPTACLE FOR PADS,1 IT IS UNCLEAN.2 HIS SUPPORTS3 ARE UNCLEAN THROUGH Mldras,4 AND ONE MAY GO OUT THEREWITH ON THE SABBATH,5 AND ENTER THE TEMPLE COURT WHILST WEARING THEM.6 HIS STOOL AND SUPPORTS7 ARE UNCLEAN AS MIDRAS, AND ONE MAY NOT GO OUT WITH THEM ON THE SABBATH,8 AND ONE MAY NOT ENTER THE TEMPLE COURT WITH THEM.9 AN ARTIFICIAL ARM [LUKITMIN]10 IS CLEAN, BUT ONE MAY NOT GO OUT THEREWITH.11
GEMARA. Raba asked R. Nahman, How do we learn [this]?12 I do not know, replied he. What is the law? I do not know, was his answer. It was stated: Samuel said: A stump-legged person may not, [etc.]; and R. Huna said likewise: A stump-legged person may not, [etc.].13 R. Joseph observed: Since Samuel said: A stump-legged person may not [etc.], and R. Huna [also] said: A stump-legged person may not [etc.], then we too should learn, A stump-legged person may not. Rabbah b. Shila demurred: Did they not hear what R. Hanan b. Raba recited to Hiyya b. Rab before Rab in a little room of Rab's academy: A stump-legged person may not go out with his wooden stump: this is R. Meir's view; but R. Jose permits it; whereupon Rab signalled to them that it was the reverse? R. Nahman b. Isaac observed: And your token is samek samek.14
Now, Samuel too retracted.15 For we learnt: If she performs halizah16 with a shoe that is not his,17 with a wooden shoe, or with a left-footed [shoe] placed on the right foot, the halizah is valid. Now we observed, Which Tanna [rules thus]?18 Said Samuel, R. Meir: For we learnt: A STUMP-LEGGED PERSON MAY GO OUT WITH HIS WOODEN STUMP: THIS IS R. MEIR'S VIEW; WHILE R. JOSE FORBIDS IT.19
Now, R. Huna too retracted. For it was taught: A lime burner's shoe20 is unclean as midras, a woman may perform halizah therewith, and one may not go out with it on the Sabbath: this is R. Akiba's view; but they [the Sages] did not agree with him. But it was taught:21 They agree with him? - Said R. Huna, Who agreed with him? R. Meir.22 And who did not agree with him? R. Jose.23 R. Joseph said: Who did not agree with him? R. Johanan b. Nuri. For we learnt: A hive of straw and a tube of canes:24 . R. Akiba declares it unclean; while R. Johanan b. Nuri declares it clean.25
The Master said: 'A lime-burner's shoe is unclean as midras'. But it is not made for walking?26 - Said R. Aha son of R. 'Ulla: That is because the lime-burner walks in it until he comes home.
AND IF IT HAS A RECEPTACle FOR PADS, IT IS UNCLEAN. Abaye said: It has the uncleanness of a corpse, but not midras; Raba said: It is unclean even as midras.27 Said Raba: Whence do I know it? For we learnt: A child's waggonette28 is unclean as midras. But Abaye said: There he [the child] leans upon it, but here he [the stump-legged person] does not lean upon it. Abaye said: How do I know it? Because it was taught: A staff of old men is completely clean.29 And Raba?30 - There
(1) Upon which the stump rests.
(2) 'Unclean' and 'clean' in this and similar passages means susceptible and not susceptible to uncleanness respectively. A wooden article is unclean only when it has a receptacle for objects to be carried therein. If the log is merely hollowed out for the stump, it is not a receptacle in this sense.
(3) Leather supports for one who is stumped in both legs.
(4) If he is a zab, q.v. Glos. Midras, lit., 'treading' is the technical term for the uncleanness occasioned by a zab through bringing his weight to bear upon an object, e.g., by treading, sitting, or leaning, even if he does not actually touch it with his body. The degree of defilement imposed thereby is called 'the principal degree of uncleanness' (Heb. ab, father), and is only one grade less than that of a corpse: cf. p. 55, n. 6.
(5) They rank as ornaments.
(6) Though one may not enter wearing his shoes (Ber. 54a), these are not accounted as such.
(7) This refers to one who is unable to walk upon supports alone, the muscles of his foreleg being atrophied or paralysed. A stool is made for him, and also supports for his stumps, and he propels himself along with his hands and just a little with his feet too. R. Israel Lipshitz in his commentary זרע ישראל on Mishnah seems to translate סמוכות here as referring to the hand supports used by the cripple in propelling himself along, and not to the foot supports, which meaning it bears in the earlier clause.
(8) Rashi: as he does not actually walk upon them, they dangle in the air and may fall off, which will cause him to carry them in the street.
(9) There seems no adequate reason for this, and most commentators are silent upon the matter. Tosaf. Yom Tob states that 'ONE MAY NOT ... SABBATH' refers only to the 'SUPPORTS' mentioned in the first clause, not to the 'STOOL AND ITS SUPPORTS' (he appears to agree with R. Israel Lipshitz in his interpretation), which are mentioned only to teach that they are unclean as midras.
(10) Jast. s.v. אנקטמיו: for carrying burdens. Rashi: a kind of mask for frightening children. The actual meaning of the word is discussed in the Gemara.
(11) Jast.: because it is intended for carrying burdens. Rashi: because it is neither useful nor ornamental.
(12) The text seems to have been doubtful, and it was not clear whether R. Meir gave a lenient ruling and R. Jose a stringent one or the reverse. V. Weiss, Dor, II, 213 seqq. on doubtful and corrupt readings in the Mishnah.
(13) This was their text in the Mishnah; thus it differed from ours.
(14) Samek (ס) is a letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Thus R. Jose (יוסי) forbids (אוסר), the samek occurring in the name and in the ruling.
(15) 'Too' in the sense that he too subsequently held as Rab.
(16) V. Glos.
(17) Sc. her brother-in-law's.
(18) That a wooden shoe comes within the term and she shall loose his shoe' (Deut. XXV, 9).
(19) R. Meir regards even a hollowed-out log as a shoe, though it is unusual, and the same applies here, though wood is an unusual material for a shoe. Thus Samuel quotes Rab's version of the Mishnah.
(20) Rashi states two views: (i) that it was of wood; (ii) that it was of straw. Rashi and Tosaf. incline to the latter view.
(21) Wilna Gaon emends: but we learnt, since the citation is from a Mishnah.
(22) V. n. 6; the same argument applies here.
(23) Thus he accepts our version of the Mishnah.
(24) Or reeds, Wilna Gaon emends: A straw mat and a tube of straw.
(25) The former holds that straw is the same as wood, which is susceptible to uncleanness, while the latter regards it as a different material.
(26) It was put on over the ordinary leather shoe to protect the latter from the burning action of the lime. In order to be subject to midras uncleanness an object must be used for walking, sitting, or lying upon.
(27) 'The uncleanness of a corpse' is mentioned merely as an example of any ordinary defilement, where the uncleanness of the object defiled is one degree less than that of the object which defiles it, and which requires either actual contact or that the object be under the same covering as the corpse. Thus Abaye holds that it attains even a primary degree of uncleanness (ab hatum'ah) through a corpse, which itself possesses a supra-primary degree of uncleanness, but not through the midras of a zab. Abaye holds that the wooden stump is not made primarily for leaning upon.
(28) Rashi: on which it is carried, thus a perambulator. Tosaf. with which a child learns to walk, by holding on to it.
(29) I.e., it is susceptible neither to midras nor to any other form of defilement. It is not susceptible to midras because it is not made for leaning, since one walks on his feet. This shows that though one does lean on it occasionally, yet since that is not its main purpose, it is not defiled as midras, and the same applies here. - It is not susceptible to other forms of defilement because it is a wooden utensil without a cavity (p. 238, n. 6).
(30) How does he rebut this proof?
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 66b
it is made to facilitate his steps;1 whereas here it is made to lean on, and he does so.2
HIS STOOL AND SUPPORTS ARE UNCLEAN AS MIDRAS, AND ONE MAY NOT GO OUT WITH THEM ON THE SABBATH, AND ONE MAY NOT ENTER THE TEMPLE COURT WITH THEM. A tanna recited before R. Johanan: One may enter the Temple court with them. Said he to him, I learn, A woman can perform halizah therewith,3 yet you say [that] they may enter! Learn, One may not enter the Temple court with them. AN ARTIFICIAl, ARM [LUKITMIN] IS CLEAN. What is lukitmin? - Said R. Abbahu: A pulley for loads.4 Raba b. Papa said: Stilts. Raba son of R. Huna said: A mask.
MISHNAH. BOYS MAY GO OUT WITH GARLANDS [KESHARIM], AND ROYAL, CHILDREN MAY GO OUT WITH BELLS, AND ALL PEOPLE [MAY DO LIKEWISE], BUT THAT THE SAGES SPOKE OF THE USUAL PRACTICE.
GEMARA. What is kesharim? - Said Adda Mari in the name of R. Nahman b. Baruch in the name of R. Ashi b. Abin in Rab Judah's name: Garlands of pu'ah.5
(Abaye said, Mother6 told me: Three7 arrest [illness], five cure [it], seven are efficacious even against witchcraft. R. Aha b. Jacob observed: Providing that neither the sun nor the moon see it, and that it does not see rain nor hear the sound of iron, or the cry of a fowl or the sound of steps. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: The pu'ah has fallen into a pit!)8 Why [then] particularly BOYS; even girls too [may go out therewith]? And why particularly children; even adults too?9 - But [then] what is meant by KESHARIM? As Abin b. Huna said in the name of It. Hama b. Guria: If a son yearns for his father [the father] takes a strap from his right shoe and ties it to his left [hand].10 R. Nahman b. Isaac said: And your token is phylacteries.11 But if the reverse there is danger.12
Abin b. Huna said in the name of R. Hama b. Guria: The placing of a [hot] cup upon the navel on Sabbath13 is permitted. Abin b. Huna also said in the name of R. Hama b. Guria: One may rub in oil and salt on the Sabbath.14 Like R. Huna at Rab's college, and Rab at R. Hiyya's, and R. Hiyya at Rabbi's,15 when they felt the effect of the wine they would bring oil and salt and rub into the palms of their hands and the instep of their feet and say, 'Just as this oil is becoming clear,16 so let So-and-so's wine become clear.'17 And if [this was] not [possible], they would bring the sealing clay of a wine vessel and soak it in water and say, 'Just as this clay becomes clear, so let So-and-so's wine become clear.'18
Abin b. Huna also said in the name of R. Hama b. Guria: One may reset [a laryngeal muscle]19 on the Sabbath. Abin b. Huna also said in the name of R. Hama b. Guria: To swaddle a babe on the Sabbath is in order.20 R. Papa recited [two dicta about] children, [while] R. Zebid recited [one dictum] about a child.21 R. Papa recited [the two dicta about] children,22 and both in the name of Abin b. Huna. While R. Zebid recited a dictum about a child [in his name]; for the first he recited in the name of Abin b. Huna, but this [latter one] he recited in the name of Rabbah b. Bar Hanah, for Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said: To swaddle a babe on the Sabbath is in order.
Abaye said: Mother told me, All incantations which are repeated several times must contain the name of the patient's mother, and all knots23 must be on the left [hand?]. Abaye also said: Mother told me, of all incantations, the number of times they are to be repeated, is as stated; and where the number is not stated, it is forty-one times.
Our Rabbis taught: One may go out with a preserving stone24 on the Sabbath. On the authority of R. Meir it was said: Even with the counterweight of a preserving stone.25 And not only when one has miscarried,26 but even [for fear] lest she miscarry; and not only when she is [already] pregnant, but even lest she become pregnant and miscarry. R. Yemar b. Shalmia said on Abaye's authority: Provided that it was found to be its natural counterweight.27 Abaye asked: What about the counterweight of the counterweight? The question stands over.
Abaye also said: Mother told me, For a daily fever28 one must take a white zuz,29 go to a salt deposit,30 take its weight in salt, and tie it up in the nape of the neck with a white twisted cord. But if this is not [possible], let one sit at the cross-roads, and when he sees a large ant carrying something, let him take and throw it into a brass tube and close it with lead, and seal it with sixty seals.31 Let him shake it, lift it up and say to it, 'Thy burden be upon me and my burden be upon thee.' Said R. Aha son of R. Huna to R. Ashi: But perhaps [another] man had [previously] found it and cast [his illness] upon it?32 Rather let him say to it, 'My burden and thy burden be upon thee.' But if this is impossible, let him take a new pitcher, go to the river and say to it, 'O river, O river, lend me a pitcher of water for a journey that had chanced to me.' Let him then turn it seven times about his head, throw it behind his back, and say to it, 'O river, O river, take back the water thou gavest me, for the journey that chanced to me came in its day and departed in its day!'
R. Huna said:
(1) But not that his whole body should lean upon it.
(2) I.e., its purpose is to bear the weight of his whole body.
(3) Which shows that they count as shoes, in which one may not enter the Temple court.
(4) So Jast. Rashi: a wooden donkey's head worn by mummers.
(5) A vegetable; dyer's madder; a prophylactic.
(6) She was really his foster-mother, v. Kid. 31a.
(7) Garlands; or, plants.
(8) It is useless as a remedy to-day, as none take all these precautions - probably a sarcastic remark showing his disbelief in these remedies.
(9) This is an objection to Rab Judah's explanation. If the Mishnah means garlands used as prophylactics, they are surely not confined to young boys!
(10) This cures him so that he is able to bear his father's absence.
(11) The right hand winds the strap on the left hand.
(12) If the strap of his left is tied to the son's right.
(13) To alleviate stomach ache.
(14) Into the skin.
(15) I.e., when they were at these colleges.
(16) The heat of the flesh would clarify it.
(17) Let the fumes depart!
(18) This is an instance of sympathetic magic.
(19) Lit., 'strangle'. An operation performed in cases of abdominal affection by squeezing the jugular veins. Rashi and 'Aruk reads: one may have the laryngeal muscle reset.
(20) In order to set its limbs.
(21) I.e., R. Papa recited two separate dicta about children, both in the name of Abin b. Huna, as explained below, while R. Zebid recited a single law about children in his name.
(22) The one referring to the child that yearns for his father and the other relating to swaddling.
(23) For magical purposes of healing.
(24) As a safeguard against abortion. [The aetit (or Eagle stone). For the belief in the efficacy of this stone against abortion among the ancients v. Preuss, Medizin, p. 446].
(25) Anything that was weighed against it.
(26) To protect her from a repetition.
(27) Without anything having been added or taken away.
(28) A quotidian whose paroxysms recur every day.
(29) I.e., new and clean.
(30) In a cavity in which sea-water was allowed to evaporate.
(31) The number is not exact, but simply means many e.g., sealing wax over the lead, then pitch above that, then clay, etc. (Rashi).
(32) And the second would now take it over.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 67a
[As a remedy] for a tertian fever one should procure seven prickles from seven palm trees, seven chips from seven beams, seven pegs from seven bridges, seven [heaps of] ashes from seven ovens, seven [mounds of] earth from under seven door-sockets, seven specimens of pitch from seven ships, seven handfuls of cummin, and seven hairs from the beard of an old dog, and tie them, in the nape of the neck with a white twisted thread.1
R. Johanan said: For an inflammatory fever let one take an all-iron knife, go whither thorn-hedges2 are to be found, and tie a white twisted thread thereto.3 On the first day he must slightly notch it, and say, 'and the angel of the Lord appeared unto him, etc.'4 On the following day he [again] makes a small notch and says, 'And Moses said, I will turn aside now, and see, etc.' The next day he makes [another] small notch and says, 'And when the Lord saw that he turned aside [sar] to see.'5 R. Aha son of Raba said to R. Ashi, Then let him say, 'Draw not nigh hither?'6 Rather on the first day he should say. 'And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him, etc. ... And Moses said, I will, etc.'; the next day he says, 'And when, the Lord saw that he turned aside to see'; on the third, 'And he said, Draw not nigh.' And when he has recited his verses he pulls it down [sc. the bush] and says thus: 'O thorn, O thorn, not because thou art higher than all other trees did the Holy One, blessed be He, cause His Shechinah to rest upon thee, but because thou art lower than all other trees did He cause His Shechinah to rest upon thee. And even as thou sawest the fire [kindled] for Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah and didst flee from before them, so look upon the fire [i.e., fever.] of So-and-so7 and flee from him.' For an abscess one should say thus: 'Let it indeed be cut down, let it indeed be healed, let it indeed be overthrown; Sharlai and Amarlai are those angels who were sent from the land of Sodom8 to heal boils and aches: bazak, bazik, bizbazik, mismasik, kamun kamik,9 thy colour [be confined] within thee, thy colour [be confined] within thee,10 thy seat be within thee,11 thy seed be like a kalut12 and like a mule that is not fruitful and does not increase; so be thou not fruitful nor increase in the body of So-and-so.'13 Against ulcers14 one should say thus: 'A drawn sword and a prepared sling, its name is not Joheb, sickness and pains.' Against a demon one should say thus: 'Thou wast closed up; closed up wast thou. Cursed, broken, and destroyed be Bar Tit, Bar Tame, Bar Tina15 as Shamgez, Mezigaz and Istamai.' For a demon of the privy one should say thus: 'On the head of a lion and on the snout of a lioness did we find the demon Bar Shirika Panda; with a bed of leeks I hurled him down, [and] with the jawbone of an ass I smote him.'
AND ROYAL CHILDREN MAY GO OUT WITH BELLS. Who is the authority [for this ruling]? - Said R. Oshaia: It is R. Simeon, who maintained: All Israel are royal children. Raba said: It means that it is woven [sewn] into his garment; thus it agrees with all.
MISHNAH. ONE MAY GO OUT WITH A HARGOL'S EGG,16 A FOX'S TOOTH, AND A NAIL FROM [THE GALLOWS OF] AN IMPALED CONVICT AS A PROPHYLACTIC: THIS IS R. MEIR'S VIEW; BUT THE SAGES FORBID THIS EVEN ON WEEKDAYS ON ACCOUNT OF 'THE WAYS OF THE AMORITE.'17
GEMARA. ONE MAY GO OUT WITH A HARGOL'S EGG, which is carried for ear-ache; AND WITH A FOX'S TOOTH, which is worn on account of sleep: a living [fox's] for one who sleeps [too much], a dead [fox's] for him who cannot sleep.
AND A NAIL FROM [THE GALLOWS OF] AN IMPALED CONVICT. It is applied to an inflammation,
AS A PROPHYLACTIC: THIS IS R. MEIR'S VIEW. Abaye and Raba both maintain: Whatever is used as a remedy is not [forbidden] on account of the ways of the Amorite.18 Then if it is not an [obvious] remedy, is it forbidden on account of the ways of the Amorite? But surely it was taught: If a tree casts its fruit, one paints it with sikra19 and loads it with stones. Now, as for loading it with stones, that is in order to lessen its strength.20 But when he paints it with sikra, what remedy does he effect?21 - That is in order that people may see and pray for it. Even as it was taught: And he [the leper] shall cry, 'Unclean, unclean':22 he must make his grief publicly known, so that the public may pray for him. Rabina observed: In accordance with whom do we suspend a cluster of dates on a [sterile] date tree? In accordance with this Tanna.
A tanna recited the chapter of Amorite practices23 before R. Hiyya b. Abin. Said he to him: All these are forbidden as Amorite practices, save the following: If one has a bone in his throat, he may bring of that kind, place it on his head, and say thus: 'One by one go down, swallow, go down one by one': this is not considered the ways of the Amorite. For a fish bone he should say thus: 'Thou art stuck in like a pin, thou art locked up as [within] a cuirass; go down, go down.'
(1) Magical properties were ascribed to the number seven, which was regarded as the most sacred number. Various factors were responsible for this: it is a combination of three and four, themselves held to be sacred; there are seven days in the week; the seventh day is holy. - The Rabbis, though opposed to superstitions practices in general (v. p. 243, n. 3), were nevertheless children of their age, and recognized their efficacy.
(2) Or, wild rose bushes.
(3) The knife, or the thorn bush?
(4) Ex. III, 2.
(5) Ibid. 4. Sar also means to depart, and it is applied magically to the fever. The belief in the efficacy of sacred books or verses to effect cures, etc., was widespread in ancient times both among pagans and believers in God. V. J.E. art. Bibliomancy.
(6) Ibid. 5; this may appropriately be referred to the illness.
(7) Mentioning the mother's name.
(8) Rashi: this is the incantation formula, but they were not actually sent thence.
(9) Unintelligible words forming part of the incantation.
(10) Let it not change to a deeper red.
(11) Let it not spread.
(12) An animal with uncloven hoofs (the sign of uncleanness) born of a clean animal. Rashi: one whose semen is locked up, so that he cannot reproduce.
(13) Mentioning the mother's name.
(14) Others: epilepsy.
(15) Lit., 'the son of clay, son of defilement, son of filth' - names for the demon.
(16) Hargal is a species of locust.
(17) These are forms of heathen magic, forbidden in neither shall ye walk in their statutes, Lev. XVIII, 3.
(18) I.e., where its remedial character is obvious, in contrast to magic.
(19) A red paint.
(20) It casts its fruit because they grow too heavy, owing to the tree's super-vitality.
(21) Surely it is only magic?
(22) Lev. XIII, 45.
(23) Chapters seven and eight of the Tosefta on Shabbath, which deals with these.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 67b
He who says, 'Be lucky, my luck [gad gedi] and tire not by day or night,'1 is guilty of Amorite practices. R. Judah said: Gad is none other but an idolatrous term, for it is said, ye that prepare a table for Gad.2 If husband and wife exchange their names,3 they are guilty of Amorite practices. [To say], 'Be strong, o ye Barrels'! is [forbidden] as the ways of the Amorite. R. Judah said: Dan [Barrel] is none other but the designation of an idol, for it is said, They that swear by the sin, of Samaria, and say, As thy god Dan liveth.4 He who says to a raven, 'Scream,' and to a she-raven, 'Screech, and return me thy tuft for [my] good,' is guilty of Amorite practices. He who says, 'Kill this cock, because it crowed in the evening,'5 or, 'this fowl, because it crowed like a cock,' is guilty of Amorite practices. He who says. 'I will drink and leave over, I will drink and leave over,'6 is guilty of the ways of the Amorite. He who breaks eggs on a wall in front of fledglings, is guilty of Amorite practices. He who stirs [eggs?] before fledglings is guilty of Amorite practices. He who dances and counts seventy-one fledglings in order that they should not die, is guilty of Amorite practices. He who dances for kutah,7 or imposes silence for lentils, or cries for beans,8 is guilty of Amorite practices. She who urinates before her pot in order that it should be quickly cooked is guilty of Amorite practices. Yet one may place a chip of a mulberry tree and broken pieces of glass in a pot in order that it should boil quickly.9 But the Sages forbade broken pieces of glass [to be employed thus] on account of danger.
Our Rabbis taught: A lump of salt may be placed in a lamp in order that it should burn brightly;10 and mud and clay may be placed under a lamp in order that it should burn slowly.11
R. Zutra said: He who covers an oil lamp or uncovers a naphtha [lamp] infringes the prohibition of wasteful destruction.12 'Wine and health to the mouth of our teachers!'13 is not considered the ways of the Amorite. It once happened that R. Akiba made a banquet for his son and over every glass [of liquor] that he brought he exclaimed, 'Wine and health to the mouth of our teachers; health and wine to the mouths of our teachers and their disciples!'
MISHNAH. A GREAT PRINCIPLE WAS STATED IN RESPECT TO THE SABBATH: HE WHO FORGETS THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE SABBATH14 AND PERFORMS MANY LABOURS ON MANY SABBATHS, INCURS ONE SIN-OFFERING ONLY. HE WHO KNOWS THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE SABBATH AND PERFORMS MANY LABOURS ON MANY SABBATHS,15 INCURS A SIN-OFFERING ON ACCOUNT OF EACH SABBATH. HE WHO KNOWS THAT IT IS THE SABBATH AND PERFORMS MANY LABOURS ON MANY SABBATHS, IS LIABLE FOR EVERY
(1) This is the conjectured translation.
(2) lsa. LXV, II. Hence this statement is an invocation to an idol.
(3) Lit., 'he by her name and she by his name - probably done to ward off evil.
(4) Amos. VIII, 14. This translation differs from that of the E.V. q.v.
(5) Later than usual. Others: it crowed like a raven.
(6) That the rest may be blessed.
(7) V. Glos.
(8) That they should be well prepared. - Sound (or silence in some cases) was thought to benefit certain food preparations; cf. Ker. 6b.
(9) This is not enchantment.
(10) The salt clarifies the oil.
(11) These cool the oil and retard its flow.
(12) Derived from Deut. XX, 19, q.v. Because these cause the lamp to burn with unnecessary speed.
(13) A drinking toast.
(14) Not knowing at all that there exists a law of the Sabbath.
(15) Forgetting on each occasion that it was the Sabbath.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 68a
PRIMARY LABOUR.1 HE WHO PERFORMS MANY LABOURS BELONGING TO THE SAME CATEGORY OF WORK2 IS LIABLE TO ONE SIN-OFFERING ONLY.
GEMARA. Why does he [the Tanna] state, A GREAT PRINCIPLE? Shall we say that because he wishes to teach 'another principle',3 he [therefore] states here, A GREAT PRINCIPLE?4 And in respect to shebi'ith5 too, because he wishes to teach another principle, he states, This is a great principle?6 But what of tithes, though 'another principle' is taught, he nevertheless does not teach [elsewhere] 'a great principle'?7 - Said R. Jose b. Abin: As for the Sabbath and shebi'ith, since they possess both primaries and derivatives,8 he teaches GREAT; but in respect to tithes, since there are no primaries and derivatives, he does not teach great'. Then according to Bar Kappara, who did learn 'A great principle' in respect to tithes,9 what primaries and what derivatives are there? But surely this must be the reason:10 The penal scope of the Sabbath is 'greater' than that of shebi'ith, for whereas [the restriction of] the Sabbath is found in respect of both detached and growing [produce], [the prohibitions of] shebi'ith do not operate in respect of detached, but only in respect of growing [produce].11 Again, the penal scope of the seventh year is 'greater' than that of tithes: for whereas [the law of] shebi'ith applies to both human food and animal fodder, [the law of] tithes operates in the case of human food, but not of animal fodder.12 And according to Bar Kappara who learned 'a great principle' in connection with tithes, - the penal scope of tithes is greater than that of pe'ah:13 for whereas [the law of] tithes operates in figs and vegetables [too], pe'ah does not operate in figs and vegetables.14 For we learnt: A general principle was stated in respect to pe'ah: whatever is a foodstuff, is guarded, grows from the earth, is [all] gathered simultaneously,15 and is collected for storage,16 is liable to pe'ah. 'Foodstuff' excludes the aftergrowth of woad17 and madder;18 'is guarded' excludes hefker;19 'grows from the earth' excludes mushrooms and truffles;20 'is [all] gathered simultaneously' excludes the fig-tree;21 'and is taken in to be stored' excludes vegetables.22 Whereas in respect to tithes we learnt: A general principle was stated in respect to tithes: Whatever is a foodstuff, is guarded, and grows from the earth is subject to tithes; but we did not learn, 'is gathered simultaneously and is collected for storage.
Rab and Samuel both maintain: Our Mishnah treats of a child who was taken captive among Gentiles, or a proselyte who became converted in the midst of Gentiles.23 But if one knew and subsequently forgot, he is liable [to a sin-offering] for every Sabbath.24 We learnt: HE WHO FORGETS THE ESSENTIAL LAW OF THE SABBATH: surely that implies that he knew [it] originally? - No: what is meant by HE WHO FORGETS THE ESSENTIAL LAW OF THE SABBATH? That the very existence of the Sabbath was unknown25 to him. But what if he knew and subsequently forgot; he is liable for every Sabbath? Then instead of teaching, HE WHO KNOWS THE ESSENTIAL LAW OF THE SABBATH AND PERFORMS MANY LABOURS ON MANY SABBATHS, INCURS A SIN-OFFERING ON ACCOUNT OF EACH SABBATH: let him teach, He who knew and subsequently forgot, and how much more so this one? - What is meant by, HE WHO KNOWS THE ESSENTIAL LAW OF THE SABBATH? That he who knew the essential law of the Sabbath and forgot it.
(1) The general principle is this: a sin-offering in connection with the Sabbath is incurred for every unwitting transgression. The number of transgressions is determined by the number of unknown facts. Thus, when one is ignorant of the Sabbath law altogether, he is unaware of a single fact, and incurs one sin-offering only. If he forgets a number of Sabbaths, each is a separate fact; hence he is liable for each. If he knows that it is the Sabbath but forgets that certain labours are forbidden, each labour is a separate fact, and he is liable for each separately. - For primary (Heb. ab, lit., 'father') labours v. p. 3, n. 2.
(2) I.e., all derivatives (toledoth) of the same primary labour (ab).
(3) Infra 75b.
(4) By contrast, this being wider in scope.
(5) V. Glos. It is also the name of a Tractate dealing with the laws thereof.
(6) V. Sheb. v, 5 and VII, 1.
(7) V. Ma'as. I, 1, and II,7.
(8) V. infra 73a seq. Agricultural labour forbidden during the seventh year is likewise divided into primaries and derivatives: sowing, harvesting, reaping and fruit gathering, are primaries, other forms of labour in a field or vineyard are derivatives; v. M.K. 3a.
(9) In his collection of Baraithas. These are collections of Tannaitic teachings not incorporated by R. Judah ha-Nasi in the Mishnah; there were several such collections, the most authoritative being those of R. Hiyya and R. Oshaia.
(10) Why GREAT is stated in connection with Sabbath.
(11) Thus: one must do no work on growing (lit., attached') produce on the Sabbath, e.g., sow, reap, etc., nor on detached produce, e.g., grind corn. But only the former is forbidden in the seventh year, not the latter.
(12) Thus the scope of both the Sabbath and shebi'ith is greater than that of tithes, and for that reason 'great' is employed in connection with the first two.
(13) V. Glos.
(14) 'Penal scope', Heb. 'onesh, is employed here in the sense that the violation of these laws is punishable.
(15) I.e., the whole of the crop ripens about the same time.
(16) Lit., 'is brought in to be kept'. This applies to cereals in general, which are stored in granaries over long periods.
(17) Gr. **, isatis tinctoria, a plant producing a deep blue dye.
(18) Both being used as dyes.
(19) V. Glos.
(20) Though these grow in the earth, they were held to draw their sustenance mainly from the air.
(21) Whose fruits do not all ripen at the same time. The same holds good of many other trees, which are likewise excluded.
(22) Which must be consumed whilst fresh.
(23) So that they never knew the laws of the Sabbath.
(24) He is regarded as knowing the sanctity of the Sabbath but forgetting on each occasion that it is the Sabbath.
(25) Lit., 'forgotten'.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 68b
What if he did not forget it?1 He is liable for each labour? Then instead of teaching, HE WHO KNOWS THAT IT IS THE SABBATH AND PERFORMS MANY LABOURS ON MANY SABBATHS, IS LIABLE FOR EVERY LABOUR, let him teach, He who knows the essential law of the Sabbath, and how much more so this case? Rather our Mishnah refers to one who knew but subsequently forgot, and Rab and Samuel's [ruling] too is similar to the case of one who knew but subsequently forgot, and it was thus stated: Rab and Samuel both maintain: Even a child who was taken captive among Gentiles or a proselyte who became converted in the midst of Gentiles is as one who knew but subsequently forgot, and so he is liable. But R. Johanan and Resh Lakish maintain: Only one who knew but subsequently forgot [is liable], but a child who was taken captive among Gentiles, or a proselyte who became converted in the midst of Gentiles, is not culpable.
An objection is raised: A great principle is stated in respect to Sabbath: He who forgets the essential law of Sabbath and performs many labours on many Sabbaths, incurs one sin-offering only. E.g., if a child is taken captive among Gentiles or a proselyte is converted in the midst of Gentiles and performs many labours on many Sabbaths, he is liable to one sin-offering only. And he is liable to one [sin-offering] on account of blood, one on account of heleb,2 and one on account of idolatry.3 But Monabaz exempts him. And thus did Monabaz argue before R. Akiba: Since a wilful transgressor is designated a sinner, and an unwitting transgressor [too] is designated a sinner;4 then just as wilful transgression implied that he had knowledge,5 so when unwittingly transgressing he must have had the knowledge.6 Said R. Akiba to him, Behold, I will add to your words. If so, just as wilful transgression involves that he shall have had knowledge at the time of his deed, so in unwitting transgression he must have had knowledge at the time of his deed.7 Even so, he replied, and all the more so since you have added [this argument]. As you define it,8 such is not designated unwitting, but wilful transgression, he retorted. Now after all it is stated, 'E.g., if a child' [etc.]: as for Rab and Samuel, it is well.9 But according to R. Johanan and Resh Lakish it presents a difficulty? - R. Johanan and Resh Lakish can answer you: Is there not Monabaz who declares him non-culpable? We rule as Monabaz.
What is Monabaz's reason?10 Because it is written, Ye shall have one law for him that doeth unwittingly;11 and in proximity thereto [it is written], And the soul that doeth aught with a high hand:12 hence unwitting is assimilated to wilful transgression:13 just as wilful transgression involves that he shall have had knowledge, so unwitting transgression implies that he shall have had knowledge.14 And the Rabbis: how do they employ this [verse], Ye shall have one law, [etc.]? - They employ it even as R. Joshua b. Levi taught his son: Ye shall have one law for him that doeth unwittingly; and it is written,
(1) Sc. the essential law of the Sabbath, but merely that that particular day was the Sabbath.
(2) V. Glos.
(3) I.e., for the violation of each law, which if deliberately infringed, carries with it the penalty of kareth, he incurs one sin-offering only, no matter how many times he actually infringes it. The consumption of blood and heleb and the worshipping of idols are given as examples.
(4) For a wilful trangressor v. Lev. V, 1: And if any one sin, etc. That refers to wilful transgression, since Scripture does not maintain that his sin be hidden from him', i.e., committed in ignorance. For unwitting transgression v. Lev. IV, 2 et passim.
(5) of the forbidden nature of his action.
(6) Formerly, though at the time of sinning he had forgotten it.
(7) Which is absurd!
(8) Lit., 'according to your words'.
(9) For they too maintain that he is liable. Now, they can argue that the same holds good even if one originally knew the law but subsequently forgot it, just as they explain the Mishnah, while the particular illustration is given because of Monabaz's dissent in this case.
(10) The analogy on mere grounds of logic is insufficient, since wilful and unwitting transgression are obviously dissimilar.
(11) Num. XV, 29.
(12) Ibid. 30; this obviously applies to deliberate transgression.
(13) I.e., Scripture itself intimates by this proximity that the two are similar.
(14) Before a sin-offering is incurred.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 69a
and when ye shall err, and not observe all these commandments;1 and it is written, And the soul that doeth aught with a high hand . . . [that soul shall be cut off]: thus they are all assimilated to idolatry: just as there it is something for the wilful transgression of which kareth2 is incurred, and for the unwitting transgression a sin-offering is incurred,3 so for everything the wilful transgression of which involves kareth, its unwitting transgression involves a sin-offering.4 But according to Monabaz, wherein lies his non-wilfulness?5 E.g., if he was ignorant in respect of the sacrifice.6 But the Rabbis hold that ignorance in respect of the sacrifice does not constitute ignorance.
Now according to the Rabbis, in respect to what is ignorance [required]? R. Johanan said: As long as one errs in respect to kareth, even if he wilfully sins in respect of the negative command;7 while Resh Lakish maintained: He must offend unwittingly in respect of the negative injunction and kareth. Raba said, What is R. Simeon b. Lakish's reason? Scripture saith, [And if any one of the common people sin unwittingly, in doing any of the things which the Lord hath commanded] not to be done, and be guilty:8 hence he must err both as to the negative injunction and its attendant kareth.9 And R. Johanan: how does he employ this verse adduced by R. Simeon b. Lakish? - He utilizes it for what was taught: [And if any one] of the common people: this excludes a mumar.10 R. Simeon b. Eleazar said on the authority of R. Simeon:11 [. . . sin unwittingly in doing any of the things which the Lord hath commanded] not to be done, and be guilty: he who would refrain12 on account of his knowledge, brings a sacrifice for his unwitting offence; but he who would not refrain on account of his knowledge cannot bring a sacrifice for his unwitting offence.13
We learnt: The primary forms of labour are forty less one.14 Now we pondered thereon, Why state the number?15 And R. Johanan replied: [To teach] that if one performs all of them in a single state of unawareness,16 he is liable [to a sin-offering] for each. Now, how is this possible? [Surely only] where he is aware of the Sabbath but unconscious of [the forbidden nature of] his labours.17 As for R. Johanan, who maintained that since he is ignorant in respect of kareth, though fully aware of the negative injunction, [his offence is unwitting], it is well: it is conceivable e.g., where he knew [that labour is forbidden on] the Sabbath by a negative injunction. But according to R. Simeon b. Lakish, who maintained that he must be unaware of the negative injunction and of kareth, wherein did he know of the Sabbath?18 - He knew of [the law of] boundaries,19 this being in accordance with R. Akiba.20
Who is the authority for the following which was taught by the Rabbis: If one is unaware of both,21 he is the erring sinner mentioned in the Torah;22 if one wilfully transgresses in respect of both, he is the presumptuous offender mentioned in the Torah. If one is unaware of the Sabbath but conscious of [the forbidden character of] his labours or the reverse, or if he declares, 'I knew that this labour is forbidden, but not whether it entails a sacrifice or not, he is culpable? With whom does this agree? With Monabaz.23
Abaye said: All agree in respect to an 'oath of utterance'24 that a sacrifice is not incurred on account thereof unless one is unaware of its interdict.25 'All agree': who is that? R. Johanan?26 But that is obvious! When did R. Johanan say [otherwise], where there is [the penalty of] kareth; but here [in the case of an 'oath of utterance'] that there is no [penalty of] kareth, he did not state [his ruling]? - One might argue: Since liability to a sacrifice [here] is an anomaly,27 for we do not find in the whole Torah that for a [mere] negative injunction28 one must bring a sacrifice, whilst here it is brought; hence even if he is unaware of the [liability to a] sacrifice, he is culpable:29
(1) Ibid. 22; in Hor. 8a it is deduced that this refers to idolatry.
(2) I.e., cutting off.
(3) V. v. 27.
(4) But where wilful transgression involves a lesser penalty than kareth, an unwitting offence does not involve a sin-offering.
(5) When the offender has knowledge at the time of his action.
(6) He knew that the wilful offence involved kareth, but not that the unwitting transgression involved a sin-offering.
(7) I.e., he knows that it is forbidden by a negative injunction but not that its penalty is kareth. This constitutes sinning in ignorance, and involves a sin-offering.
(8) Lev. IV, 27.
(9) Not to be done after 'sin unwittingly' implies that he is ignorant that it is forbidden at all.
(10) One who is professedly antagonistic to Jewish law. If he sins unwittingly, he cannot offer a sacrifice, even if he desires. This is deduced from the partitive of the common people, expressed in the original by the letter mem (מ), which is regarded as a limitation.
(11) I.e., R. Simeon b. Yohai.
(12) Lit., 'turn back'.
(13) For the verse implies that he acted solely through his ignorance; only then can he atone with a sacrifice. R. Simeon too teaches the exclusion of a mumar, but deduces it differently.
(14) Infra 73a.
(15) Since they are enumerated by name.
(16) Of their forbidden nature.
(17) For in the reverse case he incurs only one sin-offering (v. Mishnah 67b). Now awareness of the Sabbath implies that he knows at least one of the labours forbidden, for otherwise the Sabbath is the same to him as any other day, and he cannot be said to be aware thereof. But in the present passage he appears to have known none at all: how then can we regard him as being aware of the Sabbath? This the Talmud proceeds to discuss.
(18) Seeing that he was ignorant of all the forbidden labours.
(19) That one may not go on the Sabbath more than a certain distance beyond the town limits. Infringement of this law does not entail a sacrifice.
(20) Who maintains that the limitation of boundaries is Biblical. The Rabbis dispute this.
(21) I.e., of the Sabbath and that this labour is forbidden on the Sabbath.
(22) He certainly falls within this category.
(24) E.g., 'I swear that I will eat', or, 'I swear that I will not eat', and then broken, cf. Lev. V, 4.
(25) I.e., the offender must have forgotten his oath at the time of breaking it, so that he is unaware that his action is interdicted by his oath. A sacrifice for a broken oath is decreed in Lev. V, 4 seq.
(26) For Abaye cannot mean by 'all' that even Monabaz agrees that it is insufficient that he shall merely be ignorant that a vain oath entails a sacrifice. For how can this be maintained? On the contrary, the reverse follows a fortiori: if Monabaz regards unawareness of the liability to a sin-offering elsewhere as true unawareness, though such liability is in accordance with the general principle that where kareth is incurred for a wilful offence a sin-offering is incurred for an unwitting transgression, how much more so here, seeing that the very liability to a sacrifice is an anomaly unexpected, for the deliberate breaking of an oath does not entail kareth. Hence Abaye must refer to R. Johanan's view on the ruling of the Rabbis.
(27) Lit., 'a new thing' - something outside the general rule.
(28) Which does not entail kareth.
(29) Even on the views of the Rabbis.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 69b
hence he [Abaye] informs us [otherwise].
An objection is raised: What is an unwitting offence in respect of an 'oath of utterance' relating to the past?1 Where one says, 'I know that this oath is forbidden,2 but I do not know whether it entails a sacrifice or not,' he is culpable?3 - This agrees with Monabaz.
(Another version: Who is the authority for this? Shall we say, Monabaz? But then it is obvious! seeing that in the whole Torah, where it [liability to a sacrifice] is not an anomaly, Monabaz rules that unawareness of the sacrifice constitutes unawareness, how much more so here that it is an anomaly!4 Hence it must surely be the Rabbis, and this refutation of Abaye is indeed a refutation.)5 Abaye also said: All agree in respect to terumah that one is not liable to [the addition of] a fifth unless he is unaware of its interdict.6 'All agree': who is that? R. Johanan: But that is obvious: when did R. Johanan say [otherwise], where there is the penalty of kareth, but here that there is no penalty of kareth, he did not state [his ruling]? - You might argue: death stands in the place of kareth,7 and therefore if one is ignorant of [this penalty of] death, he is culpable; hence he informs us [otherwise]. Raba said: Death stands in the place of kareth, and the fifth stands in the place of a sacrifice.8
R. Huna said: If one is travelling on a road or9 in the wilderness and does not know when it is the Sabbath, he must count six days and observe one.10 Hiyya b. Rab said: He must observe one11 and count six [weekdays]. Wherein do they differ? One Master holds that it is as the world's Creation;12 the other Master holds that it is like [the case of] Adam.13
An objection is raised: If one is travelling on a road and does not know when it is the Sabbath , he must observe one day for six. - Surely that means that he counts six days and observes one? No: he keeps one day and counts six. If so, [instead of] 'he must observe one day for six,' he should state, 'he must observe one day and count six'? Moreover, it was taught: If one is travelling on a road or in a wilderness and does not know when it is the Sabbath, he must count six and observe one day.' This refutation of Hiyya b. Rab is indeed a refutation.
Raba said: Every day he does sufficient for his requirements [only],14 except on that day. And on that day he is to die? - He prepared double his requirements on the previous day. But perhaps the previous day was the Sabbath? But every day he does sufficient for his requirements, and even on that day. Then wherein may that day be recognized? By kiddush and habdalah.15
Raba said: If he recognizes the relationship to the day of his departure,16 he may do work the whole of that day.17 But that is obvious? - You might say, Since he did not set out on the Sabbath, he did not set out on the eve of the Sabbath either;18 hence this man, even if he set out on Thursday. it shall be permitted him to do work on two days. Hence he informs us that sometimes one may come across a company and chance to set out [on a Friday].
HE WHO KNOWS THE ESSENTIAL LAW OF THE SABBATH. How do we know it? - Said R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha, Two texts are written: Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath;19 and it is written, and ye shall keep my Sabbaths.20 How is this to be explained?21 'Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath' [implies] one observance for many Sabbaths;22 [whereas] 'and ye shall keep my Sabbaths' [implies] one observance for each separate Sabbath.23 R. Nahman b. Isaac demurred: On the contrary, the logic is the reverse: Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath [implies] one observance for each separate Sabbath; [whereas] 'and ye shall keep my Sabbaths' [implies] one observance for many Sabbaths.24
HE WHO KNOWS THAT IT IS THE SABBATH.
(1) I.e., where one falsely swears that he has eaten.
(2) Knowing that he is swearing to an untruth.
(3) This contradicts Abaye.
(4) V. n. 2.
(5) The passage 'Another. . . refutation' is bracketed in the edd., and Rashi deletes it. For in fact the ruling is necessary according to Monabaz too. For whereas elsewhere ignorance is constituted by unawareness either of the forbidden nature of the act or of the sacrifice it entails, here the former does not constitute ignorance, and there must be unawareness of the liability to a sacrifice. This does not follow from Monabaz's other ruling and so must be stated.
(6) If a non-priest eats terumah unwittingly. he must indemnify the priest for its value and add a fifth (Lev. XXII, 14). Abaye states that he must have been unaware of its forbidden nature, i.e., thinking it to be ordinary food.
(7) If terumah is knowingly eaten by a non-priest, he is liable to death inflicted by Heaven.
(8) Death and the addition of a fifth for the conscious and unconscious eating of terumah respectively are the equivalent of kareth and a sacrifice in the case of other transgressions. Hence according to R. Johanan on the basis of the ruling of the Rabbis one is liable to the addition of a fifth if he eats terumah in ignorance that the conscious offence is punishable by death at the hands of Heaven.
(9) Alfasi, Asheri, Maim., Tur and J.D. omit 'on a road or'.
(10) From the day that he discovers that he has forgotten when it is the Sabbath.
(11) The first after his discovery.
(12) Where the Sabbath followed six working days.
(13) He was created on the sixth day; thus his first complete day was the Sabbath.
(14) But no unnecessary work, since each day may be the Sabbath.
(15) Kiddush =sanctification; habdalah=distinction. The former is a prayer recited at the beginning of the Sabbath; the latter is recited at the end thereof, and thanks God for making a distinction between the sanctity of the Sabbath and the secular nature of the other days of the week.
(16) On the day that he discovers that he has forgotten when it is the Sabbath, he nevertheless remembers how many days it is since he set out. The passage may also possibly be translated: if he recognizes a part, viz., the day on which he set out.
(17) Viz., on the seventh after he set out, without any restrictions, since he certainly did not commence his journey on the Sabbath.
(18) As it is unusual.
(19) Ex. XXXI, 16.
(20) Lev. XIX, 3.
(21) Sc. the employment of the sing. in one verse and the plural in the other.
(22) In the sense that if one desecrates many Sabbaths he fails in a single observance and is liable to one sin-offering only.
(23) Viz., that the desecration of each Sabbath entails a separate sacrifice. It then rests with the Rabbis to decide where each shall apply.
(24) R. Nahman b. Isaac agrees that the distinctions of the Mishnah follow from these texts, but he reverses their significance.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 70a
Wherein does the first clause differ from the second? - Said R. Safra: Here he would refrain on account of the knowledge that it is the Sabbath: whilst there he would refrain through the knowledge of the [forbidden] labor[s]. Said R. Nahman to him: Does one refrain from [action on] the Sabbath [for any other reason] save that the labours [are forbidden]; and does one refrain from labours for aught save because of the Sabbath?1 But said R. Nahman: for what does the Divine Law impose a sacrifice? For ignorance. There there is one fact of ignorance; here there are many facts of ignorance.2
HE IS LIABLE FOR EVERY SEPARATE LABOUR. Whence do we know the division of labors?3 - Said Samuel: Scripture saith, every one that profaneth it shall surely be put to death:4 the Torah decreed many deaths for one desecration. But this refers to wilful [desecration]? - Seeing that it is irrelevant in connection with wilful transgression, for it is written, whosoever doeth any work therein shall be put to death,5 apply it to an unwitting offender;6 then what is meant by, shall be put to death? He shall be amerced7 in money.8
But let the division of labours be deduced whence R. Nathan derives it? For it was taught, R. Nathan said: Ye shall kindle 'no fire throughout your habitations on the Sabbath day:9 why is this stated?10 Because it is said, And Moses assembled all the congregation of the children of Israel, and said unto them, These are the words which the Lord hath commanded . . . Six days shall work be done:11 'words' [debarim], 'the words' [ha-debarim], 'these [eleh] are the words': this indicates the thirty-nine labours taught to Moses at Sinai.12 I might think that if one performs all of them in a single state of unawareness,13 he incurs only one [sin-offering]: therefore it is stated, from ploughing and from harvesting thou shalt rest.14 Yet I might still argue, For ploughing and for harvesting one incurs two sacrifices, but for all others [together] there is but a single liability: therefore it is stated, 'Ye shall kindle no fire' - Now kindling is included in the general law: why is it singled out? That analogy therewith may be drawn, teaching: just as kindling is a principal labour and it entails a separate liability,15 so for every principal labour a separate liability is incurred.16 - Samuel holds as R. Jose, who maintained: Kindling is singled out to teach that it is [merely the object of] a negative precept.17 For it was taught: Kindling is singled out to teach that it is [merely the object of] a negative precept: this is R. Jose's view. R. Nathan said: It is particularly specified to indicate division.18
Now, let division of labours be derived, whence it is learnt by R. Jose? For it was taught: R. Jose said: [If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any one of the commandments of the Lord, concerning things which ought not to be done,] and shall do of one of them:19 sometimes one sacrifice is incurred for all of them, whilst at others one is liable for each separately. Said R. Jose son of R. Hanina, What is R. Jose's reason?20 [Of one of them teaches that liability is incurred for] one [complete act]; [for one which is but part] of one; for performing labours forbidden in themselves [i.e. 'them'], and [for labours whose prohibition is derived] from others [i.e., 'of them']; [further,] 'one transgression may involve liability for a number of sacrifices [i.e., 'one'='them',] while many offences may involve but one sacrifice [i.e., 'them'='one'],21 [Thus:] one [complete act]: [the writing of] Simeon; [one which is but part] of one, -
(1) If the matter is determined by what one would refrain from, the Sabbath and its forbidden labours are tantamount to the same thing, and there would be one law for both forms of ignorance.
(2) V. notes on the Mishnah 67b.
(3) That a sacrifice is incurred for every separate labour, though they are all performed in one state of unawareness.
(4) Ex. XXXI, 14. 'Surely' is expressed in Hebrew by the doubling of the verb, which according to Talmudic exegesis signifies extension.
(5) Ex. XXXV, 2. Here the verb is not doubled.
(6) This is one of the methods of Talmudic exegesis: a text or its deduction which is irrelevant or incorrect in reference to its own case is applied to another case.
(7) Lit., 'put to death'.
(8) I.e., a sacrifice. Hence the verse teaches that many sacrifices may be incurred for the desecration of one Sabbath.
(9) Ex. XXXV, 3.
(10) It is apparently superfluous, being included in the general prohibition of labour.
(11) Ibid. 1f.
(12) 'Words' implies at least two; 'the' (Heb. ה) is regarded as an extension, whereby two is extended to three; 'these' (Heb. אלה) is given its numerical value, which is thirty-six, thus totalling thirty-nine in all. (Hebrew letters are also numbers.) - The existence of a large body of oral law, stated verbally to Moses or generally known, was assumed. V. Weiss, Dor, I, and supra p. 123, n. 7.
(13) Without being informed in between that some of these labours are forbidden, but remaining in ignorance from the first labour to the last.
(14) Ibid. XXXIV, 21. Since these are specified individually, it follows that each entails a separate sacrifice.
(15) Since it is stated separately.
(16) Hence the difficulty, why does Samuel quote different verses to learn this?
(17) Whereas other labours, wilfully performed, are punishable by death or kareth, this is punished by flagellation, like the violation of any negative precept.
(18) As above.
(19) Lev. IV, 2.
(20) How does he deduce this from the verse?
(21) 'Of one of them', Heb. מאחת מהנה is a peculiar construction. Scripture should have written, 'and shall do one' (not of one) 'of them', or, 'and do of them' (one being understood), or, 'and shall do one' (of them being understood). Instead of which a partitive preposition is used before each. Hence each part of the pronoun is to be interpreted separately, teaching that he is liable for the transgression of 'one' precept, and for part of one (i.e., 'of one'); for 'them' (explained as referring to the primary labours); and for the derivatives 'of them' (toledoth - labours forbidden because they partake of the same nature as the fundamentally prohibited labours). Also, each pronoun reacts upon the other, as explained in the text.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 70b
[the writing of] Shem as part of Simeon.1 Labours forbidden in themselves' [i.e., 'them']-the primary labours,' [labours whose prohibition is derived] from others' [i.e., 'of them'] - derivatives; 'one transgression may involve liability for a number of sacrifices [i.e., 'one' = 'them'] - awareness of the Sabbath coupled with unawareness of [the forbidden nature of his] labours.2 Many offences may involve but one sacrifice [i.e., 'them' = 'one'] - unawareness of the Sabbath coupled with awareness of [the forbidden nature of his] labours.3 - Samuel does not accept the interpretation that 'one' [transgression] may involve liability for a number of sacrifices, while many offences may involve but one sacrifice.4
Raba asked R. Nahman: What if one forgot both?5 - Said he, Surely he is unaware of the Sabbath; hence he incurs only one [sacrifice].6 On the contrary, he has forgotten the labours; hence he is liable for each?7 But said R. Ashi: We see: if he would desist [from these labours] on account of the Sabbath,8 his unawareness is of the Sabbath, and he incurs only one sacrifice. While if he would desist on account of the labours,9 his unawareness is [chiefly] of the labours, and he is liable for each. Said Rabina to R. Ashi: Would he then desist on account of the Sabbath save because of the [forbidden nature of his] labours; and would he desist on account of [the forbidden nature of his] labours save because of the Sabbath?10 Hence there is no difference.11
We learnt: The primary labours are forty less one. Now we pondered thereon, Why state the number? And R. Johanan answered: [It is to teach] that if one performs all of them in one state of unawareness he is liable for each separately. Now, it is well if you say that if one is unaware of both he is liable for each separately; then it is correct.12 But if you maintain that this is [mainly] an unawareness of the Sabbath [and] entails only one sacrifice, then how is this possible?13 [Presumably] by awareness of the Sabbath and ignorance of the [forbidden] labours. Now, that is well if he14 agrees with R. Johanan, who ruled: As long as one is unaware of kareth, even if he deliberately offends in respect of the negative command:15 then it is conceivable where he knows that the Sabbath is the object of a negative injunction. But if he agrees with R. Simeon b. Lakish, who maintained: He must offend unwittingly in respect of both the negative injunction and kareth, then wherein does he know that it is the Sabbath?16 - He knew of boundaries, this being in accordance with R. Akiba.17
Raba said: If one reaped and ground [corn] of the size of a dried fig18 in unawareness of the Sabbath but awareness in respect of the labours,19 and then he again reaped and ground [corn] of the size of a dried fig in awareness of the Sabbath but unawareness in respect of the labours,20 and then he was apprised of the reaping and/or grinding [performed] in unawareness of the Sabbath but awareness of the labours,21 then he was apprised of the reaping and/or grinding [performed] in awareness of the Sabbath but unawareness in respect of the labours:
(1) A sin-offering is incurred only when a complete action is performed. The writing of a complete word - Simeon - is given as an example. Now, if one commences the word Simeon, שמעון SHimeon in Hebrew, but writes only the first two letters thereof, viz., SHem שם, he is also liable, though his intention is only partly fulfilled, because SHem is a complete word in itself. This is called one labour which is part of another (i.e., 'of them'). If, however, the part he writes is not complete in itself, e.g., the first two letters of Reuben, in Hebrew, there is no liability.
(2) Hence though he violates only one injunction, viz. the sacredness of the Sabbath, yet since he is ignorant of each of these acts, he is regarded as having committed a number of separate inadvertent transgressions, for each of which a sacrifice is due.
(3) Since all his actions are the result of being unaware of one single fact, viz., that it is the Sabbath, only one sacrifice is due. - Hence the same difficulty, why does Samuel not learn from these verses? (The notes on this passage follow Rashi's explanation in Sanh. 62a; v. Sonc. ed., pp. 421 ff.)
(4) He does not agree to their implication of the verse, holding that it is all required in respect of primary and derivative labours.
(5) Lit., 'if there is the forgetfulness of both in his hand'. - I.e., he was unaware that it was the Sabbath and that his acts are forbidden on the Sabbath.
(6) As in n. 2.
(7) As in n. 1 .
(8) I.e. , on being informed that it is the Sabbath.
(9) When informed that these labours are forbidden on the Sabbath.
(10) When he is reminded of one, he naturally understands that the other is meant too, and desists on account of both.
(11) Hence the problem remains in both cases; therefore only one sacrifice is brought, since a sin-offering may not be offered unless one is definitely liable thereto (Rashi as elaborated by Maharsha).
(12) For if he is ignorant of all the forbidden labours of the Sabbath, the Sabbath is exactly the same as any other day to him, and he may be regarded as unaware of both.
(13) That he should be liable for every single labour.
(14) R. Nahman. Rashi reads.: That is well in the view of R. Johanan etc., v. supra 69a.
(15) V. p. 329, n. 3.
(16) Seeing that he does not know of a single forbidden labour: v. n. 1.
(17) V. supra 69a for notes.
(18) That is the minimum for which one is culpable.
(19) So that he is liable to one sacrifice only.
(20) Having been apprised of the Sabbath, whilst he forgot that these are prohibited labours. In this case he is separately culpable on account of each. In the interval between his first labours and his second he did not learn of his offence.
(21) Whereupon he set aside one sacrifice on account of both labours - this being before he learnt of his second series of offences.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 71a
then [atonement for] the [first] reaping involves [atonement for] the [second] reaping and [atonement for] the [first] grinding involves [atonement for] the [second] grinding.1 But if he was [first] apprised of his reaping [performed] in awareness of the Sabbath but unawareness in respect of labours: then [atonement for] this [second] reaping involves [atonement for] the [first] reaping and its accompanying grinding;2 but the corresponding [second] grinding remains in its place.3 Abaye maintained: [Atonement for the first] grinding involves atonement for the second grinding too: the designation of grinding is the same.4
Now, does then Raba hold the theory of involvement?5 But it was stated: If one eats two olive-sized pieces of heleb6 in one state of unawareness,7 is apprised of one of them, and then eats another olive-sized piece whilst still unaware of the second - Raba said: If he offers a sacrifice for the first, the first and second are expiated,8 but the third is not. If he brings a sacrifice for the third, the third and second are expiated, but not the first. If he offers a sacrifice for the middle one, all are atoned for.9 Abaye maintained: Even if he offers a sacrifice for the first, all are expiated! - After hearing from Abaye he adopted it. If so, let grinding too be carried along with grinding?10 - He accepts the theory of [direct], but not that of indirect involvement.11 The matter that is clear to Abaye and Raba12 was a problem to R. Zera: For R. Zera asked R. Assi - others state, R. Jeremiah asked R. Zera: What if one reaped or13 ground [corn] of the quantity of half a dried fig in unawareness of the Sabbath but awareness in respect of the labours, then he again reaped or ground [corn] of the quantity of half a dried fig in awareness of the Sabbath but unawareness in respect of the labours; can they be combined?14 - Said he to him: They are distinct in respect of sin-offerings,15 therefore they do not combine.16
Now, wherever [acts] are distinct in respect of sin-offerings, do they not combine? Surely we learnt: If one eats heleb and [then again] heleb in one state of unawareness, he is culpable for only one [sin-offering]. If one eats heleb, blood, nothar, and piggul17 in one state of unawareness, he is culpable for each separately: in this many kinds [of forbidden food] are more stringent then one kind. - But in the following one kind is more stringent than many kinds: viz., if one eats half the size of an olive and then eats half the size of an olive of the same kind of [commodity],18 he is culpable; of two different commodities, he is not culpable. Now we questioned this: 'of the same commodity, he is culpable': need this be stated?19 And Resh Lakish said on the authority of Bar Tutani: The reference here is to one e.g., who ate [them] from two tureens,20 this being according to R. Joshua, who ruled: Tureens divide.21 You might say that R. Joshua rules [thus] whether it leads to leniency or to stringency: hence we are informed that he did not rule thus leniently, but only stringently.22 Thus here, though distinct in respect of sin-offerings, yet they combine? - Said he to him: You learn this in reference to the first clause: hence it presents a difficulty to you.23 But we learn it in reference to the second clause, and it presents no difficulty to us. [Thus:] 'Of two kinds of [commodities], he is not culpable': need this be said? And Resh Lakish answered on the authority of Bar Tutani: After all, it means of the same kind of [commodity]. Yet why is it designated two kinds of [commodities]? Because he ate them out of two tureens, this agreeing with R. Joshua, who maintained: Tureens divide, and we are informed this: that R. Joshua ruled [thus] both leniently and stringently. Now, since the second clause refers to one kind of [commodity] and two tureens,
(1) In respect to expiation. The sacrifice for his first two acts of reaping and grinding is an atonement for his second two acts, since all were performed in one state of unawareness, without any appraisement in the interval, notwithstanding that his first unawareness differed in kind from his second unawareness.
(2) When he makes atonement for his second reaping he automatically makes atonement for the first too, and since his first reaping and grinding only necessitate one sacrifice, his first grinding too is atoned for thereby.
(3) Unatoned for, until another sacrifice is brought.
(4) I.e., all acts of grinding made in one state of unawareness are covered by this sacrifice, though it is not primarily offered on account of grinding at all.
(5) That atonement for one involves atonement for the other, as above.
(6) This is the minimum quantity of forbidden food the eating of which entails a sacrifice.
(7) Not being apprised in between that he had eaten heleb.
(8) Since they were eaten in one state of unawareness.
(9) Since both the first and the third were eaten in the state of unawareness of the second. - The first two rulings show that he rejects the theory of involvement.
(10) As Abaye rules above.
(11) Lit., 'involvement of involvement'. Thus the first act of grinding is atoned for only because it is involved in the atonement for reaping; hence this in turn cannot involve the second act of grinding.
(12) Viz., that awareness of the Sabbath and ignorance of the forbidden nature of one's labours followed by the reverse constitute a single state of unawareness, though the first differs in kind from the second, and the two states or periods are not separate in respect to sacrifice, but sacrifice for one makes atonement for the other.
(13) The context shows that the waw is disjunctive here, and it is thus translated by Rashi.
(14) Viz., the two reapings or the two acts of grinding. Is it all regarded as a single state of unawareness, so that they do combine, or as two states of unawareness, since they differ in kind and they do not combine? Thus he was doubtful of what was clear to Abaye and Raba.
(15) Had each reaping been sufficient to entail a sin-offering, a sacrifice for one would not make atonement for the other. He thus differs from Abaye and Raba.
(16) Hence there is no liability.
(17) V. Glos.
(18) The overall time being less than is required for the eating of half an average meal. It is then regarded as one act of eating.
(19) It is obvious.
(20) I.e., the two pieces of heleb were differently prepared.
(21) If one eats two pieces, each the size of an olive, out of different tureens, in one state of unawareness, they are treated as two separate acts, and he must make atonement on account of each.
(22) Therefore the two half-olive sized pieces combine, though they are of two tureens.
(23) Since it must be explained as treating of two tureen.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 71b
it follows that the first clause treats of one kind of [commodity] and one tureen. But if it is one kind of [commodity] and one tureen, need it be stated?1 - Said R. Huna: The circumstances here dealt with are e.g., that he was aware in between,2 this agreeing with Rabban3 Gamaliel, who maintained: Knowledge of half the standard quantity is of no consequence.4
It was stated: If one eats two olive-sized pieces of heleb in one state of unawareness, is apprised of the first and subsequently of the second, - R. Johanan maintains: He is liable to two [sin-offerings]; while Resh Lakish rules: He is liable to one only. R. Johanan maintains: He is liable [for the second], [deducing] for his sin . . . he shall bring [a sacrifice].5 While Resh Lakish rules, He is not liable [for the second], [interpreting,] of his sin . . . and he shall be forgiven.6 But according to Resh Lakish too, surely it is written, 'for his sin . . . he shall bring?' - That holds good after atonement.7 But according to R. Johanan too, surely it is written, 'of his sin . . . and he shall be forgiven'? - That refers to one e.g., who ate an olive and a half [of heleb],8 was apprised concerning the size of an olive,9 and then ate again as much as half an olive in the unawareness of the second [half].10 Now you might say, let these combine; therefore it11 informs us [otherwise].12
Rabina asked R. Ashi: Do they disagree where it [the eating of the second piece] became known to him before setting apart [a sacrifice] for the first, and they differ in this: one Master holds, Appraisements divide,13 whilst the other Master holds, [Only] separations [of sacrifices] divide;14 but if [he learnt of the second piece] after setting apart [a sacrifice for the first], Resh Lakish concedes to R. Johanan that he is liable to two. Or perhaps they disagree where it became known to him after the act of setting apart, and they differ in this: One Master holds, Separations [of sacrifices] divide, while the other Master holds, [Only] acts of atonement divide;15 but if [he learnt of the second piece] before setting apart [a sacrifice for the first], R. Johanan concedes to Resh Lakish that he is liable only to one [sacrifice]. Or perhaps they differ in both cases? - Said he to him: It is logical that they differ in both cases. For should you think that they differ before the setting apart of a sacrifice, whereas after 'setting apart' Resh Lakish concedes to R. Johanan that he is liable to two sacrifices, - then instead of interpreting the verse as referring to after atonement, let him interpret it as referring to after 'setting apart'.16 Whilst if they differ after 'setting apart', whereas before separation R. Johanan agrees with Resh Lakish that he is liable only to one [sacrifice]; - instead of interpreting the verse as referring to [one who ate] as much as an olive and a half, let him relate it to [apprisement of the second] before 'setting apart'? But perhaps that itself is in doubt, and it is hypothetically stated.17 [Thus:] if you assume that they differ before 'setting apart', how can R. Johanan interpret the verse? As referring to [one who ate] the quantity of an olive and a half. And if you assume that they differ after separation, how can Resh Lakish interpret the verse? As referring to after atonement.
'Ulla said: On the view that a certain guilt-offering does not require previous knowledge:18
(1) Surely his culpability is obvious!
(2) That he had eaten heleb.
(3) A higher title than 'Rabbi'.
(4) I.e., it does not separate two acts of eating, when in each case only half the standard quantity to create liability is consumed.
(5) Lev. IV, 28, q.v. I.e., for each sin a separate sacrifice is required.
(6) Ibid. 35. 'Of' (Heb. מ) is interpreted partitively: i.e., even if he offers a sacrifice for part of his sin only, he is forgiven for the whole.
(7) If he offends a second time after having atoned for the first, he must make atonement again.
(8) At once, though the heleb was not in one piece.
(9) That that amount of the fat was heleb.
(10) Which was eaten the first time.
(11) The verse quoted by Resh Lakish.
(12) As in n. 2.
(13) I.e. , the knowledge first obtained concerning one piece separates this piece from the second, and necessitates a sacrifice for each.
(14) And since a sacrifice was not set apart - i.e., separated - until he learnt of the second piece, it atones for both.
(15) V. n. 3.
(16) Even before it was actually sacrificed.
(17) Lit., 'and he says, "should you say".'
(18) There are two classes of guilt-offerings (Heb. asham, pl. ashamoth): (i) A guilt-offering of doubt. This is due when one is doubtful if he has committed a sin which, when certainly committed, entails a sin-offering. (ii) A certain guilt-offering. This is due for the undoubted commission of certain offences, viz., (a) robbery (after restoration is made, v. Lev. V, 25); (b) misappropriation of sacred property to secular uses (Lev. V, 16); (c) coition with a bondmaid betrothed to another (Lev. XIX, 21); (d) a nazirite's interrupting of the days of his purity by permitting himself to be ritually defiled (Num. VI, 12); and (e) a leper's guilt-offering (Lev. XIV, 12). Now with respect to b, the Rabbis hold that no guilt-offering is incurred for doubtful misappropriation, whilst R. Akiba and R. Tarfon hold that one can bring a guilt-offering conditionally, stating: 'If I learn at some future date that I was definitely guilty, let this be accounted now as a certain guilt-offering. But if I am destined to remain in doubt, let this be a guilt-offering of doubt'. Thus on the first hypothesis a certain guilt-offering is brought, though at the time one has no knowledge whether he has actually sinned. - This follows Tosaf. Rashi holds that R. Akiba and R. Tarfon differ in this very question.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 72a
if one cohabits five times with a betrothed bondmaid,1 he is liable to one [guilt-offering] only.2 R. Hamnuna objected: If so, if one cohabits, sets aside a sacrifice, and states, 'Wait for me until I cohabit again,'3 is he then liable to only one?4 - Said he to him, You speak of an act after separation [of the sacrifice]: in such a case I did not state [my ruling].5
When R. Dimi came,6 he said: On the view that a certain guilt-offering requires previous knowledge: If one cohabits five times with a betrothed maiden, he is liable for each [act]. Said Abaye to him, But in the case of a sin-offering [definite] knowledge is required beforehand,7 yet R. Johanan and Resh Lakish differ [therein]?8 He remained silent. Said he to him, Perhaps you refer to an act after separation [of the sacrifice], and as R. Hamnuna?9 Even so, he replied.
When Rabin came,6 he said: All agree about a betrothed bondmaid [in one respect], and ali agree about a betrothed bondmaid [in another respect], and there is disagreement about a betrothed bondmaid [in a third respect].10 [Thus:] All agree in the case of [coition with] a betrothed bondmaid, that one is liable only to one [sacrifice], as Ulla. All agree in the case of [coition with] a betrothed bondmaid, that one is liable for each, as R. Hamnuna. And there is disagreement about a betrothed bondmaid: on the view that a certain guilt-offering requires previous knowledge, there is disagreement between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish.11 It was stated:
(1) Unwittingly. Between each act of coition he learnt of his previous offence.
(2) Since knowledge of guilt is not required, the knowledge that he does possess is insufficient to separate his actions and necessitate a sacrifice for each. But on the view that previous knowledge is essential for a guilt-offering, this matter will be disputed by R. Johanan and Resh Lakish, as on 71b. - Though we do not find a doubtful guilt-offering for doubtful coition, and so it would appear that here at least knowledge is essential, for otherwise how does he know that he sinned at all, a sacrifice is nevertheless conceivable without previous knowledge. Thus: when in doubt one might bring a conditional sacrifice and stipulate: 'If I have sinned, let this be a certain guilt-offering; if not, let this be a peace-offering' (Tosaf.).
(3) So that this sacrifice may atone for both. - Even conscious coition with a betrothed bondmaid necessitates a sacrifice, though in all other cases only an unwitting offence entails an offering.
(4) Surely not!
(5) For this certainly divides the offences, and a sacrifice is required for each.
(6) V. p. 12, n. 9.
(7) That an offence was committed. If one brings a sin-offering before he knows that he has sinned, and then learns that he has sinned, the sacrifice is invalid for atonement.
(8) And the same principle applies here. How then can you make a general statement?
(9) Whereas R. Johanan and Resh Lakish differ where all his actions were committed before the separation of an animal for a sacrifice.
(10) 'All' and 'there is disagreement' refer to the views of R. Johanan and Resh Lakish.
(11) V. p. 343. n. 5.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 72b
If one intended to lift up something detached, but cut off something attached [to the soil],1 he is not culpable. [If he intended] to cut something detached, but cut something attached [instead],2 Raba ruled: He is not culpable; Abaye maintained: He is culpable.3 Raba ruled, He is not culpable, since he had no intention of a prohibited cutting.4 Abaye maintained: He is culpable, since he had the intention of cutting in general.5
Raba said, How do I know it? Because it was taught: [In one respect] the Sabbath is more stringent than other precepts; [in another respect] other precepts are more stringent than the Sabbath. The Sabbath is more stringent than other precepts in that if one performs two [labours] in one state of unawareness, he is culpable on account of each separately; this is not so in the case of other precepts. Other precepts are more stringent than the Sabbath, for in their case if an injunction is unwittingly and unintentionally violated, atonement must be made: this is not so with respect to the Sabbath. The Master said: 'The Sabbath is more stringent than other precepts in that if one performs two [labours] in one state of unawareness, he is culpable on account of each separately: this is not so in the case of other precepts.' How is this meant? Shall we say, that he performed reaping and grinding? Then an analogous violation of other precepts would be the partaking of heleb and blood - then in both cases two [penalties] are incurred! But how is it possible in the case of other precepts that only one liability is incurred? If one ate heleb twice;6 then by analogy, with respect to the Sabbath [it means] that he performed reaping twice - then in each case only one liability is incurred? - After all, it means that he performed reaping and grinding, and what is meant by 'this is not so in the case of other precepts'? This refers to idolatry, and is in accordance with R. Ammi, who said: If one sacrificed, burnt incense, and made libations [to an idol] in one state of unawareness, he is only liable to one [sacrifice].7 How have you explained it: as referring to idolatry? Then consider the second clause: Other precepts are more stringent [than the Sabbath], for in their case if an injunction is unwittingly and unintentionally violated, atonement must be made: this is not so with respect to the Sabbath. Now, how is an unwitting and unintentional transgression of idolatry possible? Shall we say that one thought it [sc. an idolatrous shrine] to be a synagogue and bowed down to it - then his heart was to Heaven! But if he saw a royal statue and bowed down to it - what are the circumstances? If he accepted it as a god, he is a wilful sinner; while if he did not accept it as a god, he has not committed idolatry at all!8 Hence it must mean [that he worshipped it idolatrously] through love or fear:9 now this agrees with Abaye's view that a penalty is incurred;10 but on Raba's view that there is no culpability, what can you say? Rather it must refer to one who thinks that it [sc. idolatry] is permitted.11 Then 'this is not so in the case of the Sabbath' means that there is no liability at all! Yet when Raba questioned R. Nahman,12 it was only whether one is liable to one [sacrifice] or to two, but certainly not to exempt him completely!
(1) The latter is a forbidden act on the Sabbath. Rashi: e.g., if a knife fell down amidst growing corn, and whilst intending to lift it up one cut the corn.
(2) R. Tam: e.g., he thought it was a detached bundle of corn, but after cutting it he discovered that it had been attached.
(3) Throughout the Talmud Abaye's view is always quoted before Raba's. Hence it is suggested that either the order should be reversed here, or Rabbah (Abaye's teacher) should be read instead of Raba, v. Marginal Gloss.
(4) Whereas in order to be culpable he must have intended to do what he did, save that his offence was unintentional either because he did not know that it was the Sabbath or that that action is forbidden on the Sabbath.
(5) Whereas to avoid culpability he must have had no intention of cutting at all.
(6) In one state of unawareness, not being reminded in between that heleb is forbidden.
(7) Though he performed a number of services.
(8) Lit. , 'it is nothing'.
(9) And this is called unwitting and unintentional, for it was unwitting in so far as he thought this permissible.
(10) V. Sanh. 61b.
(11) E.g., if he was brought up among heathens. Since he has never known of any prohibition, it is regarded not only as unwitting but as unintentional too.
(12) About such a case. v. supra 70b. Where one forgets both the Sabbath and the forbidden labours it is tantamount to ignorance of the Sabbath altogether, and is thus analogous to the belief that idolatry is permitted.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 73a
Surely then the first clause [dealing with the greater severity of the Sabbath] refers to idolatry, whilst the second treats of other precepts; and how is unwitting and unintentional transgression possible? When one thought that it [heleb] was permitted fat, and ate it.1 [While] 'this is not so with respect to the Sabbath,' viz., that he is not culpable, for if [by analogy] one intended cutting something detached but cut something attached [instead], he is not culpable.2 But Abaye [maintains:] how is an unwitting and unintentional offence meant? When one thinks that it [heleb] is spittle and swallows it.3 [While] 'which is not so in the case of the Sabbath,' where he is exempt, for if [by analogy] one intends lifting something detached but cuts something attached [to the soil], he is not culpable. But if he intends to cut something detached and cuts something attached, he is liable.
It was stated: If one intends to throw [an object] two [cubits], but throws it four,4 Raba said: He is not culpable; Abaye ruled: He is culpable.5 Raba said: He is not culpable, since he had no intention of a four [cubits'] throw. Abaye ruled, He is culpable, since he intended throwing in general. If he thinks it private ground but it is learnt to be public ground, Raba ruled: He is not culpable; Abaye said: He is culpable. Raba ruled, He is not culpable, since he had no intention of a forbidden throw. While Abaye ruled that he is culpable, since he intended throwing in general.
Now, it is necessary.6 For if we were informed of the first, [it might be argued] there [only] does Raba rule thus, since he did not intend [to perform] a forbidden eating, but if he intended throwing [an object] two [cubits] but throws it four, since four cannot be thrown without two,7 I would say that he agrees with Abaye. And if we were informed of this, [it might be argued] here [only] does Raba rule thus, since he did not intend a four [cubits'] throw; but if he thought it private ground but it was discovered to be public ground, seeing that he intended a four [cubits'] throw, I would say that he agrees with Abaye. Thus they are [all] necessary.
We learnt: The primary labours are forty less one. Now we questioned this, Why state the number? And R. Johanan answered: [To teach] that if one performs all of them in one state of unawareness, he is liable [to a sacrifice] on account of each separately. Now, as for Abaye who ruled that in such a case one is liable, this is well: for this is conceivable where one knows the interdict of the Sabbath and the interdicts of labours, but errs in respect of the standards.8 But according to Raba who maintained that one is not culpable [for this], how is this conceivable? [Presumably] [only] where he was conscious of the Sabbath but unaware of [the forbidden character of his] labors. Now that is well if he agrees with R. Johanan who ruled, Since he was ignorant of kareth, even if he was conscious of the negative injunction, [he is liable]:9 then it is possible where he knew [that his labors are prohibited on] Sabbath by a negative injunction. But if he holds with R. Simeon b. Lakish, who maintained, He must offend unwittingly in respect of both the negative injunction and kareth, then wherein did he know of the Sabbath?10 - He knew it by the law of boundaries, this being in accordance with R. Akiba.11
MISHNAH. THE PRIMARY LABOURS ARE FORTY LESS ONE, [VIZ.:] SOWING,12 PLOUGHING, REAPING, BINDING SHEAVES, THRESHING, WINNOWING, SELECTING,13 GRINDING, SIFTING, KNEADING, BAKING, SHEARING WOOL, BLEACHING, HACKLING, DYEING, SPINNING, STRETCHING THE THREADS,14 THE MAKING OF TWO MESHES, WEAVING TWO THREADS, DIVIDING TWO THREADS,15 TYING [KNOTTING] AND UNTYING, SEWING TWO STITCHES, TEARING IN ORDER TO SEW TWO STITCHES,16 CAPTURING A DEER, SLAUGHTERING, OR FLAYING, OR SALTING IT,17 CURING ITS HIDE, SCRAPING IT [OF ITS HAIR], CUTTING IT UP, WRITING TWO LETTERS, ERASING IN ORDER TO WRITE TWO LETTERS [OVER THE ERASURE], BUILDING, PULLING DOWN, EXTINGUISHING, KINDLING, STRIKING WITH A HAMMER,18 [AND] CARRYING OUT FROM ONE DOMAIN TO ANOTHER: THESE ARE THE FORTY PRIMARY LABOURS LESS ONE.
(1) Thus it was unwitting, because he thought it permitted fat, and unintentional, since he had no intention of eating heleb. On the present hypothesis it is regarded as unwitting but intentional only when he knows that it is heleb and eats it as such, thinking, however, that heleb is permitted.
(2) Thus on this interpretation the Baraitha supports Raba.
(3) It is unwitting, because he thinks it spittle, and unintentional, because he has no intention of eating at all, swallowing not being eating. But the case posited by Raba is not unintentional in Abaye's view, since he did intend to eat.
(4) Four cubits in the street is the minimum distance for culpability.
(5) On Raba and Abaye v. supra 72b, p. 345. n. 3.
(6) For the three controversies - i.e., these two and that on 72b top - to be stated, though apparently two are superfluous, since the same principle underlies all.
(7) I.e. , in throwing it four cubits he did fulfil his intention.
(8) In each case he intended performing less than the standard for which liability is incurred, but actually performed the full standard.
(9) V. p. 329, n. 2.
(10) V. p. 330, n. 3.
(11) V. p. 330, nn. 5-6.
(12) Lit., 'he who sows', and similarly with the others that follow.
(13) By hand, the unfit food from the fit.
(14) On the loom.
(15) I.e., dividing the ends of the web.
(16) Where it is inconvenient to sew unless one tears the cloth first, that tearing is a primary labour.
(17) Sc. its skin.
(18) I.e., giving the finishing blow with the hammer.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 73b
GEMARA. Why state the number? - Said R. Johanan: [To teach] that if one performs them all in one state of unawareness, he is liable on account of each separately.
SOWING AND PLOUGHING. Let us see: ploughing is done first, then let him [the Tanna] state PLOUGHING first and then SOWING? - The Tanna treats of1 Palestine, where they first sow and then plough.2
A Tanna taught: Sowing, pruning, planting, bending,3 and grafting are all one labour. What does this inform us? - This: that if one performs many labours of the same nature, he is liable only to one [sacrifice]. R. Abba4 said in the name of R. Hiyya b. Ashi in R. Ammi's name: He who prunes is culpable on account of planting, while he who plants, bends [the vine], or grafts is culpable on account of sowing. On account of sowing only but not on account of planting?5 - Say: on account of planting too.6
R. Kahana said: If one prunes and needs the wood [too], he is liable to two [penalties],7 one on account of reaping8 and one on account of planting.9 R. Joseph said: He who cuts hay is liable to two [penalties], one on account of reaping and the other on account of planting.10 Abaye said: He who trims beets [in the ground] is liable to two [penalties], one on account of reaping11 and one on account of planting.12
PLOUGHING. A Tanna taught: Ploughing, digging, and trenching are a]l one [form of] work.13 R. Shesheth said: If one has a mound [of earth] and removes it, in the house, he is liable on the score of building;14 if in the field, he is liable on the score of ploughing. Raba said: If one has a depression and fills it up: if in the house, he is liable on account of building; if in the field, he is liable on account of ploughing.15
R. Abba said: If one digs a pit on the Sabbath, needing only the earth thereof,16 he is not culpable on its account. And even according to R. Judah, who ruled: One is liable on account of a labour which is not required on its own account:17 that is only when he effects an improvement, but this man causes damage.18
REAPING: A Tanna taught: Reaping, vintaging, gathering [dates], collecting [olives], and gathering [figs] are all one [form of] labour. R. Papa said: He who throws a clod of earth at a palm tree and dislodges dates is liable to two [penalties], one on account of detaching19 and one on account of stripping.20 R. Ashi said: This is not the mode of detaching, nor is it the mode of stripping.21
BINDING SHEAVES. Raba22 said: He who collects salt out of a salina23 is liable on the score of binding sheaves.24 Abaye said: Binding sheaves applies only to products of the soil.
THRESHING. It was taught: Threshing, beating [flax in their stalks], and beating [cotton] are all the same form of work.
WINNOWING, SELECTING, GRINDING AND SIFTING. But winnowing, selecting, and sifting are identical?25 - Abaye and Raba both said: Whatever was performed in [connection with the erection of] the Tabernacle,
(1) Lit., 'stands in' - all the Tannaim, of course, were Palestinians.
(2) Involving only one liability if performed at the same time.
(3) Bending a vine for drawing it into the ground and making it grow as an independent plant (Jast.).
(4) So text as amended.
(5) Surely bending and grafting are forms of planting? - Planting and sowing are identical, the former applying to trees and the latter to cereals.
(6) Hence if he grafts and sows, he is only liable to one penalty.
(7) I.e., sin-offering, if done unwittingly.
(8) Cutting wood from a tree for its use is a derivative of reaping.
(9) Pruning is done to enable what is left to grow more freely, and thus it is a derivative of planting.
(10) The hay is cut so that new grass can grow, and thus it is a derivative of planting (i.e., sowing) too.
(11) Because the beets he cuts constitute a harvest.
(12) As in n. 5.
(13) Involving only one liability if performed at the same time.
(14) For he thereby levels the floor, which is part of building.
(15) For he thereby prepares the ground for sowing.
(16) But not the pit itself.
(17) V. supra 12a, 31b.
(18) He spoils the ground by the pit.
(19) That which is attached to the soil, the clod being taken up from the soil.
(20) Rashi: the tree of a burden, sc. the dates. Ri: the dates of their outer skin. In both cases this is a derivative of threshing, which separates the grain from the chaff.
(21) Hence he is not liable on either score.
(22) Maim. and Asheri read: Rabbah.
(23) A salt deposit, formed by causing sea water to flow into a trench; the water evaporates through the heat of the sun, leaving the salt. Raba refers to this action of directing the water into the trench.
(24) It partakes of the same nature, and ranks as a derivative thereof.
(25) All consist of separating fit from unfit food.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 74a
even if there are [labours] similar thereto, is counted [separately].1 Then let him also enumerate pounding [wheat]?2 - Said Abaye: Because a poor man eats his bread without pounding.3 Raba said: This agrees with Rabbi, who said: The primary labours are forty less one; but if pounding were enumerated, there would be forty.4 Then let one of these be omitted and pounding be inserted? Hence it is clear [that it must be explained] as Abaye [does].
Our Rabbis taught: If various kinds of food lie before one, he may select and eat, select and put aside; but he must not select, and if he does, he incurs a sin-offering. What does this mean? - Said 'Ulla, This is its meaning: He may select to eat on the same day, and he may select and put aside for the same day; but he must not select for [use on] the morrow, and if he does, he incurs a sin-offering. R. Hisda demurred: Is it then permitted to bake for [use on] the same day, or is it permitted to cook for the same day?5 Rather said R. Hisda: He may select and eat less than the standard quantity, and he may select and put aside less than the standard quantity;6 but he must not select as much as the standard quantity, and if he does, he incurs a sin-offering. R. Joseph demurred : Is it then permitted to bake less than the standard quantity?7 Rather said R. Joseph: He may select by hand and eat, or select by hand and put aside; but he may not select with a reed-basket or a dish; and if he does, he is not culpable, nevertheless it is forbidden.8 He may not select with a sieve or a basket-sieve, and if he does he incurs a sin-offering.9 R. Hamnuna demurred: Are then a reed-basket and a dish mentioned? - Rather said R. Hamnuna: He may select and eat, [taking the] eatable from the non-eatable, and he may select and put aside, [taking] the eatable from the non-eatable. But he must not select the non-eatable out of the eatable, and if he does, he incurs a sin-offering.10 Abaye demurred : Is it then taught, 'the eatable from the non-eatable'? Rather said Abaye: He may select and eat immediately, and he may select and put aside for immediate use;11 but he may not select for [later consumption on] the same day, and if he does, it is regarded as though he were selecting for [making] a store, and he incurs a sin-offering.12 The Rabbis reported this to Raba. Said he to them, Nahmani13 has said well.
If two kinds of food lie before a person, and he selects and eats or selects and puts aside,14 - R. Ashi learnt: He is not culpable: R. Jeremiah of Difti15 learnt: He is culpable, 'R. Ashi learnt: He is not culpable'! but it was taught:16 'He is culpable'? - There is no difficulty: the one treats of a reed-basket and a plate;17 the other refers to a sieve and a basket-sieve.
When R. Dimi came,18 he related: It was R. Bibi's Sabbath,19 and R. Ammi and R. Assi chanced to be there. He cast a basket of fruit before them,20 and I do not know whether it was because he held that it is forbidden to pick out the eatable from the noneatable, or whether he wished to be generous.21
Hezekiah said: One who picks lupines [after boiling] out of their husks22 is culpable. Shall we say that Hezekiah holds that it is forbidden to select the eatable from the non-eatable? [No.] Lupines are different,
(1) What constitutes primary labours is learnt from the Tabernacle (v. 49b). All these labours were needed for the Tabernacle in the wilderness; hence they are counted separately.
(2) In a mortar, to remove the husk. Drugs were pounded in connection with the Tabernacle for dyes.
(3) Hence it is omitted, for the Tanna evidently follows the general order of making bread, and bread for the poor is prepared with the husk of the wheat. But it is certainly a primary labour forbidden on the Sabbath.
(4) Rabbi deduces even the number of labours from Scripture (v. infra 97b).
(5) Surely not! And since you say that selecting for use on the next day entails a sin-offering, it is a forbidden labour in the full sense of the term, and hence prohibited even if required for the same day.
(6) For which a penalty is incurred, viz., as much as a dried fig.
(7) Granted that there is no penalty, it is nevertheless forbidden, and the same applies here.
(8) There is no liability, because this is not the proper mode of selecting; nevertheless it is forbidden, because it is somewhat similar to selecting by means of a sieve.
(9) Because this is the usual mode of sifting, and it is therefore a primary labour, as stated in the Mishnah. For a description of the nafah v. Aboth, Sonc. ed., p. 69, n. 10.
(10) The former is not the ordinary mode of sifting, while the latter is.
(11) I.e., immediately he finishes putting aside he will consume what is eatable.
(12) But the former does not constitute sifting and is entirely permissible.
(13) A familiar name of Abaye, because he was brought up in the house of Rabbah b. Nahmani. V. however, Git., Sonc. ed., p. 140, n. 6.
(14) For another to eat. The two kinds were mixed up, and he selected the kind he desired.
(15) v. p. 35, n. 5.
(17) When the selecting is done by these, he is not culpable.
(18) V. p. 12, n. 9.
(19) It was his turn that Sabbath to wait on the scholars.
(20) שדא denotes to put down with some violence. He did this instead of first separating the leaves from the fruit, as they would fall away automatically through the force of his setting it down.
(21) Hence placed a large quantity before them.
(22) Lit., 'refuse'.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 74b
because they are boiled seven times, and if one does not remove it [the edible portion], it goes rancid, hence it is like [picking] the non-edible out of the edible.1
GRINDING. R. Papa said: He who cuts up beets very fine is liable on account of grinding. R. Manasseh said: He who cuts chips [for fuel] is liable on account of grinding. Said R. Ashi: If he is particular about their size, he is liable on account of cutting.2
KNEADING AND BAKING. R. Papa said: Our Tanna omits the boiling of ingredients [for dyes],3 which took place in [connection with] the Tabernacle, and treats of baking!4 - Our Tanna takes the order of [making] bread.5
R. Aha son of R. Awira said: He who throws a tent peg into a stove6 is liable on account of cooking. But that is obvious? - You might say, His intention is to strengthen [harden] the article,7 therefore we are informed that it [first] softens and then hardens.8
Rabbah son of R. Huna said: He who boils pitch is liable on account of cooking. But that is obvious? - You might argue, Since it hardens again, I might say [that he is] not [liable]. Hence he informs us [otherwise].
Raba said: He who makes an [earthenware] barrel is culpable on account of seven sin-offerings.9 [He who makes] an oven is liable on account of eight sin-offerings.10 Abaye said: He who makes a wicker work is liable to eleven sin-offerings,11 and if he sews round the mouth thereof, he is liable to thirteen sin-offerings.12
SHEARING WOOL AND BLEACHING. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: He who spins wool from off the animal's back on the Sabbath incurs three sin-offerings, one on account of shearing, another on account of hackling, and the third on account of spinning.13 R. Kahana said: Neither shearing, hackling, nor spinning is [done] in this manner.14 But is it not so? Surely it was taught in the name of R. Nehemiah: It was washed [direct] on the goats and spun on the goats:15 which proves that spinning direct from the animal is designated spinning? - Superior skill is different.16
Our Rabbis taught: He who plucks the wing [of a bird], trims it [the feather], and plucks it [the down], is liable to three sin offerings. Said R. Simeon b. Lakish: For plucking [the wing] one is liable on account of shearing; for trimming [the feather] he is liable on the score of cutting; and for plucking [the down] he is liable under the head of smoothing.
TYING AND UNTYING. Where was there tying in the Tabernacle?17 - Said Raba: The tent-pegs were tied. But that was tying with the intention of [subsequent] untying?18 But said Abaye: The weavers of the curtains, when a thread broke, tied it up. Said Raba to him: You have explained tying; but what can be said about untying? And should you answer that when two knots [in the material] chanced to come together, one untied one and left the other knotted:19 [it may be asked], seeing that one would not do thus before a king of flesh and blood, how much more so before the Supreme King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He?20 Rather said Raba - others state, R. Elai: Those who caught the hillazon21 tied and untied.22
SEWING TWO STITCHES. But it cannot endure?23 - Said Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in R. Johanan's name: Providing that he knots them.24
TEARING IN ORDER TO SEW TWO STITCHES. Was there any tearing in the Tabernacle? - Rabbah and R. Zera both say:
(1) Which is forbidden.
(2) Sc. Hides to measure; v. Mishnah on erection.
(3) E.g., for the hangings and curtains, v. Rashi 73a, s.v. האופה.
(4) Which has nothing to do with the Tabernacle (Rashi).
(5) I.e., he takes bread as an example and enumerates the various principal labours connected with it.
(6) To dry it.
(7) Whereas cooking softens.
(8) The fire heats the moisture in the wood, which softens it, and it is only after it evaporates that the wood hardens. This prior softening partakes of the nature of cooking.
(9) So MS.M., deleting 'on account of' in cur. edd. (i) The clods of earth are first crushed and powdered - this constitutes grinding; (ii) the thicker balls which do not powder well are removed - selecting (iii) it is then sifted; (iv) the powder is mixed with water - kneading; (v) the resultant clay is smoothed when the cast of the vessel is made - smoothing; (vi) the fire is lit in the kiln; and (vii) the vessel is hardened in the kiln - boiling.
(10) The seven foregoing, which are also needed here, and an additional one. For after it is hardened in the kiln, a layer of loam or plaster is daubed on the inside, to enable it to preserve heat. This completes it, and it is stated infra 75b that every special act needed to complete an article falls within the term 'striking with the hammer' (v. Mishnah, 73a). But a barrel needs no special labour to complete it.
(11) It entails this number of labours: (i and ii) cutting the reeds is a two-fold labour: (a) reaping, (b) planting, since it leaves more room for the others to grow (v. supra 73b); (iii) collecting them - binding sheaves, (iv) selecting the best; (v) smoothing them; (vi) splitting them lengthwise into thinner rods - grinding; (vii) cutting them - to measure; (viii) stretching the lengthwise rods; (ix) drawing one cane through these, threading it above and below the lengthwise rods - this is the equivalent of 'the making of two meshes'; (x) plaiting the canes - weaving; and finally (xi) cutting it round after plaiting in order to finish it off, - 'striking with a hammer' (v. n. 7).
(12) The additional two are sewing and then tying up (presumably the unattached lengths of the thread or twine used for same).
(13) Spinning direct from the animal embraces these three labours.
(14) Hence he is not liable at all, for one is liable only when he performs a labour in the usual manner.
(15) The reference is to Ex. XXXV, 26, q.v., which R. Nehemiah translates literally, without adding 'hair' as in E.V., and so he deduces that it was spun directly from the animal.
(16) Scripture emphasizes there the skill that this demanded (v. 25), which shows that normal spinning is different.
(17) V. p. 224, n. 4.
(18) When they struck camp. Such is not Biblically forbidden and is not the tying referred to in the Mishnah.
(19) The two knots together would spoil the evenness of the fabric.
(20) The untying of a knot in the fabric would leave an ugly gap, particularly as the threads were six-stranded. Hence the utmost care would be taken to prevent the thread from knotting in the first place.
(21) A kind of snail or purple-fish whose blood was used for dyeing the tents of the Tabernacle.
(22) The nets.
(23) Two stitches alone will slip out of the cloth. Thus the work is not permanent and entails no punishment.
(24) After sewing, so that they will remain.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 75a
A curtain which was attacked by a moth was torn [round the moth hole] and resewn.
R. Zutra b. Tobiah said in Rab's name: He who pulls the thread of a seam1 on the Sabbath is liable to a sin-offering; and he who learns a single thing from a Magian2 is worthy of death;3 and he who is able to calculate the cycles4 and planetary courses but does not, one may hold no conversation with him.5
As to magianism, Rab and Samuel [differ thereon]: one maintains that it is sorcery; the other, blasphemy. It may be proved that it is Rab who maintains that it is blasphemy. For R. Zutra b. Tobiah said in Rab's name: He who learns a single thing from a magian is worthy of death. Now should you think that it is a sorcerer, surely it is written, thou shalt not learn to do [after the abomination of those nations],6 [implying], but you may learn in order to understand and instruct! This proves it. R. Simeon b. Pazzi said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi on the authority of Bar Kappara: He who knows how to calculate the cycles and planetary courses, but does not, of him Scripture saith, but they regard not the work of the Lord, neither have they considered the operation of his hands.7 R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Johanan's name: How do we know that it is one's duty to calculate the cycles and planetary courses? Because it is written, for this is your wisdom and understanding in the sight of the peoples:8 what wisdom and understanding is in the sight of the peoples?9 Say, that it is the science of cycles and planets.
CAPTURING A DEER, etc. Our Rabbis taught: He who captures a purple-fish10 and crushes it is liable to one [sin-offering];11 R. Judah said: He is liable to two, for R. Judah maintained: Crushing comes under the head of threshing. Said they to him: Crushing does not come under the head of threshing. Raba observed: What is the Rabbis' reason? They hold that threshing is applicable only to produce from the soil. But let him be culpable too on the score of taking life? - Said R. Johanan: This means that he crushed it when [already] dead.12 Raba said: You may even explain that he crushed it whilst alive: in respect to the taking of life he is but incidentally occupied.13 But Abaye and Raba both maintain: R. Simeon admits in a case of 'cut off his head but let him not die!'14 Here it is different, because he is more pleased that it should be alive, so that the dye should be clearer.15
AND SLAUGHTERING IT. As for him who slaughters, on what score is he culpable? - Rab said: On the score of dyeing;16 while Samuel said: On the score of taking life.
(1) If the seam gapes, and he pulls the thread to draw the pieces together. This constitutes sewing.
(2) One of the priestcraft of Ancient Persia.
(3) This is an idiom expressing strong abhorrence, cf. similar expressions in Sanh. 58b and 59a. The Magi were hostile to Jews, and caused them much suffering in various ways; cf. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 504, n. 6 and 98a: Yeb. 63b; Git. 17a. This evoked the present remark.
(4) Sc. of the seasons.
(5) The science of astronomy was necessary for the fixing of the calendar, upon which Jewish Festivals depended. In early times this was done by observation, but gradually calculation took its place. Hence Rab's indignation at one who fails to employ such knowledge.
(6) Deut. XVIII,9.
(7) Isa. V, 12.
(8) Deut. IV, 6.
(9) I.e., which testifies to itself.
(10) Hillazon, v. p. 356, n. 2
(11) Crushing not being a culpable offence.
(12) In order to make the blood exude.
(13) I.e., the taking of life is not his main purpose, but merely follows incidentally; such does not entail culpability.
(14) R. Simeon holds that a labour performed unintentionally in the course of doing something that is permitted is itself permitted, unless it follows inevitably from the latter, when it is the same as any other forbidden labour. Here too it must inevitably die when crushed.
(15) Hence its death is more than unintentional, but actually contrary to his desire.
(16) The blood that gushes forth from its cut throat stains and dyes the flesh.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 75b
On the score of dyeing but not on the score of taking life!1 Say, on the score of dyeing too. Rab said: As to this dictum of mine, I will make an observation thereon so that later generations should not come and deride me. Wherein is one pleased with the dyeing? One is pleased that the throat should be stained with blood, so that people may see it2 and come and buy from him.
SALTING AND CURING IT. But salting and tanning are identical?3 - R. Johanan and Resh Lakish both said: Omit one of these and insert the tracing of lines.4 Rabbah son of R. Huna said: He who salts meat is liable on account of tanning [dressing]. Raba said: Curing does not apply to foodstuffs. R. Ashi observed: And even Rabbah son of R. Huna ruled thus only when he requires it for a journey;5 but [when he needs it] for his house, one does not turn his food into wood.
SCRAPING AND CUTTING IT UP. R. Aha b. Hanina said: He who rubs [smooths skins] between columns6 on the Sabbath is liable on the score of scraping. R. Hiyya b. Abba said, R. Ammi told me three things in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: He who planes the tops of beams7 on the Sabbath is culpable on account of cutting.8 He who spreads a poultice [evenly over a sore] on the Sabbath is culpable on the grounds of scraping. And he who chisels round a stone on the Sabbath9 is liable on the score of striking with the hammer.10 R. Simeon b. Bisna said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish: He who describes a figure on a utensil, and he who blows in glassware,11 is liable on the score of striking with a hammer. Rab Judah said: He who removes threads12 from garments on the Sabbath is liable on the score of striking with the hammer;13 but that is only when he objects to them.14 WRITING TWO LETTERS. Our Rabbis taught: If one writes one large letter in the place of which there is room for writing two, he is not culpable. If he erases one large letter and there is room in its place for writing two, he is culpable. Said R. Menahem son of R. Jose: And this is the greater stringency of erasing over writing.
BUILDING, PULLING DOWN, EXTINGUISHING, KINDLING, AND STRIKING WITH A HAMMER. Rabbah and R. Zera both say: Whatever comprises the finishing of the work imposes liability on the score of striking with a hammer.15
THESE ARE THE PRIMARY LABOURS. THESE is to reject R. Eleazar's view, who imposes liability on account of a derivative labour [when performed concurrently] with a primary labour.16
LESS ONE. This is to reject R. Judah's view. For it was taught: R. Judah adds the closing up of the web and the beating of the woof.17 Said they to him: Closing up of the web is included in stretching the threads, and beating [the woof] is included in weaving.
MISHNAH. THEY ALSO STATED ANOTHER GENERAL PRINCIPLE: WHATEVER IS FIT TO PUT AWAY18 AND SUCH IS [GENERALLY] PUT AWAY,19 AND ONE CARRIES IT OUT ON THE SABBATH, HE IS LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING ON ITS ACCOUNT. BUT WHATEVER IS NOT FIT TO PUT AWAY AND SUCH IS NOT [GENERALLY] PUT AWAY, AND ONE CARRIES IT OUT ON THE SABBATH, ONLY HE THAT PUT IT AWAY IS LIABLE.20
GEMARA. 'WHATEVER IS FIT TO PUT AWAY': What does this exclude? - R. Papa said: It excludes the blood of menstruation. Mar 'Ukba said: It excludes the wood of an Asherah.21 He who says the blood of menstruation, certainly [excludes] the wood of an Asherah. But he who says the wood of an Asherah; the blood of menstruation, however, is put away for a cat. But the other [argues]: since she would sicken,22 one would not put it away [for that purpose].
R. Jose b. Hanina said: This does not agree with R. Simeon. For if it were as R. Simeon, surely he maintained: All these standards were stated only in respect of those who put away.23
AND THAT WHICH IS NOT FIT TO PUT AWAY.
(1) Surely not!
(2) That it is freshly killed.
(3) Salting the hide being the first step in the tanning process.
(4) Before cutting.
(5) It is then salted very much and is thus akin to tanning.
(6) Tosaf. and Jast. Rashi: he who smooths the ground between the columns.
(7) To make them all of the same level.
(8) To measure.
(9) Giving it its final touches.
(10) V. infra.
(11) Where the blowing shapes it.
(12) I.e., anything sticking out of the web, as thread, knots, splinters, etc., which was accidentally woven into the material.
(13) As this completes their labour.
(14) And would not wear the garments otherwise.
(15) Cf. p. 354 n. 7.
(16) Hence it is possible to incur more than thirty-nine sin-offerings, whereas the number stated is to exclude this possibility.
(17) In order to even it.
(18) For later use.
(19) It is large enough to be put away for later use.
(20) If he carries it out, since by putting it away he showed that he attaches a value to it. But for others it is of no account; hence if they carry it out there is no liability.
(21) A tree, or perhaps a post, devoted to idolatry; V. Deut. XVI, 21. It is forbidden to benefit thereof.
(22) It was thought that if an animal consumed blood drawn from any person, that person would lose strength.
(23) v. infra Mishnah VIII, 1. Thus a wealthy man is not liable for carrying out something which he personally would not put away, though most people would. But according to our Mishnah general practice is the decisive factor for all, and the exceptions are ignored.