Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 76a
R. Eleazar said: This does not agree with R. Simeon b. Eleazar. For it was taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar stated a general rule: That which is not fit to put away, and such is not [generally] put away, yet it did become fit to a certain person1 and he did put it away; then another came and carried it out, the latter is rendered liable through the former's intention.
MISHNAH. HE WHO CARRIES OUT A COW'S MOUTHFUL OF STRAW, A CAMEL'S MOUTHFUL OF PEA-STALKS ['EZAH], A LAMB'S MOUTHFUL OF EARS OF CORN, A GOAT'S MOUTHFUL OF HERBS, MOIST GARLIC OR ONION LEAVES TO THE SIZE OF A DRIED FIG, [OR] A GOAT'S MOUTHFUL OF DRY [LEAVES], [IS CULPABLE].2 AND THEY DO NOT COMBINE WITH EACH OTHER,3 BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT ALIKE IN THEIR STANDARDS.
GEMARA. What is 'EZAH? - Said Rab Judah: The stalks of certain kinds of peas. When R. Dimi came,4 he stated: If one carries out a cow's mouthful of straw for a camel, - R. Johanan maintained: He is culpable: R. Simeon b. Lakish said: He is not culpable. In the evening R. Johanan ruled thus, [but] in the morning he retracted. R. Joseph observed: He did well to retract, since it is not sufficient5 for a camel. Said Abaye to him: On the contrary, logic supports his original view, since it is sufficient for a cow.6 But when Rabin came,7 he said: If one carries out a cow's mouthful of straw for a camel, all agree that he is culpable. Where do they differ: if one carries out a cow's mouthful of pea-stalks for a cow,8 and the reverse was stated: R. Johanan maintained: He is not culpable; Resh Lakish maintained: He is culpable. R. Johanan maintained; He is not culpable: eating through pressing need is not designated eating. Resh Lakish maintained, He is culpable: eating through pressing need is designated eating.
A LAMB'S MOUTHFUL OF EARS OF CORN. But it was taught: As much as a dried fig? - Both standards are identical.
MOIST GARLIC OR ONION LEAVES TO THE SIZE OF A DRIED FIG, [OR] A GOAT'S MOUTHFUL OF DRY LEAVES. AND THEY DO NOT COMBINE WITH EACH OTHER, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT ALIKE IN THEIR STANDARDS. R. Jose b. Hanina said: They do not combine for the more stringent, but they do combine for the more lenient [standard].9 Yet can anything combine when their standards are not alike?10 But surely we learnt: A garment11 three [handbreadths] square, a sack12 four square, a hide five square, and [reed] matting six square [are susceptible to uncleanness as midras].13 Now it was taught thereon: A garment, sacking, a hide, and matting combine with each other.14 And R. Simeon observed: What is the reason? Because they are liable to the uncleanness of sitting.15 Thus the reason is that they are liable to the uncleanness of sitting;16 but whatever is not liable to the uncleanness of sitting is not so? - Said Raba:
(1) He found a use for it.
(2) These are the respective minima to which value is assigned, and for which a penalty is incurred. Each is the minimum which will satisfy the animal whose food it is. Moist garlic or onion leaves are fit for human consumption, hence the standard of a dried fig, which is the minimum for all human food.
(3) To make up the minimum.
(4) V. p. 12, n. 9.
(5) Lit., 'fit'.
(6) And since it is cow's fodder, that is the determining factor, notwithstanding that he carries it out for a camel.
(7) V. p. 12, n. 9.
(8) This is not a cow's usual food, and it eats it only when nothing else is obtainable.
(9) The commodity whose standard is greater does not combine with that whose standard is lesser to make up that lesser quantity, but the latter does combine with the former to make up the greater quantity. That which requires a lesser quantity is naturally more stringent.
(10) Even for the more lenient?
(11) I.e., a piece of cloth.
(12) A rough material, as of goats hair.
(13) v. p. 312, n. 9.
(14) When joined to make up the requisite minimum, they are susceptible to midras.
(15) I.e., the uncleanness caused by a zab's (q.v. Glos.) sitting upon them when pieced together. That is because one may employ them thus for patching up a saddle.
(16) And having that in common, they can naturally combine.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 76b
Here too they are fit for patterns.1
MISHNAH. HE WHO CARRIES OUT [HUMAN] FOODSTUFFS TO THE SIZE OF A DRIED FIG IS LIABLE, AND THEY COMBINE WITH EACH OTHER, BECAUSE THEY ARE EQUAL IN THEIR STANDARDS, EXCEPT THEIR SHELLS, KERNELS, STALKS, HUSKS2 AND COARSE BRAN.3 R. JUDAH SAID: EXCLUDING THE SHELLS OF LENTILS, BECAUSE THEY ARE BOILED TOGETHER WITH THEM.4
GEMARA. Now, do not husks and coarse bran combine [with the grain or flour]? But we learnt: Just over five quarters of flour are liable to hallah,5 [including] that itself [sc. the flour], the husks and the bran?6 - Said Abaye: That is because a poor man eats his bread [baked] of unsifted dough.7
R. JUDAH SAID: EXCLUDING THE SHELLS OF LENTILS, BECAUSE THEY ARE BOILED TOGETHER WITH THEM. Only lentils, but not beans? But it was taught, R. Judah said: Excluding the shells of beans and lentils. - There is no difficulty: The one refers to new [beans],8 the other to old. Why not old ones? Said R. Abbahti: Because they look like flies in the dish.9
MISHNAH. HE WHO CARRIES OUT [RAW] WINE, [THE STANDARD IS THAT IT BE] ENOUGH FOR THE MIXING OF A CUP;10 MILK, AS MUCH AS IS QUAFFED AT A TIME; HONEY, SUFFICIENT TO PLACE ON A SCAB;11 OIL, AS MUCH AS IS REQUIRED TO RUB IN A SMALL LIMB; WATER, ENOUGH FOR RUBBING COLLYRIUM;12 AND ALL OTHER LIQUIDS, [THE STANDARD IS] A REBI'ITH;13 AND ALL WASTE WATER,14 A REBI'ITH. R. SIMEON SAID: [THE STANDARD FOR] ALL THESE IS A REBI'ITH, ALL THESE MEASURES HAVING BEEN STATED ONLY IN RESPECT OF THOSE WHO PUT THEM AWAY.15
GEMARA. A Tanna taught: Enough for the mixing of a full-measured16 cup. And what is a full-measured cup? The cup of benediction.17 R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: The cup of benediction must contain a quarter of a rebi'ith [of raw wine], so that it may be mixed and amount to a rebi'ith. Said Raba, We too
(1) These can be pieced together to serve as a commercial pattern or sample of one's ware.
(2) Or, thin bran (Levy, Worterbuch).
(3) These are not eaten, and consequently do not combine with the edible foodstuffs.
(4) Hence they count as foodstuffs too, and are excluded from the exception.
(5) v. supra 15a for notes.
(6) Thus they do combine.
(7) But with respect to the Sabbath bread of better quality is required before liability is incurred.
(8) Their shells combine.
(9) The peel of old beans goes black and when in the dish looks like flies.
(10) Wine had to be mixed with water before it could be drunk.
(11) Rashi offers two interpretations: (i) the sore spot on the backs of horses or camels, caused by the chafing of the saddle; (ii) a bruise on the hand or foot.
(12) An eye-salve. Rashi: to rub it over and cause it to dissolve. - So that it can be applied to the eye in liquid form.
(13) v. Glos.
(14) Any dirty liquid that must be poured out.
(15) v. supra 75b, p. 359, n. 6. Here Rashi explains: These measures are less than a rebi'ith, and only one who actually put away that quantity and then carries it out is liable to a sin-offering. Tosaf. on 75b s.v. הא accepts Rashi's explanation a.l. and rejects the present one.
(16) Lit., 'fair'.
(17) Grace after meals. It is sometimes recited over a cup of wine, which must be a full-measured rebi'ith, i.e., full to the very brim.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 77a
learnt likewise: HE WHO CARRIES OUT [RAW] WINE, [THE STANDARD IS THAT THERE BE] ENOUGH FOR THE MIXING OF A CUP, whereon it was taught, Enough for the mixing of a full-measured cup; while the subsequent clause states; AND ALL OTHER LIQUIDS, [THE STANDARD IS] A REBI'ITH.1 Now Raba is consistent with his view [expressed elsewhere]. For Raba said: Wine which does not carry three parts of water to one [of itself] is not wine. Abaye observed: There are two refutations to this. Firstly, because we learnt, And as for mixed [wine], that means two parts of water and one of wine, [namely] of Sharon wine.2 Secondly, the water is in the jug and it is to combine!3 Said Raba to him, As to what you quote, 'and as for mixed [wine], that means two parts of water and one of wine, [namely] of Sharon wine' - Sharon wine stands apart, being [exceptionally] weak. Alternatively, there it is on account of appearance,4 but for taste more [water] is required. Whilst as for your objection, The water is in the jug and it is to combine! in the matter of the Sabbath we require something that is of account, and this too is of account.5
A Tanna taught: As for congealed6 [wine], the standard is the size of an olive:7 this is R. Nathan's view. R. Joseph said: R. Nathan and R. Jose son of R. Judah both said the same thing. R. Nathan, as stated. R. Jose son of R. Judah, for it was taught: R. Judah said: Six things [were stated as being] of the lenient rulings of Beth Shammai and the stricter rulings of Beth Hillel.8 The blood of a nebelah,9 Beth Shammai declare it clean;10 while Beth Hillel rule it unclean. Said R. Jose son of R. Judah: Even when Beth Hillel declared it unclean, they did so only in respect of a rebi'ith of blood in measure, since it can congeal to the size of an olive.11 Said Abaye. Perhaps that is not so. R. Nathan states that it [sc. a congealed piece the size of an olive] requires a rebi'ith [of liquid] only here in the case of wine, which is thin; but in the case of blood, which is thick, the size of an olive [when congealed] does not require a rebi'ith [in liquid form]. Alternatively. R. Jose b. R. Judah states that for the size of an olive [when congealed] a rebi'ith [in liquid form] is sufficient only there in the case of blood, which is thick; but as for wine, which is thin, the size of an olive represents more than a rebi'ith, so that if one carries out [even] less than the size of an olive, he is liable.
MILK, AS MUCH AS IS QUAFFED AT A TIME. The scholars asked: As much as GEM'IAH or GEM'IAH?12 R. Nahman b. Isaac cited, Give me to drink [hagmi'ini], I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher.13 The scholars asked:
(1) This shows that the lowest standard of potable liquids is a rebi'ith; hence the first clause must mean as much as is required for mixing to produce a cup of a rebi'ith.
(2) Sharon is the plain along the Mediterranean coast from Japho to Carmel. Thus a proportion of two to one is stated here.
(3) If the reason of our Mishnah is because with the addition of water it amounts to a rebi'ith, which is the average drink, but that by itself it is insufficient, are we to assume the addition of water that is elsewhere, as though he had carried it all out! Surely not.
(4) The reference there is to the colours of blood which are unclean. If it is of the colour of a two to one mixture, it is unclean; but a three to one mixture is paler, and blood of that colour is clean.
(5) Though it does not contain the water yet, since it can bear the addition of so much water.
(6) Lit., 'dry'.
(7) Because that represents a rebi'ith of liquid wine.
(8) In the many controversies between these two schools Beth Shammai generally adopt the stricter attitude. Hence particular attention is drawn to the cases where it is the reverse.
(9) V. Glos.
(10) It does not defile food by its contact.
(11) Which is the minimum quantity of flesh of nebelah which defiles.
(12) The question is about the spelling, whether it is with an alef or an 'ayin. The following questions are the same.
(13) Gen. XXIV, 17; the word there is spelled with an alef.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 77b
Gar'inin or gar'inin?1 - Raba b. 'Ulla cited: and an abatement shall be made [we-nigra'] from thy estimation.2 The scholars asked: Ommemoth or 'ommemoth?3 - R. Isaac b. Adbimi cited: The cedars in the garden of God could not obscure him.4 The scholars asked: Did we learn me'amzin or me'amzin?5 R. Hiyya b. Abba cited: and shutteth ['ozem] his eyes from looking upon evil.6
Our Rabbis taught: When one carries out cow's milk, [the standard is] as much as one quaffs at a time; woman's milk or the white of an egg, as much as is required for putting in an embrocation; collyrium, as much as is dissolved in water.7 R. Ashi asked: [Does that mean] as much as is required for dissolving. or as much as is required for holding and dissolving?8 The question stands over.
HONEY, SUFFICIENT TO PLACE ON A SCAR. A Tanna taught: As much as is required for putting on the opening of a scab. R. Ashi asked: 'On a scab': [does that mean] on the whole opening of the scab,9 or perhaps [it means] on the top of the scab,10 thus excluding [sufficient for] going all round the sore, which is not required?11 The question stands over.
Rab Judah said in Rab's name: Of all that the Holy One, blessed be He, created in His world, He did not create a single thing without purpose. [Thus] He created the snail as a remedy for a scab; the fly as an antidote to the hornet['s sting];12 the mosquito [crushed] for a serpent['s bite]; a serpent as a remedy for an eruption. and a [crushed] spider as a remedy for a scorpion['s bite]. 'A serpent as a remedy for an eruption':13 what is the treatment? One black and one white [serpent] are brought, boiled [to a pulp] and rubbed in.
Our Rabbis taught: There are five instances of fear [cast] by the weak over the strong: the fear of the mafgia'14 over the lion; the fear of the mosquito upon the elephant;15 the fear of the spider upon the scorpion;16 the fear of the swallow upon the eagle;17 the fear of the kilbith18 over the Leviathan.19 Rab Judah said in Rab's name: What verse [alludes to these]? That strengtheneth the despoiled [i.e., weak] over the strong.20
R. Zera met Rab Judah standing by the door of his father-in-law's house and saw that he was in a cheerful mood, and if he would ask him all the secrets of the universe he would disclose [them] to him. He [accordingly] asked him: Why do goats march at the head [of the flock], and then sheep? - Said he to him: It is as the world's creation, darkness preceding and then light.21 Why are the latter covered, while the former are uncovered?22 - Those with whose [material] we cover ourselves are themselves covered, whilst those wherewith we do not cover ourselves are uncovered. Why is a camel's tail short? - Because it eats thorns.23 Why is an ox's tail long? - Because it grazes in meadows and must beat off the gnats [with its tail]. Why is the proboscis of a locust soft [flexible]? Because it dwells among willows, and if it were hard [non-flexible] it [the proboscis] would be dislocated and it [the locust] would go blind. For Samuel said: If one wishes to blind a locust, let him extract its proboscis. Why is a fowl's [lower] eyelid bent upwards?24 - Because it dwells among the rafters, and if dust entered [its eyes] it would go blind.25
[The word] Dashsha [entrance] [implies] Derek SHam [there is the way];26 Darga [stairs, ladder]; Derek Gag [a way to the roof]; mathkulithat [a relish]; mathay thikleh da [when will this end]?27 Betha [a house] [implies] Bo we-ethib [come and sit therein]; Biketha [a small house]: Be aketha [a confined narrow house].28 Kuftha [an inverted vessel, a low seat]: Kof we-THab [invert it and sit down]; libne [bricks]: libene bene [unto children's children];29 huza [prickly shrubbery, hedge]: haziza [barrier]. Hazba [pitcher] [is so called] because hozeb [it draws]30 water from the river; kuzah [small jug]: kazeh [like this];31 shotitha [myrtle branch]: shetutha [folly];32 meshikla [wash basin]: mashe kulah [washing everybody]; mashkiltha: [wash-basin]33 mashya kalatha [washing brides];34 asitha [mortar]: hasirtha [missing];35 bukana [a club used as a pestle]: bo we-akkenah ['come, and I will strike it']; lebushah [upper garment]: lo bushah [no shame]. Gelima [a cloak] [is so called] because one looks in it like a shapeless mass [golem].36 Golitha [a long woollen cloak] [implies] Galle wethib [roll it up and sit down]; puria [bed] is so called because it leads to procreation [parin we-rabin]; Bur Zinka [a leaping well]37 Bor Zeh naki [this well is empty;38 sudra [turban]: sod adonai lire'aw [the secret of the Lord is revealed to those that fear him];39 Apadna [palace] Apithha Din [at the door is judgment].40
Our Rabbis taught: Three wax stronger as they grow older, viz., a fish, a serpent, and a swine.
OIL, AS MUCH AS IS REQUIRED TO RUB IN A SMALL LIMB. The School of R. Jannai said: Oil, as much as is required to rub in a small limb of an infant one day old. An objection is raised: Oil, as much as is required to rub in a small limb41 and [a limb of] a day-old infant. Surely this means, a small limb of an adult, and a large limb of a day-old infant? - The School of R. Jannai can reply: No. This is its meaning: Oil, as much as is required to rub in a small limb of a day-old infant.42
Shall we say that this is dependent on Tannaim? Oil, as much as is required to rub in a small limb and [a limb of] a day-old infant: this is the view of R. Simeon b. Eleazar. R. Nathan said: As much as is required to rub in a small limb. Now surely they differ in this, R. Simeon b. Eleazar holding a small limb of an infant, while R. Nathan holds a small limb of an adult or a large limb of an infant, but a small limb of a day-old infant [does] not [impose liability]? No. All agree that the small limb of a day-old infant is not [sufficient],
(1) Kernels: with an alef or 'ayin? (The word occurs in the Mishnah supra 76b.)
(2) Lev. XXVII, 18. We-nigra' is with an 'ayin, and Raba b. 'Ulla connects gar'inin with this, as the kernels are thrown away and so are an abatement of the edible portion.
(3) Dim, i.e., dying. coals.
(4) Ezek. XXXI, 8; 'ammamuhu, with an 'ayin - lit., 'keep him dim'.
(5) In the Mishnah infra 151b. Me'amzin, we close (the eyes).
(6) Isa. XXXI, 15; 'ozem, with an 'ayin.
(7) To paint both eyes.
(8) It is dissolved by being crushed in the water. Part remains on the fingers, and R. Ashi asked whether that must be allowed for or not.
(9) The entire surface being referred to as the opening.
(10) Lit., 'the first projecting point'.
(11) Before a penalty is incurred.
(12) A crushed fly applied to the affected part is a remedy.
(13) This phrase is added in the text by Bah.
(14) Lit., 'plague'. The Ethiopian gnat (Lewysohn. Zool. d. Talmud, p. 316). Rashi: a small animal that terrifies the lion with its loud cry.
(15) Caused by entering its trunk.
(16) In whose ear it lodges.
(17) Rashi: it creeps under its wings and hinders it from spreading them.
(18) A small fish, supposed to be the stickleback.
(19) Likewise caused by entering its ear.
(20) Amos V, 9 (E.V. 'that bringeth sudden destruction upon the strong').
(21) Goats are dark coloured, while sheep are white!
(22) Sheep have thick tails, which cover their hind parts; but goats have a thin tail.
(23) A long tail would become entangled in the thorns.
(24) Rashi: When its eyes are closed the lower eyelid turns upwards and lies upon the upper.
(25) Hence this arrangement affords it the most protection.
(26) Reading Dashsha as an abbreviation. The following words are similarly treated. These may be regarded either as examples of popular etymology or merely as jeux d'esprit, not being meant seriously.
(27) Relishes being used sparingly and lasting a long time.
(28) Rashi. Jast. s.v. בקתא q.v. translates rather differently.
(29) I.e., lasting many generations.
(30) Lit., 'hews out'.
(31) 'Give us a glass of this size to drink'.
(32) People danced therewith at weddings, and looked fools in doing so!
(33) V. next note.
(34) A fancy-shaped, probably expensive basin, used by distinguished persons only.
(35) I.e., carved out.
(36) The cut of the arms being covered up.
(37) A well which springs forth periodically only to disappear again (Jast.).
(38) Lit., 'clean'.
(39) The turban being worn by Rabbinical scholars; cf. Kid. 8a; Pes. 111b.
(40) I.e., all come - for justice to the King's palace.
(41) Eber Katan. This phrase, used both there and in the Mishnah, may mean either a small limb or a limb of a child (or, infant).
(42) 'And a day-old infant' is thus taken in the explanative sense, 'even a limb of a day-old infant'.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 78a
R. Jannai's dictum being incorrect. But here they differ in this: R. Simeon b. Eleazar holds: an adult's small limb and a day-old infant's large limb are identical [in size]. While R. Nathan holds: Only an adult's small limb [creates culpability], but not the large limb of a day-old infant.1 What is our decision thereon? - Come and hear: For it was taught, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Oil, as much as is required to rub in a small limb of a day-old infant.2
WATER, ENOUGH FOR RUBBING COLLYRIUM. Abaye said, Consider: Whatever has a common use and an uncommon use, the Rabbis followed the common use, [even] in the direction of leniency; where it has two common uses, the Rabbis followed the common use [which leads to] stringency. [Thus,] in the case of wine the drinking thereof is common, whilst its employment as a remedy is uncommon; hence the Rabbis followed its drinking use in the direction of leniency.3 In the case of milk, the drinking4 thereof is common, whilst its employment as a remedy5 is uncommon: hence the Rabbis followed its drinking use in the direction of leniency. As for honey, both the eating thereof and its use as a remedy are common, [so] the Rabbis followed its use as a remedy in the direction of stringency.6 But in the case of water - consider: its drinking is common, whereas its use for healing is uncommon: why then did the Rabbis follow its use for healing in the direction of stringency? - Said Abaye: They learnt this with reference to Galilee.7 Raba said: You may even say that this refers to other places, thus agreeing with Samuel. For Samuel said: All liquids8 heal [eye sickness] but dim [the eyesight], save water, which heals without dimming.9
AND ALL OTHER LIQUIDS, A REBI'ITH. Our Rabbis taught; As for blood, and all [other] kinds of liquids, [the standard is] a rebi'ith. R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Blood, as much as is required for painting one eye, because a cataract [of the eye] is painted [with blood]. And which [blood] is that? The blood of a wildfowl. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Blood, as much as is required for painting one eye, because a white spot in the eye is painted [with blood]. And with what is that? with the blood of bats.10 And your token is: within for within, without for without.11 Now this applies only to him who carries it out; but if one puts it away, no matter how little, he is liable.12 R. Simeon said: This applies only to one who puts it away, but he who carries it out is culpable only when there is a rebi'ith. And the Sages agree with R. Simeon that if one carries out waste water into the street, the standard thereof is a rebi'ith.
The Master said: 'Now this applies only to him who carries it out; but if one puts it away, no matter how little, [he is liable].' And he who puts it away. does he not carry it out?13 Said Abaye: The reference here is to an apprentice to whom his master said, 'Go, and clear me a place for a meal.' Now, if he goes and clears out [into the street] something that is valued by all, he is guilty on its account; something that is not valued by all: if his master had put it away,14 he is guilty on its account; if not, he is not guilty.15
The Master said: 'And the Sages agree with R. Simeon that if one carries out waste water into the street, the standard thereof is a rebi'ith.' For what is waste water fit?16 Said R. Jeremiah: To knead clay therewith. But it was taught: Clay, [the standard is] as much as is required for making the hole of a smelting pot?17 There is no difficulty: in the latter case it is kneaded, but in the former it is not [already] kneaded, because no man troubles to knead clay [only] for making the hole of a smelting pot.
MISHNAH. HE WHO CARRIES OUT CORD, [THE STANDARD IS] AS MUCH AS IS REQUIRED FOR MAKING A HANDLE FOR A BASKET; A REED CORD, AS MUCH AS IS REQUIRED FOR MAKING A HANGER FOR A SIEVE OR A BASKET-SIEVE. R. JUDAH SAID: AS MUCH AS IS REQUIRED FOR TAKING THE MEASURE OF A CHILD'S SHOE. PAPER, LARGE ENOUGH TO WRITE A TAX-COLLECTOR'S RECEIPT ON IT.18 (AND HE WHO CARRIES OUT A TAX-COLLECTOR'S RECEIPT IS LIABLE.)
(1) And the phrasing of the controversy must be interpreted accordingly.
(2) Hence this must be his meaning in the controversy quoted, while R. Nathan disagrees, as suggested in the first explanation.
(3) Teaching that the minimum which creates liability for carrying out is the average drink, though a lesser quantity is used for remedial purposes. - The others are explained similarly.
(4) Lit., 'eating'.
(5) By external application.
(6) As in the Mishnah, though for consumption the size of a dried fig - a greater standard - would be required.
(7) Rashi: whose inhabitants are poor. They would never use wine or milk for dissolving collyriuin, but only water, and so this use for water is as common as its drinking use.
(8) Used for dissolving collyrium.
(9) Hence this use too is common.
(10) The word denotes with large eyeballs - a species of bats.
(11) The white spot is within the eye, and the bat is generally found within human settlements; whereas a cataract protrudes on the outside of the eye, and the wildfowl too dwells without human settlements.
(12) This is explained below.
(13) Surely this alone is his sin.
(14) For use, thus showing that he did value it.
(15) This is consistent with R. Simeon's view (supra 76a) that one is guilty through another's intention.
(16) No penalty is incurred for carrying out something that is entirely useless.
(17) The hole through which the bellows are inserted. This requires less clay than is made with a rebi'ith of water, and since the waste water is regarded as being for the purpose of making clay, the standard should be only as much as is required for kneading this smaller quantity.
(18) Lit., 'knot'. Rashi: the receipt was indicated by two letters above normal size.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 78b
ERASED PAPER,1 AS MUCH AS IS REQUIRED TO WRAP ROUND A SMALL PHIAL OF SPIKENARD OIL; SKIN, FOR MAKING AN AMULET; PARCHMENT, FOR WRITING THEREON THE SHORTEST PASSAGE OF THE TEFILLIN, WHICH IS 'HEAR O ISRAEL,':2 INK, FOR WRITING TWO LETTERS; STIBIUM,3 FOR PAINTING ONE EYE; PASTE, FOR PUTTING ON THE TOP OF A LIME BOARD [SHAFSHAF];4 PITCH AND SULPHUR, FOR MAKING A PERFORATION [THEREIN];5 WAX, FOR PUTTING OVER A SMALL HOLE;6 CLAY, FOR MAKING A HOLE IN A GOLD REFINER'S POT.7 R. JUDAH SAID: FOR MAKING A [TRIPOD'S] PEG.8 BRAN, FOR PUTTING ON THE MOUTH OF A GOLD REFINER'S POT; LIME,9 FOR SMEARING THE SMALLEST OF GIRLS.10 R. JUDAH SAID: ENOUGH TO PRODUCE A HAIR-CROWN [KALKAL].11 R. NEHEMIAH SAID: ENOUGH FOR MAKING SIDE-CURLS [ONDAFE].12
GEMARA. For a cord too, let one be culpable on account of as much as is required to make a hanger for a sieve or a basketsieve? - Since it chafes the utensil, people do not make it [thus].13
Our Rabbis taught: As for palm leaves, the standard is as much as is required for making a handle for a basket, an Egyptian basket. As for bast; Others say:14 as much as is required for putting on the opening of a small funnel for straining wine. Fat; as much as is required for greasing under a small cake. And what size is that? - As [large as] a sela'. But it was taught, As [large as] a dried fig? Both are the same standard. Soft rags, as much as is required for making a small ball. Anti what size is that? As [large as] a nut.
PAPER, LARGE ENOUGH TO WRITE A TAX-COLLECTOR'S RECEIPT ON IT. It was taught: How much is a tax-collector's receipt? Two letters.15 But the following contradicts this: If one carries out smooth [blank] paper. if large enough for writing two letters thereon, he is culpable; if not, he is not culpable?16 - Said R. Shesheth: What is meant by 'two letters'? Two letters of a tax-collector's receipt. Raba said: [It means] two letters of ours, together with a margin for holding which is the equivalent of a tax-collector's receipt.
An objection is raised: If one carries out erased paper or a receipted note; if its blank portion is large enough for two letters to be written thereon, or if the whole is sufficient for wrapping round the mouth of a small phial of spikenard oil, he is culpable; but if not, he is not culpable. As for R. Shesheth, who explained, What is meant by 'two letters'? two letters of a tax-collector's receipt, it is well.17 But according to Raba, who said that it means two letters of ours together with a margin for holding, which is the equivalent of a tax-collector's receipt - surely here no margin for holding is required?18 This is a difficulty.
Our Rabbis taught: If one carries out a tax-collector's receipt before having shown it to the collector, he is culpable;19 after having shewn it to the collector, he is not culpable.20 R. Judah said: Even after showing it to the collector, he is culpable, because he still needs it. Wherein do they differ? Abaye said: They differ in respect to collectors' runners.21 Raba said: They differ in respect to the higher and the lesser collectors.22 R. Ashi said: They [even] differ in respect of one tax-collector, because he needs it [the document] for showing to the second, so that he can say to him, 'See, I am a man [exempted] by the collector.'23
Our Rabbis taught: If one carries out a note of debt, if before it has been settled, he is culpable; if after it has been settled, he is not culpable. R. Judah said: Even after settlement he is culpable, because he needs it. Wherein do they differ? R. Joseph said: They differ as to whether it is forbidden to keep a settled note. The Rabbis maintain: It is forbidden to keep a settled note;24 while R. Judah holds: One may keep a settled note.25 Abaye said: All hold that a settled note may not be kept; but here they differ as to whether a note requires confirmation [even] when he [the debtor] admits that it was [validly] written. The first Tanna holds: Even when [the debtor] admits that a note [was validly] written, it must be confirmed.26 R. Judah holds: When [the debtor] admits that a note was [validly] written, it need not be confirmed. And what is the meaning of 'if before it has been settled' and 'if after it has been settled'?
(1) Palimpsest paper from which writing has been erased, and which cannot be written upon again.
(2) Deut. VI, 4-9. The Tefillin (v. Glos.) contain four Biblical passages.
(3) Used for painting the eyes.
(4) For catching birds; v. infra 80a.
(5) Rashi: The phial in which mercury is kept is closed with a perforated stopper of pitch or sulphur.
(6) As a plug.
(7) Through which he inserts his bellows.
(8) A leg of the tripod which supports the refiner's pot.
(9) Used as a depilatory.
(10) V. Gemara.
(11) Formed by the depilation of the undergrowth of hair.
(12) Var. lec. Andife, v. Gemara.
(13) Culpability is incurred only when the article transported can be used in its normal manner.
(14) 'Others' frequently refers to R. Meir, Hor. 13a.
(15) 'Aruk reads: two Greek letters - which are larger than Hebrew letters.
(16) 'Two letters' implies of normal size, which is smaller than tax-collector's letters; v. also preceding note.
(17) The same explanation holds good here too.
(18) It can be held by the erased or the written portion.
(19) Since he still needs it.
(20) The receipt of tax-exemption was issued by a higher authority and then shown to the actual collector. Once shown, he has no further use for it, and is therefore not liable for carrying it out.
(21) The police, who stop people and demand toll. R. Judah argues that the receipt must he shown to these; while the Rabbis hold that the person stopped could refer him to the collector or superintendent.
(22) Cf. n. 4. R. Judah maintains that for this reason the document is always required, while the Rabbis hold that a secret password was used as a proof of exemption.
(23) E.g., if the exemption is in respect of a toll-bridge. Even if there is always one man only on duty at one end, the document may be required for the man at the other end. V. T.A. II, p. 375.
(24) Therefore it is of no value either to the creditor or to the debtor; consequently no culpability is entailed in carrying it out. - The reason of the prohibition is that one may demand payment afresh.
(25) Hence the paper itself is of value.
(26) By its signatories attesting their signatures (Rashi in Keth. 19a, B.M. 7a and 72b). Otherwise the debtor can plead that it has been settled. For without the confirmation of the signatories he could successfully plead that it is a forgery, hence he is also believed in his plea of repayment, since the validity of the note rests on his word. Consequently if the debtor pleads that he has repaid the loan - this is now the meaning of 'if after it has been settled' - the note is valueless.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 79a
If the debtor pleads that it has been settled or not settled [respectively].1 Raba said: All agree that [even] when [the debtor] admits that a note was [validly] written, it must [still] be confirmed. But here they differ as to whether we write a quittance.2 The first Tanna holds: We write a quittance;3 while R. Judah holds: A quittance4 is not written. R. Ashi said: [R. Judah's reason is] because he [the debtor] needs it to show to a second creditor, as he can say to him, 'See, l am a man who repays.'
SKIN, FOR MAKING AN AMULET. Raba asked R. Nahman: If one carries out skin, what is the standard [to involve a penalty]. Even as we learnt, he replied: SKIN, FOR MAKING AN AMULET. If one dresses it, what is the standard? - There is no difference, he replied. When it needs dressing,5 what is the standard? - There is no difference, replied he. And whence do you say thus? - As we learnt: if one bleaches [wool]. hatchels, dyes, or spins it, the standard is a full double span.6 And if one weaves two threads together, the standard is a full span.7 This shows that since it stands to be spun,8 the standard is as though it were spun. So here too, since it [the skin] stands to be dressed, its standard is as though it were [already] dressed. And if it is not to be dressed [at all]. what is the standard? There is no difference, said he to him.
But, is there no difference between dressed and undressed [hide]? He raised an objection to him: If one carries out dissolved dyes.9 [the standard is] as much as is required for dyeing a sample of wool.10 Whereas of undissolved dyes we learnt: [In the case of] nutshells,11 pomegranate shells, woad, and madder,12 [the standard is] as much as is required for dyeing the small piece of cloth at the opening [top] of a network?13 - Surely it was stated thereon, R. Nahman observed in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: That is because one does not trouble to steep dyes [merely] for dyeing a sample of wool. Yet what of the seeds of a vegetable garden, whereof, before they are sown, we learnt: [If one carries out] garden seeds, [the standard is] less than the size of a dried fig; R. Judah b. Bathyra ruled: 'Five', yet after they are sown we learnt: As for manure, or thin sand, [the standard is] as much as is required for fertilizing a cabbage stalk; this is R. Akiba's view. But the Sages maintain: For fertilizing one leek plant?'14 Surely it was stated thereon, R. Papa said: In the one case it refers to where it is sown, in the other where it is not sown, because one does not trouble to carry out a single seed for sowing.15
Yet what of clay. whereof, before it is kneaded, it was taught: 'The Sages agree with R. Simeon, that if one carries out waste water into the street, the standard is a rebi'ith'. And we debated thereon. For what is waste water fit? And R. Jeremiah said: For kneading clay therewith. And yet after it is mixed, it was taught: As for clay, [the standard is] as much as is required for making the hole of a smelting pot?16 - There too it is as we stated, because no man troubles to knead clay [only] for making the hole of a smelting pot.
Come and hear: For R. Hiyya b. Ammi said on 'Ulla's authority: There are three [kinds of] hide: mazzah, hippa, and diftera. Mazzah17 is as its name implies, neither salted nor treated with flour or gall-nut. And what is its standard? R. Samuel b. Rab Judah recited: As much as is required for wrapping a small weight therein. And how much is that? Said Abaye: A quarter of a Pumbedithan quarter.18 Hippa is a skin that is salted but not treated with flour and gall-nut. And what is its standard? Even as we learnt: SKIN, AS MUCH AS IS REQUIRED FOR MAKING AN AMULET. Diftera is skin that has been dressed with salt and flour but not treated with gall-nut. And what is its standard? As much as is required for writing a divorce.19 Now incidentally it is stated, As much as is required for wrapping a weight therein, which Abaye explained [as meaning] a quarter of a Pumbedithan quarter?20 - There it treats of a steaming hide.21 But we learnt: A garment three [handbreadths] square is susceptible to midras,22 sacking four square, a hide five square and reed matting six square23 are susceptible to [the uncleanness of] both midras and the dead. Now it was taught thereon: As for a garment, sacking and hide, as their standard is for uncleanness, so it is for carrying out!24 - That refers to a leather spread.25 [
(1) V. preceding note.
(2) V. B.B. 170b.
(3) Therefore the debtor does not require the original note, since he holds a receipt, and so if he carries it out he is not culpable (R. Han. Rashi explains differently, referring this to the creditor).
(4) But the creditor has to return the note to the debtor, who in turn must take care not to lose it, lest it fall into the hands of the creditor, enabling him to claim payment a second time.
(5) And one carries it out - at this stage it cannot be used for an amulet.
(6) Of the thumb and the forefinger.
(7) The text adds 'double', but it is bracketed and is absent from the Mishnah infra 105b.
(8) Bleaching. etc., are antecedent to spinning.
(9) Ready for use.
(10) Jast. V. also supra 11b.
(11) These were quite commonly used in ancient days for dyes; v. T.A. I, p. 552, n. 222.
(12) All these, including the two former, used as dyes.
(13) Or, hair-net. V. also T.A. I, pp. 187 and 636, n. 776. This is a larger standard than the preceding and a similar distinction should be made between undressed and dressed hides.
(14) Thus here too there is a different standard after sowing.
(15) V. infra 90b.
(16) V. notes supra 75a.
(17) Lit., 'unleavened'.
(18) Of a litra. V.J.E. XII, p. 48b s.v. Litra, though it is not clear whether what is stated there applies to a Pumbedithan litra too - probably not. Weights were wrapped in hide to prevent their being rubbed away; hence this standard.
(19) V. Git. 22a.
(20) Which is a larger standard than the others.
(21) I.e., immediately after it is flayed and before it has had time to dry. It is not yet fit for tanning, and hence a different standard is applied to it (Rashi).
(22) V. p. 275, n. 1.
(23) V. notes supra 76a.
(24) That size carried out on the Sabbath involves a penalty. Hence the standard for hide is five square, which is not the same as that given in the Mishnah. Presumably the difficulty must be answered by drawing a distinction between tanned and untanned hide, and this contradicts R. Nahman.
(25) The hide being so treated that it can only be used as a leather cover on couches, etc., but not for writing thereon. Hence there is a different standard.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 79b
PARCHMENT, AS MUCH AS IS REQUIRED FOR WRITING THE SHORTEST PASSAGE, [etc.]. But the following contradicts this: Parchment [kelaf] and duksustos,1 as much as is required for the writing of a mezuzah?2 - What is meant by mezuzah? A parchment slip of the tefillin.3 Are then tefillin designated mezuzah? Yes, and it was taught [likewise]: tefillin straps, when together with the tefillin, defile the hands;4 when apart, they do not defile the hands. R. Simeon b. Judah said on the authority of R. Simeon,5 He who touches the strap is clean, unless he touches the capsule [of the tefillin]. R. Zakkai said in his name: He is clean, unless he touches the mezuzah itself.6 But since the second clause teaches, PARCHMENT, AS MUCH AS IS REQUIRED FOR WRITING THE SHORTEST PASSAGE OF THE TEFILLIN, WHICH IS 'HEAR O ISRAEL,' it follows that the first clause refers to the mezuzah itself? - This is its meaning: Parchment and duksustos, what are their standards? Duksustos, as much as is required for writing a mezuzah;7 parchment, for writing the shortest passage of the tefillin, which is 'Hear O Israel'.
Rab said: Duksustos is as parchment: just as tefillin may be written upon parchment, so may they be written upon duksustos. We learnt: PARCHMENT, FOR WRITING THEREON THE SHORTEST PASSAGE OF THE TEFILLIN, WHICH IS HEAR O ISRAEL. [Thus, only parchment, but not duksustos?]8 - That is for the [most preferable observance of the] precept.9 Come and hear: It is a halachah of Moses from Sinai10 that tefillin [should be written] upon parchment, and a mezuzah upon duksustos; parchment is [the skin] on the side11 of the flesh, and duksustos is [that] on the side of the hair?12 - That is for the [most preferable observance of the] precept. But it was taught: If one does otherwise, it is unfit? - That refers to the mezuzah. But it was taught: If one does otherwise, in either it is unfit? - Both refer to mezuzah, one meaning that he wrote it on parchment [kelaf] facing the hair; the other, on duksustos facing the flesh.13 An alternative answer is: [The ruling]. If one does otherwise in either, it is unfit, is dependent on Tannaim. For it was taught: If one does otherwise, it is unfit. R. Aha declares it fit on the authority of R. Ahi b. Hanina - others state, on the authority of R. Jacob b. R. Hanina. R. Papa said: Rab's ruling is as the teaching of the School of Manasseh. For the School of Manasseh taught: If one writes it on paper14 or on a cloth strip, it is unfit; on parchment, gewil,15 or duksustos, it is fit. 'If one writes it' - what? Shall we say, a mezuzah; can then a mezuzah be written upon kelaf?' Hence it Surely means tefillin. Yet [even] on your reasoning, can tefillin be written upon gewil?16 But that was taught of a Torah Scroll.17
Shall we say that the following supports him: When tefillin or a Torah Scroll wear out, a mezuzah may not be made of them,18 because we may not debase [anything] from a higher19 sanctity to a lower sanctity. Thus there is the reason that we may not debase, but if we might debase, we could make [a mezuzah]: now, whereon is it written? Surely it means that it is written on duksutos?20 - No: It Is written upon parchment [kelaf]. - But may a mezuzah be written upon kelaf?- Yes. And it was taught [likewise]: If one writes it on kelaf, on paper, or on a cloth strip, it is unfit. R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: R. Meir used to write it21 upon kelaf, because it keeps [better]. Now that you have arrived at this [conclusion],22 according to Rab too, do not say. Duksustos is as kelaf but say, kelaf is as duksustos: just as a mezuzah may be written upon duksustos, so may it be written upon kelaf.
INK, FOR WRITING [TWO LETTERS].
(1) An inferior kind of parchment, v. infra.
(2) v. Glos. This contains two passages. viz., Deut. VI, 4-9. and XI, 13-21.
(3) In the head tefillin each of the four passages is written on a separate slip. Since the particular slip is unspecified, it is assumed that it is the one required for the shortest passage.
(4) In respect of terumah; v. supra 14a.
(5) I.e., R. Simeon b. Yohai.
(6) Thus mezuzah is used of the parchment slip containing the writing.
(7) Literally; that is because it is not fit for tefillin.
(8) This passage is bracketed in the edd. It was present in Rashi's text, but absent from other versions. - But if tefillin might be written upon duksustos, the same standard would apply to that too.
(9) Kelaf being superior, phylacteries are normally written thereon, and not upon duksustos, though it is permissible. Hence one would not keep duksustos for that purpose and consequently it does not involve a penalty; cf. supra 75b Mishnah.
(10) V. p. 123. n. 7.
(11) Lit., 'place'.
(12) When the hide is split in two, the portion facing the flesh is called kelaf (parchment), whilst that toward the hair is called duksustos. Tosaf. s.v. קלף reverses the reading.
(13) I.e., the parchment and the duksustos were manufactured from the wrong portions of the hide.
(14) נײר, papyrus.
(15) A certain kind of parchment. Rashi: that which has been dressed with gall-nut. Tosaf.: the undivided skin (v. n. 3) with the hair removed. V. also T.A. II. p. 263 and notes a.l.
(16) Surely not!
(17) Thus it has no bearing on Rab's dictum.
(18) E.g., if the margin is in good condition and fit for use.
(19) Lit., 'from a graver . . . . lighter'.
(20) Which supports Rab.
(21) R. Meir was an expert calligraphist - a much esteemed talent before the invention of printing.
(22) That a mezuzah may be written upon kelaf.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 80a
It was taught: Two letters in ink, two letters on a pen, or two letters in an inkstand [involve culpability].1 Raba asked: What [if one carries out sufficient for] one letter [in the form of] dry ink, one letter on the pen, and one letter in an inkstand?2 The question stands over.
Raba said: If one carries out [ink sufficient for writing] two letters, and writes them whilst walking, he is culpable: the writing is tantamount to depositing.3 Raba also said: If one carries out [ink sufficient for writing] one letter [only] and writes it down. and then again carries out [sufficient for] one letter, and writes it down,4 he is not culpable. What is the reason? By the time he carries out the second, the standard of the first is defective.5
Raba also said: If one carries out half a dried fig and deposits it,6 and then carries out another half of a dried fig and deposits it,7 the first is regarded as though caught by a dog or burnt, and he is not culpable. But why so: surely it is lying there! - He means this: But if one anticipates and takes up the first before the depositing of the second, the first is regarded as though caught up by a dog or burnt,8 and he is not culpable. Raba also said: If one carries out half of a dried fig and deposits it and then carries out another half of a dried fig over the same route as the first,9 he is liable. But why: surely it does not rest [in the street]? E.g., if he carries it within three [handbreadths].10 But Raba said: [An article brought] within three [handbreadths] must, according to the Rabbis, be deposited upon something of small size [at ]east]?11 - There is no difficulty. The latter reference is to throwing;12 the former is to carrying.13
Our Rabbis taught: If one carries out half a dried fig, and then carries out another half of a dried fig in one state of unawareness, he is culpable; in two states of unawareness, he is not culpable. R. Jose said: In one state of unawareness [and] into the same ground he is culpable; into two [different] grounds,14 he is not culpable. Rabbah said: Providing that there lies between them a domain involving liability to a sin-offering;15 but a karmelith16 does not [effect a separation].17 Abaye said: Even a karmelith [separates them], but not a board.18 But Raba maintained: Even a board [separates them]. Now Raba is consistent with his ruling [elsewhere]; for Raba said: [The law of] domains in respect to the Sabbath is the same as domains in respect to divorces.19
STIBIUM, FOR PAINTING ONE EYE: But one eye [alone] is not painted? - Said R. Huna: Because modest women paint [only] one eye.20 An objection is raised: As for stibium, if [carried out] for medicinal use, [the standard is] as much as is required for painting one eye;21 if for adornment, [the standard is] two eyes? - Hillel son of R. Samuel b. Nahmani explained it: That was taught in reference to small-towners.22
PASTE, FOR PUTTING ON THE TOP OF A LIME BOARD. A Tanna taught: As much as is required for putting on the top of a lime board of a hunter's rod.23
WAX, FOR PUTTING OVER A SMALL HOLE. It was taught: As much as is required for putting over a small wine hole.24
CLAY, FOR MAKING A HOLE IN A GOLD-REFINER'S POT, etc.25 Shall we say that R. Judah's standard is larger? But we know the Rabbis' standard to be larger, for we learnt: R. JUDAH SAID: AS MUCH AS IS REQUIRED FOR TAKING THE MEASURE OF A CHILD'S SHOE?26 - Say, as much as is required for plastering [the splits in] the tripod leg of a small stove.27
(1) Ink, Heb. dyo, is the solid pigment which was dissolved before use (cf. supra 17b and note a.I.). The Baraitha teaches that whether one carries out dry pigment in his hand or the liquid on a pen or in an inkstand, in each case sufficient for writing two letters, he is culpable.
(2) Do they combine to involve liability or not? The pen and inkstand do not cause culpability, since they are subsidiary to their contents, which in themselves do not separately cause liability; v. infra 93b.
(3) Culpability for carrying from one domain to another is incurred only when the article transported is actually deposited in the second domain; v. supra 2a.
(4) Both in the same state of unawareness, so that normally they should rank as one act.
(5) The first ink has dried and is now insufficient for the writing of one letter.
(6) One fig is the minimum involving liability.
(7) V. n. 6.
(8) Since the whole fig does not lie in the street.
(9) The second actually passing above the first.
(10) Of the ground. It is then regarded as actually lying thereon; cf. supra 5a.
(11) Though not necessarily upon a place four handbreadths square; v. infra 100a for the general explanation of the passage.
(12) Then it must actually come to rest.
(13) In the hand. The article itself is then at rest, and if the hand moreover comes within three handbreadths of the ground, it is as though deposited thereon.
(14) Both public, but separated from each other.
(15) I.e., private ground. Transport between private and public ground imposes liability; hence the private ground here completely separates the two public grounds. and they do not rank as one.
(16) V. Glos. and supra 6a.
(17) Since by Biblical law one may carry between a karmelith and public (or private) ground, it is insufficient to separate the two.
(18) Placed right across the street and thus dividing it.
(19) And there a board is sufficient to create separate domains; v. Git. 77b.
(20) They go veiled, leaving only one eye visible.
(21) Since only one eye may need it.
(22) Or, villagers. Temptation not being so great there, it is safe even for modest women to paint both eyes.
(23) The paste being to entrap the birds that alight thereon.
(24) I.e., a hole through which wine is poured; this is smaller than one made for oil or honey.
(25) The translation of these three passages, from PASTE, etc., follows the text as emended by Bah.
(26) Which is less than the standard of the Rabbis which precedes it; v. Mishnah supra 75a.
(27) This is a smaller standard.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 80b
Our Rabbis taught: If one carries out hair, [the standard is] as much as is required for the kneading of clay;1 [if one carries out] clay, [the standard is] for making a hole in a gold-refiner's pot.
LIME, TO SMEAR THE SMALLEST OF GIRLS. A Tanna taught: As much as is required to smear the little finger of girls.2 Rab Judah said in Rab's name: When maidens of Israel attain puberty before the proper age:3 poor maidens plaster it [the unwanted hair] with lime; rich maidens plaster it with fine flour; whilst royal princesses plaster it with oil of myrrh, as it is said, six months with oil of myrrh.4 What is oil of myrrh? - R. Huna b. Hiyya said: Satkath.5 R. Jeremiah b. Abba said: Oil of olives less than a third grown.
It was taught: R. Judah said: Anpakkinon is oil of olives less than a third grown, and why does one anoint herself therewith? Because it removes the hair and smoothes the skin.
R. Bibi had a daughter. He treated her limb by limb [with a depilatory] and took four hundred zuz for her.6 Now, a certain heathen lived in the vicinity. He [too] had a daughter, and he plastered her [whole body] all at once, whereupon she died. 'R. Bibi has killed my daughter!' he exclaimed. R. Nahman observed: As for R. Bibi who drank strong liquor, his daughter required pasting over; [but] as for us, who do not drink strong liquor, our daughters do not require such treatment.7
R. JUDAH SAID: ENOUGH TO PLASTER8 A KILKUL.9 What is KILKUL and what is ANDIFE? Rab said: The [upper] temple and the lower temple. Shall we say that R. Judah's standard is larger? But we know the standard of the Rabbis to be larger!10 It is smaller than the Rabbis', but larger than R. Nehemiah's.
An objection is raised: Rabbi said: I approve R. Judah's view in respect of loosely dissolved lime, and R. Nehemiah's view in respect of chalky lime.11 But if you maintain that they mean the [upper] temple and the lower temple, - [surely] both require loose lime?12 Rather, said R. Isaac, The School of R. Ammi recited andifa [in the Mishnah].13 R. Kahana demurred: Does one destroy [break up] his wealth?14 Rather, said R. Kahana: It means the teeth-like marks [of a vessel];15 even as we learnt: The hin-measure had teethlike marks, [to indicate] so far [must it be filled with wine] for a bullock, so far for a ram, so far for a sheep.16 Alternatively, what is andifa? The lock on the forehead.17 Even as a certain Galilean chanced to visit Babylon and was requested to lecture on the chariot passage;18 Said he to them, 'I will lecture to you as R. Nehemiah lectured to his companions.' Thereupon a wasp came out of the wall and stung him on the andifa [forehead] and he died. Said they. 'This [befell] him through his own [fault].'19
MISHNAH. [IF ONE CARRIES OUT] EARTH [A KIND OF CLAY], [THE STANDARD IS] AS MUCH AS IS REQUIRED FOR A SEAL ON PACKING BAGS;20 THIS IS R. AKIBA'S VIEW. BUT THE SAGES SAY; AS MUCH AS IS REQUIRED FOR THE SEAL ON LETTERS.21 [FOR] MANURE, OR THIN SAND, [THE STANDARD IS] AS MUCH AS IS REQUIRED FOR FERTILIZING A CABBAGE STALK; THIS IS R. AKIBA'S VIEW. BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: FOR FERTILIZING ONE LEEK PLANT. THICK SAND, AS MUCH AS IS REQUIRED FOR PUTTING ON A FULL PLASTER TROWEL. A REED, AS MUCH AS IS REQUIRED FOR MAKING A PEN. BUT IF IT IS THICK OR CRUSHED,22 [THE STANDARD IS] AS MUCH AS IS REQUIRED FOR BOILING THE LIGHTEST OF EGGS BEATEN UP AND PLACED IN A STEW POT.
GEMARA. ON A FULL PLASTER TROWEL. A Tanna taught: As much as is required for putting on the top of a plasterer's trowel. Which Tanna holds that sand improves plaster? - Said R. Hisda: R. Judah. For it was taught: One must not plaster his house with lime unless he mixed it with straw or sand.23 R. Judah said: Straw is permitted, but sand is forbidden, because it becomes cement.24 Raba said, You may say that it agrees even the Rabbis: The spoiling thereof makes it fit.25
A REED, AS MUCH AS IS REQUIRED FOR MAKING A PEN. It was taught: A pen which reaches one's finger joints. R. Ashi asked: The upper joint or the lower? The question stands over.
BUT IF IT IS THICK, etc. A Tanna taught: Beaten up with oil and placed in a stew pot. Mar, son of Rabina, said to his son: Have you heard what a light egg is? - He replied: An egg of a turtle dove. What is the reason? Because it is small! Then say [the egg of a zipparta?26 He was silent. Have you then heard anything on this? he27 asked him. Said he to him, Thus did R. Shesheth say: It is a fowl's egg, and why is it called a light egg? The Sages estimated, You have no egg quicker [lighter] to boil than a fowl's egg. And wherefore [he27 asked] are all the [food-]standards of the Sabbath the size of a dried fig, whereas here it is an egg? Said he to him, Thus did R. Nahman say: [It means] as much as [is required to boil the size of] a dried fig of a light egg.
(1) Sc. as much clay as is made with a quarter log of waste water (Tosaf.). Hair too was used in the kneading.
(2) To redden it (Rashi). קטנה שבבנות may be rendered either the smallest of girls, or the little (finger) of girls.
(3) Lit., 'and do not attain their years' - i.e., they have the hairy growth. which is the evidence of puberty. before time, and wish to remove it.
(4) Esth. II, 12 q.v.
(5) Jast.: oil of myrrh or cinnamon (a corruption of Gr. ** )
(6) As a dowry. This would appear to be a reversion to the very ancient practice of giving a dowry for a bride. Cf. Jacob giving his labour as a dowry for Rachel, and Shechem offering a dowry for Dinah (Gen. XXIX, 18; XXXIV, 12).
(7) Their skin being white and smooth in any case - a strong argument in favour of teetotalism!
(8) Sic. The reading in the Mishnah is, produce, make.
(9) Mishnah: KALKAL.
(10) V. Mishnah 78a.
(11) I.e.. thick lime.
(12) Then why this distinction?
(13) Instead of andife. Rashi: andifa is an earthen vessel with two spouts, one above and one below. When one wishes to fill it with wine he closes the lower spout with lime, and it is to this that R. Nehemiah refers in the Mishnah. Jast. translates quite differently.
(14) By keeping wine in such a vessel. The wine will gradually dissolve the lime and then run out.
(15) A vessel for measuring. Notches were made to indicate the measure, e.g., log. hin, etc., and these were plastered over with lime. To this R. Nehemiah refers.
(16) Sacrifices were accompanied by libations wine, the measure of which depended upon the animal sacrificed, v. Num. XXVIII, 14.
(17) Jast. Rashi: The forehead where hair does not grow. This was reddened with lime.
(18) Ezek. ch. 1, which treats of the Heavenly Chariot.
(19) Through wishing to lecture publicly on the Chariot. This was regarded as esoteric learning, and was to be confined to the initiated only; cf. Hag. 11b, 13a and 14b.
(20) Large bags in which ships' cargoes were carried.
(21) This is a smaller standard.
(22) And unfit for a pen.
(23) To darken it as a sign of mourning. This was after the destruction of the Temple. v. B.B. 60b.
(24) And is an improvement.
(25) Rashi: since it may not be used without darkening, this spoiling makes it fit for use, and hence is adopted as a standard. Others (with whom Rashi disagrees): the spoiling of the colour is nevertheless an improvement, for the sand strengthens it.
(26) Jast.: a small bird, supposed to be the humming bird.
(27) The son.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 81a
MISHNAH. [IF ONE CARRIES OUT] BONE, [THE STANDARD IS AS MUCH AS IS REQUIRED FOR MAKING A SPOON;1 R. JUDAH MAINTAINED: FOR MAKING THEREOF2 A HAF; GLASS, LARGE ENOUGH FOR SCRAPING THE TOP OF THE WHORL [OF A SPINDLE]; A CHIP OR A STONE, LARGE ENOUGH TO THROW AT A BIRD; R. ELEAZAR B. JACOB SAID: LARGE ENOUGH TO THROW AT AN ANIMAL.3
GEMARA. Shall we say that R. Judah's standard is larger: but we know the standard of the Rabbis to be larger?4 - Said 'Ulla: [It means] the wards of a lock.5
Our Rabbis taught: The wards of a lock are clean;6 [but] when one fits them into the lock, they are [liable to become] unclean.7 But if it [the lock] is of a revolving door,8 even when it is fixed on the door and nailed on with nails, they [the wards] are clean, because whatever is joined to the soil is as the soil.9
GLASS, LARGE ENOUGH FOR SCRAPING [etc.]. A Tanna taught: Glass,10 large enough to break across two threads simultaneously.
A CHIP, OR A STONE, LARGE ENOUGH TO THROW AT A BIRD: R. ELEAZAR [etc.]. R. Jacob said in R. Johanan's name: Providing that it can feel it. And what size is that? It was taught, R. Eleazar b. Jacob said: Ten zuz in weight.11
Zonin entered the Beth Hamidrash [and] said to them [the students]: My masters, what is the standard of the stones of a privy?12 Said they to him: [One] the size of an olive, [a second] the size of a nut, and [a third] the size of an egg.13 Shall one take [them] in a [gold] balance! he objected.14 [Thereupon] they voted and decided: A handful.15 It was taught; R. Jose said: [One] the size of an olive, [another] the size of a nut, and [a third] the size of an egg: R. Simeon b. Jose said on his father's authority: A handful.
Our Rabbis taught: One may carry three smoothly rounded stones16 into a privy. And what is their size? R. Meir said: As [large as] a nut; R. Judah maintained: As [large as] an egg. Rafram b. Papa observed in R. Hisda's name: Even as they differ here, so do they differ in respect to an ethrog.17 But there it is a Mishnah, whereas here it is [only] a Baraitha?18 Rather [say:] Just as they differ in respect to an ethrog, so do they differ here.
Rab Judah said: But not brittle stone [payas].19 What is payas? - Said R. Zera: Babylonian pebbles.20
Raba said: One may not use a chip on the Sabbath [as a suppository] in the same way as one uses it on weekdays. Mar Zutra demurred: Shall one then endanger [his health]? - [It may be done] in a back-handed manner.21
R. Jannai said: If there is a fixed place for the privy,22 [one may carry in] a handful [of stones];23 if not, [only] the size of the leg of a small spice mortar [is permitted].24 R. Shesheth said: If there is evidence upon it,25 it is permitted.26 An objection is raised: Ten things lead to hemorrhoids in a man, and these are they: [i] eating the leaves of reeds; [ii] the leaves of vines; [iii] sprouts of grapevine; [iv] the rough flesh27 of an animal without salt; [v] the spine of a fish; [vi] a salted fish insufficiently cooked; [vii] drinking the lees of wine; [viii] wiping oneself with lime, [ix] with clay. [x] [and] with a chip which one's neighbour has [already] used thus.28 And some say, Suspending oneself in a privy too.29 - There is no difficulty; the one refers to a damp [stone];30 the other to a dry one. Alternatively, here the reference is to the same side [of the stone];31 there, to the other side. Another alternative: the one refers to his own;32 the other, to his neighbour's. Abaye asked R. Joseph: What if rain fell on it and it [the stain] was washed away? If the mark thereof is perceptible, he replied, it is permitted.
Rabbah son of R. Shila asked R. Hisda:
(1) Jast.: pointed on top and curved at the end.
(2) This is first assumed in the Gemara to mean a lock, which gives a greater standard than that of the Rabbis, but is subsequently translated ward of a lock.
(3) But one does not trouble to throw anything at a bird, which is frightened away with the voice.
(4) v. supra 80a, p. 381. n. 7.
(5) V. note on Mishnah
(6) I.e., they are not susceptible to uncleanness, being unfit for use by themselves (Rashi). Rashi also maintains that the reference is to wards made of bones; Tosaf., to wards made of metal.
(7) For they are now parts of utensils.
(8) It is not the lock of a box or chest, but of something fixed to soil, e.g., the door of a house.
(9) Which cannot become unclean.
(10) Sekukith is a rarer form of the more usual zekukith.
(11) One zuz = 3.585 grammes (J.E., 'Weights and Measures', vol. XII, p. 489 Table 1).
(12) Used for cleansing.
(13) These three together constitute the standard, as they are all required.
(14) For weighing them accurately.
(15) Of stones, no matter what their number.
(16) Jast. Rashi (as emended by Rashal): sharpened stones.
(17) A citron, which is one of the fruits to be taken on the Feast of Tabernacles (v. Lev. XXIII. 40). R. Meir holds that its minimum size must be that of a nut, while R. Judah holds that it must be at least as large as an egg.
(18) And the Mishnah being better known, he surely should have taken that as the point of comparison.
(19) This being unsuited for this purpose. it may not be handled on the Sabbath.
(20) Which are cloddy and brittle.
(21) V. p. 188, n. 2.
(22) Their privies were in the fields. Some were permanent, others were not.
(23) I.e., over a distance of less than four cubits. V., however, R. Han. For those that are left over in the evening may be used in the morning.
(24) This translation follows R. Han and Tosaf.
(25) I.e., a stain of excrements.
(26) To handle it, even if larger than the standard size normally allowed on the Sabbath, since it has already been used for that purpose before.
(27) Rashi. Jast.: the palate.
(28) This contradicts R. Shesheth.
(29) Instead of sitting.
(30) From former use; that is unfit.
(31) That is injurious.
(32) I.e., a stone which he himself has used before; that is permitted.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 81b
Is it permissible to carry them up [the stones] after one to the roof?1 Human dignity is very important, he replied, and it supersedes a negative injunction of the Torah.2 Now, Meremar sat and reported this discussion, [whereupon] Rabina raised an objection to Meremar: R. Eliezer said: One may take a chip [lying] before him to pick his teeth therewith;3 but the Sages maintain: He may take only from an animal's trough?4 How compare! There, one appoints a place for his meal;5 but here, does one appoint a place for a privy?6
R. Huna said: One may not obey the call of nature on a ploughed field on the Sabbath. What is the reason? Shall we say, because of treading down?7 Then the same holds good even on weekdays? Again, if it is on account of the grasses,8 - surely Resh Lakish said: One may cleanse himself with a pebble whereon grass has sprouted, but if one detaches [the grass] thereof on the Sabbath, he incurs a sin-offering? Rather [the reason is] lest he take [a clod] from an upper level9 and throw it below,10 and he is then liable on account of Rabbah's [dictum], for Rabbah said: If one has a depression and fills it up, - if in the house, he is culpable on account of building; if in the field, he is culpable on account of ploughing.
[To revert to] the main text: Resh Lakish said: One may cleanse himself with a pebble whereon 'grass has sprouted; but if one detaches [the grass] thereof on the Sabbath, he incurs a sin-offering. R. Pappi said: From Resh Lakish you may infer that one may take up a parpisa.11 R. Kahana demurred: If they said [that it is permitted] in case of need,12 shall they say [thus] where there is no need!13
Abaye said: As for parpisa, since it has come to hand, we will state something about it. If it is lying on the ground and one places it upon pegs, he is culpable on the score of detaching; if it is lying on pegs and one places it on the ground, he is liable on the score of planting.14
R. Johanan said: One must not cleanse oneself with a shard on the Sabbath. What is the reason? Shall we say on account of danger?15 Then on weekdays too [let it be forbidden]? Again if it is on account of witchcraft:16 it may not [be done] even on weekdays too? Again, if it is on account of the tearing out of hair, - but surely that is unintentional? - Said R. Nathan b. Oshaia to them: [Since] a great man has stated this dictum, let us give a reason for it. [Thus:] it is unnecessary [to state] that it is forbidden on weekdays;17 but on the Sabbath, since it bears the rank of a utensil, [I might think that] it is permitted:18 therefore he informs us [otherwise].
Raba recited it on account of the tearing out of hair, and found R. Johanan to be self-contradictory. [Thus:] did then R. Johanan say, One must not cleanse oneself with a shard on the Sabbath, which shows that what is unintentional is forbidden? Surely R. Johanan said: The halachah is as [every] anonymous Mishnah, and we learnt: A nazirite may cleanse [his hair] and part it, but he must not comb it.19 But it is clear that it is as R. Nathan b. Oshaia.
What is [the reference to] witchcraft? - R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna were travelling in a boat, when a certain [non-Jewish] matron said to them, 'Seat me near you,' but they did not seat her. Thereupon she uttered something [a charm] and bound the boat;20 they uttered something, and freed it. Said she to them, 'What shall I do to you,
(1) Since he could have carried them up there on the eve of Sabbath, Tosaf.
(2) I.e., it is permitted. v. infra 94b.
(3) Though not designated for this purpose beforehand, it is not regarded as mukzeh (q.v. Glos.).
(4) There it is regarded as standing ready for use, but otherwise it is mukzeh, and human dignity, viz., the necessity to clean one's teeth, does not negative this prohibition.
(5) Beforehand, and at the same time he could have prepared his toothpicks too. Hence the prohibition retains its force.
(6) Surely not! (Cf. p. 386. n. 7).
(7) The loose ploughed soil, thus spoiling it, the reference being to a neighbour's field.
(8) Which sprout on the loose, moist earth, and in picking up a clod for cleansing one may involuntarily detach the grass.
(9) E.g.. a mound or any other protuberance.
(10) Into a depression; he thus levels them.
(11) Rashi: a perforated pot. Though the earth in it might be regarded as attached to the ground in virtue of the perforation which permits the sap or moisture to mount from the one to the other, yet just as Resh Lakish rules that the pebble is treated as detached in spite of the grass which has grown on it, which is only possible through its lying on the soil, so is this pot too regarded thus. Jast.: a lump of earth in a bag of palm-leaves (v. Rashi in name of תשובת הגאוינם).
(12) Sc. for cleansing, which is necessary.
(13) Surely not!
(14) Cf. n. 3. 'Culpable' here merely denotes that the action is forbidden, but does not imply liability to a sin-offering, as usual (Rashi and Tosaf.).
(15) He may cut himself.
(16) As below.
(17) Since one can just as easily take a chip or a pebble, to which no suspicion of danger or witchcraft attaches.
(18) Being preferable to a chip or a pebble, which are not utensils, and in general it is permitted to handle a utensil sooner than that which is not a utensil.
(19) v. supra 50b for notes.
(20) So that it could not proceed further.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 82a
seeing that you do not cleanse yourselves with a shard,1 nor kill vermin on your garments, and you do not pull out and eat a vegetable from a bunch which the gardener has tied together'?2
R. Huna said to his son Rabbah, 'Why are you not to be found before R. Hisda, whose dicta are [so] keen?' 'What should I go to him for,' answered he, 'seeing that when I go to him he treats me to secular discourses!'3 [Thus] he tells me, when one enters a privy, he must not sit down abruptly, nor force himself overmuch, because the rectum rests on three teeth-like glands, [and] these teeth-like glands of the rectum, might become dislocated and he [his health] is endangered. 'He treats of health matters,'4 he exclaimed, 'and you call them secular discourses! All the more reason for going to him!'
If a pebble and a shard lie before one, - R. Huna said: He must cleanse himself with the pebble, but not with the shard;5 but R. Hisda ruled: He must cleanse himself with the shard, and not with the pebble.6 An objection is raised: If a pebble and a shard lie before one, he must cleanse himself with the shard, not with the pebble this refutes R. Huna? - Rafram b. Papa interpreted it before R. Hisda on R. Huna's view as referring to the rims of utensils.7
If a pebble and grass lie before one, - R. Hisda and R. Hamnuna [differ therein]: one maintains: He must cleanse himself with the pebble, but not with the grass;8 whilst the other ruled: He must cleanse himself with the grass, not with the pebble.9 An objection is raised: If one cleanses himself with inflammable material,10 his lower teeth11 will be torn away? - There is no difficulty: the one refers to wet [grass];12 the other to dry [grass].
If one has a call of nature but does not obey it - R. Hisda and Rabina - one said: He has an attack of offensive odour;13 the other said: He is infected by an offensive smell.14 It was taught in accordance with the view that he is infected by an offensive smell. For it was taught: One who has a call of nature yet eats, is like an oven which is heated up on top of its ashes, and that is the beginning of perspiration odour.15
If one has a call of nature but cannot obey it, - R. Hisda said: He should repeatedly stand up and sit down; R. Hanan of Nehardea said: Let him move to [different] sides; R. Hamnuna said: Let him work about that place with a pebble; while the Rabbis advise: Let him not think: Said R. Aha son of Raba to R. Ashi: If he does not think [of it], he is all the more likely not to be moved? Let him not think of other things, replied he.16 R. Jeremiah of Difti observed: I myself saw a certain Arab repeatedly arise and sit down until he poured forth like a cruse.
Our Rabbis taught: If one enters [a house] to [partake of] a complete meal,17 he should [first] walk ten four-cubit lengths others say, four ten-cubit lengths - be moved, then enter and take his seat.
MISHNAH. [IF ONE CARRIES OUT] A SHARD, [THE STANDARD IS] AS MUCH AS IS NEEDED FOR PLACING BETWEEN ONE BOARD AND ANOTHER:18 THIS IS R. JUDAH'S VIEW. R. MEIR SAID: LARGE ENOUGH TO SCRAPE OUT THE FIRE THEREWITH; R. JOSE SAID: LARGE ENOUGH TO CONTAIN A REBI'ITH. R. MEIR OBSERVED: THOUGH THERE IS NO PROOF OF THE MATTER, YET THERE IS A HINT: SO THAT THERE SHALL NOT BE FOUND AMONG THE PIECES THEREOF A SHARD TO TAKE FIRE FROM THE HEARTH.19 SAID R. JOSE TO HIM, THENCE IS PROOF [OF MY VIEW, VIZ.]: OR TO TAKE WATER WITHAL OUT OF THE CISTERN.20
GEMARA. (The Scholars asked: Is R. Meir's standard greater or R. Jose's standard greater?)21 Logically, R. Jose's standard is greater, whereas the verse [quoted indicates that] R. Meir's standard is greater, for should you think that R. Jose's standard is greater, does he [the prophet] [first] curse in respect to a small vessel, and then curse in respect to a large one!22 - Said Abaye: Our Mishnah too [means] to scrape out a fire from a large hearth.23
SAID R. JOSE TO HIM, THENCE IS PROOF. But R. Jose says well to R. Meir! - R. Meir maintains that he proceeds to a climax: Not only will nothing that is of value to people be found therein, but even that which is of no value to people shall not be found therein.
MISHNAH. R. AKIBA SAID: WHENCE DO WE KNOW THAT AN IDOL DEFILES BY CARRIAGE LIKE A NIDDAH?24 BECAUSE IT IS SAID, THOU SHALT CAST THEM [SC. THE IDOLS] AWAY AS A MENSTRUOUS THING; THOU SHALT SAY UNTO IT, GET THEE HENCE:25 JUST AS A NIDDAH DEFILES BY CARRIAGE, SO DOES AN IDOL DEFILE BY CARRIAGE.26
GEMARA. We learnt elsewhere:27 If one's house adjoins an idol,28 and it collapses, he must not rebuild it.29 What shall he do? He must retreat four cubits within his own [ground] and rebuild.
(1) And are thus not exposed to witchcraft - this remark gives the point of the story.
(2) But you first untie the bunch.
(3) I.e., not on Torah.
(4) Lit., 'the life (health) of the creatures.
(5) Though the first is not a utensil (v. p. 389. n. 1), because the latter is dangerous.
(6) Because the former is technically a utensil.
(7) Which are rounded and smooth; hence they are not dangerous.
(8) Because it injures the flesh (Rashi). Or the reference is to attached (growing) grass, and one must not make use on the Sabbath of that which is attached to the soil.
(9) He ignores the prohibition mentioned in the last note, and holds grass to be preferable, because a pebble is not a utensil and may normally not be handled on the Sabbath.
(10) Lit., 'over which the fire rules'.
(11) I.e., the teeth-like glands supporting the rectum.
(12) This is permissible.
(13) From his mouth.
(14) From the whole body.
(15) Which affects the whole body.
(16) But concentrate on this.
(17) Lit., 'a fixed meal' as opposed to a mere snack, so that he will have to sit some time there.
(18) When they are piled up. Rashi: the boards are not allowed to touch, but are separated by shards to prevent them from warping. 'Aruk: to enable the air to enter and dry them.
(19) Isa. XXX. 14.
(20) Ibid. The least quantity of water to be counted is a rebi'ith; v. first Mishnah of this chapter.
(21) Rashal and Bah delete this bracketed passage.
(22) This is raised as a difficulty. Generally speaking, only a very small shard is required for scraping out a fire from a stove, certainly not one large enough to contain a rebi'ith. On the other hand, the prophet would not curse by first observing that not even a small shard will remain, and then add that a large shard will not remain either.
(23) Which requires a larger shard.
(24) If one carries a niddah (q.v. Glos.), even without actually touching her, he becomes unclean, and R. Akiba teaches that the same applies to an idol.
(25) Isa. XXX, 22.
(26) Rashi: This Mishnah is quoted here because of its similarity in style to a later Mishnah concerning circumcision on the Sabbath (infra 86a). R. Han. and Tosaf.: Since the last Mishnah of the preceding chapter quotes a law which is supported by, though not actually deduced from, a Biblical verse, this chapter commences similarly. Both verses quoted are from Isa. XXX.
(27) V. A.Z. 47b.
(28) So that its wall is also the wall of the heathen temple, though actually it belongs entirely to him.
(29) Since he thereby builds a wall for the temple too.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 82b
If it belongs to him and to the idol, it is judged as half and half.1 The stones, timber and earth thereof defile like a [dead] creeping thing [sherez], for it is said, Thou shalt treat a creeping thing.2 R. Akiba said: [They defile] like a niddah, because it is said, 'Thou shalt cast them away [tizrem] as a menstruous thing': just as a niddah defiles by carriage, so does an idol defile by carriage. Rabbah observed, Tizrem, mentioned in the verse, means 'thou shalt alienate them from thee as a zar [stranger].' 'Thou shalt say unto it, Get thee hence', but thou shalt not say unto it, Enter hither.3
Rabbah also observed: As for carriage, all agree that it defiles thereby, since it is assimilated to niddah. They differ in respect to a stone that closes a cavity:4 R. Akiba holds, It is like a niddah: just as a niddah defiles through a cavity-closing stone, so does an idol defile through a cavity-closing stone; while the Rabbis maintain, It is like a creeping thing [sherez]: just as a sherez does not defile through a cavity-closing stone, so does an idol not defile through a cavity-closing stone.
Now, according to R. Akiba, in respect of which law is it likened to a sherez?5 -In respect of its service utensils.6 And according to the Rabbis, in respect of which law is it likened to niddah?-In respect of carriage. Then let it be likened to nebelah?7 That indeed is so, but [the analogy with niddah teaches:] just as a niddah is not [a source of contamination] through her [separate] limbs,8 So is an idol not [a source of contamination] through its limbs. Then when R. Hama b. Guria asked: 'Does the law of an idol operate in respect of its limbs or not?'-solve it for him from this that according to the Rabbis it does not operate in respect of its limbs?-R. Hama b. Guria asked it on R. Akiba's view.
But R. Eleazar maintained: In respect of a cavity-closing stone all agree that it does not defile thereby, since it is likened to a sherez,9 they differ only in respect of carriage. R. Akiba holds, It is like a niddah: just as a niddah defiles through carriage, so does an idol defile through carriage. While the Rabbis argue. It is like a sherez: just as a sherez does not defile through carriage, so does an idol not defile through carriage. Now, according to R. Akiba, in respect of what law is it likened to a sherez?-In respect of its service utensils. And according to the Rabbis', in respect of what law is it likened to a niddah?-Just as a niddah is not [a source of contamination] through her [separate] limbs, so is an idol not [a source of contamination] through its limbs.
(1) E.g., if the wall is two cubits thick, one cubit only is accounted as his portion, and be must retreat another three cubits.
(2) Deut. VIII, 26. Shakkez teshakkezenu fr. shekez, something loathsome, which is connected with sherez (E.V.: thou shalt utterly detest it). A sherez defiles by its touch, but not when it is merely carried; but v. discussion infra.
(3) I.e., one must absolutely reject it (Tosaf. s.v. אמר).
(4) Rashi: a stone resting upon laths, and under it lie utensils. Tosaf.: a stone so heavy that when a niddah sits upon it her additional weight makes no difference to the utensils upon which it rests. According to both definitions, the question is whether these utensils are defiled when an idol is placed upon the stone.
(5) As it is in the verse, v.p. 393, n. 8.
(6) The utensils used in an idol's service do not defile through carriage or through a cavity-closing stone.
(7) V. Glos. This analogy would give the exact law, whereas the analogy with niddah has to be qualified by a further analogy with sherez.
(8) If a limb e.g., an arm, is cut off from a niddah, it defiles as the severed limb of a living human being in general, but not as niddah. The practical difference is that it does not defile through a cavity-closing stone.
(9) This is the text as emended by Rashal.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 83a
Now according to R. Akiba, in respect of what law is it likened to a niddah? [only] in respect of carriage! Then let it be likened to nebelah?-That indeed is so, but [the analogy with niddah, rather, teaches: just as niddah is not a source of contamination] through her [separate] limbs, so is an idol not [a source of contamination] through its limbs. Then when R. Hama b. Guria asked: 'Does the law of an idol operate in respect of its limbs or not?'solve it for him from this, according to both the Rabbis and R. Akiba, that it does not operate in respect of its limbs? - R. Hama b. Guria learns this as Rabbah, and asked it on R. Akiba's view. An objection is raised: An idol is like a [creeping thing] sherez and its service utensils are like a sherez; R. Akiba maintained: An idol is like a niddah, and its service utensils are like a sherez. Now, according to R. Eleazar, it is well; but on Rabbah's view, it is a difficulty?-Rabbah answers you: Is it stronger than the Mishnah, which states, 'The stones, timber and earth thereof defile like a sherez,' and we explained, What is meant by 'like a sherez?' That it does not defile through a cavity-closing stone: here too it means that it does not defile through a cavity-closing stone.
An objection is raised: A heathen man or woman, an idol and its service utensils, they themselves [defile] but not their motion [hesset];1 R. Akiba maintained: They and their hesset. Now, as for R. Eleazar, it is well;2 but on Rabbah's view it is a difficulty? - Rabbah answers you: And [even] on your view, [can you say of] a heathen man and woman too, they but not their motion [hesset],-surely it was taught: Speak unto the children of Israel [... when any man hath an issue out of his flesh, etc.]:3 the children of Israel defile through gonorrhoea, but heathens do not defile through gonorrhoea, but they [the Rabbis] decreed concerning them that they rank as zabin in all respects.4 But Rabbah answers [the difficulty] according to his view, [Thus:] A heathen man or woman: they themselves, their motion [hesset], and their cavity-closing stone [all defile]; an idol: it and its motion [hesset], but not its cavity-closing stone; R. Akiba maintains: An idol: it, its hesset and its cavity-closing stone [defile]. Whilst R. Eleazar interprets it in accordance with his view: A heathen man or woman: they themselves, their motion [hesset], and their cavity-closing stone [defile]; an idol: it, but not its motion [hesset]. Whilst R. Akiba maintains: An idol: it and its motion [defile].5
R. Ashi objected thereto: [If so,] what is [the meaning of] they themselves'?6 -Rather said R. Ashi: This is the meaning: In the case of a heathen man or woman, whether they move others7 or others move them,8 [these others] are unclean.9 If idol moves others, they are clean;10 if others move it,11 they are unclean. [As for] its service utensils, whether they move others or others move them, [these others] are clean. R. Akiba maintained: In the case of a heathen man or woman and an idol, whether they move others or others move them, [these others', are unclean; as for its service utensils, whether they move others or others move them, they are clean.
[In the case of] an idol, as for others moving it, that is well, [for] it is possible; but how is it conceivable for it to move others?Said Rami son of R. Yeba, Even as we learnt: If a zab is on one pan of the scales, and foodstuffs or drinks are in the other pan and the zab outweighs them, they are unclean12 ,
(1) Hesset is the technical term for uncleanness induced by the motion or shaking caused by a gonorrhoeist (zab). E.g., if he moves a bench upon which a clean person is sitting, even without actually touching it, the latter becomes unclean. The Rabbis enacted that heathens defile in the same way as a zab. But it is now assumed that hesset is used here in the sense that the heathen, etc. are moved by the clean person, which is another expression for their being carried, and it is taught that these do not defile by carriage.
(2) That the first view which is that of the Rabbis, is that they do not defile through carriage.
(3) Lev. XV, 2. This introduces the laws of a zab.
(4) Which includes defilement through carriage.
(5) On both interpretations the Baraitha must be emended.
(6) If 'hesset' means 'carriage' (v. p. 395, n. 1), what is meant by 'they'? For it cannot mean that they are unclean in themselves, since that is obvious from the fact that we debate whether even their carriage defiles.
(7) E.g., by moving or weighing down the bench upon which they are sitting.
(8) Which is tantamount to carrying them.
(9) Thus he translates: 'they themselves'-i.e., when they are moved by others, and their 'hesset'- i. e., when they move others. This gives hesset its usual connotation.
(10) This agrees with Rabbah in accordance with whom R. Ashi explains this Baraitha. It can be explained on similar lines according to R. Eleazar too.
(11) I.e., carriage.
(12) Since he thereby moves the foodstuffs or drinks, which is hesset. In this way an idol may move others, sc. by outweighing them on a pair of scales.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 83b
if they out weigh [him], they are clean.1
With whom does that which was taught agree, [viz.,]: [As for] all unclean things which move [others], they [the things moved] are clean, save [in the case of] moving by a zab, for which no analogy2 is found in the whole Torah. Shall we say that this is not according to R. Akiba, for if according to R. Akiba, there is an idol too? - You may even say that it agrees with R. Akiba: He states zab and all that is like thereto.3
R. Hama b. Guria asked: Does the law of an idol operate in respect to its limbs or not?4 Now, where an unskilled person can replace it [the limb in the idol], there is no question, for it is as though [already] joined [thereto]. When does the question arise? If an unskilled person cannot replace it, what [then]? Since an unskilled person cannot replace it, it is as broken;5 or perhaps it is actually not defective?6 Some there are who put the question in the reverse direction: Where an unskilled person cannot replace it, there is no question, for it is as broken. When does the question is if an unskilled person can replace it: what [then]? Since an unskilled person can replace it, it is as though [already] joined [thereto]; or perhaps now it is nevertheless disjoined and loose [separate]? - The question stands over.
R. Ahedbuy b. Ammi asked: What of an idol less than an olive in size? R. Joseph demurred to this: In respect of what [does he ask]? Shall we say, in respect of the interdict?7 - let it be no more than the fly [zebub] of Baal Ekron,8 for it was taught: And they made Baal-berith their God:9 this refers to the fly-god of Baal Ekron. It teaches that everyone made a likeness of his idol10 and put it in his bag: whenever he thought of it he took it out of his bag and embraced and kissed it!11 But [the question is] in respect of uncleanness: what [is the law]? since it is assimilated to sherez12 then just as sherez [defiles] by the size of a lentil,13 so an idol too [defiles] by the size of a lentil; or perhaps it is [also] likened to a corpse:10 just as a corpse [defiles] by the size of an olive,14 so does an idol [defile] by the size of an olive? - Said R. Awia - others state, Rabbah b. 'Ulla-Come and hear: For it was taught: An idol less than an olive in size has no uncleanness at all, for it is said, And he cast the powder thereof [sc. of the idol] upon the graves of the children of the people:15 just as a corpse [defiles] by the size of an olive, so does an idol [defile] by the size of an olive.
Now, according to the Rabbis, in respect of what law is it [an idol] likened to sherez?-that it does not defile by carriage; to a niddah?-that it is not [a source of contamination] through its [separate] limbs; [and] to a corpse?-that it does not defile by the size of a lentil!16 [Why?] Interpret it rather stringently: In respect of what law does the Divine Law liken it to a sherez? that it defiles by the size of a lentil; to a niddah? that it defiles through a cavity-closing stone; [while] the Divine Law assimilates it to a corpse, [teaching] that it defiles under the law of a covering?17 The uncleanness of an idol is [only] by Rabbinical law: [consequently,] where there are lenient and stringent [analogies], we draw a lenient analogy, but do not draw a stringent analogy.18
MISHNAH. How DO WE KNOW THAT A SHIP IS CLEAN?19 BECAUSE IT IS SAID, THE WAY OF A SHIP IN THE MIDST OF THE SEA.20
GEMARA. Now, it is obvious that a ship is in the midst of the sea, but we are informed this: just as the sea is clean, so is a ship clean. It was taught: Hananiah said: We learn it from a sack:21 just as a sack can be carried both full and empty, so must everything [which is to be susceptible to defilement] be possible to be carried both full and empty, thus excluding a ship, seeing that it cannot be carried full and empty.22 Wherein do they differ?-They differ in respect to an earthen ship: he who quotes, 'a ship in the midst of the sea', [holds that] this too is in the midst of the sea. But as for him who maintains that it must be like a sack: only those [vessels] that are mentioned in conjunction with a sack23 if they can be carried full and empty, are [susceptible to uncleanness], if not, they are not [susceptible]; but an earthen ship, even if it cannot be carried full and empty, [is still susceptible to defilement]. Alternatively, [they differ in respect to] a boat of the Jordan:24 he who quotes, 'a ship in the midst of the sea', [holds that] this too is a ship in the midst of the sea;25 but as for him who requires that it be carried full and empty, this too is carried full and empty, for R. Hanina b. Akiba said: Why was it ruled that a Jordan boat is unclean? Because it is loaded on dry land and [then] lowered into the water. Rab Judah said in Rab's name: One should never abstain from [attendance at] the Beth Hamidrash even for a single hour, for lo! how many years was this Mishnah learnt in the Beth Hamidrash without its reason being revealed, until R. Hanina b. Akiba came and elucidated it. R. Jonathan said: One should never abstain from the Beth Hamidrash and from Torah, even in the hour of death, for it is said, This is the Torah, when a man dieth in a tent:26 even in the hour of death one should be engaged in [the study of] the Torah.27 Resh Lakish said: The words of the Torah can endure only with him who sacrifices28 himself for it, as it is said, This is the Torah, when a man dieth in a tent.29
(1) For they bear the zab, and only articles which are fit for lying or sitting upon, or human beings, are unclean in such a case.
(2) Lit., 'companion'.
(3) Which includes an idol, since R. Akiba deduces an idol's power to contaminate from a niddah, who is akin to a zab.
(4) V. supra 82b.
(5) And therefore does not defile.
(6) All the parts are there, even if not assembled; hence each part should defile.
(7) One may not benefit in any way from an idol.
(8) A Phoenician idol; cf. II Kings I, 2.
(9) Judg. VIII, 34.
(10) Lit., 'fear'.
(11) This shows that it is the same as any other idol, and benefit thereof is certainly forbidden.
(12) V. supra 82b.
(13) Less than the size of an olive.
(14) That is the least portion of a corpse which defiles.
(15) II Kings XXIII, 6.
(16) V. supra 82zb.
(17) Cf. p. 69, n. 7.
(18) All the verses quoted above as intimating the uncleanness of an idol are only supports (asmakta), but not the actual source of the law. Cf. Halevy, Doroth, 1, 5, ch. 8, pp. 470 seqq.
(19) I.e., it cannot become unclean.
(20) Prov. XXX, 19.
(21) A ship is a wooden vessel, and only those wooden vessels which are like a sack can become unclean, since they are assimilated to a sack in Lev. XI, 32.
(22) By 'carried' is meant actually as one carries a sack.
(23) V. Lev. XI, 32.
(24) Owing to the rapid course of the Jordan the boats that plied on it were of canoe-like structure, which could be taken up and carried over the unnavigable stretches.
(25) For all rivers are the same, not susceptible to defilement.
(26) Num. XIX, 14.
(27) In the face of the boundless love for the Torah displayed by this dictum, the criticism of Rabbinism as a dry, legalistic system is seen to be shallow and superficial. No system which does not appeal to the warm-hearted emotions could call forth such love.
(28) Lit., 'kills'.
(29) I.e., this Torah can live only when a man is prepared to die for it-an interpretation that has been historically justified.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 84a
Now according to Hananiah, carrying by means of oxen is regarded as carrying.1 For we learnt: There are three waggons: That which is built like a cathedra2 is liable to uncleanness as midras;3 that which is like a bed4 is liable to uncleanness through the defilement caused by a corpse;5 that of stones6 is completely clean. Now R. Johanan observed thereon: But if it has a receptacle for pomegranates, it is liable to uncleanness through the defilement of a corpse.7 There are three chests: a chest with an opening at the side is liable to uncleanness as midras;8 at the top, is liable to uncleanness through the defilement of a corpse;9 but an extremely large one10 is completely clean.11
Our Rabbis taught: The midras of an earthen vessel is clean;12 R. Jose said: A ship too. What does he mean?13 - Said R. Zebid. He means this: The midras of an earthen vessel is clean, but contact there with renders it unclean,14 while an earthen ship is unclean, in accordance with Hananiah;15 R. Jose ruled: An [earthen] ship too is clean, in agreement with our Tanna. R. Papa demurred: [if so,] why say, A ship too?16 Rather said R. Papa, This is its meaning: The midras of an earthen vessel is clean, whilst contact therewith defiles it; but [in the case of a vessel] of wood, both its midras and its touch are unclean; while a boat of the Jordan is clean, in agreement with our Tanna; R. Jose said: A ship too is unclean, in accordance with Hananiah.
Now, how do we know that the midras of an earthen vessel is clean?-Said Hezekiah, Because Scripture saith, and whosoever toucheth his bed.17 this assimilates 'his bed' to himself [the zab]: just as he can be cleansed in a mikweh,18 so can 'his bed' be cleansed in a mikweh. The School of R. Ishmael taught : It shall be unto her as the bed of her impurity [niddah]:19 this assimilates her bed to herself: just as she can be cleansed in a mikweh, so can 'her bed' be cleansed in a mikweh, thus excluding earthen vessels, which cannot be cleansed in a mikweh.20 R. Ela raised an objection: How do we know that a [reed] mat [is susceptible to defilement] through the dead?
(1) For the boats of the Jordan are too large to be loaded and carried overland otherwise than by oxen.
(2) Short and three sided, like an armchair.
(3) Since such are made specifically for sitting; v. supra 59a.
(4) Long, its purpose being the carriage of goods.
(5) I.e., it is susceptible to every form of defilement save midras, because it ranks as a utensil, in that it can become unclean, but it is not made for sitting thereon.
(6) A cart made for carrying large stones. Its bottom was perforated with large holes, and therefore could not be used to carry articles as small as a pomegranate or less, and for a vessel to be susceptible to defilement it must be able to hold pomegranates.
(7) Though the same waggon cannot be moved when full except by oxen. Thus though it is a wooden vessel, and therefore must be capable of being moved full or empty (supra 83b), the fact that it can be moved by oxen is sufficient.
(8) Because a zab can sit on its top without being told 'get up and let us do our work' (v. supra 59a). as things can be put in or taken out from the side.
(9) I.e., it is susceptible to all forms of uncleanness save that of midras, because a zab if sitting on it would be told to get off it, v; supra p. 312, n. 9
(10) Lit., 'one that comes in measurement'.
(11) it is unfit for lying or sitting upon on account of the opening at the top, and therefore it is not susceptible to midras, while since it cannot be moved about owing to its size, it is free from other defilement (v. supra 83b).
(12) I.e., if- a zab sits upon it , it without actually infringing upon the air space within it.
(13) A ship is not susceptible to any form of defilement.
(14) Viz., if a zab touches it on the inside.
(15) Supra 83 b.
(16) He certainly must mean that it is clean even from defilement, it through contact; then how explain 'too', which intimates that the first Tanna has stated that a certain article cannot be defiled by contact and R. Jose adds this?
(17) Lev. XV, 5. 'His bed' denotes anything upon which the zab has lain, and this passage teaches the law of midras.
(18) V. Glos.
(19) Ibid. 26, q.v.
(20) This is deduced from Lev. XI, 33, q.v. Since they cannot be cleansed, they cannot become unclean in the first place through the midras of a zab.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 84b
This follows a fortiori: if small [earthen] pitchers which cannot be defiled by a zab1 can be defiled through the dead,2 then a mat, which is defiled by a zab,3 is surely defiled through the dead? But why so [it may be asked], seeing that it cannot be cleansed in a mikweh?4 Said R. Hanina to him: There it is different, since some of its kind [of the same material] are [capable of being cleansed in a mikweh].5 The All Merciful save us from this view! he exclaimed.6 On the contrary, he retorted, The All Merciful save us from your view! And what is the reason?7 Two verses are written: [i] and whosoever touches his bed; and [ii] every bed whereon he that hath the issue lieth [shall be unclean].8 How are these [to be reconciled]? If something of its kind [can be cleansed in a mikweh], even if that itself cannot be cleansed in a mikweh [it is susceptible to midras]; but if nothing of its kind [can be cleansed in a mikweh], his bed is assimilated to himself.
Raba said: [That] the midras of an earthen vessel is clean [is deduced] from the following: and every open vessel, which hath no covering bound upon it[, is unclean]:9 hence, if it has a covering bound upon it, it is clean.10 Now, does this not hold good [even] if he had appointed it [as a seat] for his wife, when a niddah, yet the Divine Law states that it is clean.11
MISHNAH. HOW DO WE KNOW THAT IF A SEED-BED IS SIX HANDBREADTHS SQUARE, WE MAY SOW THEREIN FIVE KINDS OF SEEDS, FOUR ON THE FOUR SIDES, AND ONE IN THE MIDDLE?12 BECAUSE IT IS SAID, FOR AS THE EARTH BRINGETH FORTH HER BUD, AND AS THE GARDEN CAUSETH ITS SEEDS TO SPRING FORTH:13 NOT ITS SEED, BUT ITS SEEDS IS STATED.14
GEMARA. How is this implied? - Said Rab judah: For as the earth bringeth forth her bud: 'bringeth forth' [denotes] one, [and] 'her bud' [denotes] one, which gives two; 'her seeds' [denotes] two,15 making four; 'causeth to spring forth' denotes one, making five [in all],
(1) They are not susceptible to midras, as he cannot sit upon them. Again, an earthen vessel can be defiled only through the contaminating thing coming into contact with its inner air space, which is here impossible, as the neck of a small pitcher is too narrow to permit a zab to insert his finger. Furthermore, they cannot become unclean through hesset, as hesset and contact are interdependent, and only that which is susceptible to the latter is susceptible to the former.
(2) They become unclean when under the same roof as a corpse, v. Num. XIX, 15.
(3) With the uncleanness of midras, since it is fit for lying upon.
(4) This is R. Ela's objection: how can the Baraitha state axiomatically that a mat can be defiled by a zab?
(5) E.g., when they are provided with a receptacle.
(6) That a mat should be susceptible to midras merely because something else of the same material can be cleansed in a mikweh.
(7) On what grounds does R. Hanina base his thesis?
(8) Lev. XV, 4. The first verse implies that the bed must be like himself, on account of the suffix 'his', but not the second, since the suffix is absent there.
(9) Num. XIX, 15.
(10) The contamination must, as it were, penetrate into the inner air space of the vessel, which it is unable to do on account of the covering which interposes a barrier. - This shows that the reference is to an earthen vessel, where the defilement must enter its atmosphere (cf. Ps. 402, n. 1).
(11) Now in such a case it is regarded as a seat, and if it were susceptible to midras the cover would not save the vessel from becoming unclean, because whatever is itself liable to defilement cannot constitute a barrier to save something else from same. Hence it follows that an earthen vessel is not subject to midras at all.
(12) Without infringing the prohibition of sowing diverse seeds (kil'ayim) together (Deut. XX, 9).
(13) Isa. LXI, 11.
(14) Rashi: almost the whole of each side is sown with one species, and one seed is sown in the middle, as in Fig. 1. The shaded part is sown. Though the corners come very near each other, and their roots certainly intermingle, that does not matter, as their very position makes it clear that each side has been sown as a separate strip. But with respect to the middle seed there is nothing to show that it was not sown indiscriminately together with the rest, and therefore a substantial space (three handbreadths) between it and the sides is required. Maim. explains it as in Fig. 2.
(15) The minimum number of the plural.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 85a
and the Rabbis ascertained that five [species sown] in six [handbreadths square] do not draw [sustenance] from each other.1 And how do we know that that which the Rabbis ascertain is of consequence?2 For R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: What is meant by, Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmark, which they of old have set?3 The landmark which they of old have set thou shalt not encroach upon.4 What landmarks did they of old set? R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Johanan's name, [Even] as it is written, These are the sons of Seir the Horite, the inhabitants of the earth:5 are then the whole world inhabitants of heaven? But it means that they were thoroughly versed in the cultivation of the earth. For they used to say, This complete [measuring] rod [of land is fit] for olives, this complete [measuring] rod [is fit] for vines, this complete [measuring] rod for figs.6 And Horite [hori] implies that they smelled [merikin] the earth. And Hivite [hiwi]? Said R. Papa: [It teaches] that they tasted the earth like a serpent [hiwya].7 R. Aha b. Jacob said: Horite [hori] implies that they become free [horin] from [the cares of] their property.8
R. Assi said: The internal area of the seed-bed must be six [handbreadths square], apart from its borders.9 It was taught likewise: The internal area of the seed-bed must be six [handbreadths square]. How much must its borders be?10 - As we learnt, R. Judah said: Its breadth must be the full breadth of [the sole of ] a foot, R. Zera - others say, R. Hanina b. Papa - said: What is R. Judah's reason? Because it is written, and wateredst it with thy foot:11 just as the [sole of] the foot is a handbreadth, so must the border too be a handbreadth.
Rab said: We learnt of a seed bed in a waste plot.12 But there is the corner space?13 - The School of Rab14 answered in Rab's name: It refers to one who fills up the corners. Yet let one sow on the outside,15 and not fill up the inside?
(1) Hence the implications of the verse are referred to a plot of this size.
(2) To base a law thereon.
(3) Deut. XIX, 14.
(4) By planting so near to your neighbour's border that the roots must draw sustenance from his land, thus impoverishing it.
(5) Gen. XXXVI, 20.
(6) They know how to divide up the land for cultivation, and as a corollary they must have known how much earth each species required for its sustenance. It was from them that the Rabbis acquired this knowledge, whose correctness is vouched for by this verse.
(7) In both cases for agricultural purposes.
(8) Being dispossessed thereof, v. Deut. II, 12.
(9) Fallow borders were left around seed-beds for the convenience of threshing; the area stated in the Mishnah does not include the borders.
(10) That the whole may be technically regarded as a seed-bed, and the laws appertaining thereto (v. infra) apply to it.
(11) Ibid. XI, 10.
(12) I.e., the Mishnah refers to sucb. But if it is surrounded by other beds sown with different seeds, there is only the two handbreadths space occupied by the borders of the two contiguous beds between them, whereas three handbreadths space is required between two rows of different plants.
(13) Which can be left unsown. It is then possible to have the bed surrounded by others.
(14) The term Be Rab may mean either the School founded by Rab or scholars in general; Weiss Dor, III, 158.
(15) Of the seed-bed, i.e., it need not be in the middle of an unsown plot.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 85b
- It is a preventive measure, lest he fill up the corners. Yet let it not be other than a triangular plot1 of vegetables? Did we not learn, If a triangular plot of vegetables enters another field,2 this is permitted, because it is evidently the end of a field?3 - [The permissibility of] a triangular plot does not apply to a seed-bed.4
But Samuel maintained: We learnt of a seed-bed in the midst of [other] seed-beds. But they intermingle? - He inclines one strip in one direction and one strip in another direction,
'Ulla said: They asked in the West [Palestine]: What if a person draws one furrow across the whole?5 R. Shesheth maintained: The intermingling comes and annuls the strips.6 R. Assi said: The intermingling does not annul the strips. Rabina raised an objection to R. Ashi: If one plants two rows of cucumbers, two rows of gourds, and two rows of Egyptian beans, they are permitted;7 one row of cucumbers, one row of gourds and one of Egyptian beans, they are forbidden?8 - Here it is different, because there is entanglement.9
R. Kahana said in R. Johanan's name: If one desires to fill his whole garden with vegetables,10 he can divide it into11 bed[s] six [handbreadths] square, describe in each a circle five [handbreadths in diameter], and fill its corners with whatever he pleases.12 But there is the [space] between [the beds]?13 - Said the School of R. Jannai: He leaves the interspaces waste.14 R. Ashi said: If they [the beds] are sown in the length, he sows them [the interspaces] in the breadth, and vice versa.15 Rabina objected to R. Ashi: The planting16 of one vegetable with another [requires] six handbreadths [square],17 and they are regarded
(1) Lit., 'an ox-head'.
(2) Sown with other crops. Fields were generally ended off in a triangular shape.
(3) Though it comes right up to the other crops, one can see that there has been no indiscriminate sowing (cf. note on our Mishnah, p. 403, n. 5); the same should apply here.
(4) Because in the proposed case there is nothing to show that the different strips are distinct.
(5) Rashi: From north to south, crossing the middle seeds, this furrow being either of one of the five seeds or of a sixth. Tosaf: The furrow is drawn right round the four sides of the plot but deepened (by a handbreadth) and the question is whether this deepening constitutes a distinguishing mark, so that it shall be permitted.
(6) I.e., it is not a distinguishing mark, but on the contrary breaks up the separateness of the other strips, and so is forbidden.
(7) Two rows constitute a field, and therefore each plant is regarded as in a separate field, though they are in proximity to each other.
(8) This proves that a single row effects a prohibited intermingling.
(9) Their leaves become entangled above as they grow high. On this account they are forbidden.
(10) Of different kinds.
(11) Lit., 'make'.
(12) Thus (see drawing): planting in this way shows that there has been no indiscriminate intermingling.
(13) Viz., the borders which are to be left fallow, v. supra a.
(14) R. Johanan's phrase 'his whole garden' is not meant literally, but merely applies to the seed-beds into which it is divided.
(15) in this way literally the whole garden can be filled.
(16) Lit., 'working'.
(17) I.e., within a bed of this area it is possible to plant a number of different kinds of vegetables, as stated in our Mishnah.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 86a
as a square board. Thus it is only permitted as a [square] board, but otherwise it is forbidden?1 - There [it desires to] teach another leniency in respect thereof, [viz.,] to permit a triangular wedge that issues thence [into another plot or field].2
MISHNAH. HOW DO WE KNOW THAT IF ONE [A WOMAN] DISCHARGES SEMEN ON THE THIRD DAY SHE IS UNCLEAN? BECAUSE IT IS SAID, BE READY AGAINST THE THIRD DAY.3 HOW DO WE KNOW THAT A CIRCUMCISED CHILD4 MAY BE BATHED [EVEN] ON THE THIRD DAY [AFTER CIRCUMCISION] WHICH FALLS ON THE SABBATH? BECAUSE IT IS SAID, AND IT CAME TO PASS ON THE THIRD DAY, WHEN THEY WERE SORE.5 HOW DO WE KNOW THAT A CRIMSON-COLOURED STRAP IS TIED TO THE HEAD OF THE GOAT THAT IS SENT [TO 'AZAZ'EL]?6 BECAUSE IT IS SAID, IF YOUR SINS BE AS SCARLET, THEY SHALL BE AS WHITE AS SNOW.7 HOW DO WE KNOW THAT ANOINTING IS THE SAME AS DRINKING ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT?8 THOUGH THERE IS NO PROOF OF THIS, YET THERE IS A SUGGESTION THEREOF, FOR IT IS SAID, AND IT CAME INTO HIS INWARD PARTS LIKE WATER, AND LIKE OIL INTO HIS BONES.9
GEMARA. The first clause does not agree with R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah, whilst the second clause does agree with R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah, for if it [the first clause] were according to R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah, we have heard from him that she is clean?10 - He who does not [wish to] explain [a Mishnah] as [reflecting the views of two] Tannaim learns 'she is clean' in the first clause, and [thus] establishes the whole of it in accordance with R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah. Whilst he who does explain it as [the opinions of two] Tannaim11 [holds that] the first clause agrees with the Rabbis, while the second is according to R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah. Our Rabbis taught: if one [a woman] discharges semen on the third day, she is clean; this is the view of R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah.12 R. Ishmael said: This [interval] sometimes comprises four periods,13 sometimes five, and sometimes six periods.14 R. Akiba maintained: It [the interval for uncleanness] is always [up to] five periods. And if part of the first period has gone,15 a part of the sixth period is given her.16 Now the Rabbis stated this [the following difficulty] before R. Papa-others say, R. Papa said to Raba: As for R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah, it is well: he holds with the Rabbis, who maintain, Abstention [from intimacy] was effected on Thursday.17 Again, R. Ishmael holds with R. Jose that abstention was effected on Wednesday. But with whom does R. Akiba agree?18 - After all, R. Akiba holds as R. Jose, [but it is] as R. Adda b. Ahabah said: Moses ascended early in the morning and descended early in the morning. 'He ascended early in the morning,' for it is written, and Moses rose up early in the morning, and went up unto mount Sinai;19 'he descended early in the morning', for it is written, Go, get thee down; and thou shalt come up, thou, and Aaron with thee:20 this likens descent to the ascent: just as ascent was early in the morning, so was descent early in the morning.21 But why did he [Moses] have to tell them [in the morning]? Surely R. Huna said: The Israelites are holy, and do not cohabit by day!22 - But Raba said: If the house is in darkness, it is permitted. Raba also said others state, R. Papa: A scholar may cause darkness with his garment, and it is [then] permitted.
(1) This excludes planting in a circle.
(2) I.e., when it is planted in this shape the triangular wedge too is permitted. But the plot itself may contain a circle. (14) After cohabitation.
(3) Ex. XIX, 15. Lit., 'three days'. The verse continues, 'come not near a woman'. The Tanna understands this to mean that intercourse was debarred to them for three whole days, including the first day of abstention, before the Giving of the Law, which took place on the fourth day. This proves that a discharge within this period would render her unclean for the day of the discharge, whereas all had to be clean at the Revelation.
(4) Lit., 'the circumcised'.
(5) Gen. XXXIV, 24. This shows that one is in danger until three days have elapsed, and therefore the Sabbath may be desecrated on its account by bathing the child.
(6) V. Lev. XVI, 22-26.
(7) Isa. I, 18. By a miracle this crimson coloured strap turned white, thus showing the people that they were forgiven of their sins; V. Buchler, Sin and Atonement, p. 327.
(8) That the former is interdicted equally with the latter?
(9) Ps. CIX, 19. The former is a simile from drinking, the latter from anointing, and the two similes are treated as parallel.
(10) V. infra.
(11) V. B.M. 41a.
(12) Thus, if she cohabits on Thursday and discharges on the Sabbath, she is clean, no matter at which part of the two days intimacy and discharge took place.
(13) 'Onah, pl, 'onoth, is the technical term of a day or a night when these are equal.
(14) He holds that she is unclean. Now, if cohabitation took place at the very beginning of Thursday evening whilst the discharge occurred at the end of the Sabbath, we have six periods; if at the end of Thursday night, five; and if at the end of Thursday, four. In all cases she is unclean.
(15) When intimacy takes place.
(16) A discharge up to then defiles her.
(17) Whilst the giving of the Law took place on the Sabbath, at the very beginning of which they performed their ritual ablutions to purify themselves, if they had discharged semen on the Friday. Now some may have cohabited at the end of Thursday, and yet they were fit for the Revelation on the Sabbath, which shows that a discharge of semen on the third day does not defile.
(18) For the Torah speaks of days, which implies that whether intimacy took place at the beginning or at the end of the day, she would be clean on the third (or, the fourth, according to R. Jose) day, irrespective of the numbers of 'periods' that elapsed.
(19) Ex. XXXIV, 4. Though this refers to his second ascent after the breaking of the first tables, it is held to show that he always went up early in the morning.
(20) Ibid. XIX, 24.
(21) Hence Moses' order to the Israelites to abstain from intimacy was given early Wednesday morning; this allows five full 'periods' until the beginning of the Sabbath, when they purified themselves.
(22) So Moses could have waited for the end of the day.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 86b
But they were tebul yom?1 - Abaye b. Rabin and R. Hanina b. Abin both say: The Torah was given to tebul yom. Now Meremar sat and reported this discussion. Said Rabina to him: Do you say that it was given, or that it was fitting [that it should be given]? I mean that it was fitting, he replied.2 Yet they should have bathed at twilight and received the Torah at twilight?3 - R. Isaac quoted [as an answer], from the beginning I have not spoken in secret.4 Yet they could have bathed on the Sabbath morning and received the Torah on the Sabbath morning?5 - Said R. Isaac. It was unfitting that some should go to receive the Torah whilst others went to Tebillah.6
R. Hiyya son of R. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: These are the views of R. Ishmael and R. Akiba; but the Sages maintain: We require six7 full periods.8 R. Hisda said: This controversy is [only] where it [the semen] issues from the woman; but if it issues from a man,9 it is unclean as long as it is moist. R. Shesheth objected: And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, [shall be washed with water and be unclean until the even]:10 this excludes semen that is foul.11 Surely this refers [even] to that which issues from a man? - No: [only] to that which issues from a woman.
R. Papa asked: What of an Israelite's semen within a Cuthean woman?12 [Do we say,] Because Israelites are anxious about [the observance of] precepts, their bodies are heated,13 but not so Gentiles, who are not anxious about precepts; or perhaps, as they eat creeping crawling things, their bodies [too] are heated? Now should you say, as they eat creeping crawling things their bodies are heated, what of [semen] within an animal?14 [Do we say.] A woman, who has a fore-uterus, causes it to become foul, but not so an animal, who s no fore-uterus; or perhaps there is no difference? The questions stands over.
Our Rabbis taught: On the sixth day of the month [Siwan] were the Ten Commandments given to Israel. R. Jose maintained: On the seventh thereof. Said Raba: All agree that they arrived in the Wilderness of Sinai on the first of the month. [For] here it is written, on this day they came into the wilderness of Sinai;15 whilst elsewhere it is written, This month shall be unto you the beginning of months:16 just as there the first of the month,17 so here [too] the first of the month [is meant]. Again, all agree that the Torah was given to Israel on the Sabbath. [For] here it is written, Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy;18 whilst elsewhere it is written, And Moses said unto the people, Remember this day:19 just as there, [he spoke] on that very day,20 so here too it was on that very day.21 [Where] they differ is on the fixing of the New Moon. R. Jose holds that New Moon was fixed on the first day of the week [Sunday], and on that day he [Moses] said nothing to them on account of their exhaustion from the Journey. On Monday he said to them, and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests;22
(1) V. Glos. tebul yom, pl. tebul yom. If they had their ritual bath on Friday evening, they would not be thoroughly clean until the following evening, as a tebul yom does not become clean until the evening after his ablutions. Hence we must assume that they cleansed themselves at the end of Friday, in which case there is one 'period' short on all views.
(2) But actually none discharged semen on the Friday, so that they were completely clean.
(3) Rashi: According to R. Akiba, if God desired exactly five periods to elapse, why did he postpone Revelation until the morning, which suggests that six periods are necessary? Tosaf. maintains that the difficulty arises on all views.
(4) Isa. XLVIII, 16 - i.e., the Torah had to be given in broad daylight.
(5) If discharge after five 'periods' leaves the woman clean, cohabitation could have been permitted until the very end of Wednesday, and ritual ablution performed on the Sabbath morning, for a subsequent discharge would not matter.
(6) V. Glos.
(7) Wilna Gaon quotes a reading 'three'.
(8) To elapse before discharge shall have no effect.
(9) E.g., on to a garment.
(10) Lev. XV, 27.
(11) Being unfit then to engender, it does not defile.
(12) For Cuthean v. supra p. 69, n. 4. Here, however, 'Cuthean' is the censor's substitute for 'gentile', which word appears in this passage in Nid. 34b, and also in the present discussion.
(13) Which makes the semen foul and unfit to engender in three days.
(14) This is merely a theoretical question. Bestiality was forbidden on pain of death (Ex. XXII, 18), and Jews were not suspected of this crime (Sanh. 27b).
(15) Ex. XIX, 1.
(16) Ibid. XII, 2.
(17) V. Pes. 6b and Tosaf. ibid. s.v. ממאי
(18) Ex. XX, 8.
(19) Ibid. XIII, 3.
(20) Of their exodus - implied by 'this'.
(21) I.e., the command to keep the Sabbath, and hence all the Ten Commandments were promulgated on the Sabbath itself.
(22) Ex. XIX, 6.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 87a
on Tuesday he informed them of the order to set boundaries,1 and on Wednesday they separated themselves [from their wives].2 But the Rabbis hold: New Moon was fixed on Monday, and on that day he said nothing to them on account of their exhaustion from the journey. On Tuesday he said to them, and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests; on Wednesday he informed them of the order to set boundaries, and on Thursday they separated themselves. An objection is raised: And sanctify them to-day and to-morrow:3 this is difficult in the view of R. Jose?4 - R. Jose can answer you: Moses added one day of his own understanding.5 For it was taught, Three things did Moses do of his own understanding, and the Holy One, blessed be He, gave His approval:6 he added one day of his own understanding, he separated himself from his wife,7 and he broke the Tables. 'He added one day of his own understanding': what [verse] did he interpret? To-day and to-morrow: 'to-day' [must be] like 'tomorrow: just as to-morrow includes the [previous] night, so 'to-day' [must] include the [previous] night, but the night of to-day has already passed! Hence it must be two days exclusive of to-day. And how do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave his approval? - Since the Shechinah did not rest [upon Mount Sinal] until the morning of the Sabbath.8 And 'he separated himself from his wife': What did he interpret? He applied an a minori . argument to himself, reasoning: If the Israelites, with whom the Shechinah spoke only on one occasion and He appointed them a time [thereof], yet the Torah said, Be ready against the third day: come not near a woman: I, with whom the Shechinah speaks at all times and does not appoint me a [definite] time, how much more so! And how do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave his approval? Because it is written, Go say to them, Return to your tents,9 which is followed by, But as for thee, stand thou here by me. Some there are who quote, with him [sc. Moses] will I speak mouth to mouth.10 'He broke the Tables': how did he learn [this]? He argued: If the Passover sacrifice, which is but one of the six hundred and thirteen precepts, yet the Torah said, there shall no alien eat thereof:11 here is the whole Torah, and the Israelites are apostates, how much more so!12 And how do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave His approval? Because it is said, which thou brakest,13 and Resh Lakish interpreted this: All strength to thee14 that thou brakest it.
Come and hear: And be ready against the third day: this is a difficulty according to R. Jose?15 - Surely we have said that Moses added one day of his own understanding!
Come and hear: The third, the third day of the month and the third day of the week:16 this is a difficulty according to the Rabbis?17 - The Rabbis answer you: with whom does this agree? with R. Jose.
In respect of what is [the first] 'the third' [mentioned]? - [In respect] of that which was taught: And Moses reported the words of the people unto the Lord;18 and it is written, And Moses told the words of the people unto the Lord.19 Now, what did the Holy One, Blessed be He, say unto Moses, what did Moses say unto Israel, what did Israel say to Moses, and what did Moses report before the Omnipotent?20 This is the order of setting boundaries:21 that is the view of R. Jose son of R. Judah. Rabbi said: At first he explained the penalties [for non-observance], for it is written, 'And Moses reported [wa-yasheb]', [which implies] things which repel [meshabbebin] one's mind.22 But subsequently he explained its reward, for it is said, 'And Moses told [wa-yagged]', [which means,] words which draw one's heart like a narrative [aggadah]. Some there are who maintain, At first he explained the reward it confers, for it is written, 'And Moses reported [wa-yasheb]', [which means,] words which appease [meshibin] one's mind. Whilst subsequently he explained its penalties, for it is written, 'and Moses told [wa-yagged'], [meaning], words as hard [unpleasant] to man as worm-wood [giddin].
Come and hear: The sixth, the sixth day of the month and the sixth day of the week [Friday]: this is a difficulty according to the Rabbis?23 - This too agrees with R. Jose. In respect of what is [the first] 'the sixth' [mentioned]? - Raba said:
(1) V. ibid. 12.
(2) Though the reference to this precedes the command to set boundaries, it is nevertheless assumed that events were in this order; v. infra.
(3) Ibid. 10.
(4) For it implies Thursday and Friday, Revelation taking place on the Sabbath. The sanctification consisted in their separation from their wives (v. 14f).
(5) The command 'sanctify them' was given him on Wednesday, and he interpreted it as implying three days.
(6) Lit., 'agreed with him'.
(7) Entirely, after the Revelation.
(8) Had Moses' interpretation been incorrect, the Shechinah should have alighted Friday morning.
(9) Deut, V, 30. This was permission to resume marital relations.
(10) Num. XII, 8 - the same conclusion may be drawn from this.
(11) Ex. XII, 43. 'Alien' is interpreted, one whose actions have alienated him from God, v. Targum Onkelos a.l.
(12) They are surely unfit to receive the Torah!
(13) Ibid. XXXIV, 1.
(14) Lit., 'thy strength be well', an expression of approval. For further notes V. Yeb., Sonc. ed., pp. 412ff.
(15) Cf. P. 411, n. 7.
(16) The meaning of the first 'the third' is discussed infra.
(17) Since they hold that New Moon was on Monday, the third was on Wednesday, not Tuesday.
(18) Ibid. 8.
(19) Ex. XXXIV, 9.
(20) Lit., 'the strength'- one of the names of God. The difficulty is this: what conversations took place between v.v. 8 and 9, necessitating a second statement by Moses?
(21) Though this is mentioned only in v. 12, it is assumed to have been given between Moses' two statements, the second of which signified the people's willingness to set boundaries.
(22) Threats of punishment would naturally make the people reluctant to accept the Torah in the first place (Rashi). jast.: words which chasten, etc.
(23) Since they held that New Moon was on Monday, Friday was not the sixth day of the month.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 87b
[In respect] of their encamping.1 R. Aha b. Jacob said: [In respect] of their journeying.2 Now, they disagree about [the precept of] the Sabbath [as communicated to them at at Marah, for it is written, [Observe the Sabbath day ... ] as the Lord my God commanded thee,3 whereon Rab Judah commented in Rab's name: As he commanded thee at Marah.4 One Master holds: They were commanded concerning the Sabbath [in general], but not concerning tehumin.5 Whilst the other Master holds: They were commanded concerning tehumin too.6
Come and hear: As to the Nisan in which the Israelites departed from Egypt, on the fourteenth day they slaughtered their Passover sacrifices, on the fifteenth they went forth, and in the evening the first-borns were smitten. 'In the evening': can you think so!7 Rather say, The first-borns having been smitten the [previous] evening, and that day was a Thursday. Now, since the fifteenth of Nisan was on a Thursday, the first of Iyar was on the Sabbath,8 and the first of Siwan was on a Sunday,9 which is a difficulty according to the Rabbis?-The Rabbis answer you: Iyar in that year was indeed made full.10
Come and hear that they did not make it full! As to the Nisan in which the Israelites departed from Egypt, on the fourteenth they killed their Passover sacrifices, on the fifteenth they went forth, and in the evening the first-borns were smitten. 'In the evening' can you think so! Rather, say, The first-borns having been smitten since the [previous] evening, and that day was a Thursday. Nisan was a full month, so that [the first of] Iyar fell on the Sabbath. Iyar was defective, so that [the first of] Siwan fell on a Sunday. This is a difficulty according to the Rabbis? - That agrees with R. Jose. R. Papa observed, Come and hear: And they took their journey from Elim, and all the congregation of the children of Israel came unto the wilderness of Sin . . . on the fifteenth day of the second month.11 Now that day was the Sabbath, for it is written, and in the morning, then ye shall see the glory of the Lord,12 and it is written, six days ye shall gather it.13 Now, since the fifteenth of Iyar was on the Sabbath, the first of Siwan was on a Sunday, which is a difficulty according to the Rabbis? - The Rabbis can answer you: Iyar of that year was made full.
R. Assi14 of Hozna'ah15 said to R. Ashi, Come and hear: And it came to pass in the first month of the second year, on the first day of the month, that the tabernacle was reared up;16 [and with reference to this] a Tanna taught: That day took ten crowns.17 It was the first of the Creation,18 the first for the princes,19 the first for the priesthood,20 the first for [public] sacrifice, the first for the fall of fire [from Heaven],21 the first for the eating of sacred food,22 the first for the dwelling of the Shechinah in Israel, the first for the [priestly] blessing of Israel,23 the first for the interdict of the high places,24 [and] the first of months. Now, since the first of Nisan of that year was on a Sunday, that of the previous year must have been on a Wednesday. For it was taught: Others say, Between one 'Azereth25 and another, and between one New Year['s day] and another, there can be a difference of only four days,26 and in a leap year, five [days].27 Hence the first of Iyar must have fallen on the eve of the Sabbath [Friday], and the first of Siwan on the Sabbath, which is a difficulty according to both R. Jose and the Rabbis? - In R. Jose's view, seven months were declared defective;28
(1) The Baraitha states that the sixth day from when they pitched their tents, which was on New Moon, was also the sixth of the month and the sixth day of the week.
(2) From Rephidim (v. Ex. XIX, 2). He holds that they left Rephidim and came to the wilderness of Sinai on the same day.
(3) Deut. V, 12. This occurs in the second Decalogue, which is a repetition of the first Decalogue. Hence these words, 'as ... commanded thee', must have been spoken on the first occasion at Sinai too, and they imply that the Israelites had already been commanded to keep the Sabbath.
(4) V. Ex. XV, 25.
(5) Tehum pl. tehumin, q.v. Glos.
(6) Raba maintains that it was the sixth day from their encamping only, whilst they departed from Rephidim on the previous day, which was the Sabbath, since the law of tehumin was as yet non-existent. But R. Aha b. Jacob holds that they must have set out from Rephidim on Sunday too, not on the Sabbath, this law already being in existence.
(7) For this implies that the death of the first-borns took place after their departure.
(8) Nisan containing thirty days.
(9) Iyar containing twenty-nine days.
(10) Before the calendar was fixed by calculation months might be made full (thirty days) or defective (twenty-nine days) according to the exigencies of the moment.
(11) Ex. XVI, 1.
(12) Ibid. 7.
(13) Ibid. 26. Now, the manna first fell on the day after they arrived at Sin, for Moses says 'and in the morning', i.e., tomorrow, 'ye shall see the glory', etc., which refers to the manna. Since Moses permitted them to gather it for six days, the first must have been Sunday, and the previous day was the Sabbath.
(14) So the text as emended by Bah.
(15) (Be-) Hozae, Khuzistan.
(16) Ex. XL, 17.
(17) I.e., it was pre-eminent in ten things.
(18) I.e., it was a Sunday.
(19) To make their offerings for the dedication of the Tabernacle, v. Num. VII.
(20) When Aaron began to officiate as a priest, v. Lev. IX; before that Divine Service was performed by first-borns.
(21) V. ibid. 24.
(22) I.e., flesh of sacrifices, which had henceforth to be eaten within a fixed locale, whereas hitherto it might be consumed anywhere.
(23) By Aaron, v. ibid. 22.
(24) Upon which sacrifices were offered before the erection of the Tabernacle.
(25) Lit., 'solemn assembly' - the Feast of Weeks.
(26) I.e., one falls four days later in the week than the previous year's, since the Jewish year, which is lunar, consists of three hundred and fifty-four days.
(27) An extra month of twenty-nine days being intercalated.
(28) So there was a difference of three days, not four, that year consisting of three hundred and fifty-three days, which makes the first of Siwan fall on a Sunday.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 88a
in that of the Rabbis', eight months were declared defective.1
Come and hear: For it was taught in the Seder 'Olam:2 As to the Nisan in which the Israelites departed from Egypt, on the fourteenth they slaughtered their Passover sacrifices, on the fifteenth they went out, and that day was the Sabbath eve. Now, since the first of Nisan was the Sabbath eve, the first of Iyar was on a Sunday, and [the first of] Siwan on a Monday. This is a difficulty according to R. Jose? - R. Jose answers you: This agrees with the Rabbis. Come and hear: R. Jose said: On the second day Moses ascended and descended;3 on the third he ascended and descended;4 on the fourth he descended and ascended no more.5 But since he did not go up,6 whence did he descend? - Rather [say,] on the fourth he ascended and descended; on the fifth he built an altar and offered a sacrifice thereon; [but] on the sixth he had no time. Surely that was on account of [the giving of] the Torah?7 - No: it was on account of the preparations for8 the Sabbath.9
A certain Galilean lectured before R. Hisda: "Blessed be the Merciful One who gave a three-fold Torah10 to a three-fold people11 through a third[-born]12 on the third day13 in the third month. With whom does this agree? With the Rabbis.14
And they stood under the mount:15 R. Abdimi b. Hama b. Hasa said: This teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, overturned the mountain upon them like an [inverted] cask, and said to them,'If ye accept the Torah, 'tis well; if not, there shall be your burial.' R. Aha b. Jacob observed: This furnishes a strong protest against the Torah.16 Said Raba, Yet even so, they re-accepted it in the days of Ahasuerus, for it is written, [the Jews] confirmed, and took upon them [etc.]:17 [i.e.,] they confirmed what they had accepted long before. Hezekiah said: What is meant by, Thou didst cause sentence to be heard from Heaven; The earth feared, and was tranquil:18 if it feared, why was it tranquil, and if it was tranquil, why did it fear? But at first it feared, yet subsequently it was tranquil,19 And why did it fear? - Even in accordance with Resh Lakish. For Resh Lakish said: Why is it written, And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day;20 What is the purpose of the additional 'the'?21 This teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, stipulated with the Works of Creation and said thereto. 'If Israel accepts the Torah, ye shall exist; but if not, I will turn you back into emptiness and formlessness.'22
R. Simla lectured: When the Israelites gave precedence to 'we will do' over 'we will hearken,'23 six hundred thousand ministering angels came and set two crowns upon each man of Israel, one as a reward for24 'we will do,' and the other as a reward for 'we will hearken'. But as soon as Israel sinned,25 one million two hundred thousand destroying angels descended and removed them, as it is said, And the children of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments from mount Horeb.26 R. Hama son of R. Hanina said: At Horeb they put them on and at Horeb they put them off. At Horeb the put them on, as we have stated. At Horeb they put them off, for it is written, And [the children of Israel] stripped themselves, etc. R. Johanan observed: And Moses was privileged and received them all, for in proximity thereto it is stated, And Moses took the tent.27 Resh Lakish said: [Yet] the Holy One, blessed be He, will return them to us in the future, for it is said, and the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come with singing unto Zion; and everlasting joy shall be upon their heads;28 the joy from of old29 shall be upon their heads.
R. Eleazar said: When the Israelites gave precedence to 'we will do' over 'we will hearken,' a Heavenly Voice went forth and exclaimed to them, Who revealed to My children this secret, which is employed by the Ministering Angels, as it is written, Bless the Lord, ye angels of his. Ye mighty in strength, that fulfil his word, That hearken unto the voice of his word:30 first they fulfil and then they hearken?
R. Hama son of R. Hanina said: What is meant by, As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, [So is my beloved among the sons]:31 why were the Israelites compared to an apple tree? To teach you: just as the fruit of the apple tree precedes its leaves,32 so did the Israelites give precedence to 'we will do' over 'we will hearken'. There was a certain Sadducee who saw Raba33 engrossed in his studies while the finger[s] of his hand were under his feet, and he ground them down, so that his fingers spurted blood. 'Ye rash people,' he exclaimed, 'who gave precedence to your mouth over your ears: ye still persist in your rashness. first ye should have listened, if within your powers, accept; if not, ye should not have accepted.' Said he to him, 'We
(1) Hence the year consisted of three hundred and fifty-two days, And the first of Siwan fell on a Monday.
(2) The Seder 'Olam is the earliest extant post-exilic chronicle in Hebrew, and is a chronological record extending from Adam to Bar Kochba's revolt during the reign of Hadrian. Most scholars are agreed in assigning its authorship to R. Halafta, a Tanna of the first century, on the strength of a statement by R. Johanan in Yeb. 82b. V. J.E., art. Seder 'Olam Rabbah.
(3) Hearing, 'and ye shall be ... a kingdom of priests' and telling it to the people.
(4) Being given the order to set boundaries.
(5) Until the Revelation.
(6) On the fourth.
(7) Which supports the Rabbis that the Torah wis given on the sixth of the month.
(8) Lit., 'trouble of'.
(9) The sixth of the month being Friday, the eve of the Sabbath. (12) In the public lectures or sermons the scholar sat and whispered his statements to a speaker, who conveyed them to the people; this Galilean was probably R. Hisda's speaker
(generally referred to as 'meturgeman').
(10) I.e., the Torah (Pentateuch), Prophets and Hagiographa.
(11) Israel consisting of Priests, Levites, and Israelites.
(12) Sc. Moses, born third after Miriam and Aaron.
(13) Of their separation from their wives.
(14) For according to R. Jose it was on the fourth day of their separation, Moses having added a day (supra 87a).
(15) Ex. XIX. 17. The translation is literal. E.V. nether part.
(16) It provides an excuse for non-observance, since it was forcibly imposed in the first place.
(17) Esth. IX, 27.
(18) Ps. LXXVI, 9.
(19) It feared lest Israel would reject the Torah, and became tranquil when israel accepted it.
(20) Gen. I, 31.
(21) In the case of the other days it is simply stated, a second day, a third day, etc., 'a' being altogether unexpressed in Hebrew.
(22) He thus translates homiletically: and the continuance of morning and evening was depended on the sixth day, sc. of Siwan, when israel was offered the Torah. The general idea is: Without law and order as exemplified by the Torah the world must lapse into chaos and anarchy.
(23) V. Ex. XXIV, 7. Thus they promised to obey God's commands even before hearing them.
(24) Lit., 'corresponding to'.
(25) Through the Golden Calf
(26) I.e., which they had received at Mount Horeb. Ibid. XXXIII, 6. E.V. from mount onwards'.
(27) Ibid. 7 - The reference is not clear. V. Rashi.
(28) Isa. XXXV, 10.
(29) The verse may be translated thus.
(30) Ps. CIII, 20.
(31) Cant. II, 3. The two lovers in this poem were regarded as God and Israel.
(32) Tosaf. observes this is untrue of the apple tree, which grows like all other trees; consequently refer this to the citron tree. As the citron remains on the tree from one year to the next, at which time the tree sheds its' leaves of the previous year, the fruit may be said to precede the leaves.
(33) There were no Sadducces in Raba's time, and the word is probably a censor's substitute for Gentile. In J.E. X, 633 bottom it is suggested that he was probably a Manichean. [MS.M: Min (v. Glos.)].
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 88b
who walked in integrity, of us it is written, The integrity of the upright shall guide them.1 But of others, who walked in perversity, it is written, but the perverseness of the treacherous shall destroy them.
R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Jonathan's name. What is meant by, Thou hast ravished my heart, my sister, my bride: Thou hast ravished my heart with one of thine eyes?2 In the beginning with one of thine eyes; when thou fulfillest, with both thine eyes.3
'Ulla said: Shameless is the bride that plays the harlot within her bridal canopy!4 Said R. Mari the son of Samuel's daughter, What verse [refers to this]? While the king sat at his table, [my spikenard gave up its fragrance].5 Said Rab, Yet [His] love was still with us, for 'gave' is written, not 'made noisome'.
Our Rabbis taught: Those who are insulted but do not insult, hear themselves reviled without answering, act through love and rejoice in suffering, of them the Writ saith, But they who love Him are as the sun when he goeth forth in his might.6
R. Johanan said: What is meant by the verse, The Lord giveth the word: They that publish the tidings are a great host?7 - Every single word that went forth from the Omnipotent was split up into seventy languages.8 The School of R. Ishmael taught: And like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces.,9 just as a hammer is divided into many sparks,10 so every single word that went forth from the Holy One, blessed be He, split up into seventy languages.11
R. Hananel b. Papa said: What is meant by, Hear, for I will speak princely things:12 why are the words of the Torah compared to a prince? To tell you: just as a prince has power of life and death, so have the words of the Torah [potentialities] of life and death. Thus Raba said; To those who go to the right hand thereof it is a medicine of life; to those who go to the left hand thereof13 it is a deadly poison. Another interpretation: princely' [denotes] that on every word which went forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, two crowns were set.14
R. Joshua b. Levi said: What is meant by, My beloved is unto me as a bundle of myrrh [zeror ha-mor], That lieth betwixt my breasts?15 The congregation of Israel spake before the Holy One, blessed be He, 'Sovereign of the Universe! Though my life be distressed [mezar] and embittered [memar], yet my love lieth betwixt my breasts.'16 My beloved is unto me as a cluster [eshkol] of henna-flowers [kofer] in the vineyards of [karme] En-gedi:17 He to Whom everything belongs [she-ha-kol shelo] shall make atonement [mekapper] for me for the sin of the kid18 which I stored up [karamti] for myself.19 Where is it implied that this word 'karme' connotes gathering? - Said Mar Zutra the son of R. Nahman: Even as we learnt: A fuller's stool on which linen is heaped up [kormin].20
R. Joshua b. Levi also said: What is meant by, His cheeks are as a bed of spices?21 With every single word that went forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, the whole world was filled with spices [fragrance]. But since it was filled from the first word, whither did the [fragrance of the] second word go? The Holy One, blessed be He, brought forth the wind from His store-chambers and caused each to pass on in order,22 as it is said, His lips are as lilies [shoshannim], dropping myrrh that passess on:23 read not shoshannim but sheshonim.24
R. Joshua b. Levi also said: At every word which went forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, the souls of Israel departed, for it is said, My soul went forth when he spake.25 But since their souls departed at the first word, how could they receive the second word? - He brought down the dew with which He will resurrect the dead and revived them, as it is said, Thou, O God, didst send a plentiful rain, Thou didst confirm thine inheritance, when it was weary.26
R. Joshua b. Levi also said: At every single word which went forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, the Israelites retreated twelve mil, but the ministering angels led them back [medaddin],27 as it is said, The hosts of angels28 march, they march [yiddodun yiddodun]:29 read not yiddodun but yedaddun [they lead]. R. Joshua b. Levi also said: When Moses ascended on high, the ministering angels spake before the Holy One, blessed be He, 'Sovereign of the Universe! What business has one born of woman amongst us?' 'He has come to receive the Torah,' answered He to them. Said they to Him, 'That secret treasure, which has been hidden by Thee for nine hundred and seventy-four generations before the world was created.30 Thou desirest to give to flesh and blood! What is man, that thou art mindful of him, And the son of man, that thou visitest him? O Lord our God, How excellent is thy name in all the earth! Who hast set thy glory [the Torah] upon the Heavens!'31 'Return them an answer,' bade the Holy One, blessed be He, to Moses. 'Sovereign of the Universe' replied he, 'I fear lest they consume me with the [fiery] breath of their mouths.' 'Hold on to the Throne of Glory,' said He to him, 'and return them an answer,' as it is said, He maketh him to hold on to the face of his throne, And spreadeth [Parshez] his cloud over him,32 whereon R. Nahman33 observed: This teaches that the Almighty [SHaddai] spread [Pirash] the lustre [Ziw] of His Shechinah34 and cast it as a protection35 over him. He [then] spake before Him: Sovereign of the Universe! The Torah which Thou givest me, what is written therein? I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the Land of Egypt.36 Said he to them [the angels], 'Did ye go down to Egypt; were ye enslaved to Pharaoh: why then should the Torah be yours? Again, What is written therein? Thou shalt have none other gods:37 do ye dwell among peoples that engage in
(1) Prov. XI, 3.
(2) Cant. IV, 9.
(3) Maharsha: A thing may be perceived spiritually and materially. When the Israelites first accepted the Torah they perceived its greatness in spirit only, i.e., in theory (one eye). Having observed it, they saw materially too, i.e., in actual practice (both eyes).
(4) Thus did Israel make the Golden Calf at Mount Sinai itself.
(5) Ibid. I, 12. i.e., while the King, viz., God, was at Sinai, the Israelites lost their fragrance through sin.
(6) Judg. V, 31.
(7) Ps. LXVIII, 12.
(8) The traditional number of the languages of man, i.e., the Torah was given to all humanity. Cf. M. Joseph, Judaism as Creed and Life, pp. 157 seq.
(9) Jer. XXIII, ag.
(10) Perhaps referring to the sparks that fly off when it beats the anvil.
(11) Commentators differ as to the exact point of the comparison; v. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 214, n. 9.
(12) Prov. VIII, 6.
(13) These phrases probably mean, to those who employ it rightly ... wrongly, cf. supra P. 197, n. 5. which seems, however, inapplicable here.
(14) The words themselves having substance: cf. the Greek doctrine of the logos.
(15) Cant. I, 13.
(16) I.e., God is with Israel in all his sorrows. This translation follows Maharsha; Rashi interprets differently-Zeror and ka-mor are connected here with mezar and memar.
(17) Ibid. 14.
(18) Gedi, kid standing for small cattle in general, and here referring to the Golden Calf.
(19) For future punishment. Thus eshkol is connected with shehakol shelo, kopher with mekapper, karme with karamti, and En-gedi with gedi, a kid.
(20) V. Kel. XXIII, 4.
(21) Cant. V, 13.
(22) The fragrance of each word was carried of to the Garden of Eden, leaving room for the next.
(23) Ibid. E. V.: liquid myrrh.
(24) That study, i.e.. His words spread fragrance.
(25) Ibid. 6.
(26) Ps. LXVIII, 10.
(27) The word denotes to lead step by step, like one leads a child who can hardly walk.
(28) Our texts read: Kings.
(29) Ibid. 13.
(30) Cf. Weber, Judische Theologie, p. 15 for parallels.
(31) Ps. VIII, 5, 2.
(32) lob XXVI, 9.
(33) In Suk. 5a the reading is Tanhum.
(34) Thus Parshez is treated as an abbreviation; in Hebrew the words follow the same order as these letters.
(35) Lit., 'cloud'.
(36) Ex. XX, 2.
(37) Ibid. 3.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 89a
idol worship? Again what is written therein? Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy:1 do ye then perform work, that ye need to rest? Again what is written therein? Thou shalt not take [tissa] [the name ... in vain]:2 is there any business [massa] dealings among you?3 Again what is written therein, Honour thy father and thy mother;4 have ye fathers and mothers? Again what is written therein? Thou shall not murder. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou Shall not steal;5 is there jealousy among you; is the Evil Tempter among you? Straightway they conceded [right] to the Holy One, blessed be He, for it is said, O Lord, our Lord, How excellent is thy name, etc.6 whereas 'Who has set thy glory upon the heavens is not written.7 Immediately each one was moved to love him [Moses] and transmitted something to him, for it is said, Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast taken spoils [the Torah]; Thou hast received gifts on account of man:8 as a recompense for their calling thee man [adam]9 thou didst receive gifts. The Angel of Death too confided his secret to him, for it is said, and he put on the incense, and made atonement for the people;10 and it is said. and he stood between the dead and the living, etc.11 Had he not told it to him, whence had he known it?
R. Joshua b. Levi also said: When Moses descended from before the Holy One, blessed be He. Satan came and asked Him, 'Sovereign of the Universe! Where is the Torah? 'I have given it to the earth.' answered He to him. He went to the earth and said to her, 'Where is the Torah?' 'God understandeth the way thereof, etc.'12 she replied. He went to the sea and it told him, 'It is not with me.' He went to the deep and it said to him, 'It is not in me,' for it is said. The deep saith, It is not in me: And the sea saith, It is not with me. Destruction and Death say, We have heard a rumour thereof with our ears.13 He went back and declared before Him, 'Sovereign of the Universe! I have searched throughout all the earth but have not found it!' 'Go thee to the son of Amram. answered He. [So] he went to Moses and asked him, 'Where is the Torah which the Holy One, blessed be He, gave unto thee?' 'Who am I then,' he retorted, 'that the Holy One, blessed be He, should give me the Torah?' Said the Holy One, blessed be He, to Moses, 'Moses, art thou a liar!' 'Sovereign of the Universe!' he replied, 'Thou hast a stored-up treasure in which Thou takest delight every day: shall I keep the benefit for myself?'14 'Said the Holy One, blessed be He, to Moses, 'Moses, since thou hast [humbly] disparaged thyself, it shall be called by thy name, as it is said, Remember ye the law of Moses my servant.15 R. Joshua b. Levi also said: When Moses ascended on high, he found the Holy One. blessed be He, tying crowns on the letters [of the Torah].16 Said He to him, 'Moses, is there no [greeting of] Peace in thy town?'17 'Shall a servant extend [a greeting of] Peace to his Master!' replied he: 'Yet thou shouldst have assisted Me,'18 said He. immediately19 he cried out to Him, And now, I pray thee, let the power of the Lord be great, according as thou hast spoken.20
R. Joshua b. Levi also said: Why is it written; And when the people, saw that Moses delayed [boshesh] [to come down from the mount]?21 'Read not boshesh' [delayed] but ba'u shesh [the sixth hour had come]. When Moses ascended on high, he said to Israel, I will return at the end of forty days, at the beginning of the sixth hour.22 At the end of forty days Satan came and confounded the world. Said he to them: 'Where is your teacher Moses?' 'He has ascended on high,' they answered him. 'The sixth [hour] has come,' said he to them, but they disregarded him. 'He is dead' - but they disregarded him. [Thereupon] he showed them a vision of his bier, and this is what they said to Aaron, for this Moses, the man, etc.,23
One of the Rabbis asked R. Kahana: Hast thou heard what the mountain of Sinai [connotes]? The mountain whereon miracles [nissim] were performed for Israel, he replied. Then it should be called Mount Nisal? But [it means] the mountain whereon a happy augury [siman] took place for Israel. Then it should be called, Mount Simanai? Said he to him, Why dost thou not frequent [the academy of] R. Papa and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua, who make a study of aggadah. For R. Hisda and Rabbah the son of R. Huna both said, What is [the meaning of] Mount Sinai? The mountain whereon there descended hostility [sin'ah ] toward idolaters.24 And thus R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: It has five names: The Wilderness of Zin, [meaning] that Israel were given commandments there;25 the Wilderness of Kadesh, where the Israelites were sanctified [kadosh], the Wilderness of Kedemoth, because a priority [kedumah] was conferred there;26 the Wilderness of Paran,
(1) Ibid. 8.
(2) Ibid. 7.
(3) This connects tissa with massa. [Or, to involve you in a false oath.]
(4) Ibid. 12.
(5) Ibid. 13-15.
(6) Ps. VIII, 10.
(7) Showing that they no longer demanded that the Torah be kept in Heaven.
(8) Ps. LXVIII, 19.
(9) I.e.. for their disparaging reference to thee as a mere mortal created from the dust (adamah); cf. Gen. II, 7, where the Hebrew for 'Man' and 'ground' are adam and adamah respectively.
(10) Num. XVI, 47.
(11) Ibid. 48.
(12) Job. XXVIII, 23.
(13) Ibid. 14, 22.
(14) Surely it was not given to me alone!
(15) Mal. III, 22.
(16) The 'crowns' or 'Taggin', as they are generally designated, are three small strokes (ziyyunim =daggers) which are written on the top of the letters ש ע ט נ ז גץ. For a discussion of their origin and purpose v. J.E. art. Taggin.
(17) Shalom (peace) is the usual greeting in Hebrew.
(18) By wishing Me success in My labours.
(19) At a later ascent (Rashi).
(20) Num. XIV, 17.
(21) Ex. XXXII, 1.
(22) I.e., at midday.
(24) They showed their unworthiness by rejecting the Torah.
(25) Zin being connected with ziwah, 'he commanded'.
(26) I.e., Israel was made pre-eminent by his acceptance of the Torah. [Or, the Torah which preceded Creation, v. Pes. 54a.]
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 89b
because Israel was fruitful [paru] and multiplied there; and the Wilderness of Sinai, because hostility toward idolaters descended thereon. Whilst what was its [real] name? its name was Horeb. Now they disagree with R. Abbahu, For R. Abbahu said: its name was Mount Sinai, and why was it called Mount Horeb? Because desolation [hurbah] to idolaters descended thereon.
HOW DO WE KNOW THAT A CRIMSON-COLOURED STRAP IS TIED, etc., [Instead of] ka-shanim [like scarlet threads], kashani [like a scarlet thread] is required?1 Said R. Isaac, The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel: [Even] if your sins be like these years [ka-shanim] which have continued in ordered fashion from the six days of the Creation until now,2 yet they shall be as white as snow.3 Raba lectured: What is meant by, Go now, and let us reason together, shall say the Lord.4 [Instead of] 'Go now', Come now, is required: [instead of] 'shall say the Lord', saith the Lord, is required?5 in the time to come the Holy One, blessed be He, shall say unto Israel, 'Go now to your forefathers, and they will reprove you.'6 And they shall say before Him, 'Sovereign of the Universe! To whom shall we go? To Abraham, to whom Thou didst say, Know of a surety [that thy seed shall be a stranger ... and they shall afflict them ... ],7 yet he did not entreat mercy for us? To Isaac, who blessed Esau, And it shall come to pass, when thou shalt have dominion,8 and yet he did not entreat mercy for us? To Jacob, to whom Thou didst say, I will go down with thee into Egypt, and yet he did not entreat mercy for us? To whom then shall we go now? [Rather] let the Lord state [our wrongs]!'9 The Holy One, shall answer them, Since ye have made yourselves dependent upon Me, 'though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow'.
R. Samuel b. Nahmani also said in R. Jonathan's name: What is meant by, For thou art our father, though Abraham knoweth is not, and Israel doth not acknowledge us: thou, O Lord, art our father; our redeemer from everlasting is thy name?10 In the future to come the Holy One, blessed be He, will say to Abraham. 'Thy children have sinned against Me.' He shall answer Him, 'Sovereign of the Universe! Let them be wiped out for the sanctification of Thy Name.' Then shall He say, 'I will say this to Jacob, who experienced the pain of bringing up children: peradventure he will supplicate mercy for them. 'So He will say to him, 'Thy children have sinned.' He [too] shall answer Him, 'Sovereign of the Universe! Let them be wiped out for the sanctification of Thy Name.' He shall retort, 'There is no reason in old men, and no counsel in children!' Then shall he say to Isaac, 'Thy children have sinned against me.' But he shall answer Him, 'Sovereign of the Universe! Are they my children and not Thy children. When they gave precedence to "we will do" over "we will hearken" before Thee, Thou calledst them, Israel my son, my firstborn:11 now they are my sons, not Thy sons! Moreover, how much have they sinned? How many are the years of man? Seventy. Subtract twenty, for which Thou dost not punish,12 [and] there remain fifty. Subtract twenty-five which comprise the nights,13 [and] there remain twenty-five. Subtract twelve and a half of prayer, eating, and Nature's calls, [and] there remain twelve and a half. If Thou wilt bear all, 'tis well; if not, half be upon me and half upon Thee. And shouldst Thou say, they must all be upon me, lo! I offered myself up before Thee [as a sacrifice]!' [Thereupon] they shall commence and say, 'For thou [i.e., Isaac] art our father.' Then shall Isaac say to them, 'Instead of praising me, praise the Holy One, blessed be He,' and Isaac shall show them the Holy One, blessed be He, with their own eyes. Immediately they shall lift up their eyes on high and exclaim, 'Thou, O Lord, art our father; our redeemer from everlasting is thy name.'
R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: it was fitting for our father Jacob to go down into Egypt in iron chains, but that his merit saved him,14 for it is written, I drew them with the cords of a man, with bands of love; and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I laid meat before them.15
MISHNAH. IF ONE CARRIES OUT WOOD, [THE STANDARD FOR CULPABILITY IS] AS MUCH AS IS REQUIRED FOR BOILING A LIGHT EGG; [SEASONING] SPICES, AS MUCH AS IS REQUIRED FOR SEASONING A LIGHT EGG; AND THEY COMBINE WITH EACH OTHER.16 NUTSHELLS, POMEGRANATE SHELLS, WOAD AND MADDER, [THE STANDARD IS] AS MUCH AS IS REQUIRED FOR DYEING THE SMALL PIECE OF CLOTH AT THE OPENING [TOP] OF A NETWORK. URINE, NATRON.17 LYE,18 CIMOLIAN EARTH,19 AND ASHLEG,20 AS MUCH AS IS REQUIRED FOR WASHING THE SMALL PIECE OF CLOTH AT THE OPENING [TOP] OF A NETWORK; R. JUDAH SAID: AS MUCH AS IS REQUIRED FOR REMOVING THE STAIN.21
GEMARA. [But] we have [already] learnt it once: A reed, (the standard is] as much as is required for making a pen. But if it is thick or crushed, as much as is required for boiling the lightest of eggs beaten up and placed in a stew pot?22 - You might say, [That is only] there, because it is unfit for anything [else], but since wood is fit for the tooth of a key, for no matter how little involved [culpability is]; hence we are informed [otherwise]. [SEASONING] SPICES, AS MUCH AS IS REQUIRED FOR SEASONING A LIGHT EGG. But the following contradicts this: Spices of two or three designations23 belonging to the same species or three [different] species are forbidden,24 and they combine with each other.25 And Hezekiah observed;
(1) Isaiah should employ the singular, parallel to 'snow' in the other half of the sentence.
(2) I.e., no matter how deeply sin has eaten into you.
(3) Isa. I, 18.
(5) E.V. is 'come' and 'saith', but these translations are inexact.
(6) Or, convince you - of your wrong-doing.
(7) Gen. XV, 13.
(8) Ibid. XXVII, 40. (11) Ibid. XLVI, 4.
(9) Do Thou rebuke us, not they, for they did not show themselves merciful.
(10) Isa. LXIII, 16.
(11) Ex. IV. 22.
(12) Rashi: As we find God did not punish those up to twenty years of age who accepted the report of the spies; v. Num. XIV, 29.
(13) When one sleeps and does not sin.
(14) Lit., 'caused it for him' - that he went down as Joseph's honoured guest.
(15) Hos. XI, 4.
(16) To make up the standard.
(17) V. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 330, n. 5.
(18) A sort of soap.
(19) A clay used for cleansing.
(20) A kind of alkali or mineral used as soap.
(21) Caused by a menstruous woman, v. Sanh. 49b.
(22) And obviously the same applies to wood.
(23) Rashi: e.g., black pepper, white pepper, etc. Tosaf.: spices forbidden under various headings, e.g., 'orlah, kil'ayim, etc.
(24) If used for seasoning food, the food is interdicted.
(25) If there is not sufficient in one to impart a flavour but only in combination with each other.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 90a
They learnt this of sweetening condiments,1 Since they are fit for sweetening a dish. Thus it is only because they are fit for sweetening a dish, but otherwise it is not so? - Here too [in our Mishnah] they are fit for sweetening.
NUTSHELLS, POMEGRANATE SHELLS, WOAD AND MADDER, [THE STANDARD IS] AS MUCH AS IS REQUIRED FOR DYEING THE SMALL PIECE OF CLOTH, [etc.]. But this contradicts it: If one carries out dissolved dyes,2 [the standard is] as much as is required for dyeing a sample colour for wool?3 - Said R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: That is because no man troubles to steep dyes in order to dye therewith a sample colour for wool.
URINE. A Tanna taught: Urine, until forty days.4
NATRON. it was taught: Alexandrian natron, but not natron of Antipatris.5
LYE [BORITH]. Rab Judah said: That is sand. But it was taught: Borith and sand? Rather what is Borith? Sulphur. An objection is raised: To these were added halbezin6 and le'enn7 and borith and ahol.8 But if you maintain that it is sulphur, is then sulphur subject to shebi'ith? Surely it was taught: This is the general rule: Whatever as a root is subject to shebi'ith, but that which has no root is not subject to shebi'ith? But what is borith? Ahala.9 But it was taught: And borith and ahala?10 - There are two kinds of ahala.
CIMOLIAN EARTH. Rab Judah said: That is 'pull out stick in.'11
ASHLEG. Samuel said: I asked all seafarers and they told me that it is called shunana; it is found in the cavity wherein the pearl lies and it is scraped out with an iron nail.
MISHNAH. [IF ONE CARRIES OUT] LONG PEPPER, OF WHATEVER QUANTITY, ITRAN,12 OF WHATEVER QUANTITY, VARIOUS KINDS OF PERFUME, OF WHATEVER QUANTITY, VARIOUS KINDS OF METAL, OF WHATEVER QUANTITY, [PIECES] OF THE ALTAR STONES OR THE ALTAR EARTH, MOTH-EATEN SCROLLS OR THEIR MOTH-EATEN MANTLES, OF WHATEVER QUANTITY, [HE IS CULPABLE]. BECAUSE THEY ARE STORED AWAY IN ORDER TO BE HIDDEN.13 R. JUDAH SAID: ALSO HE WHO CARRIES OUT THE SERVICE VESSELS OF IDOLS, OF WHATEVER SIZE, [IS CULPABLE], FOR IT IS SAID, AND THERE SHALL NOT CLEAVE AUGHT OF THE ACCURSED THING TO THINE HAND.14
GEMARA. Of what use is any [small] quantity of long pepper? For [dispelling] the [evil] odour of one's mouth.
ITRAN, OF WHATEVER QUANTITY. What is this good for? For megrim.
VARIOUS KINDS OF PERFUME, OF WHATEVER QUANTITY. Our Rabbis taught: If one carries out a malodorous [perfume], [the standard is] however little: good oil, however little: crimson [dye],15 however little; and a closed rose,16 [the standard is] one. VARIOUS KINDS OF METAL, OF WHATEVER QUANTITY. What is it fit for? - It was taught; R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Because one can make a small goad out of it.
Our Rabbis taught: If one says, 'Behold, I vow17 iron,'18 - others rule:19 He must not give less than a square cubit [of sheet iron]. What is it fit for? - Said R. Joseph: To ward off the ravens.20 Some state, Others rule: He must not give less than a raven barrier. And how much is that? - Said R. Joseph: A square cubit. [If he vows] brass, he must not give less than a silver ma'ah['s worth]. it was taught, R. Eleazar said: He must not give less than a small brass hook. What is it fit for?21 - Said Abaye, The wicks were scraped out and the branches [of the candelabrum] were cleansed therewith.
MOTH-EATEN SCROLLS AND MOTH-EATEN MANTLES. Rab Judah said: The worm [mekak] that attacks scrolls, the worm [tekak] of silk, the mite [ela] of grapes, the worm [pah] of figs, and the worm [heh] of pomegranates are all dangerous.22 A certain disciple was sitting before R. Johanan eating figs. 'My Master,' he exclaimed, there are thorns in the figs. 'The pah [worm] has killed this person,' answered he.23
MISHNAH. IF ONE CARRIES OUT A PEDLAR'S BASKET, THOUGH IT CONTAINS MANY COMMODITIES, HE INCURS ONLY ONE SIN-OFFERING. [FOR] GARDEN-SEEDS, [THE STANDARD IS] LESS THAN THE SIZE OF A DRIED FIG; R. JUDAH B. BATHYRA RULED: FIVE.
(1) I.e., where the different kinds of spices are all for sweetening.
(2) Ready for use.
(3) Given to the dyer.
(4) After that it loses its efficacy as a cleansing agent, and the standard of the Mishnah does not apply.
(5) A city founded by Herod the Great c. 10 B.C.E. in the plain of Kefar Saba. it was the most northerly limit of Judea (Tosaf. Git. VII. 9; Yoma 69a), and about twenty-six miles south of Caesarea.
(6) Jast.: bulb of ornithogalum.
(7) Jast.: garden-orache.
(8) Jast.: an alcalic plant used as soap. - These were added to the list of plants subject to the laws of the seventh year
(9) Jast.: a mineral substance used for cleansing. Maim. Nid. IX, 6. states that it is a vegetable.
(10) This is not the same Baraitha as cited before; v. Maharsha.
(11) A popular nickname for Cimolian carth.
(12) A kind of resin used for lighting: cf. supra 24b.
(13) When a sacred thing ceases to be fit for use, it must be 'hidden', i.e., buried or otherwise disposed of in accordance with the regulations stated in Meg. 26b, but not thrown away.
(14) Deut. XIII, 17.
(15) V. p. 218, n. 11.
(16) Lit., 'the virgin of a rose'.
(17) Lit.. 'I (take) upon myself'.
(18) To the Temple.
(19) 'Others' frequently refers to R. Meir, Hor. 13b.
(20) Rashi: spiked sheets of metal were placed on the Temple roof to prevent birds from alighting thereon; v. M.K. 9a.
(21) In the Temple.
(22) To him who eats them.
(23) They are dangerous worms, not thorns.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 90b
[FOR] CUCUMBER SEED, [THE STANDARD IS] TWO; SEED OF GOURDS, TWO; SEED OF EGYPTIAN BEANS, TWO. IF ONE CARRIES OUT A LIVE CLEAN1 LOCUST, WHATEVER ITS SIZE; DEAD, [ITS STANDARD IS] THE SIZE OF A DRIED FIG. THE BIRD OF THE VINEYARDS,2 WHETHER LIVE OR DEAD, WHATEVER ITS SIZE, BECAUSE IT IS STORED AWAY FOR A MEDICINE.3 R. JUDAH SAID: ALSO HE WHO CARRIES OUT A LIVE UNCLEAN LOCUST, WHATEVER ITS SIZE, [IS CULPABLE], BECAUSE IT IS PUT AWAY FOR A CHILD TO PLAY WITH.
GEMARA. But this contradicts it: Manure, or thin sand, [the standard is] as much as is required for fertillizing a cabbage stalk: this is R. Akiba's view. But the Sages maintain: For fertilizing one leek-plant?4 - Said R. Papa: In the one case it is sown, and in the other it is not, because one does not trouble to carry out a single seed for sowing.
CUCUMBER SEED. Our Rabbis taught: if one carries out kernels [of dates], - If for planting, [the standard for culpability is] two; if for eating, as much as fills the mouth of a swine. And how much fills the mouth of a swine? One. If for fuel, as much as is required for boiling a light egg; if for calculating,5 two - others say, five. Our Rabbis taught: if one carries out two hairs of a horse's tall or a cow's tall, he is culpable, because these are laid aside for [bird] snares. Of the stiff bristles of a swine, one [involves liability]; of palm bands,6 two; of palm fillets,7 one.
THE BIRD OF THE VINEYARDS, WHETHER LIVE OR DEAD, WHATEVER ITS SIZE. What is the bird of the vineyards? - Said Rab: Palya be'ari.8 Abaye observed: And it is found in a palm tree of [only] one covering, and it is prepared [as food] for [acquiring] wisdom; one eats half of its right [side] and half of its left, places it [the rest] in a brass tube and seals it with sixty [i.e., many] seals and suspends it around his left arm; and the token thereof is. A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart is at his left.9 He acquires as much wisdom as he desires, studies as much as he desires, and [then] eats the other half, for if [he does] not, his learning will vanish.10
R. JUDAH SAID: ALSO HE WHO CARRIES OUT, etc. But the first Tanna holds, Not so.11 What is the reason? Lest he [the child] eat it. If so, a clean [locust] is the same, for R. Kahana was standing before Rab and passing a shoshiba12 in front of his mouth. 'Take it away,' said he to him, 'that people should not say that you are eating it and thereby violating [the injunction], ye shall not make yourselves abominable.'13 Rather [the reason is] lest it dies and he [the child] eat it. But R. Judah [holds], if it dies the child will indeed weep for it.14
MISHNAH. IF ONE LAYS [AUGHT] ASIDE FOR SOWING, FOR A SAMPLE, OR FOR A MEDICINE, AND [THEN] CARRIES IT OUT ON THE SABBATH, HE IS CULPABLE WHATEVER ITS SIZE.15 BUT ALL OTHERS ARE NOT CULPABLE THEREFOR SAVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS STANDARD.16 IF HE CARRIES IT BACK AGAIN,17 HE IS LIABle ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS STANDARD.18
GEMARA. Why must he teach, IF ONE LAYS ASIDE; let him teach, If one carries out [aught] for sowing, for a sample, or for a medicine, he is culpable, whatever its size?19 - Said Abaye: We discuss here a case e.g., where one laid it aside and [then] forgot why he laid it aside, and now he carries it out without specifying the purpose:
(1) I.e., that may be eaten.
(2) A species of locust; it is discussed in the Gemara.
(3) in accordance with the general rule of the Mishnah supra 75b.
(4) Which shows that the seed for a single plant entails culpability.
(5) E.g., each to denote a certain sum.
(6) I.e., made of palm bark.
(7) Rashi: made of the bast of palm trees. These are finer than palm bands.
(8) Perhaps, 'searcher in forests' (Jast.) - the name of a locust.
(9) Eccl. X, a fool who has to acquire wisdom has to tie this on his left arm.
(10) Lit., 'be eradicated'.
(11) An unclean locust is not laid aside, etc.
(12) A species of long-headed locust,which is eatable.
(13) Lev. XI, 43. The abomination consists in eating it alive.
(14) But not eat it.
(15) Since by laying it aside he shows that he values it.
(16) As stated in the previous chapter.
(17) Having carried it out he decides not to sow it, etc., after all, and takes it back into the house.
(18) For by changing his mind he removes the artificial value which he first attached to it, and it is the same as any other of its kind.
(19) For a definite standard is required only when one carries it out without any specified purpose. But if he states his purpose, he ipso fucto attaches a value to it.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 91a
you might say, His intention has been cancelled;1 hence we are informed that whenever one does anything, he does it with his original purpose.
Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: R. Meir maintained that one is culpable even if he carries out a single [grain of] wheat for sowing. But that is obvious, [for] we learnt, WHATEVER ITS SIZE?- You might say, WHATEVER ITS SIZE Is to exclude [the standard of] the quantity of a dried fig, yet even so [one is not guilty unless there is as much as an olive: hence we are informed [otherwise]. R. Isaac son of Rab Judah demurred: If so,2 if one declares his intention of carrying out his whole house, is he really not culpable unless he carries out his whole house?-There his intention is null vis a vis that of all men.
BUT ALL OTHERS ARE NOT CULPABLE THEREFOR SAVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS STANDARD. Our Mishnah does not agree with R. Simeon b. Eleazar. For it was taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar stated a general rule: That which is not fit to put away, and such is not [generally] put away, yet it did become fit to a certain person,3 and he did put it away, and then another came and carried it out, the latter is rendered liable through the former's intention.
Raba said in R. Nahman's name: If one carries out as much as a dried fig for food, and then decides to [use it] for sowing, or the reverse, he is liable. But that is obvious: consider it from this point of view4 [and] there is the standard, and consider it from that point of view, [and] there is the standard? - You might say, [Both] removal and depositing5 must be done with the same intention, which is absent [here]: hence he informs us [otherwise].
Raba asked: What if one carries out half as much as a dried fig for sowing, but it swells6 and he decides [to use it] for food? Can you argue, only there7 is he culpable, because consider it from this point of view [and] there is the standard, and consider it from that point of view and there is the standard: whereas here, since it did not contain the standard of food when he carried it out, he is not culpable. Or perhaps, since he would be culpable for his intention of sowing if he were silent and did not intend it [for another purpose],8 he is still culpable now? Now, should you rule that since he would be culpable for his intention of sowing if he were silent and did not intend it for another purpose, he is still culpable now: what if one carries out as much as a dried fig for food and it shrivels up and he decides [to keep it] for sowing?9 Here it is certain that if he remained silent he would not be culpable on account of his original intention; or perhaps we regard10 the present [only]; hence he is culpable? Should you rule that we regard the present, hence he is culpable: what if one carries out as much as a dried fig for food, and it shrivels and then swells up again? Does [the principle of] disqualification operate with respect to the Sabbath or not?11 The question stands over.
Raba asked R. Nahman: What if one throws terumah12 of the size of an olive into an unclean house? In respect of what [is the question]? If in respect of the Sabbath,13 we require the size of a dried fig? If in respect of defilement,14 we require food as much as an egg?- After all, it is in respect of the Sabbath, [the circumstances being] e.g., that there is food less than an egg in quantity15 and this makes it up to an egg in quantity.16 What then: since it combines in respect of defilement he is also culpable in respect to the Sabbath; or perhaps in all matters relating to the Sabbath we require the size of a dried fig?-Said he to him, We have learnt it: Abba Saul said: As for the two loaves of bread,17 and the shewbread,18 their standard is the size of a dried fig.19 But why so: let us say, since in respect of
(1) Since he forgot it.
(2) That according to the Mishnah culpability depends on one's intentions.
(3) He found a use for it.
(4) Lit., 'go here'.
(5) v. p. I, n. 5.
(6) To the size of a dried fig-i.e., before he deposited it, and he changes his mind likewise before depositing it.
(7) In the preceding case.
(8) Intention must be verbally expressed, and is not merely mental.
(9) V. n. 4.
(10) Lit., 'go after'.
(11) The principle of disqualification (lit., 'rejection') is that once a thing or a person has been rendered unfit in respect to a certain matter, it or he remains so, even if circumstances change. Thus here, when it shrivels, it becomes unfit to cause liability, being less than the standard: does it remain so or not? (Of course, if one carries it out thus and deposits it on another occasion, he is certainly culpable. But here it became unfit in the course of one act, and the question is whether it can become fit again for the completion of this same act.)
(12) v. Glos.
(13) Whether his throwing is a culpable act.
(14) Whether it becomes unclean.
(15) Already in the house.
(16) And it alights near the first, touching it, and so both become unclean.
(17) V. Lev. XXIII, 17.
(18) v. Ex. XXV, 30.
(19) I.e., if one carries them out on the Sabbath, this is the minimum quantity involving culpability.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 91b
its going out,1 [the standard is] the size of an olive, in respect of the Sabbath too it is the size of an olive?2 How compare! There, immediately one takes it without the wall of the Temple Court it becomes unfit as that which has gone out, whereas there is no culpability for the [violation of the] Sabbath until he carries it into public ground. But here the Sabbath and defilement come simultaneously.3
IF HE CARRIES IT BACK AGAIN, HE IS LIABle ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS STANDARD. But that is obvious?Said Abaye: What case do we discuss here? E.g.,if he throws it on to a store, but its place is [distinctly] recognizable.4 You, might argue, since Its place is recognizable, it stands in its original condition;5 he [the Tanna] therefore teaches us that by throwing it on to a store he indeed nullifies it6
MISHNAH. IF ONE CARRIES OUT FOOD AND PLACES IT ON THE THRESHOLD, WHETHER HE [HIMSELF] SUBSEQUENTLY CARRIES IT OUT [INTO THE STREET] OR ANOTHER DOES SO, HE IS NOT CULPABLE, BECAUSE THE [WHOLE] ACT WAS NOT PERFORMED AT ONCE. [IF ONE CARRIES OUT] A BASKET WHICH IS FUll OF PRODUCE AND PLACES IT ON THE OUTER THRESHOLD, THOUGH MOST OF THE PRODUCE IS WITHOUT,7 HE IS NOT CULPABle UNLESS HE CARRIES OUT THE WHOLE BASKET.
GEMARA. What is this threshold? Shall we say, a threshold that is public ground? [How state then] 'HE IS NOT CULPABLE'! Surely he has carried out from private into public ground? Again, if it is a threshold that is private ground, [how state then] WHETHER HE [HIMSELF] SUBSEQUENTLY CARRIES IT OUT [INTO THE STREET] OR ANOTHER DOES SO, HE IS NOT CULPABLE'? Surely he carries out from private into public ground? Rather the threshold is a karmelith,8 and he [the Tanna] informs us this: The reason [that he is not culpable] is because it rested in the karmelith; but if it did not rest in the karmelith he would be liable,9 our Mishnah not agreeing with Ben 'Azzai. For it was taught: If one carries [an article] from a shop to an open place via a colonnade, he is liable; but Ben 'Azzai holds him not liable.10
A BASKET WHICH IS FULl OF PRODUCE. Hezekiah said: They learnt this only of a basket full of cucumbers and gourds;11 but if it is full of mustard, he is culpable.12 This proves that the tie of the vessel is not regarded as a tie.13 But R. Johanan maintained: Even if it is full of mustard he is not culpable, which proves that he holds that the tie of the vessel is regarded as a tie. R. Zera observed: Our Mishnah implies that it is neither as Hezekiah nor as R. Johanan. 'It implies that it is not as Hezekiah', for it states: UNLESS HE CARRIES OUT THE WHOLE BASKET. Thus only the whole basket; but if all the produce [is without] he is not culpable, which shows that he holds that the tie of the vessel is regarded as a tie. 'It implies that it is not as R. Johanan', for it states: THOUGH MOST OF THE PRODUCE IS WITHOUT: thus only most of the produce, but if all the produce [is without], though the tie of the basket is within, he is liable, which shows that he holds that the tie of a vessel is not regarded as a tie. But in that case there is a difficulty?14 -Hezekiah reconciles it in accordance with his view, while R. Johanan reconciles it in accordance with his view. Hezekiah reconciles it in accordance with his view: UNLESS HE CARRIES OUT THE WHOLE BASKET. When is that? in the case of a basket full of cucumbers and gourds. But if it is full of mustard, it is treated as though HE CARRIED OUT THE WHOLE BASKET, and he is culpable' - While R. Johanan reconciles it according to his view. THOUGH MOST OF THE PRODUCE IS WITHOUT, and not only most of the produce, but even if all the produce [is without] he is not culpable, UNLESS HE CARRIES OUT THE WHOLE BASKET.
An objection is raised: If one carries out a spice pedlar's basket and places it on the outer threshold, though most of the kinds [of the spices] are without he is not culpable, unless he carries out the whole basket. Now this was assumed to refer to grains [of spices],15 which is a difficulty according to Hezekiah?Hezekiah answers you: The reference here is to prickly shrubs.16
R. Bibi b. Abaye raised an objection: If one steals a purse on the Sabbath, he is bound to make restitution, since his liability for theft arises before his desecrating of the Sabbath. But if he drags it out of the house he is exempt, since the interdict of theft and the interdict of the Sabbath come simultaneously.17 But if you think that the tie of a vessel is regarded as a tie,18 the interdict of theft precedes that of the Sabbath?19 - If he carries it out by way of its opening,20 that indeed is so. Here we discuss the case where he carries it out by way of its bottom.21 But there is the place of its seams,
(1) Beyond the walls of the Temple Court. - These must be consumed within the Temple precincts; if they are taken beyond that they become unfit for food, and the priest who eats then, violates a negative injunction.
(2) And since we do not reason thus, we see that there is no connection between the standard of culpability for carrying out on the Sabbath and that required for other purposes.
(3) As it comes to rest the action of throwing is completed. and simultaneously the standard for defilement is reached.
(4) He did not actually state that he had changed his mind, but let it be inferred from the fact that he threw it on to a store of other grain.
(5) As being destined for separate sowing.
(6) I.e., it loses its separate identity. and becomes merely part of the store.
(7) In the street.
(8) Supra 6a.
(9) Though it was carried out by way of a karmelith.
(10) V. supra 5b.
(11) These are long, and are still partly within.
(12) Since some of it is entirely in the street.
(13) We do not regard all the mustard as one because it is tied together, as it were, by the basket, and treat it the same as cucumbers and gourds. [The 'tie of a vessel' in connect on with Sabbath is a technical phrase denoting that side of the vessel in the direction of the domain whence it is carried out (Rashi)].
(14) The Mishnah being self-contradictory.
(15) E.g.,it contained ground spices, which makes it similar to a basket of mustard.
(16) Gr. **, a kind of prickly shrub used for medicinal purposes and carried in long bundles (Jast.).
(17) v. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 491, n. 1.
(18) So that the vessel is still regarded as being within.
(19) I.e., he violates the former before the latter. For as soon as part of the purse is outside, all the money within that part is regarded as stolen, since he can take it out through the mouth of the purse as it lies thus.
(20) The mouth or opening preceding.
(21) Through which he cannot remove the coins; hence he has not stolen them yet.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 92a
which he can rip open1 if he desires and extract [the coins]? - The reference is to a bar of metal.2 But since it has straps,3 he [the thief] can take it out up to its opening, untie [the straps] and take out the bar,4 whilst the straps [still] unite it to within?5 - It refers to one that has no straps. Alternatively, it has straps, but they are wound round about it [the purse].6 And Raba said likewise: They learnt this only of a basket full of cucumbers and gourds, but if it is full of mustard he is culpable. This proves that he holds that the tie of a vessel is not regarded as a tie. Abaye ruled: Even if it is full of mustard he is not culpable, [which] proves that he holds that the tie of a vessel is regarded as a tie. Abaye [subsequently] adopted Raba's view, while Raba adopted Abaye's view. Now Abaye is self-contradictory, and Raba likewise. For it was taught: If one carries out produce into the street, - Abaye said: If in his hand, he is culpable;7 if in a vessel, he is not culpable.8 But Raba ruled: If in his hand, he is not culpable;9 if in a vessel, he is culpable?10 -Reverse it. 'If in his hand, he is culpable'? But we learnt: If the master stretches his hand without and the poor man takes [an object] from it, or places [an article] therein and he carries it inside, both are exempt? - There it is above three [handbreadths],11 but here it is below three.12
MISHNAH. IF ONE CARRIES OUT [AN ARTICLE], WHETHER WITH HIS RIGHT OR WITH HIS LEFT [HAND], IN HIS LAP OR ON HIS SHOULDER, HE IS CULPABLE, BECAUSE THUS WAS THE CARRYING OF THE CHILDREN OF KOHATH.13 IN A BACKHANDED MANNER,14 [E.G.,] WITH HIS FOOT, IN HIS MOUTH, WITH HIS ELBOW, IN HIS EAR, IN HIS HAIR, IN HIS BELT WITH ITS OPENING DOWNWARDS,15 BETWEEN HIS BELT AND HIS SHIRT, IN THE HEM OF HIS SHIRT, IN HIS SHOES OR SANDALS, HE IS NOT CULPABLE, BECAUSE HE HAS NOT CARRIED [IT] OUT AS PEOPLE [GENERALLY] CARRY OUT.
GEMARA. R. Eleazar said: If one carries out a burden above ten handbreadths [from the street level], he is culpable,16 for thus was the carrying of the children of Kohath. And how do we know that the carrying of the children of Kohath [was thus]? Because it is written, by the tabernacle, and by the altar round about:17 the altar is likened to the Tabernacle: just as the Tabernacle was ten cubits [high], so was the altar ten cubits high. And how do we know this of the Tabernacle itself? - Because it is written, Ten cubits shall be the length of a board,18 and it is [also] said, and he spread the tent over the Tabernacle,19 whereon Rab commented: Moses our Teacher spread it. Hence you may learn that the Levites were ten cubits tall.20 Now it is well known that any burden that is carried on staves, a third is above [the porter's height] and two thirds are below: thus it is found that it was very much raised.21 Alternatively, [it is deduced] from the Ark. For a Master said: The Ark was nine [handbreadths high], and the mercy-seat was one handbreadth; hence we have ten. And it is well known that any burden that is carried on staves, a third is above and two thirds are below: thus it is found that it was very much raised.22 But deduce it from Moses? - Perhaps Moses was different, because a Master said: The Shechinah rests only on a wise man, a strong man, a wealthy man and a tall man.'23
Rab said on R. Hiyya's authority: If one carries out a burden on his head24 on the Sabbath, he is liable to a sin-offering. because the people of Huzal25 do thus. Are then the people of Huzal the world's majority!26 Rather if stated, it was thus stated: Rab said on R. Hiyya's authority: if a Huzalite carries out a burden on his head on the Sabbath, he is liable to a sin-offering, because his fellow-citizens do thus. But let his practice27 be null by comparison with that of all men?28 Rather if stated, it was thus stated: If one carries out a burden on his head, he is not culpable.
(1) [The seams of their purses were loosely sewn (Tosaf.)].
(2) And as long as part of it is within he has committed no theft.
(3) To close it.
(4) Whereby he has already committed the theft.
(5) In respect of the Sabbath; hence he has not yet desecrated the Sabbath.
(6) So that when he takes it out as far as its opening, the whole bag and straps are outside too.
(7) Even if his body is in the house, because the tie of his body is not a tie in this respect.
(8) If part of the utensil is within, as R. Johanan supra 91b; this contradicts Abaye's subsequent view.
(9) The tie of the body is a tie.
(10) [It was known to the retractors of the Talmud that this controversy took place after Abaye and Raba had retracted (Tosaf.)];
(11) And the exemption is because the same person did not effect both the removal and the depositing, not because of the tie of the body.
(12) So that it is technically at rest; Cf. p. 12, n. 6.
(13) In connection with the Tabernacle in the wilderness, v. Num. VII, 9. The definition of forbidden labour on the Sabbath which involves culpability is learnt from the Tabernacle; v. supra 49b.
(14) This is the idiom for anything done in an unusual way.
(15) Of course, if the opening is on top such carrying would be quite usual.
(16) Though the space there ranks as a place of non-culpability v. supra 6a.
(17) Num. III,26.
(18) Ex. XXVI, 16.
(19) Ibid. XL, 19.
(20) It is now assumed that all Levites were as tall as Moses.
(21) The Kohathites carried the altar on staves on their shoulders. Allowing for two thirds of the altar to swing below the top of their heads, the bottom of the altar would still be a third of ten cubits-i.e., three and one third cubits-from the ground, which is considerably more than ten handbreadths.
(22) For allowing for Levites of the usual height, viz., three cubits eighteen handbreadths, and two thirds of the Ark, i.e., six and two thirds handbreadths swinging below the level of their heads, its bottom would still be eleven and one third handbreadths above the ground. - This alternative rejects the deduction from Moses.
(23) Hence Moses' height may have been exceptional. V. Ned., Sonc. ed., p. 119 n. 4; also Gorfinkle, 'The Eight chapters of Maimonides', p. 80, for an interesting though fanciful explanation of this passage.
(24) Not holding it with his hands at all.
(25) V. Sanh., p. 98, n. 3.
(26) To set the standard for all others
(27) Lit, 'mind'.
(28) For since most people do not carry it thus, it is an unusual form of carriage.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 92b
And should you object, But the people of Huzal do thus,their practice is null by comparison with that of all men.
MISHNAH. IF ONE INTENDS TO CARRY OUT [AN OBJECT] IN FRONT OF HIM, BUT IT WORKS ROUND1 BEHIND HIM, HE IS NOT CULPABLE; BEHIND HIM, BUT IT WORKS ROUND BEFORE HIM, HE IS CULPABLE. [YET] IN TRUTH IT WAS SAID: A WOMAN, WHO WRAPS HERSELF ROUND WITH AN APRON WHETHER [THE ARTICLE IS CARRIED] BEFORE OR BEHIND HER,2 IS CULPABLE, BECAUSE IT IS NATURAL3 FOR IT TO REVERSE ITSELF.4 R. JUDAH SAID: ALSO THOSE WHO RECEIVE NOTES.5
GEMARA. What is the difference in [intending to carry it] BEFORE HIM, BUT IT WORKS ROUND BEHIND HIM, that HE IS NOT CULPABle? [Presumably] because his intention was not fulfilled! But then [if he intended to carry it] BEHIND HIM, BUT IT WORKS ROUND BEFORE HIM, [there] too his intention was not fulfilled! Said R. Eleazar: There is a contradiction:6 he who learnt the one did not learn the other. Raba said: But what is the difficulty: Perhaps [where he intended to carry it] BEFORE HIM, BUT IT WORKS ROUND BEHIND HIM, this is the reason that HE IS NOT CULPABLE, because he intended a strong vigilance whereas he succeeded [in giving it only] a weak vigilance;7 but [if he intended to carry it] BEHIND HIM, BUT IT WORKED ROUND BEFORE HIM, this is the reason that HE IS CULPABLE, because he intended [only] a weak vigilance whereas he succeeded [in giving it] a strong vigilance.8 But then what is R. Eleazar's difficulty? The implications of the Mishnah are a difficulty:9 IF ONE INTENDS TO CARRY OUT [AN OBJECT] IN FRONT OF HIM, BUT IT WORKS ROUND BEFORE HIM, HE IS NOT CULPABLE: hence [if he intends to carry it] behind him and it comes behind him, he is culpable. Then consider the second clause: BEHIND HIM, BUT IT WORKS ROUND BEFORE HIM, only then is he CULPABLE: hence [if he intends to carry it] behind him and it comes behind him, he is not culpable?10 - Said R. Eleazar: There is a contradiction: he who learnt the one did not learn the other. R. Ashi observed: But what is the difficulty: Perhaps he leads to a climax:11 it is unnecessary [to rule that if he intended to carry it] behind him and it came behind him, he is culpable, since his intention was fulfilled. But even [if he intends to carry it] BEHIND HIM, BUT IT WORKS ROUND BEFORE HIM, it must be [stated]. [For] you might think that I will rule, since his intention was unfulfilled, he is not culpable; therefore he informs us that he intended [only] a weak vigilance whereas he succeeded [in giving it] a strong vigilance, So that he is culpable. [Shall we say that where he intends to carry it] behind him, and it comes behind him, there is a controversy of Tannaim? For it was taught: If one intends carrying out [an object] in his belt with its opening above, but he carries [it] out in, his belt with its opening below, [or] if one intends to carry out in his belt with its opening below,12 -R. Judah rules that he is culpable, but the Sages hold him not culpable. Said R. Judah to them: Do you not admit that [if one intends to carry out an object] behind him and it comes behind him,, he is culpable?13 Whilst they said to him: Do you not admit that [if one carries out an object] as with the back of his hand or with his foot, he is not culpable? Said R. Judah: I stated one argument, and they stated one argument. I found no answer to their argument, and they found no answer to mine. Now, since he says to them, 'Do you not admit,' does it not surely follow that the Rabbis hold that he is not culpable?14 Then on your reasoning, when they say to him, 'Do you not admit,' does it follow that R. Judah holds him, culpable! But surely it was taught: With the back of his hand or his foot, all agree that he is not culpable! Rather [conclude thus: if one intends to carry out an object] behind him and it comes behind him, all agree that he is culpable; with the back of his hand or foot, all agree that he is not culpable. They differ when [he carries it out] in his belt with its opening below: one Master likens it to [intending to carry it out] behind him and it comes behind him, while the other Master likens it [to carrying] with the back of one's hand or foot.
IN TRUTH IT WAS SAID: A WOMAN, etc. It was taught: Every [statement of] 'In truth [etc.]' is the halachah.15
R. JUDAH SAID: ALSO THOSE WHO RECEIVE NOTES. A Tanna taught: Because clerks of the State do thus.16 MISHNAH. IF ONE CARRIES OUT A LOAF INTO THE STREET, HE IS CULPABLE; IF TWO CARRY IT OUT, THEY ARE NOT CULPABLE. IF ONE COULD NOT CARRY IT OUT AND TWO CARRY IT OUT, THEY ARE CULPABLE; BUT R. SIMEON EXEMPTS [THEM].17
GEMARA. Rab Judah said in Rab's name-others state, Abaye said - others again state, it was taught in a Baraitha: If each alone is able,18 -R. Meir holds [them] culpable, while R. Judah and R. Simeon hold [them] not culpable. If each alone is unable, R. Judah and R. Meir hold [them] culpable, while R. Simeon exempts [them]. If one is able but the other is not, all agree that he is culpable.19 It was taught likewise: if one carries out a loaf into the street, he is culpable. If two carry it out: R. Meir declares him culpable; R. Judah rules: If one could not carry it out and both carry it out, they are culpable, otherwise they are not culpable; while R. Simeon exempts [them].
Whence do we know this?-For our Rabbis taught: [And if any one ... sin...] in his doing [etc.]:20 [only] he who does the whole of it [is culpable], but not he who does part of it. How so? If two hold a pitchfork and sweep [corn together];21 [or] the shuttle, and press;22 or a quill. and write; or a cane, and carry it out into the street,23 -I might think that they are culpable: hence it is stated, 'in his doing': [only] he who does the whole of it, but not he who does part of it.
(1) Lit., 'it comes'.
(2) I.e., if she hangs anything on it to carry it out, either before or behind her, but it becomes reversed.
(3) Lit_, 'fit'.
(4) Hence she knows of this, and such must be considered her intention.
(5) Tosaf.: officials who go out with documents for taking a census, inventories of the State treasury, etc. They carried these in pouches hanging from their belts, which sometimes turned round back to front. R. Judah rules that these too are culpable in such a case.
(6) Jast. R. Han .: (I take) an oath! (quoted in Tosaf. Keth. 75b s.v. תברא).
(7) Hence his intention is unfulfilled.
(8) Hence his intention was more than fulfilled.
(9) [MS.M.: Rather if there is a difficulty the following is the difficulty.]
(10) Presumably because such carriage is unnatural, as one cannot exercise a proper vigilance.
(11) Lit., 'he states', 'it is unnecessary'.
(12) This is the reading in the Tosef. Shab. and is thus emended here by Wilna Gaon. Cur. edd.: If one carries out money in his belt with its opening above he is culpable; if its opening is below, R. Judah rules that he is culpable etc.
(13) So here too, though carrying an object in a belt with its opening below is unusual.
(14) Thus it is dependent on Tannaim.
(15) V. B.M. 60a.
(16) 'Aruk: they carry their documents in an apron around their loins, and sometimes these are at the front and sometimes at the back.
(17) From a sin-offering.
(18) To carry it out alone.
(19) This is discussed infra.
(20) Lev. lv, 27.
(21) Which is forbidden on the ground of binding sheaves, supra 73a.
(22) Which is weaving.
(23) All these actions can be done by one man.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 93a
[If they hold] a round cake of pressed figs and carry it out into the street, or a beam, and carry it out into the street, - R. Judah said: If one cannot carry it out and both carry it out, they are culpable; if not, they are not culpable. R. Simeon ruled: Even if one cannot carry it out and both carry it out, they are not culpable: for this [reason] it is stated, 'in his doing', [to teach that] if a single person does it, he is liable; whereas if two do it, they are exempt.
Wherein do they differ? In this verse: And if one person of the common people shall sin unwittingly, in his doing, [etc.]. R. Simeon holds: Three limitations are written: 'a person' shall sin, 'one' shall sin,' in his doing' he shall sin.1 One excludes [the case where] one [person] removes an article [from one domain] and another deposits [it in the other domain]; a second is to exclude [the case of] each being able [separately to perform the action]; and the third is to exclude where neither is able [alone]. R. Judah [holds]: one excludes [the case where] one [person] removes and another deposits; the second is to exclude [the case of] each being able; and the third is to exclude [the case of] an individual who acts on the ruling of Beth din.2 But R. Simeon is consistent with his view, for he maintains: An individual who acts on the ruling of Beth din is liable.3 While R. Meir [argues]: Is it then written, 'a person shall sin', 'one shall sin', 'in his doing he shall sin'! [Only] two limitations are written:4 one excludes [the case where] one removes and another deposits, and the other excludes [the case of] an individual who acts on the ruling of Beth din.
The Master said. 'If one is able but the other is not, all agree that he is culpable.' Which one is culpable? - Said R. Hisda: He who is able. For if the one who is unable, - what does he do then?5 Said R. Hamnuna to him: Surely he helps him? Helping is no concrete [act], replied he. R. Zebid said on Raba's authority: We learnt likewise: If he [a zab] is sitting on a bed and four cloths are under the feet of the bed,6 they are unclean, because it cannot stand on three;7 but R. Simeon declares it clean.8 If he is riding on an animal and four cloths are under its feet, they are clean, because it can stand on three. But why so? surely each helps the other? Hence it must be because we maintain that helping is not a concrete [act]. Said Rab Judah of Diskarta:9 After all I may tell you that helping is a concrete [act]; but here it is different because it [the animal] removes it [the foot] entirely [from the ground].10 But since it alternatively removes one foot and then another, let it be as a zab who turns about.11 Did we not learn, If a zab is lying on five benches or five hollow belts:12 if along their length, they are unclean;13 but if along their breadth, they are clean. [But] if he is sleeping, [and] there is a doubt that he may have turned [about upon them],14 they are unclean? Hence15 it must surely be because we say, helping is no concrete [act].
R. Papi said in Raba's name, We too learnt thus.
(1) I.e., each of these expressions limits the law to the action of a single individual.
(2) And thereby sins; he is not liable to a sin.offering.
(3) v. Hor. 2b.
(4) v., 'one soul' and 'in his doing'.
(5) He himself can effect nothing.
(6) I.e., one cloth under each foot.
(7) So that each one is regarded as affording complete support. since the bed cannot stand without it, and therefore the cloth under it is unclean as midras (v. p. 312, n. 9). - For a thing to become unclean as midras the greater weight of the zab must rest on it.
(8) Consistently with his view here that where neither can do the work alone, each is regarded merely as a help.
(9) Deskarah, sixteen parasangs N.E. of Bagdad, Obermeyer, p. 146.
(10) Hence it is not even regarded as helping.
(11) Shifting from one support to another, as in the Mishnah quoted.
(12) Probably like long straps. but hollow, and can be used as money pouches.
(13) Because he may have shifted from one to another, so that each received the greater part of his weight.
(14) And come to be along their length.
(15) In the case of the animal.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 93b
R. Jose said: A horse defiles through its forefeet, an ass through its hindfeet, because a horse rests its weight1 on its forefeet, while an ass rests its upon its hindfeet.2 But why so, seeing that they [the feet] help each other [to bear the animal's weight]? Hence it must surely be because we say, helping is no concrete [act].
R. Ashi said, We too learnt this: R. Eliezer said: If one foot is on the utensil and the other on the pavement, one foot on the stone and the other on the pavement, we consider: wherever if the utensil or the stone be removed, he can stand on the other foot, his service is valid; if not, his service is invalid.3 Yet why so, seeing that they [the feet] help each other? Hence it must surely be because we say, helping is no concrete [act].
Rabina said, We too learnt this: If he [the priest] catches [the blood] with his right hand, while his left helps him,4 his service is valid. But why so, Seeing that they [the hands] help each other? But it must surely be because we say, helping is no concrete [act]. This proves it.
The Master said: 'If each alone is able: R. Meir holds [them] culpable.' The scholars asked: Is the standard quantity required for each, or perhaps one standard [is sufficient] for all?5 R. Hisda and R. Hamnuna [differ therein]: one maintains, The standard [is required] for each; while the other rules: One standard [is sufficient] for all. R. Papa observed in Raba's name, We too learnt thus: If he [a zab] is sitting on a bed and four cloths are under the feet of the bed, they are unclean, because it cannot stand on three.6 But why so: let the standard of gonorrhoea be necessary for each?7 Hence it must surely be because we say, One standard [suffices] for all.
R. Nahman b. Isaac said, We too learnt thus: If a deer enters a house and one person locks [it] before him,8 he is culpable; if two lock it, they are exempt.9 If one could not lock it, and both lock it, they are culpable. But why so? let the standard of trapping be necessary for each?10 Hence it must surely be because we say, One standard [suffices] for all.
Rabina said, We too learnt thus: If partners steal [an ox or a sheep] and slaughter it, they are liable.11 But why so? let the standard of slaughtering be necessary for each? Hence it must surely be because we say, One standard [suffices] for all. And R. Ashi [also] said, We too learnt thus: If two carry out a weaver's cane [quill], they are culpable. But why so? let the standard of carrying out be necessary for each? Hence it must surely be because we say, One standard [suffices] for all. Said R. Aha son of Raba to R. Ashi: Perhaps that is where it contains sufficient [fuel] to boil a light egg for each?12 -If so, he [the Tanna] should inform us about a cane in general?13 why particularly a weaver's?14 Yet perhaps it is large enough for each to weave a cloth therewith?15 Hence nothing can be inferred from this.
A tanna16 recited before R. Nahman: If two carry out a weaver's cane, they are not culpable; but R. Simeon declares them culpable. Whither does this tend!17 - Rather say, They are culpable, while R. Simeon exempts [them].
MISHNAH. IF ONE CARRIES OUT LESS THAN THE STANDARD QUANTITY OF FOOD IN A UTENSIL, HE IS NOT CULPABLE EVEN IN RESPECT OF THE UTENSIL, BECAUSE THE UTENSIL IS SUBSIDIARY THERETO. [IF ONE CARRIES OUT] A LIVING PERSON IN A BED, HE IS NOT CULPABLE EVEN IN RESPECT OF THE BED, BECAUSE THE BED IS SUBSIDIARY TO HIM;18 A CORPSE IN A BED, HE IS CULPABLE. AND LIKEWISE [IF ONE CARRIES OUT] THE SIZE OF AN OLIVE OF A CORPSE, THE SIZE OF AN OLIVE OF A NEBELAH, OR THE SIZE OF A LENTIL OF A [DEAD] CREEPING THING [SHEREZ], HE IS CULPABLE.19 BUT R. SIMEON DECLARES HIM EXEMPT.20
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: If one carries out foodstuffs of the standard quantity, if in a utensil, he is liable in respect of the foodstuffs and exempt in respect of the utensil! but if he needs the utensil, he is liable in respect of the utensil too.21 Then this proves that if one eats two olive-sized pieces of heleb in one state of unawareness, he is liable to two [sacrifices]?22 Said R. Shesheth: What are we discussing here? E.g.,
(1) Lit., 'the leaning of a horse'.
(2) The reference is to a cloth placed under the feet of these animals when a zab rides upon them.
(3) A priest performed the service in the Temple barefooted, and nothing might interpose between his feet and the pavement.
(4) Catching the blood of a sacrifice for its subsequent sprinkling on the altar is part of the sacrificial service, and like all other parts thereof must be performed with the right hand.
(5) When two people carry out an article of food which each could carry out alone, must it be as large as two dried figs, so that there is the standard for each, Or is one sufficient to render them both culpable?
(6) V. supra a for notes.
(7) 'The standard of gonorrhoea' is that a whole zab rests on an article-then it is unclean. Then here too four zabim should be lying on the bed for the four cloths to be defiled.
(8) So that it cannot escape. This constitutes trapping, which is a culpable labour; v. Mishnah supra 73a.
(9) Cf. supra 92b.
(10) Viz., two deers should be required.
(11) v. Ex. XXI, 37.
(12) Mishnah supra 89b.
(13) The standard of which is boil a light egg.
(14) The standard of which is different; v. next note.
(15) This is the standard of a weaver's cane.
(16) V. s.v. (b).
(17) I.e.. surely R. Simeon rules in the opposite direction, that if two perform an action, even if each is unable to do it separately, they are exempt. Jast. translates: towards the tail! i.e., reverse it.
(18) Carrying a living person is not a culpable offense, v. infra 94a.
(19) These are the respective minima which defile. Hence carrying them out of the house ranks as a labour of importance, since a source of contamination is thereby removed.
(20) For carrying out a corpse, etc. For its purpose is merely negative, i.e., he does not wish to have the corpse in his house, but does not actually want it in the street; hence it is a labour unessential in itself, and which R. Simeon holds is not a culpable offence, though it is forbidden.
(21) Thus he is liable to two sacrifices.
(22) Surely that is not so, yet the cases are analogous.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 94a
where he sinned unwittingly in respect of the food, but deliberately in respect of the utensil.1 R. Ashi demurred: But it is stated, 'in respect of the utensil too'?2 Rather said R. Ashi: E.g.. where he sinned unwittingly in respect of both, then [one offence] became known to him, and subsequently the other became known to him, this being dependent on the controversy of R. Johanan and Resh Lakish.3
[IF ONE CARRIES OUT] A LIVING PERSON IN A BED, HE IS NOT CULPABLE EVEN IN RESPECT OF THE BED. Shall we say that our Mishnah is [according to] R. Nathan, but not the Rabbis? For it was taught: If one carries out an animal, beast,4 or bird into the street, whether alive or [ritually] killed, he is liable [to a sacrifice]; R. Nathan said: For killed ones he is liable, but for live ones he is exempt, because the living [creature] carries itself! Said Raba, You may even say [that it agrees with] the Rabbis: the Rabbis differ from R. Nathan only in respect of an animal, beast, and bird, which stiffen themselves,5 but as for a living person, who carries himself,6 even the Rabbis agree. R. Adda b. Ahabah observed to Raba, But as to what we learnt: Ben Bathyra permits [it] in the case of a horse.7 And it was taught: Ben Bathyra permits [it] in the case of a horse, because it is employed for work which does not entail liability to a sin-offering8 . And R. Johanan observed, Ben Bathyra and R. Nathan said the same thing.9 Now if you say that the Rabbis disagree with R. Nathan only in respect of an animal, beast, or bird, because they stiffen themselves, why particularly Ben Bathyra and R. Nathan: Surely you have said that even the Rabbis agree?-When R. Johanan said [thus] it was in respect of a horse that is set apart for [carrying] birds. But are there horses set apart for birds? Yes, there are the falconers' [horses].10 R. Johanan said: Yet R. Nathan agrees in the case of a tied [living being].11 R. Adda b. Mattenah said to Abaye: But these Persians are like bound [men],12 yet R. Johanan said, Ben Bathyra and R. Nathan said the same thing?13 There they suffer from haughtiness,14 for a certain officer with whom the king was angry ran three parasangs on foot.
A CORPSE IN A BED, HE IS CULPABLE.15 AND LIKEWISE [IF ONE CARRIES OUT] THE SIZE OF AN OLIVE OR A CORPSE, etc. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name, and R. Joseph said in the name of Resh Lakish: R. Simeon declared exempt
(1) And 'liable'- means to death, for the wilful desecration of the Sabbath.
(2) Which implies the same liability.
(3) v. supra 71b. Thus according to R. Johanan he is liable to two sin-offerings if he is apprised of each in succession, and then comes to make atonement for both. But in the view of Resh Lakish he is liable to two sacrifices only if he is apprised of one, makes atonement, and is then apprised of the other (Tosaf.).
(4) Behemah means a domestic animal; hayyah, a non-domestic animal.
(5) Making themselves a dead weight, and thus they are a real burden.
(6) He has natural buoyancy.
(7) One may not sell his cattle to a Gentile, because they are used for ploughing, and thereby lose the Sabbath rest to which they are entitled (v. Ex. XX, (10). Horses, however, were not used for ploughing in Mishnaic times, but merely for riding.
(8) Riding being only Rabbinically prohibited.
(9) Sc. that it is not a labour to carry a living being, because it carries itself.
(10) The falcons which they carry are free and do not stiffen themselves; yet in the view of the Rabbis, who make an exception only in respect of a human being, one would be culpable carrying out a falcon. Hence R. Johanan specified R. Nathan.
(11) Whether human or animal, because these certainly do not carry themselves.
(12) Rashi: they ride swathed in their garments and could not walk if they wished to.
(13) I.e., Ben Bathyra permits the sale of a horse even to a Persian, showing that even a bound person is not a burden.
(14) Their haughty bearing makes them look as if they cannot walk, but actually they are able to quite well.
(15) [Tosaf. identifies R. Judah as the authority for this ruling, he being of the opinion that there is liability for a labour not essential in itself cf. supra p. 448, n. 8.]
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 94b
even him who carries out a corpse for burial.1 Raba observed: Yet R. Simeon admits in the case of [one who carries out] a spade for digging therewith or the Scroll of the Torah to read it, that he is culpable.2 That is obvious, for if this too should be regarded as a labour unrequired per se, how would a labour necessary per se be conceivably according to R. Simeon?-You might say, it must be [carried out] both for his requirements and for its own purpose, e.g., a spade in order to make it into a [metal] plate3 and for digging, a Scroll of the Law for correcting and reading: [therefore] he informs us [that it is not so].
A dead body was lying in Darukra,4 which R. Nahman b. Isaac allowed to be carried out into a karmelith. Said R. Nahman the brother of Mar son of Rabbana to R. Nahman b. Isaac: On whose authority? R. Simeon's! But Perhaps R. Simeon merely exempts [such] from liability to a sin-offering, yet there is a Rabbinical interdict. By God! said he to him, you yourself may bring it in. For [this is permitted] even according to R. Judah:5 did I then say [that it may be carried out] into the street? I [merely] said, into a karmelith: the dignity of human beings is a great thing, for it supersedes [even] a negative injunction of the Torah.6
We learnt elsewhere: If one plucks out the symptoms of uncleanness7 or burns out the raw flesh,8 he transgresses a negative injunction.9 It was stated: [If he plucks out] one of two [hairs]. he is culpable;10 one of three: R. Nahman maintained, He is culpable; R. Shesheth said, He is not culpable. R. Nahman maintained, He is culpable: his action is effective in so far that if another is removed the uncleanness departs. R. Shesheth said, He is not culpable: now at all events the uncleanness is present. R. Shesheth observed: Whence do I know it? Because we learnt: AND LIKEWISE [IF ONE CARRIES OUT] THE SIZE OF AN OLIVE OF A CORPSE, THE SIZE OF AN OLIVE OF A NEBELAH,... HE IS CULPABLE. This implies, [for] half the size of an olive he is exempt; but it was taught: [For] half the size of an olive he is culpable? Surely [then], where it was taught that he is culpable, [it means] that he carries out half the size of an olive from [a piece as large as] an olive; while where we learnt [by implication] that he is exempt, [it means] that he carries out half the size of an olive from an olive and a half.11 But R. Nahman maintains: In both these cases he is culpable;12 but as to what we learnt that he is exempt, that is where he carries out half the size of an olive of a large corpse.13
MISHNAH. IF ONE PARES HIS NAILS WITH EACH OTHER OR WITH HIS TEETH, LIKEWISE [IF ONE PLUCKS] HIS HAIR, LIKEWISE HIS MOUSTACHE, LIKEWISE HIS BEARD; AND LIKEWISE IF [A WOMAN] PLAITS [HER HAIR], LIKEWISE IF SHE PAINTS [HER EYELIDS] LIKEWISE IF SHE ROUGES [HER FACE],14 - R. ELIEZER DECLARES [THEM] CULPABLE, WHILE THE RABBIS FORBID [THESE ACTIONS] AS A SHEBUTH.15
GEMARA. R. Eleazar said: They differ only [where it is done] by hand; but if with an implement, all agree that he is culpable. That is obvious, [for] we learnt, WITH EACH OTHER?-You might say, the Rabbis hold [him] exempt even [if he does it] with an implement, while as to what is stated, WITH EACH OTHER, that is to teach you the extent16 of R. Eliezer['s ruling]:17 [hence] he informs us [otherwise].
R. Eleazar also said: They differ only [where one does it] for himself; but [if he does it] for his neighbour, all agree that he is not culpable. That is obvious, [for] we learnt, HIS NAILS?You might say. R. Eliezer holds [him] culpable even [if he does it] for his neighbour, while as to what is stated - HIS NAILS, that is to teach you the extent of the Rabbis[' ruling]:18 [hence] he informs us [otherwise].
LIKEWISE HIS HAIR, etc. It was taught: If one plucks out a full scissors' edge [of hair], he is culpable. And how much is a full scissors' edge? Said Rab Judah: Two [hairs]. But it was taught: But in respect of baldness [the standard is] two?19 -Say, and likewise in respect of baldness, [the standard is] two. It was taught likewise: If one plucks out a full scissors' edge [of hair] on the Sabbath, he is culpable. And how much is a full scissors' edge? Two. R. Eliezer said: One. But the Sages agree with R. Eliezer in the case of one who picks out white hairs from black ones, that he is culpable even for one;20 and this is interdicted even on weekdays, for it is said, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment.21
It was taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: As for a nail the greater part of which is severed,22 and shreds [of skin] the largest portions of which are severed [from the body], - by hand it is permitted [wholly to remove them]; (if one severs them] with a utensil, he is liable to a sin-offering. Is there anything which [if done] with a utensil renders one liable to a sin-offering, yet is permitted by hand at the very outset?23 -This is its meaning: If the greater portions thereof are severed by hand, it is permitted [to remove them wholly]; if done with a utensil one is not culpable, yet it is prohibited. If the greater portions thereof are not severed, [if wholly removed] by hand one is not culpable. yet it is prohibited: with a utensil, one is liable to a sin-offering. Rab Judah said: The halachah is as R. Simeon b. Eleazar. Said Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in R. Johanan's name: Providing they are severed towards the top.24 so that they pain him.
LIKEWISE IF [A WOMAN] PLAITS, etc. She who plaits, paints or rouges, on what score is she culpable?-R. Abin said in the name of R. Jose son of R. Hanina: She who plaits on the score of weaving; she who paints on the score of writing; she who rouges on account of spinning.25 Said the Rabbis before R. Abbahu: Are then weaving, writing, and spinning done in this way? Rather said R. Abbahu: R. Jose son of R. Hanina's [statement] was explained to me [thus]:
(1) Though that is for the requirements of the dead, he is exempt, since it is not for the requirements of the living.
(2) Since it is for his own requirements.
(3) [Aliter: to fix upon it (if blunted) a plate. v. Rash.]
(4) Or, Drukerith, Darkerith, a Babylonian town near Wasit on the lower Tigris; Obermeyer, p. 197.
(5) Who holds a labour not required per se to be a culpable offence.
(6) Hence this is permitted. [Not exactly a Biblical prohibition but an interdict of the Rabbis whose enactments have Biblical force (Rashi). V. Ber. 19b.]
(7) v., the two whitened hairs which are a proof of leprosy; v. Lev. XIII, 3 (the minimum is two hairs).
(8) Also a symptom of leprosy, ibid. 10.
(9) Deut. XXI, 8: Take heed in the plague of leprosy this is interpreted as a command not to remove the evidences thereof.
(10) Since he thereby effectively removes the symptom of leprosy, the remaining one being insufficient to prove him unclean.
(11) He is culpable in the first case because his action is effective, but in the second it does not effect anything, and the same applies here.
(12) His reasoning is the same as in the case of leprosy.
(13) For even if another half is carried out, it makes no difference to the contaminating efficacy of the corpse.
(14) One of the explanations of Rashi. V. also Krauss, T.A. I p. 692 n. 293.
(15) V. Glos.
(16) Lit., 'power'.
(17) Viz., that even then he is culpable.
(18) Viz., that he is not culpable even when he pares his own nails.
(19) V. Deut. XIV, 1: the prohibition is infringed by the plucking of two hairs. The conjunction waw may mean, either 'and' or 'but'; it is understood in the latter sense here, and thus implies that there is a different standard for the Sabbath, since both statements are part of the same Baraitha.
(20) For its removal makes him look younger; hence it is regarded as a labour.
(21) Ibid. XXII, 5. This is interpreted as a general prohibition of effeminacy. which includes the attempt to make oneself look young by such methods.
(22) I.e, it is hanging and nearly torn off.
(23) Surely not!
(24) Near the nail.
(25) The rouge was drawn out in thread-like lengths, and thus it resembled spinning; v. Tosaf. M.K. 9b s.v. פוקסת.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 95a
She who paints [is culpable] on the score of dyeing; she who plaits and rouges, on the score of building. Is this then the manner of building?-Even so, as R. Simeon b. Menassia expounded: And the Lord God builded the rib [. . . into a woman]:1 this teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, plaited Eve['s hair] and brought her to Adam, for in the sea-towns plaiting is called 'building'.
It was taught, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: If [a woman] plaits [hair], paints [the eyes], or rouges [the face], - if [she does this] to herself, she is not culpable; [if to] her companion, she is culpable. And thus did R. Simeon b. Eleazar [say on R. Eliezer's authority: A woman must not apply paint to her face, because she dyes.
Our Rabbis taught: One who milks, sets milk [for curdling],2 and makes cheese, [the standard is] the size of a dried fig. If one sweeps [the floor], lays the dust [by sprinkling water], and removes loaves of honey, if he does this unwittingly on the Sabbath, he is liable to a sin.offering; if he does it deliberately on a Festival, he is flagellated with forty3 [lashes]: this is R. Eliezer's view. But the Sages say: In both cases it is [forbidden] only as a shebuth.4 R. Nahman b. Guria visited Nehardea. He was asked. If one milks, on what score is he culpable? On the score of milking, He replied. If one sets milk, or what score is he culpable? On the score of setting milk, he replied. If one makes cheese, on what score is he liable? On account of making cheese, he replied. Your teacher must have been a reed-cutter in a marsh, they jeered at him. [So] he went and asked in the Beth Hamidrash. Said they to him, He who milks is liable on account of unloading.5 He who sets milk is liable on account of selecting.6 He who makes cheese is liable on account of building.7
'If one sweeps, lays the dust, and removes loaves of honey, if he does this unwittingly on the Sabbath, he is liable to a sin-offering; if he does it deliberately on a Festival, he is flagellated with forty [lashes]: this is R. Eliezer's view.' R. Eleazar observed, 'What is R. Eliezer's reason? Because it is written, and he dipped if in the forest of honey:8 now, what is the connection between a forest and honey.?9 But it is to teach you: just as a forest, he who detaches [aught] from it on the Sabbath is liable to a sin-offering, so are loaves of honey, he who removes [honey] therefrom is liable to a sin-offering.
Amemar permitted sprinkling [the floors] in Mahoza.10 He argued: What is the reason that the Rabbis said [that it is forbidden]? [It is] lest one come to level up depressions [in the earthen floor]. Here there are no depressions.11 Rabbah Tosfa'ah12 found Rabina suffering discomfort on account of the heat - others state, Mar Kashisha son of Raba found R. Ashi suffering discomfort on account of the heat. Said he to him - Does not my Master agree with what was taught: If one wishes to sprinkle his house on the Sabbath, he can bring a basin full of water, wash his face in one corner, his hands in another, and his feet in another, and thus the house is sprinkled automatically? I did not think of it,13 he replied. It was taught: A wise woman can sprinkle her house on the Sabbath.14 But now that we hold as R. Simeon,15 it is permitted even at the very outset.16
MISHNAH. IF ONE DETACHES [AUGHT] FROM A PERFORATED POT, HE IS CULPABLE;17 IF IT IS UNPERFORATED, HE IS EXEMPT. BUT R. SIMEON DECLARES [HIM] EXEMPT IN BOTH CASES.
GEMARA. Abaye pointed out a contradiction to Raba - others state, R. Hiyya b. Rab to Rab: We learnt, R. SIMEON DECLARES [HIM] EXEMPT IN BOTH CASES, which proves that according to R. Simeon a perforated [pot] is treated the same as an unperforated [one]. But the following contradicts it. R. Simeon said: The only difference between a perforated and an unperforated [pot]
(1) Gen. II, 22.
(2) Rashi: Jast.: who beats milk into a pulp. Levy, Worterbuch, s.v. חבץ: if one curdles milk in order to press butter out of it; v. also T.A. II,135.
(3) Strictly speaking, thirty-nine.
(4) v. Glos. This being a Rabbinical interdict, there is neither a sin-offering nor flagellation.
(5) It is similar thereto, the milk being unloaded from whence it is collected in the cow. As such it is a secondary form of threshing, where the chaff is separated and unloaded, as it were, from the grain.
(6) For the whey is thereby selected and separated from the rest of the milk which is to curdle.
(7) The solidifying of the liquid is regarded as similar to the act of putting together an edifice.
(8) I Sam. XIV, 27, lit. translation. E.V.: honeycomb.
(9) Surely none at all!
(10) V. p. 150, n. 11.
(11) All the houses had stone floors.
(12) Perhaps of Thospia. Neub. Geogr. p. 332: capital of the Armenian district Thospitis.
(13) Others: do not agree with it.
(14) By the foregoing or a similar device.
(15) That what is unintentional is permitted. When one sprinkles it is not his intention that the water should knead together bits of earth and thus smooth out the depressions.
(16) Without resort to any expedient.
(17) Cf. p. 388, n.3.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 95b
is in respect of making [its] plants fit [to become unclean]?1 - In all respects, answered he, R. Simeon treats it as detached, but in the matter of uncleanness it is different, because the Torah extended [the scope of] cleanness in the case of plants [seeds], for it is said, [And if aught of their carcase fall] upon any sowing seed which is to be sown, [it is clean].2
A certain old man asked R. Zera: If the root is over against the hole, what is R. Simeon's ruling then?3 He was silent and answered him nought. On a [subsequent] occasion he found him sitting and teaching: Yet R. Simeon admits that if it is perforated to the extent of making it clean, [there is culpability].4 Said he to him, Seeing that I asked you about a root that is over against the perforation and you gave me no reply. can there be a doubt concerning [a pot that is] perforated to the extent of making it clean?5 Abaye observed: If this [dictum] of R. Zera was stated, it was stated thus: Yet R. Simeon agrees that if it is perforated below [the capacity of] a rebi'ith, [there is culpability].6
Raba said: There are five principles in the case of an earthen utensil: [i] If it has a perforation sufficient [only] for a liquid to run out, it is clean in that it cannot be defiled when already a mutilated vessel,7 yet it is still a utensil in respect of sanctifying the water of lustration therein.8 [ii] If it has a perforation sufficient for a liquid to run in,9 it is 'clean' in respect of sanctifying the water of lustration therein,10 yet it is still a utensil to render its plants fit [to become unclean].11 [iii] If it has a perforation as large as a small root, it is 'clean' in respect of making its plants fit [to become defiled], yet it is still a utensil in that it can hold olives.12 [iv] If it has a perforation large enough to allow olives to fall out, it is clean in that it cannot hold olives, yet it is still a utensil to contain pomegranates.13 [v] If t has a perforation large enough to allow pomegranates to fall through, it is clean in respect of all things.14 But if it is closed with an airtight lid - [it ranks as a utensil] unless the greater portion thereof is broken.15
R. Assi said: I have heard that the standard of an earthen vessel is [a hole] large enough to allow a pomegranate to fall out.16 Said Raba to him: Perhaps you heard [this] Only of [a vessel] closed with a tight-fitting lid!17 But it was Raba himself who said: If it is closed with a tight-fitting lid, [it ranks as a utensil] unless the greater portion thereof is broken? - There is no difficulty:
(1) Edibles, e.g., grain, vegetables, etc-, can be defiled only if moisture has fallen upon them after they were detached from the soil. Now, a perforated pot is regarded as attached to the soil, and therefore its plants cannot become susceptible to uncleanness; whereas an unperforated pot is detached, and so if moisture falls upon its plant, when grown it is henceforth fit to become unclean - This shows that R. Simeon too recognizes this difference.
(2) Lev. XI, 37, i.e.,if it is in any way attached to the soil it is clean, and this includes a perforated pot.
(3) If one tears out that root on the Sabbath (Rashi). Here the root draws sustenance directly from the ground.
(4) If a utensil becomes unclean and then a hole is made in it large enough for an olive to fall through. It technically ceases to be a utensil and becomes clean. Thus here too, if the perforation is if that size, R. Simeon admits that the pot and its contents, even such as are not over against the perforation. are regarded as attached to the soil.
(5) It is certain that such a case is doubtful and one cannot positively state R. Simeon's views thereon.
(6) I.e., if the perforation is so low in the sides of the pot that the portion of the pot beneath it cannot hold a revi'ith. Then it is certainly not regarded as a utensil, and its plants are held to grow direct from the ground. Accordingly the perforations spoken of hitherto, and in the Mishnah, are high up in the sides of the pot, and certainly not in the bottom, as is the case with our pots.
(7) If the vessel is sound, such a small hole does not deprive it of its character as a utensil and it is still susceptible to uncleanness. But if it was already mutilated, e.g..cracked, this added perforation renders it incapable of becoming unclean.
(8) If otherwise sound, v. Num. XIX, 17: putting the water in a utensil is designated sanctification.
(9) That is naturally somewhat larger than the preceding.
(10) 'Clean' is employed idiomatically to imply that it is not a utensil in respect of what follows; thus one cannot sanctify, etc.
(11) V. p. 456. n. 6. Even the Rabbis admit that if the perforation is not larger the pot and is contents are treated as detached.
(12) And hence susceptible to defilement. If a utensil is not designated for any particular purpose, it must be able to hold olives in order to be susceptible to defilement.
(13) I.e., if it was explicitly designated for holding pomegranates, it is still a utensil and susceptible to defilement.
(14) It is no longer susceptible, or, if it was defiled before it was perforated, it becomes clean. Henceforth it is susceptible to defilement only if its owner puts it aside to use as a mutilated vessel (Rashi).
(15) The reference is to Num. XIX, 15, q v. If the vessel is closed with a tight-fitting lid, its contents too remain clean, unless the greater portion is broken, in which case it does not rank as a vessel and cannot protect its contents from the contamination spread by the corpse.
(16) I.e. - unless it has such a large hole it ranks as a utensil.
(17) I.e. - that it affords no protection if it has such a large hole.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 96a
the one refers to large ones, the other to small ones.1
R. Assi said, They [the Tannaim] learnt. As for an earthen vessel, its standard is [a hole] large enough to admit a liquid, while [one merely] sufficient to allow a liquid to run out was mentioned only in connection with a mutilated vessel.2 What is the reason? - Said Mar Zutra son of R. Nahman: Because people do not say, 'Let us bring one fragment for another.'3 'Ulla said, Two amoraim in Palestine differ on this matter, [viz.,] R. Jose son of R. Abin and R. Jose son of Zabda: One maintains: [the standard is a hole] large enough to allow a pomegranate to fall out; while the other rules: As large as a small root.4 And your sign is, 'whether one increases or whether one diminishes.5
R. Hinena b. Kahana said in R. Eliezer's name: As for an earthen vessel, its standard is [a hole] large enough to allow olives to fall out;6 and Mar Kashisha son of Rabbah completes [this statement] in R. Eliezer's name: And then they rank as vessels of dung, stone, or clay,7 which do not contract uncleanness either by Biblical or by Rabbinical law;8 but in respect to [the law of] a tight. fitting lid [it ranks as a vessel] unless the greater portion thereof is broken through.
MISHNAH. IF ONE THROWS [AN ARTICLE] FROM PRIVATE INTO PUBLIC GROUND [OR] FROM PUBLIC INTO PRIVATE GROUND, HE IS CULPABLE. FROM ONE PRIVATE DOMAIN TO ANOTHER, AND PUBLIC GROUND LIES BETWEEN, R. AKIBA HOLDS HIM LIABLE, BUT THE SAGES DECLARE HIM EXEMPT. HOW SO?9 IF THERE ARE TWO BALCONIES FACING EACH OTHER IN THE STREET, HE WHO REACHES OVER OR THROWS [AN ARTICLE] FROM ONE TO THE OTHER IS NOT CULPABLE. IF BOTH ARE ON THE SAME STOREY,10 HE WHO REACHES OVER IS CULPABLE, WHILE HE WHO THROWS IS NOT, FOR THUS WAS THE SERVICE OF THE LEVITES:11 TWO WAGGONS [STOOD] BEHIND EACH OTHER IN PUBLIC GROUND, [AND] THEY REACHED OVER THE BOARDS FROM ONE TO ANOTHER, BUT DID NOT THROW.
(1) Rashi: in the case of large ones the greater portion must be broken, but for small ones a hole large enough for a pomegranate to fall out is sufficient. Ri: In the case of large ones a hole large enough etc., is required, but in the case of small ones, where this may be considerably more than half if the greater portion thereof is broken it is no longer a utensil.
(2) v. p. 457, n. 4.
(3) I.e., when a mutilated vessel springs a leak of this size, people throw it away without troubling to bring another such vessel or a shard to catch its drippings, therefore it is no longer a vessel.
(4) Rashi: the question is how large the hole of a perforated pot must be in order to render its plants susceptible to defilement (v. p. 456, n. 6). R. Tam: they differ in reference to a vessel closed with a tight-fitting lid (cf. p. 458, n. 5).
(5) I.e., part of a Talmudic dictum, v. Men. 110a', the two extremes (v. Raba's enumeration of the five principles, supra 95b) are taken, and neither of these amoraim takes one of the intermediate standards.
(6) A hole of that size renders it clean.
(7) I.e., neither glazed nor baked in a kiln.
(8) Lit., 'the words of the Scribes'; v. Kid. p. 79, n.7. (6) v. p. 458, n. 3.
(9) This explains the view of the Rabbis.
(10) I.e. on the same side of the street, which interposes lengthwise.
(11) In connection with the Tabernacle in the Wilderness.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 96b
GEMARA. Consider: throwing is a derivative of carrying out:1 where is carrying out itself written? - Said R. Johanan, Scripture saith, And Moses gave commandment, and they caused a proclamation to pass throughout the camp, [etc.]:2 now, where was Moses stationed? in the camp of the Levites, which was public ground,3 and he said to the Israelites, Do not carry out and fetch from your private dwellings into public ground. But how do you know that this was on the Sabbath: perhaps this happened4 during the week, the reason being that the material was complete[ly adequate], as it is written, For the stuff they had was sufficient, etc.5 - The meaning of 'passing through' is learnt from [its employment in connection with] the Day of Atonement, Here it is written, and they caused a proclamation to pass throughout the camp; whilst there it is written, Then shalt thou cause a loud trumpet to pass through [sc. the land]:6 just as there the reference is to the day of the interdict, so here too the day of the interdict [is meant].7 We have thus found [an interdict for] carrying out: whence do we know [that] carrying in [is forbidden]? - That is common sense: consider: it is [transference] from one domain to another: what does it matter whether one carries out or carries in? Nevertheless. carrying out is a primary [labour], [whereas] carrying in is a derivative.
Yet let us consider: one is culpable for both: why is one designated a principal and the other a derivative [labour]?-The practical difference is that if one performs two principal or two derivative [labours] together he is liable to two [sacrifices], whereas if he performs a principal [labour] and its derivative he is liable only to one. But according to R. Eliezer, who imposes liability for a derivative [when performed] conjointly with8 the principal, why is one called a principal and the other a derivative? - That which was of account in the Tabernacle is designated a principal, whereas that which was not of account in the Tabernacle is designated a derivative.9 Alternatively, that which is written is designated a principal, whereas that which is not written is designated a derivative.
Again, as to what we learnt, 'If one throws [an article] four cubits on to a wall above ten handbreadths, it is as though he throws it into the air;10 if below ten, it is as though he throws it on to the ground;11 and he who throws [an article] four cubits along the ground is culpable',12 - how do we know that he who throws [an article] four cubits in the street is culpable? - Said R. Josiah: Because the curtain weavers threw their needles to each other.13 Of what use are needles to weavers? - Rather [say:] Because the sewers threw their needles to each other. But perhaps they sat close together? - Then they would reach each other with their needles.14 Yet perhaps they sat within four [cubits] of each other? Rather said R. Hisda: Because the curtain weavers threw the clue into the curtain. But the other [worker] still has the distaff in his hand?-He refers to the last manipulation.15 But it passed through a place of non-liability?16 - Rather [say:] Because the curtain weavers threw the clue to those who would borrow it from them.17 Yet perhaps they sat near each other? Then they would touch each other on making the border. Yet perhaps they sat in irregular lines?18 Moreover, did they borrow from each other? Surely Luda19 taught: every man from his work which they wrouqht:20 he wrought of his own work [stuff], but not of his neighbour's.21 Again, how do we know that if one carries [an article] four cubits in the street, he is culpable? Rather the whole [law of transporting] four cubits in the street is known by tradition.
Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: [The offence of] the gatherer [of sticks]22 was that he carried [them] four cubits over public ground. In a Baraitha it was taught: He cut [them] off.23 R. Aha b. Jacob said: He tied [them] together.24 In respect of what is the practical difference?-In respect of Rab's [dictum]. For Rab said, I found a secret scroll of the School of R. Hiyya, wherein It is written, Issi b. Judah said: There are thirty-nine principal labours, but one is liable only [for] one. One and no more? Surely we learnt, The principal labours are forty less one. And we pondered thereon: why state the number? And R. Johanan answered: [To teach] that if one performs all of then, in one state of unawareness, he is liable for each separately? Say: for one of these he is not culpable.25 Now, Rab Judah is certain that he who carries [in the street] is culpable; the Baraitha is certain that he who cuts off is culpable; while R. Aha b. Jacob is certain that lie who binds is culpable. [Thus] one Master holds, This at least is not in doubt, while the other Master holds, That at least is not in doubt.26
Our Rabbis taught: The gatherer was Zelophehad. And thus it is said, and while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man [gathering sticks, etc.];27 whilst elsewhere it is said, our father died in the wilderness;28 just as there Zelophehad [is meant], so here too Zelophehad [is meant]: this is R. Akiba's view. Said R. Judah b. Bathyra to him, 'Akiba! in either case you will have to give an account [for your statement]: if you are right,29 the Torah shielded30 him, while you reveal him; and if not, you cast a stigma upon a righteous man.'
(1) On principal and derivative labours v. p. 3. n. 2. Throwing is certainly a derivative only, since it is not enumerated in the principal labours supra 73a: also it must be a derivative of carrying out, for it is not similar to any of the other principal labours,
(2) Ex. XXXVI, 6.
(3) As everyone had to pass through to gain access to Moses.
(4) Lit,, 'he stood'.
(5) Ex. XXXVI, 7.
(6) Lev. XXV, 9.
(7) Sc. the Sabbath. This method of exegesis is called gezerah shawah, q.v. Glos.
(8) Lit., 'in the place of'.
(9) V. infra 100a.
(10) And he is not liable.
(11) And since it traverses four cubits, he is culpable.
(12) V. supra 75a.
(13) Through public ground.
(14) When stretching their arms to thread the needles they would strike each other.
(15) When the weaver throws the clue through the web for the last time.
(16) V. supra 6a; i.e., it passed between the portions of the curtain, which is certainly not public ground.
(17) 'Aruch reads: their apprentices. On both readings the reference is to people working on other curtains, and the clue had to traverse public ground.
(18) Crosswise, or in zigzag rows, so that they could work close together without touching each other.
(19) An amora: Yalkut reads: Levi.
(20) Ex. XXXVI, 4.
(21) Having sufficient material of his own.
(22) V. Num. XV 32 seq.
(23) He cut off twigs or branches from a tree, which is the equivalent of detaching produce from the soil.
(24) They were already lying on the ground. Tying them together is the same as binding sheaves.
(25) V. supra 6b for notes.
(26) As being referred to in Issi's dictum.
(27) Num. XV, 32.
(28) Ibid. XXVII, 3.
(29) Lit., 'if it is as your words'.
(30) Lit., 'covered'.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 97a
But surely he learns a gezerah shawah?1 -He did not learn the gezerah shawah.2 Then of which [sinners] was he?3 -Of those who 'presumed [to go up to the top of the mountain].'4
Similarly you read, and the anger of the Lord was kindled against them; and he departed:5 this teaches that Aaron too became leprous: this is R. Akiba's view. Said R. Judah b. Bathyra to him, 'Akiba! in either case you will have to give an account: if you are right, the Torah shielded him, while you disclose him; and if not, you cast a stigma upon a righteous man.' But it is written, 'against them'?6 That was merely with a rebuke. It was taught in accordance with the view that Aaron too became leprous. For it is written, And Aaron turned [wa-yifen] to Miriam, and behold, she was leprous:7 [and] it was taught: [That means] that he became free [panah] from his leprosy.8
Resh Lakish said: He who entertains a suspicion against innocent9 men is bodily afflicted, for it is written, [And Moses . . . said,] But, behold, they will not believe me;10 but it was known11 to the Holy One, blessed be he, that Israel would believe. Said He to him: They are believers, [and] the descendants of believers, whereas thou wilt ultimately disbelieve. They are believers, as it is written, and the people believed;12 the descendants of believers: and he [Abraham] believed in the Lord.13 Thou wilt ultimately disbelieve, as it is said, [And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron,] Because ye believed not in me.14 Whence [is it learnt] that he was smitten? - Because it is written, And the Lord said furthermore unto him, Put now thine hand into thy bosom, etc.15
Raba-others state, R. Jose b. R. Hanina-said: The dispensation of good comes more quickly than that of punishment [evil]. For in reference to the dispensation of punishment it is written, until he took it out, and behold, his hand was leprous, as white as snow;16 whereas in reference to the dispensation of good it is written, and he took it out of his bosom, and behold, it was turned again as his other flesh:17 from his very bosom,18 it had turned again as his other flesh.
But Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods:19 R. Eleazar observed, It was a double miracle.20 FROM ONE PRIVATE DOMAIN TO ANOTHER, etc. Rabbah asked: Do they disagree when it is below ten, and they differ in this: R. Akiba holds, An object caught up is at rest; while the Rabbis hold that it is not as at rest; but above ten all agree that he is not liable, for we do not learn throwing from reaching across. Or perhaps they disagree when it is above ten, and they differ in this: R. Akiba holds, We learn throwing from reaching across; while the Rabbis hold, We do not learn throwing from reaching across; but below ten, all agree that he is culpable. What is the reason? An object caught up is as at rest?21 Said R. Joseph: This question was asked by R. Hisda, and R. Hamnuna solved it for him from this: [If one removes an object] from one private domain, to another and it passes through the street itself, R. Akiba declares [him] liable, while the Sages exempt [him]. Now, since it states, through the street itself, it is obvious that they differ where it is below ten. Now, in which [case]? Shall we say. in the case of one who carries [it] across: is he culpable only when it is below ten, but not when it is above ten? Surely R. Eleazar said: If one carries out a burden above ten [handbreadths from the street level]. he is culpable, for thus was the carrying of the children of Kohath, Hence it must surely refer to throwing. and one is culpable only when it is below ten, but not when it is above ten; this proves that they differ in whether an object caught up is as at rest. This proves it.
Now, he [R. Hamnuna] differs from A. Eleazar. For R. Eleazar said: R. Akiba declared [him] culpable even when it is above ten; but as to what is stated, through the street itself,22 that is to teach you the extent23 of the Rabbis'[' ruling].24 Now he [R. Eliezer] differs from R. Hilkiah b. Tobi, for R. Hilkiah b. Tobi said: Within three [handbreadths from the ground], all agree that he is culpable;25 above ten, all agree that he is not culpable; between three and ten, we come to the controversy of R. Akiba and the Rabbis. It was taught likewise: Within three, all agree that he is liable; above ten, It is [prohibited] only as a shebuth,26 and if they are [both] his own grounds, it is permitted [at the very outset]; between three and ten, R. Akiba ruled [him] culpable, while the sages exempt him.
The Master said: 'And if they are [both] his own grounds, it is permitted.' Shall we say that this is a refutation of Rab? For it was stated: If there are two houses on the two [opposite] sides of a street, Rabbah son of R. Huna said in Rab's name: One may not throw [an object] from one to another; while Samuel ruled: It is permitted to throw from one to another!27 - But did we not establish that law [as referring] e.g., to [the case] where one [house] is higher and one is lower, so that it [the object] may fall [into the street]28 and he come to fetch it?
R. Hisda asked R. Hamnuna-others state, R. Hamnuna asked R. Hisda-How do we know this principle which the Rabbis stated, viz.: Whatever is [separated by] less than three [handbreadths] is as joined?29 Said he to him, Because it is impossible for the street to be trimmed with a plane and shears.30 If so, the same should apply to three also? Moreover, when we learnt: If one lets down walls from above to below,31 if they are three handbreadths high above the ground, it [the sukkah] is unfit,32 Hence if [they are] less than three it is fit:33 what can be said?34 -There the reason is that it is a partition through which goats can enter.35 That is well [for] below; what can be said [for] above?36 - Rather [the fact is] that whatever is [separated by] less than three [handbreadths] is regarded as joined is a law received on tradition. Our Rabbis taught: [If one throws37 an article] from public to public ground, and private ground lies between: Rabbi holds him liable, but the sages exempt him - Rab and Samuel both assert: Rabbi imposed liability only in the case of covered-in private ground, when we say that the house is as though it were full, but not if it is uncovered,38 R. Hana39 said in Rab Judah's name in Samuel's name: Rabbi held him liable to two [sacrifices], one on account of carrying out and another on account of carrying in,40 Now R. Hana sat [studying] and this presented a difficulty to him:41
(1) v. Glos. That which is so derived is regarded as explicitly stated.
(2) Rashi: R. Judah b. Bathyra did not receive this gezerah shawah on tradition from his teachers, and no analogy by gezerah shawah can be employed unless sanctioned by tradition. 'Aruch: R. Akiba did not learn it from his teachers, but inferred it himself.
(3) On the view of R. Judah b. Bathyra. For it is stated, but he died in his own sin, ibid.
(4) Ibid. XIV, 44.
(5) Ibid. Xli, 9 q.v.
(6) The plural definitely includes Aaron.
(7) Num. XXVII. 10.
(8) 'he turned' is understood to mean, he turned away from, i.e., he was freed.
(9) Lit., worthy'.
(10) Ex. IV, 1.
(11) Lit., 'revealed'.
(12) Ibid. 31.
(13) Gen. XV, 6.
(14) Num. XX, 12.
(15) Ex. IV, 6; he was smitten with leprosy, Ibid.
(16) It became leprous only when he took it out.
(17) Ibid. 7.
(18) I.e., before It was fully withdrawn.
(19) Ibid. VII, 12.
(20) Lit., 'a miracle within a miracle'. It first became a rod again, and as a rod it swallowed up their serpents.
(21) v, supra 4b for notes.
(22) Which implies below ten.
(23) Lit., 'power'.
(24) Even then they hold that he is not culpable.
(25) because that is regarded as on the ground itself, and therefore at rest.
(26) v. Glos. - The shebuth here is that he carries from his domain to his neighbour's, both being private ground.
(27) Both houses must belong to the same person. for otherwise Samuel would certainly not permit it, V. 'Er., Sonc. ed.. p, 593 notes.
(28) For the houses not being on the same level, more skill is required to throw from one to the other.
(29) Labud, v, Glos,
(30) The ground cannot be perfectly levelled, and it must contain bumps of that height. Therefore everything within three handbreadths is regarded as joined to the ground.
(31) The reference is to the walls of a sukkah (booth, v. Lev, XXIII. 42). He takes a wall, e.g.. of boards, lowers it, but not right down to the ground, and fastens it to something on top.
(32) As the walls are incomplete.
(33) For they are then regarded as touching the ground.
(34) The sukkah not being in a public ground, the reason stated is inapplicable here.
(35) Lit,, 'cleave'. But they cannot squeeze through a gap less than three.
(36) This principle of labud operates also where the gap is above; v. e.g.. 'Er, 16b, Suk. 7a; obviously these reasons do not hold good in that case.
(37) so supra 4b.
(38) V. notes on this passage supra 4b and 5,
(39) Var. lec.: R. Hisda.
(40) For during its journey it passes out of private into public ground, and enters from public into private ground.
(41) In connection with what he had heard from Rab Judah,
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 97b
shall we say that Rabbi holds one liable for a derivative [when performed] conjointly with its principal?1 But surely it was taught. Rabbi said: Words [debarim], the words [ha-debarim], these [eleh] are the words: this indicates the thirty-nine labours stated to Moses at Sinai.2 Said R. Joseph to him: You learn it3 in reference to this, and so find Rabbi self-contradictory; We learn it in reference to R. Judah['s ruling]. and find no difficulty.4 For it was taught: [If one throws an article] from private to public ground, and it traverses four cubits over the public ground: R. Judah holds [him] liable, whereas the sages exempt [him]. [Whereon] Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: R. Judah holds [him] liable to two [sacrifices], one on account of transporting [from private ground] and a second on account of carrying over [public ground). For if you think that he holds him liable to one [only]. it follows that the Rabbis exempt [him] completely: but surely he has carried it out from private to public ground? [But] how so? Perhaps I may tell you after all that R. Judah holds him liable to one [only]. and the Rabbis exempt [him] completely: yet [as to the question] how is that possible? it is where e.g.. he declared, 'Immediately on issuing into the street, let it come to rest ; and they differ in this: R. Judah holds: 'We say. An object caught up [in the air] is as at rest, and his intention is fulfilled; while the Rabbis hold, We do not say. An object caught up is as at rest, and his intention is not fulfilled;5 but for a derivative [performed] simultaneously with its principal R. Judah does not impose liability? You cannot think so, for it was taught: R. Judah adds the closing up of the web and the evening of the woof. Said they to him: Closing the web is included in stretching the threads, and evening [the woof] is included in weaving.6 Does that not mean that one performs both of them together. which proves that R. Judah imposed liability for a derivative [performed] simultaneously with its principal - Why so? perhaps it really means that each was performed separately. R. Judah not imposing liability for a derivative [performed] simultaneously with its principal, and they differ in this: R. Judah holds.These are principal labours; while the Rabbis hold, These are derivatives. The proof [of this assumption] is that it is stated, 'R. Judah adds etc.': now. it is well if you agree that they are principal labours [on his view, for then] what does he add? he adds principals; but if you say that they are derivatives, what does he add?7 It was stated likewise, Rabbah and R. Joseph both maintain: R. Judah imposed liability only for one [sacrifice].
Rabina observed to R. Ashi: But on our original assumption that R. Judah held [him] liable to two, - if he desires it [to alight] here. he does not desire it [to alight] there, and vice versa?8 -Said he to him, It means that he declared, 'Wherever it pleases, let it come to rest.'9
It is obvious that if one intends throwing [an object] eight [cubits] but throws [it] four, it is as though he wrote SHem [as part of] SHimeon.10 [But] what if one intends throwing [an object] four [cubits] but throws [it] eight: do we say, Surely he has carried it out11 or perhaps it has surely not alighted where he desired? But is this not what Rabina observed to R. Ashi, and he answered him, It means that he said, 'Wherever it pleases. let it come to rest'!12 And as to what you say. It is the same as writing SHem [as part] of SHimeon: how compare? There, without writing SHem, SHimeon cannot be written;13 but here, without [intentionally] throwing [it] four, cannot one throw it eight?14
Our Rabbis taught: If one throws [an object] from public to public ground, and private ground lies between them: [if it traverses] four cubits [over public ground]. he is culpable.15
(1) V. supra 96b.
(2) V. supra 70a. Now the only purpose of deducing the number is to show that his is the maximum number of sacrifices to which one can be liable; but if one is liable for derivatives in addition to the principal labours there can be far more.
(3) What you heard from Rab Judah.
(4) For we find nowhere that R. Judah exempts for a derivative performed conjointly with the principal.
(5) Hence he is not liable on its account.
(6) V. supra 75a.
(7) For only principals are enumerated there.
(8) In order to be liable to two it would be necessary that he should carry it out and deposit it in the street, then lift it up and carry it four cubits. and deposit it again. Now it may be argued that an object caught up in the air is as at rest, and therefore immediately it enters the street atmosphere it is as though it alights on the ground, and when it travels further it is as though it is taken up and carried again. But the thrower's intention is that it should come to rest at one place only, either as soon as it emerges into the street or after four cubits; in either case it cannot be regarded as though he deposited it, picked it up and deposited it again. Hence he can be liable for carrying it out only, but not for its passage in the street (v. Rashi and R. Han.).
(9) Then it is regarded as though it rested at both places in accordance with this intention,
(10) V. infra 103a and p. 336. n. 5. Hence here too he is liable.
(11) of its original spot and it has traversed the four cubits he desired, though it has gone further too,
(12) But otherwise he is not liable; so here too he should not be liable in either case unless he made such a declaration.
(13) Hence when one writes SHem he does so intentionally, though he also intends to add to it,
(14) Surely not! I.e., one need have no intention to throw it exactly four cubits in order to be able to throw it eight. (The difference is that when one writes SHem he has performed a labour, whereas when one throws an article, his action is incomplete until it comes to rest.)
(15) I.e., over the two public grounds combined.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 98a
less than four cubits, he is not culpable. What does this inform us? - This is what he informs us, that [similar] domains combine,1 and we do not say, An object caught up [in the air] is as at rest.2
R. Samuel b. Judah said in R. Abba's name in R. Huna's name in the name of Rab: If one carries [an article] four cubits in covered public ground, he is liable, because it is not like the banners of the wilderness.3 But that is not so? for the waggons surely were covered,4 and yet Rab said in R. Hiyya's name: As for the waggons, beneath them, between them, and at their sides it was public ground?5 - Rab referred to the interspaces6 - Consider: what was the length of the waggons? Five cubits. What was the breadth of the board? A cubit and a half. Then how many [rows] could be placed: three: thus leaving half a cubit, and when you divide it among them [the spaces] they are as joined!7 -Do you think that the boards lay on their width? they were laid on their thickness. Yet even so, what was the thickness of the board? One cubit. How many [rows] were [then] laid? Four, thus leaving a cubit, and when you divide it among them [the spaces] they are as joined!8 Now, on the view that the boards were one cubit thick at the bottom, but tapered to a fingerbreadth, it is well:9 but on the view that just as they were a cubit thick at the bottom, so at the top too, what can be said?-Said R. Kahana: (They were arranged] in clasped formation.10 Now, where were they placed: on the top of the waggon. But the waggon itself was covered?11
(1) If it travels part of the ground; this does not agree with R. Jose supra 80a.
(2) For if we did, he would be culpable on account of carrying in from public to private ground, even if it does not travel four cubits over the latter.
(3) V. supra 5a.
(4) With the boards of the Tabernacle placed crosswise on top along their length.
(5) V. supra 99a. The width of the waggons was five cubits, and five cubits' space was allowed between them in the breadth, whilst the boards were ten cubits in length. Hence when placed crosswise on top of the waggons they projected two and a half cubits on both sides; thus the space between them was completely covered over, and yet he states that it was public ground.
(6) Between the rows of boards, which were not arranged close to each other.
(7) For there was only a quarter cubit one and a half handbreadths between the rows of boards, whereas a space less then three cubits is disregarded (v. supra 97a).
(8) For there are three spaces which give two handbreadths for each.
(9) As there would be more at the ends than three handbreadths' space between each.
(10) I.e., the four rows were not equidistant. but in two rows (as though clasped) at the head and at the tail of the waggon respectively, this leaving a cubit between them. This was necessary because each row contained three boards, which would give a height of four and a half cubits, and as the thickness was only one cubit they might otherwise topple over.
(11) It is assumed that the floor of the waggon was completely closed, like the floor, e.g., of a cement-carrying lorry. How then did Rab state that the space underneath the waggon too was public ground? [The translation follows Rashi's reading and interpretation. R. Han and Tosaf, adopt different readings both here and supra. 'Rab referred to the interspaces', and explain accordingly.]
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 98b
- Said Samuel: [The bottom consisted] of laths. Our Rabbis taught: The boards were one cubit thick at the bottom, but tapered to a fingerbreadth at the top, for it is said, they shall be entire [thammim] unto the top thereof1 whilst elsewhere it is said, [the waters . . .] ended [tammu] and were cut off;2 this is R. Judah's view. R. Nehemiah said: Just as their thickness at the bottom, was a cubit, so at the top was their thickness a cubit, for it is said, 'and in like manner [they shall be entire]'. But surely 'thammim' is written? That [teaches] that they were to come whole,3 and not divided.4 And the other too, surely is written 'in like manner'?-That [teaches] that they were not to erect them irregularly.5 Now, on the view that just as they were a cubit thick at the bottom, so were they at the top, it is well: thus it is written, And from the hinder part of the tabernacle westward thou shalt make six boards, and two boards shalt thou make for the corners of the tabernacle:6 thus the breadth of these comes and fills in the thickness of those.7 But on the view that they were a cubit thick at the bottom, while they tapered at the top to a fingerbreadth, one receded and the other protruded?8 They were planed mountain-fashion.9 And the middle bar in the midst of the boards [shall pass through from end to end].10 A Tanna taught: It lay11 there by a miracle.12
Moreover thou shalt make the tabernacle with ten curtains. The length of each curtain shall be eight and twenty cubits.13 Throw their length over the breadth of the Tabernacle; how much was it? twenty-eight cubits. Subtract ten for the roof, and this leaves nine cubits on each side. According to R. Judah. the cubit of the sockets was left uncovered; according to R. Nehemiah, a cubit of the boards was uncovered [too].14 Cast their breadth over the length of the Tabernacle: how much was it? forty cubits.15 Subtract thirty for the roof,16 leaves ten. According to R. Judah the cubit of the sockets was covered; according to R. Nehemiah the cubit of the sockets was uncovered.
And thou shalt make curtains of goats' hair for a tent over the tabernacle: [eleven curtains shalt thou make them]. The length of each curtain Shall be be thirty cubits. [and the breadth of each curtain four cubits].17 Cast their length over the breadth of the Tabernacle; how much was it? Thirty. Subtract ten for the roof, which leaves ten [cubits] on each side. According to R. Judah the cubit of the sockets was covered; according to R. Nehemiah the cubit of the sockets was uncovered. It was taught likewise: And the cubit on one side, and the cubit of the other side of that which remaineth [in the length of the curtains of the tent]:18 this was to cover the cubit of the sockets: that is R. Judah's view. R. Nehemiah said: It was to cover the cubit of the boards.19 Cast their breadth over the length of the Tabernacle: how much was it? Forty-four [cubits]. Subtract thirty for the roof leaves fourteen. Subtract two for the doubling over, as it is written, and thou shalt double over the sixth curtain in the forefront of the tent,20 leaves twelve. Now, according to R. Judah, it is well; thus it is written, the half curtain that remaineth shall hang;21 but according to R. Nehemiah, what is meant by [the half curtain . . .] shall hang?22 -It shall hang over its companions.23 The School of R. Ishmael taught: What did the Tabernacle resemble? A woman who goes in the street and her skirts trail after her.24 Our Rabbis taught: The boards were cut out and the sockets were grooved;25
(1) Ex, XXVI. 24.
(2) Josh. III, 17.
(3) Translating thammim as in E.V.
(4) Each board was to be of one piece. not of two joined together (Rashi). Jast. translates: the boards were to be solid, not veneered.
(5) Lit.. 'they were not to remove them one from another'; but they were all to stand in the same row.
(6) Ex, XXVI, 22f.
(7) Since the Tabernacle was ten cubits in breadth, and these six boards accounted for nine only, the additional two boards, one at each side made up the deficiency, whilst the extra cubit left in each fitted exactly over the thickness of the board ranged along the length of the Tabernacle,
(8) Obviously these two side boards protruded at the top beyond the attenuated thickness of the boards ranged lengthwise. - 'one receded' refers to the latter.
(9) These two boards were wider at the bottom and narrower at the top so that their outward line resembled a mountain slope. 'Aruch reads: like a gusset (ki tariz).
(10) Ex. XXVI, 28.
(11) Lit.. 'stood'.
(12) It was one long straight bar which passed along the three walls; the necessary bending between the angles of the walls was miraculously done by itself.
(13) Ibid. If.
(14) The boards were fitted into sockets (v. 19) one cubit in height. Consequently if the thickness of the top was only one fingerbreadth, practically the whole length of the boards up to the socket was covered by the curtain; (the fingerbreadth and the slightly larger length of the hypotenuse being disregarded). But if the top too was one cubit in thickness. only eight cubits of the boards were covered.
(15) I.e., ten curtains each of four cubits in breadth. Ibid. 2.
(16) Which was the length of the Tabernacle, twenty boards each one and a half cubits broad,
(17) Ibid. 7f.
(18) Ibid. 13.
(19) Left uncovered by the first covering. v. supra.
(20) Ex. XXVI, 9.
(21) Since R. Judah requires only a fingerbreadth for the top thickness of the board, practically two cubits-i.e., half a curtain hung, i.e., trailed on the floor.
(22) only one cubit was left over, the other being required for the thickness.
(23) Sc. the lower covering, beyond which the upper fell two cubits.
(24) On the ground. So did the Tabernacle's covering trail too.
(25) So that the former fitted into the latter.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 99a
also, the clasps in the loops1 looked like stars [set] in the sky.
Our Rabbis taught: The lower curtains [were made] of blue [wool], purple [wool]. crimson thread and fine linen,2 whilst the upper ones were of goats' [hair] manufacture; and greater wisdom [skill] is mentioned in connection with the upper than in connection with the lower. For whereas of the lower ones it is written, And all the women that were wise-hearted did spin with their hands;3 in reference to the upper ones it is written, And all the women whose heart stirred them up in wisdom spun the goats;4 and it was taught in R. Nehemiah's name: It was washed [direct] on the goats and spun on the goats.5
IF THERE ARE TWO BALCONIES, etc. Rab said in R. Hiyya's name: As for the waggons, beneath them, between them, and at their sides it was public ground. Abaye said: Between one waggon and another [as its side] there was [the space of] a full waggon. length. And how much was a waggon-length? five cubits. Why was it [this length] necessary: four and a half would have sufficed?6 - So that the boards should not press [against each other].7
Raba said: The sides of the waggon8 equalled the fit [internal] breadth of the waggon, and how much was the [internal] breadth of the waggon? Two cubits and a half.9 Why was this necessary: a cubit and a half would have sufficed?10 - In order that the boards should not jump about.11 Then as to what we have as an established fact that the path [width] of public ground must be sixteen cubits: since we learn it from the Tabernacle,12 surely [the public ground] of the Tabernacle was [only] fifteen?13 -There was an additional cubit where a Levite stood, so that if the boards slipped he would support them.
MISHNAH. AS FOR THE BANK OF A CISTERN,14 AND A ROCK, WHICH ARE TEN [HANDBREADTHS] HIGH AND FOUR IN BREATH,15 IF ONE REMOVES [AUGHT] FROM THEM OR PLACES [AUGHT] UPON THEM, HIS IS CULPABLE;16 IF LESS THAN THIS, HE IS NOT CULPABLE.
GEMARA. Why state, THE BANK OF A CISTERN, AND A ROCK: let him [the Tanna] state, 'A cistern and a rock'?17 [Hence] this supports R. Johanan, who said: A cistern together with the bank thereof combine to [give a height of] ten [handbreadths].18 It was taught likewise: As for a cistern In public ground ten [handbreadths] deep and four broad [square]. We may not draw [water] from it on the Sabbath,19
(1) V. ibid. 10f,
(2) V. ibid. 1.
(3) Ibid. XXXV. 25.
(4) Ibid. 26.
(5) V. p. 355, n. 4.
(6) Either for three rows of boards lying on their breadth, which gives exactly four and a half cubits, or for four rows lying on their thickness, thus allowing an additional half cubit to cover the extra space needed for the bars.
(7) Rashi: if laid on their breadth. Tosaf: if laid on their thickness, the half cubit being insufficient both for the bars and for freedom of movement of the boards.
(8) Which includes the thickness of the sides, the wheels which reached up alongside of them, and the space between the wheels and the sides.
(9) So that the sides, as defined in n. 3, were one and a quarter each.
(10) To permit the boards to be placed on their thickness inside the waggon down its length if necessary.
(11) When placed on top, more than one and a quarter cubits should be necessary to support their length firmly.
(12) All definitions in connection with work on the Sabbath are learnt thence.
(13) Two waggons side by side, each five cubits in width and five cubits' space between them, the whole constituting a public pathway.
(14) Formed by the earth dug of it.
(15) I.e., four square on top.
(16) Because the bank or stone is private ground (v. supra 6a), whilst the remover stands in public ground.
(17) This would teach that anything either ten high or ten deep and four square is a private domain.
(18) So that the cistern is counted as private ground.
(19) Because the well is private ground whilst the drawer stands in the street.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 99b
unless a wall ten handbreadths high is made around it;1 and one may not drink from it on the Sabbath unless he brings his head and the greater part of his body into it,2 and a cistern and its bank combine to [give a height of] ten.
R. Mordecai asked Rabbah: What of a pillar in the street, ten high and four broad, and one throws [an article] and it alights upon it? Do We say, Surely the removal is [effected] in transgression and the depositing is [effected] in transgression;3 or perhaps since it comes from a place of non-liability4 it is not [a culpable action]? - Said he to him, This is [treated in] our Mishnah. He [then] went and asked it of R. Joseph: Said he to him, This is [treated in] our Mishnah. He went and asked it of Abaye, Said he to him, This is [treated in] our Mishnah. 'You all spit with each other's spittle,'5 cried he to them: Do you not hold thus, they replied. Surely we learnt, IF ONE REMOVES [AUGHT] FROM THEM OR PLACES [AUGHT] UPON THEM, HE IS CULPABLE.6 But perhaps our Mishnah treats of a needle? he suggested to them! - It is impossible even for a needle not to be slightly raised. - It [the rock] may have a projecting point,7 or it [the needle] may lie in a cleft.8 R. Misha said, R. Johanan propounded: What of a wall in a street, ten high but not four broad, surrounding a karmelith9 and converting it [thereby] into private ground,10 and one throws [an article] and it alights on the top of it? Do we say, Since it is not four broad it is a place of non-liability; or perhaps, since it converts it into private ground it is as though it were [all] filled up?11 Said 'Ulla, [This may be solved] a fortiori: if it [the wall] serves as a partition for something else,12 how much more so for itself!13 This was stated too: R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in Rab's name, and thus said R. Isaac in R. Johanan's name: In the case of a wall in the street ten high and not four broad, surrounding a karmelith and converting it into private ground, he who throws [an article] which alights thereon is culpable: if it serves as a partition for something- else, how much more so for itself. R. Johanan propounded: What of a pit nine [handbreadths deep] and one removes one segment from it and makes it up to ten;14 [do we say] the taking up of the object and the making of the partition come simultaneously, hence he is culpable; or is he not culpable? Now should you say, since the partition was not ten originally he is not liable: what of a pit ten [deep] and one lays the segment therein and [thus] diminishes it['s depth]? [Here] the depositing of the article and the removal of the partition come simultaneously: is he culpable or not? - You may solve it for him by his own [dictum]. For we learnt: if one throws [an article] four cubits on to a wall,-if above ten handbreadths, it is as though he throws it into the air; if below, it is as though lie throws it on to the ground; and he who throws [an article] four cubits along the ground is culpable. Now we discussed this: surely it does not stay there? And R. Johanan answered: This refers to a juicy cake of figs.15 Yet why so? Surely it diminishes the four cubits?16 - There he does not render it as nought;17 here he does render it as nought.18
Raba propounded: What if one throws a board and it alights upon poles?19 What does he ask? [The law where] the depositing of the article and the constituting of the partition come simultaneously? [but] that is R. Johanan's [problem]!-When does Raba ask? e.g.. if he throws a board with an article on top of it: what [then]? [Do we say], Since they come simultaneously, it is like the depositing of the article and the making of a partition [at the same time];20 or perhaps, since it is impossible for it [the article] not to be slightly raised and then alight,21 it is like the making of a partition and the [subsequent] depositing of an article?22 The question stands over.
Raba said: I am certain, water [lying] upon water, that is its [natural] rest; a nut upon water,
(1) For the drawer to stand in private ground.
(2) Cf. supra 11a bottom.
(3) I.e., the article is removed from public and deposited in private ground.
(4) v. supra 6a. The object must sail through the air above ten handbreadths in order for it to alight on the top of column of that height.
(5) Your opinions are all traceable to the same source.
(6) And in so doing he must lift the object to a height above ten.
(7) Part of the top may slope downward and thence project upward, and there the needle lies. In that case it is below ten, and even when picked up does not go above ten.
(8) Or groove, likewise below ten. - Thus in R. Mordecai's view the Mishnah does not solve his problem.
(9) v. Glos.
(10) V. infra 7a,
(11) Reaching to the top of the wall, so that the wall and the karmelith are one, the whole, including the wall, being private ground.
(12) Converting the karmelith into private ground.
(13) It is certainly private ground, just as the karmelith which it converts.
(14) [The segment was one handbreadth in thickness and by removing it the pit reaches the depth of ten handbreaths, which constitutes the legal height for the partition of a private domain.]
(15) V. supra 7b.
(16) For the thickness of the figs must be deducted. Nevertheless he is culpable, and the same reasoning applies to R. Johanan's second problem.
(17) When he throws the cake of figs on the wall, he does not mean it to become part thereof and cease to exist separately, as it were.
(18) For it becomes part of the wall. Hence the two cases are dissimilar.
(19) The poles are ten handbreadths high, but not four square, whilst the board is; thus as it rests on these poles it constitutes a private domain.
(20) Hence he is not liable. assuming this to be the solution of R. Johanan's problem.
(21) For it does not stick to the board; hence the board alights first and then this article.
(22) Therefore he is culpable.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 100a
that is not its [natural] rest. Raba propounded: If a nut [lies] in a vessel, and the vessel floats on water, what [is the law]? Do we regard the nut, and behold it is at rest; or do we regard the vessel, and behold it is not at rest? The question stands over. [In respect to] oil [floating] upon wine, R. Johanan b. Nuri and the Rabbis differ. For we learnt: If oil is floating upon wine, and a tebul yom touches the oil, he disqualifies the oil only. R. Johanan b. Nuri said: Both are attached to each other.1
Abaye said: If a pit in the street [is] ten deep and eight broad, and2 one throws a mat into it, he is culpable; but if he divides it with the mat,3 he is not culpable.4 Now according to Abaye. who is certain that the mat annuls the partition,5 a segment certainly annuls the partition;6 but according to R. Johanan to whom a segment is a problem, a mat certainly does not annul the partition.7
Abaye also said: If a pit in the street, ten deep and four broad, [is] full of water and one throws [an object] therein, he is culpable; [but if it is] full of produce and one throws [an object] therein, he is not culpable. What is the reason? Water does not annul the partition,8 [whereas] produce does annul the partition. It was taught likewise: If one throws [an object] from the sea into a street, or from a street into the sea, he is not liable,9 R. Simeon said: If there is in the place where he throws [it a separate cavity] ten deep and four broad, he is liable.10
MISHNAH. IF ONE THROWS [AN ARTICLE] FOUR CUBITS ON TO A WALL ABOVE TEN HANDBREADTHS, IT IS AS THOUGH HE THROWS IT INTO THE AIR; IF BELOW, IT IS AS THOUGH IT THROWS IT ON TO THE GROUND, AND HE WHO THROWS [AN ARTICLE] FOUR CUBITS ALONG THE GROUND11 IS CULPABLE.
GEMARA. But it does not stay there?-Said R. Johanan: We learnt of a juicy cake of figs.12 Rab Judah said in Rab's name in the name of R. Hiyya: If one throws [an article] above ten [handbreadths] and it goes and alights in a cavity of any size, we come to a controversy of R. Meir and the Rabbis. According to R. Meir. who holds: We [imaginarily] hollow out to complete it, he is liable; according to the Rabbis who 'maintain, We do not hollow out to complete it, he is not liable.13 It was taught likewise: If one throws [an article] above ten and it goes and alights in a cavity of any size, R. Meir declares [him] culpable. whereas the Rabbis exempt [him].
Rab Judah said in Rab's name: If a [sloping] mound attains [a height of] ten [handbreadths] within [a distance of] four,14 and one throws [an object] and it alights on top of it, he is culpable. It was taught likewise: If an alley15 is level with within but becomes a slope towards the [main] street,16 or is level with the [main] street, but becomes a slope within,17 that alley requires neither a lath nor a beam.18 R. Hanina b. Gamaliel said: If a [sloping] mound attains [a height of] ten [handbreadths] within [a distance of] four, and one throws [an object] and it alights on top of it, he is culpable.
MISHNAH. IF ONE THROWS[ [AN OBJECT] WITHIN FOUR CUBITS BUT IT ROLLS BEYOND FOUR CUBITS, HE IS NOT CULPABLE; BEYOND FOUR CUBITS BUT IT ROLLS WITHIN FOUR CUBITS, HE IS CULPABLE.19
GEMARA. But it did not rest [beyond four cubits]?20 -Said R. Johanan: Providing it rests [beyond four cubits] on something, whatever its size.21 It was taught likewise: If one throws [an article] beyond four cubits, but the wind drives it within, even if it carries it out again, he is not liable; if the wind holds it for a moment,22 even if it carries it in again, he is liable.
Raba said: [An article brought] within three [handbreadths] must, according to the Rabbis, rest upon something, however small.23 Meremar sat and reported this statement. Said Rabina to Meremar:
(1) V. supra 5b for notes on the whole passage.
(2) I.e., eight by four-the pit of course is private ground.
(3) E.g., a stiff cane mat, which stands up vertically across the middle of the pit,
(4) The thickness of the mat leaves less than four square handbreadths on either side, so that neither is now private ground.
(5) As in the previous note.
(6) V. question asked by R. Johanan, supra 99b.
(7) For the mat does not become part of the pit; v. p. 477. n. 3.
(8) Hence the pit is private ground in spite of the water,
(9) The sea is a karmelith, supra 6a.
(10) Since it stands apart from the rest of the sea. This cavity too is naturally filled with water; hence we see that water does not annul the partition.
(11) Or, over the ground, within the height of ten handbreadths.
(12) V. supra 7b for notes on this and the Mishnah.
(13) v. supra 7b for notes.
(14) This renders it too steep to be negotiated in one's ordinary stride, and the top is therefore counted as private ground.
(15) This ranks as a karmelith, supra 6a.
(16) Into which it debouches.
(17) The ground on the inner side of the entrance is of the same level as the main street for a short distance, but then falls away.
(18) To convert it into private ground (v. supra 9a), the slope itself being an effective partition.
(19) In both cases it did not properly rest before the wind drove it back or forward.
(20) Why is he culpable in the latter case?
(21) Even not on the ground itself, and stays there momentarily. Rashi: The same holds good if the wind keeps it stationary for a moment within three handbreadths of the ground 'in the principle of labud (v. Glos.). [Wilna Gaon reads: Provided it rests for a little while.]
(22) Beyond the four cubits.
(23) The reference is to the Rabbis' view that an object caught up in the air is not regarded as at rest, in contrast to R. Akiba's ruling that it is as at rest (supra 97a). Raba states that the Rabbis hold thus even if the object comes within three handbreadths of the ground: it must actually alight upon something, otherwise it is not regarded as having been deposited.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 100b
Is this not [to be deduced from] our Mishnah, whereon R. Johanan commented. Providing it rests on something, whatever its size?1 You speak of [a] rolling [object]. replied he; [a] rolling [object] is not destined to rest; but this, since it is destined to rest,2 [I might argue that] though it did not come to rest, it is as though it had rested:3 therefore he informs us [that it is not so]. MISHNAH. IF ONE THROWS [AN OBJECT OVER A DISTANCE OF] FOUR CUBITS IN THE SEA, HE IS NOT LIABLE. IF THERE IS A WATER POOL. AND A PUBLIC ROAD TRAVERSES IT, AND ONE THROWS [AN OBJECT] FOUR CUBITS THEREIN. HE IS LIABLE. AND WHAT DEPTH CONSTITUTES A POOL? LESS THAN TEN HANDBREADTH3 . IF THERE IS A POOL OF WATER AND A PUBLIC ROAD TRAVERSES IT, AND ONE THROWS [AN OBJECT] FOUR CUBITS THEREln,4 HE IS LIABLE.
GEMARA. One of the Rabbis said to Raba, As for 'traversing [mentioned] twice, that is well, [as] it informs us this: [i] traversing with difficulty is designated traversing;5 [ii] use with difficulty is not designated use.6 But why [state] POOL twice? - One refers to summer, and the other to winter, and both are necessary. For if only one were stated, I would say: That is only in summer, when it is the practice of people to walk therein to cool themselves; but in winter [it is] not [so]. And if we were informed [this] of winter, [I would say that] because they are mudstained they do not object;7 but in summer [it is] not [so]. Abaye said, They are necessary: I might argue, That is only where it [the pool] is not four cubits [across]; but where it is four cubits [across], one goes round it.8 R. Ashi said; They are necessary: I might argue, That is only where it [the pool] is four [across];9 but where it is not four, one steps over it.10 Now, R. Ashi is consistent with his opinion. For R. Ashi said: If one throws [an object] and it alights on the junction of a landing bridge.11 he is culpable, since many pass across it.12
MISHNAH. IF ONE THROWS [AN OBJECT] FROM THE SEA TO DRY LAND,13 OR FROM DRY LAND TO THE SEA, FROM THE SEA TO A SHIP14 OR FROM A SHIP TO THE SEA OR FROM ONE SHIP TO ANOTHER, HE IS NOT CULPABLE. IF SHIPS ARE TIED TOGETHER, ONE MAY CARRY FROM ONE TO ANOTHER. IF THEY ARE NOT TIED TOGETHER, THOUGH LYING CLOSE [TO EACH OTHER], ONE MAY NOT CARRY FROM ONE TO ANOTHER.
GEMARA. It was stated: As for a ship. R. Huna said, A projection, whatever its size, is stuck out [over the side of the ship]. and [water] may then be drawn [from the sea]; R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna both maintain: One rigs up an enclosure15 four [handbreadths square] and draws [water].16 [Now], R. Huna said: A projection, whatever its size, is stuck out, and [water] may then be drawn; he holds that the karmelith is measured from the [sea-]bed. so that the air space is a place of non-liability'.17 Hence logically not even a projection is required.18 but [it is placed there] to serve as a distinguishing mark.19 R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna both maintain: One rigs up an enclosure four square and draws [water]': they hold that the karmelith is measured from the surface of the water, the water being [as] solid ground.20 [Hence] if a place of four [square] is not set up. one transports [the water] from a karmelith to private ground.21
R. Nahman said to Rabbah b. Abbuha: But according to R. Huna, who said, 'A projection, whatever its size, is stuck out and [water] may then be drawn', - but sometimes these are not ten,22 and so one carries from a karmelith to private ground? - Said he to him: It is well known that a ship cannot travel in less than ten [handbreadths of water].23 But it has a projecting point?24 - Said R. Safra: Sounders precede it.25
R. Nahman b. Isaac said to R. Hiyya b. Abin: But according to R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna, who maintain, 'One rigs up an enclosure four [square] and draws [water]'. - how could he throw out his waste water?26 And should you answer that he throws it [likewise] through that same enclosure, - it is [surely] repulsive to him!27 - He throws it against the sides of the ship.28 But there is his force [behind it]?29 They [the Sages] did not prohibit one's force in connection with a karmelith. And whence do you say this? Because it was taught: As for a ship. one may not carry [e.g.. water] from it into the sea or from the sea into it.
(1) Since he does not explain that the object came within three, it follows that even then it must alight on something.
(2) It is actually falling when intercepted within three handbreadths from the ground.
(3) Hence the thrower is culpable.
(4) I.e., it travels four cubits before it rests. That is also the meaning in the previous case.
(5) Hence the public road that passes through a pool counts as public ground, though one can only traverse it with difficulty.
(6) E.g., a pit in the street nine handbreadths deep. Though one can put objects therein, it is inconvenient, and therefore is not the same as a pillar of that height in the street upon which people temporarily place their burdens whilst pausing to rest, and which ranks as public ground (supra 8a). The deduction that such use is not designated use follows from the repetition of traversing, which intimates that only traversing with difficulty is regarded as such, but nothing else.
(7) To wade through a pool.
(8) Instead of wading through it; hence it is not public ground. Therefore it is stated twice, to show that this case too is included.
(9) Rashi adds cubits; but the masc. form ארבעה must refer to handbreadths. This reading is also more likely, as otherwise he would not say that if less than four one might step across it. - S. Strashun.
(10) And thus avoids it.
(11) Perhaps where the bridge joins the quay.
(12) Though many, on the other hand, step over it, it does not on that account cease to be ground publicly used, and the same applies above.
(13) Which is from a karmelith to public ground.
(14) I.e., from a karmelith to private ground.
(15) Lit., 'place'.
(16) I.e., an enclosure above the water is made, which renders the water immediately below technically private ground. and through this the water is drawn.
(17) Only ten handbreadths above the ground rank as a karmelith, whilst the space above that is a place of non-liability (supra 7a). Hence everything above the surface of the sea, and even the sea itself above ten handbreadths from its bed, fall within the latter category.
(18) For one may certainly carry from a place of non-liability.
(19) That one may not carry from a real karmelith.
(20) The sea-bed and the sea count as one, as though the ground of the karmelith rose very high.
(21) Viz., the ship.
(22) Handbreadths from the sea-bed to its surface, so that the whole of the sea is a karmelith.
(23) By sefina a large ship is meant, not a small boat.
(24) Rashi: the ship has a projecting point (sc. a helm), and as that rises out of the water it is possible for it to sail into a draught of even less than ten handbreadths, and should water be drawn at this point one transports from a karmelith to private ground. Tosaf. and R. Han. (on the reading preserved in MS. M.): perhaps it (the sea-bed) has a projecting eminence just where the water is drawn, from the top of which there are less than ten handbreadths to the sea surface?
(25) Men who sound the depth of the water with long poles, and they take care to avoid such shallows.
(26) For it is forbidden to throw from a private ground (the ship) to a karmelith (the sea).
(27) To draw water subsequently through the same place.
(28) Whence it descends into the sea.
(29) Even if he does not throw it directly into the sea, he does so indirectly through the exercise of his force.