Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 126a
Whether it is fastened or not, providing that it was prepared.1 Said R. Jeremiah to him, But let the Master say, Whether it is suspended or not, providing that it is fastened;2 for Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: Just as there is a controversy here, so is there a controversy in respect of a dragging bolt.3 For we learnt: With a dragging bolt, one may lock [the door] in the Temple, but not in the country;4 but one that is laid apart [on the ground]5 is forbidden in both places. R. Judah said: That which is laid apart [is permitted] in the Temple; and that which is dragged, in the country. Now it was taught: Which is a dragging bolt wherewith we may close (a door] in the Temple but not in the country? That which is fastened (to the door] and suspended - one end reaching the ground. R. Judah said: Such is permitted even in the country. But which is forbidden in the country? That which is neither fastened nor suspended - but which one removes and places in a corner. Further, R. Joshua b. Abba said in 'Ulla's name: Who is the Tanna of 'a dragging bolt?'6 It is R. Eleazar!7 Said he to him, I hold with the following Tanna. For it was taught: If a private individual prepares8 a cane for opening and shutting [a door] therewith: if it is tied and suspended to the door, he may open and shut [it] therewith; if it is not tied and suspended may not open and shut [it] therewith. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel ruled: If it is prepared9 even if it is not fastened.10 R. Judah b. Shilath said in R. Assi's name in R. Johanan's name: The halachah is as R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. Now, did R. Johanan say thus? Surely we learnt: All lids of vessels
(1) For this purpose before the Sabbath.
(2) Before the Sabbath, i.e., explain the Mishnah stringently, instead of leniently.
(3) Lit., 'a bolt that is dragged'. I.e., a door-bolt, fastened to the door, but one end thereof drags on the floor.
(4) 'Country' is employed technically to denote all places except the Temple. - Since it is fastened to the door, it is as though built thereto, and therefore the prohibition of handling it is only a Rabbinical one, which was imposed in the country but not in the Temple.
(5) It is not fastened at all, but when removed from the sockets it is simply placed on the ground.
(6) Requiring both that it be fastened and suspended.
(7) Whereas R. Judah will agree with the Rabbis. From this passage we see that all agree that it must be tied.
(8) I.e., sets aside.
(9) I.e., since it has been devoted to this purpose.
(10) It may be used for opening and shutting. R. Abba rules in accordance with this.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 126b
which have a handle on the Sabbath. Whereon R. Judah b. Shila said in R. Assi's name in R. Johanan's name: Providing that they have the character of utensils.1 And should you answer, Here too [it means] where it ranks as a utensil,2 - does then R. Simeon b. Gamaliel require it to have the character of a utensil? Surely it was taught: As for the dried branches of a palm tree which one cut down for fuel and then changed his mind, [intending them for sitting thereon], he must tie them together.3 R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: He need not tie them together!4 - R. Johanan agrees with him in one5 and disagrees with him in the other.6 R. Isaac the smith7 lectured at the entrance of the Resh Galutha:8 The halachah is as R. Eliezer. R. Amram objected: And from their words we learn that we may close (a skylight], measure [a mikweh], and tie [a temporary knot] on the Sabbath!9 - Said Abaye to him, What is your view: because it is taught anonymously?10 [But the Mishnah concerning] a dragging bolt is also anonymous!11 - Yet even so an actual incident is weightier.12
MISHNAH. ALL LIDS OF UTENSILS WHICH HAVE A HANDLE MAY BE HANDLED ON THE SABBATH. SAID R. JOSE, WHEN IS THAT SAID? IN THE CASE OF LIDS OF GROUND [BUILDINGS],13 BUT THE LIDS OF UTENSILS MAY IN ANY CASE BE HANDLED ON THE SABBATH.
GEMARA. R. Judah b. Shila said in R. Assi's name in R. Johanan's name: Provided that they have the character of a utensil. All agree: Covers of ground [buildings may be handled] only if they have a handle but not otherwise; covers of utensils, even if they have no handle. Where do they differ? In respect of utensils joined to the ground: one Master holds: We forbid
(them] preventively,14 while the other Master holds, We do not forbid preventively. Another version: Where do they differ? In respect of an oven cover:15 one Master likens it to the cover of a ground [building], while the other Master likens it to the cover of utensils.
MISHNAH. ONE MAY CLEAR AWAY EVEN FOUR OR FIVE BASKETS OF STRAW OR PRODUCE [GRAIN] TO MAKE ROOM FOR GUESTS OR ON ACCOUNT OF THE NEGLECT OF THE BETH HAMIDRASH,16 BUT NOT THE STORE.17 ONE MAY CLEAR AWAY CLEAN TERUMAH, DEM'AI,18 THE FIRST TITHE WHOSE TERUMAH HAS BEEN SEPARATED,19 REDEEMED SECOND TITHE AND HEKDESH,20 AND DRY LUPINES, BECAUSE IT IS FOOD FOR GOATS.21 BUT [ONE MAY] NOT [CLEAR AWAY] TEBEL,18 THE FIRST TITHE WHEREOF TERUMAH HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN, UNREDEEMED SECOND TITHE OR HEKDESH, LOF22 OR MUSTARD. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL PERMITS [IT] IN THE CASE OF LOF, BECAUSE IT IS FOOD FOR RAVENS.23 AS FOR BUNDLES OF STRAW,24 TWIGS, OR YOUNG SHOOTS, IF THEY WERE PREPARED AS ANIMAL FODDER, THEY MAY BE MOVED; IF NOT, THEY MAY NOT BE MOVED.25
GEMARA. Seeing that five may be cleared away, need four be stated? - Said R. Hisda: [It means] four out of five.26 Some there are who state, Four of a small store,27 and five of a large store. And what does BUT NOT THE STORE mean?28 That one must not commence [dealing] with a store for the first time;29 and which [Tanna] rules [thus]? It is R. Judah, who accepts [the interdict of] mukzeh. But Samuel said: [It means] four or five
(1) I.e.,the lids themselves must be fit for use as vessels. But how can a cane rank as a utensil?
(2) E.g., if the cane may be used for stirring olives in the vat.
(3) V. p. 226, n. 1.
(4) They may be handled without tying, though they are certainly not utensils.
(5) That if it is prepared it need not be tied.
(6) Holding that they must have the character of a utensil.
(7) Many of the Rabbis were tradesmen or workers; e.g., R. Johanan the cobbler; R. Papa, who was a brewer; Hillel at one time a wood-cutter.
(8) V. p. 217, 11. 7.
(9) V. Mishnah infra 157a. The reference there is to a cloth that is not fastened and suspended, and yet we may close a skylight with it.
(10) You assume that that proves the halachah is so, for otherwise you could simply answer that it represents the Rabbis' view only and is not a final ruling.
(11) And there R. Eliezer's view is stated.
(12) In the Mishnah infra 157 it is not merely a theoretical ruling but bears on actual practice. Therefore one may assume that it states the final ruling, and this refutes R. Isaac.
(13) E.g., the lid or cover of a pit built in the ground. When they have a handle they are obviously not part of the pit and are meant to be put on and taken off. But otherwise they seem to be there permanently: hence placing them there is like building, and removing them is like demolishing.
(14) Lest they be confused with the lid of ground. buildings.
(15) V. p. 620, n. 8 for its construction.
(16) Caused by lack of room for the disciples.
(17) Explained infra.
(18) V. Glos.
(19) The first tithe belonged to the Levite; a tenth thereof, called terumah ('septs ration'), was given to the priest.
(20) The second tithe was to be eaten by an Israelite owner in Jerusalem. Both it and hekdesh, q.v. Glos., could be redeemed, whereby they became like ordinary produce, save in a few respects, and then consumed. (Hekdesh, if an animal dedicated as a sacrifice, might be redeemed only if it received a blemish.)
(21) Var lec.: for the poor.
(22) Jast.: a plant similar to colocasia, with edible leaves and root, and bearing beans. It is classified with onions and garlic.
(23) Which some wealthy people bred.
(24) Or, stubble.
(25) This is the reason of the others too which may not be moved, viz., because they cannot be used even as animal fodder.
(26) If the entire store consists of five, only four may be removed, but not all, lest depressions in the ground are revealed which may be levelled on the Sabbath.
(27) Var. lec. omit: 'Some there are . . . small store'.
(28) It cannot mean that the whole store must not be cleared away, since on the present interpretation that is already implied in the first clause.
(29) If he had not already started using it for food, either for himself or for his animals, before the Sabbath, it is mukzeh and must not be touched.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 127a
just as people speak; yet if one desires even more may be cleared away. And what does BUT NOT THE STORE mean? That one must not complete[ly remove] the whole of it, lest he come to level up depressions;1 but one may indeed commence therewith.2 And who [rules thus]? It is R. Simeon, who rejects [the interdict of] mukzeh.
Our Rabbis taught: One must not commence with a store for the first time, but he may make a path through it to enter and go out. 'He may make a path'! but surely you say, 'One must not commence'? - This is its meaning: one may make a path through it with his feet as he enters and goes out.3
Our Rabbis taught: If produce is heaped together [for storage] and one commenced [using] it on the eve of the Sabbath, he may take supplies from it on the Sabbath; if not, he may not take supplies from it on the Sabbath: this is R. Simeon's view; but R. Aha permits it. Whither does this tend!4 - Rather say: this Is R. Aha's view; but R. Simeon permits it.
A Tanna taught: What is the standard quantity for produce that is heaped together? - A lethek.5 R. Nehumi b. Zechariah asked Abaye: What is the standard quantity for produce that is heaped together? Said he to him, Surely it was said: The standard quantity for produce that is heaped together is a lethek.
The scholars asked: These four or five baskets that are stated, [does it mean] only in four or five baskets, but not more,6 which shows that it is better to minimize one's walking; or perhaps it is better to minimize the burden?7 Come and hear: For one [Baraitha] taught: One may clear away even four or five tubs of pitchers of wine and oil; whereas another was taught: In ten or fifteen. Surely they differ in this, viz., one Master holds: It is better to minimize the walking; while the other Master holds: It is better to reduce the burden?- No: All hold that it is better to reduce the walking: do you think that ten or fifteen refers to 'tubs'? [No]; it refers to the pitchers, yet there is no contradiction: here [in the first the reference is] where they can be carried [only] singly in a tub;8 whereas there, where they can be carried in twos, and there, where they can be carried in threes,9 of the size of the jugs of Harpania.10
The scholars asked: These four or five that are stated, [does it mean] even if he has more guests; or perhaps it all depends on the [number of] guests? And should you say that it all depends on the number of guests, can one person clear [them] away for all of them, or perhaps each man must do so for himself? - Come and hear: For Rabbah said in R. Hiyya's name: Rabbi once went to a certain place; seeing that the place was too cramped for the disciples, he went out to a field and found it full of sheaves, whereupon Rabbi cleared the whole field of the sheaves. While R. Joseph related in R. Oshaia's name: R. Hiyya once went to a certain place; seeing that the place was too cramped for the disciples, he went out to a field and found it full of sheaves, whereupon R. Hiyya cleared the whole field of the sheaves.11 This proves that it all depends on the [number of] guests. But still the question remains, Can one person clear [them] away for all, or perhaps each man must do so for himself? - Come and hear: 'And Rabbi cleared the sheaves.' Then on your view, did Rabbi personally clear [them]?12 But he gave orders that it [the field] be cleared, yet after all each [acted] for himself.13
TO MAKE ROOM FOR THE GUESTS, etc. R. Johanan said: Hospitality to wayfarers14 is as 'great' as early attendance at the Beth Hamidrash, since he [the Tanna] states, TO MAKE ROOM FOR GUESTS OR ON ACCOUNT OF THE NEGLECT OF THE BETH HAMIDRASH. R. Dimi of Nehardea said: It is 'greater' than early attendance at the Beth Hamidrash, because he states, TO MAKE ROOM FOR GUESTS, and then, AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE NEGLECT OF THE BETH HAMIDRASH. Rab Judah said in Rab's name: Hospitality to wayfarers is greater than welcoming the presence of the Shechinah, for it is written, And he said, My lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, etc.15 R. Eleazar said: Come and observe how the conduct of the Holy One, blessed be He, is not like that of mortals. The conduct of mortals [is such that] an inferior person cannot say to a great[er] man, Wait for me until I come to you; whereas in the case of the Holy One, blessed be He, it is written, and he said, My Lord, if now I have found, etc.
R. Judah b. Shila said in R. Assi's name in R. Johanan's name: There are six things, the fruit of which man eats in this world, while the principal remains for him for the world to come, viz.: Hospitality to wayfarers, visiting the sick, meditation in prayer, early attendance at the Beth Hamidrash, rearing one's sons to the study of the Torah, and judging one's neighbour in the scale of merit.16 But that is not so? For we learnt: These are the things which man performs and enjoys their fruits in this world, while the principal remains for him for the world to come, viz.: honouring one's parents, the practice of loving deeds,17 and making peace between man and his fellow, while the study of the Torah surpasses them all:18 [this implies], these only, but none others?
(1) V. p. 629, n. 11.
(2) I.e., the reverse of n. 3.
(3) This is not handling.
(4) Surely it should be reversed, since R. Simeon always rejects mukzeh.
(5) Half a kor=fifteen se'ahs. But less does not constitute a store, and the prohibition of mukzeh does not apply to it in any case.
(6) I.e., must they actually be carried away thus, but not broken up into smaller quantities and then removed?
(7) Hence they may certainly be broken up into smaller quantities.
(8) Being too large to be carried more than one at a time.
(9) Which gives ten or fifteen pitchers in five piles.
(10) דקורא, jugs enclosed in wicker-work. Harpania was a rich agricultural town of Mesene, south of Babylon, famous for its wicker-work manufactured from the fibre of palm leaves; v. Obermeyer, p. 200.
(11) To make room for the disciples.
(12) Surely not.
(13) Thus the question remains unanswered.
(14) The word means both guests and wayfarers.
(15) Gen. XVIII, 3; he thus left God, as it were, to attend to the wants of the three wayfarers. [On this interpretation he was speaking to God, and begged Him to remain whilst he saw to his guests v. Shebu. 35b.]
(16) I.e., seeking a favourable interpretation of his actions, even when they look suspicious.
(17) Not merely alms-giving.
(18) Not because knowledge in itself is a great virtue, but because it is the foundation and condition of real piety; cf. Ab. II, 6; also, 'Learning is great, because it leads to (good) deeds'.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 127b
- These too are included in the practice of loving deeds. Another version: these are included in those.1
Our Rabbis taught: He who judges his neighbour in the scale of merit is himself judged favourably. Thus a story is told of a certain man who descended from Upper Galilee and was engaged by an individual in the South for three years. On the eve of the Day of Atonement2 he requested him, 'Give me my wages that I may go and support my wife and children.' 'I have no money,' answered he. 'Give me produce,' he demanded; 'I have none,' he replied. 'Give me land.' - 'I have none.' 'Give me cattle.' - 'I have none. 'Give me pillows and bedding.' - 'I have none.' [So] he slung his things behind him and went home with a sorrowful heart.3 After the Festival his employer took his wages in his hand together with three laden asses, one bearing food, another drink, and the third various sweetmeats, and went to his house. After they had eaten and drunk, he gave him his wages. Said he to him, 'When you asked me, "Give me my wages," and I answered you, "I have no money," of what did you suspect me?' 'I thought, Perhaps you came across cheap merchandise and had purchased it therewith.' 'And when you requested me, "Give me cattle," and I answered, "I have no cattle," of what did you suspect me?' 'I thought, they may be hired to others.' 'When you asked me, "Give me land,' and I told you, "I have no land," of what did you suspect me?' 'I thought, perhaps it is leased to others.' 'And when I told you, "I have no produce," of what did you suspect me?' 'I thought, Perhaps they are not tithed.' 'And when I told you, "I have no pillows or bedding," of what did you suspect me?' 'I thought, perhaps he has sanctified all his property to Heaven.' 'By the [Temple] service!' exclaimed he, 'it was even so; I vowed away all my property because of my son Hyrcanus, who would not occupy himself with the Torah, but when I went to my companions in the South they absolved me of all my vows. And as for you, just as you judged me favourably, so may the Omnipresent judge you favourably.'
Our Rabbis taught: It happened that a certain pious man4 ransomed an Israelite maiden [from captivity]; at the inn he made her lie at his feet. On the morrow he went down, had a ritual bath, and learnt with his disciples. Said he to them, 'When I made her lie at my feet, of what did you suspect me?' 'We thought, perhaps there is a disciple amongst us who[se character] is not clearly known5 to our Master.'6 'When I descended and had a ritual bath, of what did you suspect me?' 'We thought, perhaps through the fatigue of the journey the Master was visited by nocturnal pollution.' 'By the [Temple] Service!' exclaimed he to them, 'it was even so. And just as you judged me favourably, so may the Omnipresent judge you favourably.'
Our Rabbis taught: The scholars were once in need of something from a noblewoman where all the great men of Rome were to be found. Said they, 'Who will go?' 'I will go,' replied R. Joshua. So R. Joshua and his disciples went. When he reached the door of her house, he removed his tefillin7 at a distance of four cubits, entered, and shut the door in front of them. After he came out he descended, had a ritual bath, and learnt with his disciples. Said he to them, 'When I removed my tefillin, of what did you suspect me?' 'We thought, our Master reasons, "Let not sacred words enter a place of uncleanness".' 'When I shut [the door], of what did you suspect me?' 'We thought, perhaps he has [to discuss] an affair of State with her.' 'When I descended and had a ritual bath, of what did you suspect me?' 'We thought, perhaps some spittle spurted from her mouth upon the Rabbi's garments.'8 'By the [Temple] Service!' exclaimed he to them', 'it was even so; and just as you judged me favourably, so may the Omnipresent judge you favourably.'
WE MAY CLEAR AWAY CLEAN TERUMAH, etc. But that is obvious?-It is necessary [to teach it] only where it is lying in the hand of an Israelite; you might say, Since It Is of no use9 for him, it is forbidden [to handle it]; he [the Tanna] informs us therefore [that] since it is fit for a priest it is permitted.
DEM'AI, etc. But dem'ai is not fit for him? - Since if he desired he could renounce [ownership of] his property and become a poor man, whereby it would be fit for him, it is fit for him now too. For we learnt: The poor may be fed with dem'ai and billeted soldiers may be given dem'ai. And R. Huna said, It was taught: Beth Shammai maintain: The poor may not be given dem'ai as food, nor billeted soldiers; but Beth Hillel rule: The poor may be given dem'ai as food, and [likewise] billeted soldiers10 .
AND THE FIRST TITHE WHOSE TERUMAH HAS BEEN SEPARATED. But that is obvious? - It is necessary [to teach it] only where he anticipated [the separation of] the first tithe in the ears, and separated terumah of tithe but not the great terumah.11 And this is as the following dictum of R. Abbahu in the name of Resh Lakish: First tithe which one anticipated in the ears is exempt from the great terumah, for it is said, then ye shall offer up an heave-offering of it for the Lord, a tithe of the tithe:12 I ordered thee [to offer] a tithe of the tithe, but not the great terumah plus the terumah of the tithe of the tithe. R. Papa said to Abaye: If so, even if he anticipates it in the stack,13 he should be exempt? - For your sake Scripture writes, out of all your gifts ye shall offer every heave-offering of the Lord.14 And what [reason] do you see [to interpret thus]?15 -The One has become corn [dagan], while the other has not become corn.16
AND THE SECOND TITHE, etc. But that is obvious?-It is necessary [to teach it] only where the principal has been given but not the fifth:17 thus he informs us that the fifth is not indispensable.18
AND DRY LUPINES, etc. Only dry, but not moist. What is the reason? Since it is bitter, she [the goat] will not eat it.
(1) Hospitality and visiting the sick belong to the practice of loving deeds; early attendance at the Beth Hamidrash and rearing one's children to the study of the Torah are included in the study of the Torah; while judging one's neighbour favourably enables peace to be made between a man and his fellow and between a husband and wife, as each can be persuaded to take a charitable view of the other's actions. As for meditation in prayer, Rashi includes it in the practice of loving deeds - to ones own soul - as it is written, the man of love doeth good to his own soul (Prov. XI, 17). Maharsha includes it in peacemaking between God and man.
(2) Alfasi and Asheri read: Festival.
(3) Lit., 'with blasting of spirit'.
(4) חסיד אחא, the phrase generally designates either R. Judah b. Baba or R. Judah b. ila'i (Rashi).
(5) Lit., 'tested', 'examined'.
(6) So you could not trust him.
(7) Which were then worn during the day.
(8) Which by rabbinical law affects levitical purity; cf. supra 15b, 17b.
(9) Lit., 'not fit'.
(10) V. Dem. III, I.
(11) The great terumah is a portion of the produce, unspecified by Scriptural law, which the Israelite must give to the priests; for terumah of the tithe, v. n. on Mishnah. The great terumah was to be separated first and then first tithe. But here the order was reversed, and the Israelite separated the tithe whilst the grain was yet in the ears.
(12) Num. XVIII, 26.
(13) I.e., when it is no longer in the ears but has been piled up in stacks.
(14) Num. XVIII, 29; i.e., all is an extension, and shows that the offering is due even in such a case. 'For your sake' or, 'concerning you' - to refute this possibility.
(15) To apply the limitation of the first verse to the one case and the extension if the second to the other- perhaps it should be reversed.
(16) The priestly due, i.e., the great terumah, is 'the first-fruits of thy corn' (Deut. XVIII, 4). Hence once it is piled up as corn it is due, and one cannot evade his obligations by reversing the order of the gifts.
(17) When one redeemed the second tithe he had to add a fifth of its value.
(18) To the validity of the redemption, and the redeemed produce may be consumed anywhere, even though the fifth has not been added.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 128a
BUT NOT TEBEL, etc. That is obvious? - It is necessary [to teach it] only of tebel made so by Rabbinical law, e.g.,if it was sown in an unperforated pot.1
NOR THE FIRST TITHE, etc. That is obvious? - It is necessary [to teach it] only where it had been anticipated in the pile, the tithe having been separated but not the great terumah. You might argue as R. Papa proposed to Abaye:2 hence he [the Tanna] informs us [that it is] as Abaye answered him.
NOR THE SECOND TITHE, etc. That is obvious?-It is necessary [to teach it] only where they have been redeemed, but not in accordance with their laws; [i.e.,] the [second] tithe was redeemed by uncoined metal,3 for the Divine Law states, And thou shalt bind up [we-zarta] the money in thine hand,4 [implying], that which bears a figure [zurah];5 [and] hekdesh which was secularized by means of land,6 for the Divine law states, Then he shall give the money and it shall be assured to him.7 NOR LOF. Our Rabbis taught: We may handle hazab,8 because it is food for gazelles, and mustard, because it is food for doves. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: We may also handle fragments of glass, because it is food for ostriches. Said R. Nathan to him: If so, let bundles of twigs be handled, because they are food for elephants. And R. Simeon b. Gamaliel?9 Ostriches are common, [whereas] elephants are rare. Amemar observed: provided he has ostriches. R. Ashi said to Amemar: Then when R. Nathan said to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, 'let bundles of dried branches be handled, because they are food for elephants', - if one has elephants, why not? But [he means,] they are fit for [elephants]; so here too they are fit for [ostriches].10
Abaye said: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, R. Simeon, R. Ishmael, and R. Akiba, all hold that all Israel are royal children. 'R. Simeon R. Gamaliel', as stated.11 'R. Simeon': for we learnt: Royal children may anoint their wounds with oil, since it is their practice to anoint themselves thus on weekdays. R. Simeon said: All Israel are royal children. 'R. Ishmael and R. Akiba': for it was taught: If one is a debtor for a thousand zuz, and wears a robe a hundred manehs in value, he is stripped thereof and robed with a garment that is fitting for him. It was taught in the name of R. Ishmael, and it was taught in the name of R. Akiba: All Israel are worthy of that robe.
BUNDLES OF STRAW, TWIGS, etc. Our Rabbis taught: Bundles of straw, bundles of branches, and bundles of young shoots,12 if one prepared them as animal fodder, may be handled; if not, they may not be handled. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Bundles which can be taken up with one hand may be handled; with two hands, may not be handled. As for bundles of si'ah,13 hyssop and koranith:14 if they were brought in for fuel, one must not draw on them [for food] on the Sabbath; [if brought in] as animal fodder, he may draw on them on the Sabbath; and he may break [it] with his hand and eat [thereof], provided that he does not break it with a utensil. And he may crush it and eat, provided that he does not crush a large quantity with a utensil: the words of R. Judah. But the Sages maintain: He may crush [it] with the tips of his fingers and eat, provided, however, that he does not crush a large quantity with his hands in the [same] way as he does on weekdays; the same applies to ammitha, the same applies to higgam [rue], and the same applies to other kinds of spices. What is ammitha? Ninya.15 [What is] si'ah? - Said Rab Judah: Si'ah is zithre;16 ezob is abratha [hyssop];17 koranith is what is called koranitha. But there was a certain man who asked, 'Who wants koranitha,' and it transpired [that he meant] thyme? - Rather si'ah is zithre, ezob is abratha, and koranitha is hashe [thyme].
It was stated: Salted meat may be handled on the Sabbath; unsalted18 meat, - R. Huna says: It may be handled; R. Hisda rules: It may not be handled. 'R. Huna says: It may be handled'? But R. Huna was Rab's disciple, and Rab agrees with R. Judah who accepts [the prohibition of] mukzeh?19 -In [the interdict of] mukzeh in respect of eating he agrees with R. Judah;20 in [the interdict] of mukzeh as regards handling he agrees with R. Simeon.21
'R. Hisda rules: It may not be handled.' But R. Isaac b. Ammi visited R. Hisda's house and he saw a [slaughtered] duck being moved from the sun into the shade, and R. Hisda observed, I see here a financial loss.'22 - A duck is different, because it is fit as raw meat.
Our Rabbis taught: Salted fish may be handled; unsalted fish may not be handled;23 meat, whether unsalted or salted, may be handled; [and this is taught anonymously as R. Simeon].24
Our Rabbis taught: Bones may be handled because they are food for dogs;
(1) Cf. supra 95a Mishnah. By Scriptural law it is not tebel at all, and one would think that the produce might therefore be handled.
(2) That it is exempt; supra 127b bottom.
(3) Asimon. V. B.M. 47b for the meaning of the term.
(4) Deut. XIV, 25.
(5) The image stamped on a coin. This connects zarta with zurah.
(6) I.e., land was given in order to redeem it.
(7) I.e., it can be redeemed by money, but not by land. Actually there is no such verse, but v. B.M,, Sonc. ed., 321, n. 1.
(8) Jast.: a shrubby plant, probably cistus.
(9) How does he answer this?
(10) And they may be handled even if one has no ostriches.
(11) He permits lof to be handled because it is food for ravens, which only wealthy people - who are the same as princes - kept.
(12) Bah on the basis of Tur O.H. 308, 28 omits the last-mentioned here, though retaining it in the Mishnah.
(13) Jast.: a plant classified with hyssop. Satureia Thymbra (savory).
(14) Jast.: thyme or origanum.
(15) Jast.: Bishop's weed. Rashi: mint.
(16) Satureia; v. n. 1.
(17) Used as a remedy for indigestion, v. supra 109b.
(18) Lit., 'unsavoury'.
(19) Which applies to unsalted meat, since it is not fit for food.
(20) That which is normally unfit for food may not be eaten, even if its owner wishes.
(21) That it is permitted.
(22) If you leave it in the sun. Thus they moved it at his orders.
(23) Because it cannot be eaten, nor will it be given to dogs, as one does not give to dogs what can be made fit for man.
(24) Hence raw meat is permitted. Rashal, however. deletes the bracketed passage; v. Tosaf.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 128b
putrid meat, because it is food for beasts; uncovered water,1 because it is fit for a cat. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: It may not be kept at all, because of the danger.2
MISHNAH. A BASKET MAY BE OVERTURNED BEFORE FLEDGLINGS, FOR THEM TO ASCEND OR DESCEND.3 IF A FOWL RUNS AWAY [FROM THE HOUSE], SHE IS PUSHED [WITH THE HANDS] UNTIL SHE RE-ENTERS. CALVES AND FOALS MAY BE MADE TO WALK, AND A WOMAN MAY MAKE HER SON WALK.4 R. JUDAH SAID: WHEN IS THAT? IF HE LIFTS ONE [FOOT] AND PLACES [ANOTHER] DOWN; BUT IF HE DRAGS THEM IT IS FORBIDDEN.5
GEMARA. Rab Judah said in Rab's name: If an animal falls into a dyke, one brings pillows and bedding and places [them] under it, and if it ascends it ascends. An objection is raised: If an animal falls into a dyke, provisions are made for it where it lies so that it should not perish. Thus, only provisions, but not pillows and bedding? - There is no difficulty: here it means where provisions are possible; there, where provisions are impossible. If provisions are possible, well and good;6 but if not, one brings pillows and bedding and places them under it. But he robs a utensil of its readiness [for use]?7 - [The avoidance of] suffering of dumb animals is a Biblical [law], so the Biblical law comes and supersedes the [interdict] of the Rabbis.8
IF A FOWL RUNS AWAY. We may only push [it], but not make it walk. We have here learnt what our Rabbis taught: An animal, beast, or bird may be made to walk in a courtyard, but not a fowl. Why not a fowl? - Said Abaye, Because she raises herself.9
One [Baraitha] taught: An animal, beast, and bird may be made to walk in a courtyard, but not in the street; a woman may lead her son in the street, and in the courtyard it goes without saying. Another taught: An animal, beast, and bird may not be carried10 in a courtyard, but we may push them that they should enter. Now this is self-contradictory. You say, We may not carry, which implies that we may certainly make them walk; then you say, we may only push but not lead? - Said Abaye: The second clause refers to a fowl.
Abaye said: When one kills a fowl he should [either] press its legs on the ground or else lift them up,11 lest it places its claws on the ground and tears its organs loose.12 MISHNAH. ONE MAY NOT DELIVER AN ANIMAL [IN GIVING BIRTH] ON A FESTIVAL, BUT ONE MAY ASSIST IT. WE MAY DELIVER A WOMAN ON THE SABBATH, SUMMON A MIDWIFE FOR HER FROM PLACE TO PLACE, DESECRATE THE SABBATH ON HER ACCOUNT, AND TIE UP THE NAVEL-STRING. R. JOSE SAID: ONE MAY CUT [IT] TOO. AND ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF CIRCUMCISION MAY BE DONE ON THE SABBATH.
GEMARA. How may we assist? Rab Judah said: The new-born [calf, lamb, etc.] is held so that it should not fall on the earth. R. Nahman said: The flesh is compressed in order that the young should come out. It was taught in accordance with Rab Judah. How do we assist? We may hold the young so that it should not fall on the ground, blow into its nostrils,13 and put the teat into its mouth that it should suck. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: We stimulate pity14 to a clean animal15 on a Festival. What was done? - Said Abaye: A lump of salt was brought and placed in its womb so that it [the mother] might remember its travails16 and have pity upon it; and we sprinkle the water of the after-birth17 upon the newly-born [animal] so that its mother might smell it and have pity upon it. Yet only [in the case of] a clean [animal], but not an unclean one. What is the reason? An unclean animal does not spurn its young, and if it does spurn it, it does not take it back.18
ONE MAY DELIVER A WOMAN, etc. Consider: He [the Tanna] teaches, ONE MAY DELIVER A WOMAN AND SUMMON A MIDWIFE FOR HER FROM PLACE TO PLACE, then what does AND DESECRATE THE SABBATH ON HER ACCOUNT add? - It adds the following taught by the Rabbis: If she needs a lamp, her neighbour may kindle a lamp for her. And if she needs oil, her neighbour brings her oil19 in her hand;20 but if that in her hand is insufficient, she brings it in her hair; and if that in her hair is insufficient, she brings it to her in a vessel.
The Master said: 'If she needs a lamp, her neighbour may kindle a lamp for her.' That is obvious? - This is necessary [to be taught] only in the case of a blind [woman]: you might argue, Since she cannot see it, it is forbidden; hence he informs us that we tranquillize her mind, [as] she reasons, if there is anything [required] my friend will see it and do it for me.
'If she needs oil, etc.' [But] deduce it on the grounds of wringing out?21 - Rabbah and R. Joseph both answer: [The interdict of] wringing out does not apply to hair. R. Ashi said: You may even say that wringing out does apply to hair: she brings it to her in a vessel by means of her hair,22 [because] as much as we can vary it we do so.23
Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: If a woman is in confinement, as long as the uterus is open, whether she states, 'I need it,' or 'I do not need it,' we must desecrate the Sabbath on her account. If the uterus is closed, whether she says,
(1) V. p. 533, n. II.
(2) To a human being who may drink it.
(3) Into or from the hen-coop.
(4) The verb refers to the short hop-like steps made by a child when he is just learning to walk.
(5) As the mother in effect carries him. The reference is to a public domain.
(6) Lit., 'yes'.
(7) Because once he places the bedding under the animal, he may no longer remove it on Sabbath, v. supra 43a.
(8) The prohibition of depriving a utensil on a sabbath of its readiness for use, with the result that one carries it. This is forbidden as mukzeh. The broad humaneness of this is striking, particularly when it is remembered that it antedates by many centuries any similar view elsewhere. Cf. supra 117b, p. 577, n. 6.
(9) But ducks when held by their wings actually walk.
(10) Lit., 'you may not remove' (their feet from the ground simultaneously).
(11) So that they cannot touch the ground at all.
(12) Viz., the windpipe and the gullet. If these are torn loose before being cut the animal or bird is unfit for food.
(13) To clear them of their mucus, etc.
(14) [I.e., arouses the maternal instinct of the animal for its young. Tosef. reads: 'pity in'].
(15) I.e., one permitted as food.
(16) In giving birth.
(17) Water in which the placenta was soaked.
(18) Lit., 'bring it near' - in spite of these expedients.
(19) Through the street.
(20) But not in a vessel, if it can be avoided.
(21) I.e., if she brings it in her hair she must then wring it out, which is just as much forbidden as carrying it in a vessel. Since this is so, why not carry it ordinarily?
(22) The vessel is attached to her hair.
(23) When the Sabbath must be desecrated, we do it in as unusual a manner as possible.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 129a
'I need it' or 'I do not need it,' we may not desecrate the Sabbath for her:1 that is how R. Ashi recited it. Mar Zutra recited it thus: Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: If a woman is in confinement, as long as the uterus is open, whether she says, 'I need it' or 'I do not need it,' we desecrate the Sabbath for her. If the uterus is closed, if she says, 'I need it,' we desecrate the Sabbath for her; if she does not say, 'I need it,' we do not desecrate the Sabbath for her.2 Rabina asked Meremar: Mar Zutra recited it in the direction of leniency, [while] R. Ashi recited it in the direction of stringency; which is the law? - The law is as Mar Zutra, replied he: where [a matter of] life is in doubt we are lenient.
From when is the opening of the uterus? - Abaye said: From when she sits on the seat of travail. R. Huna son of R. Joshua said: From when the blood slowly flows down; others state, From when her friends carry her by her arms.3 For how long is the opening of the uterus? - Abaye said: Three days: Raba said in Rab Judah's name: Seven; others maintain: Thirty. The scholars of Nehardea said: A lying-in woman [has three periods: from] three [days after confinement], seven [days], and thirty [days]. From three [days], whether she says, 'I need it' or she says, 'I do not need it,'4 we desecrate the Sabbath for her. [From] seven [days], if she says 'I need it,' we desecrate the Sabbath for her; if she says, 'I do not need it,' we do not desecrate the Sabbath for her. [From] thirty days, even if she says, 'I need it,' we may not desecrate the Sabbath for her,5 yet we may do so by means of a Gentile,6 as R. 'Ulla the son of R. Ilai, who said: All the requirements of an invalid may be done by means of a Gentile on the Sabbath, and as R. Hamnuna, who said: In a matter entailing no danger [to life], one bids a Gentile and he does it.
Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: For a woman in confinement [the period is] thirty days. In respect of what law? The scholars of Nehardea said: In respect of a ritual bath.7 Raba observed: We said this only if her husband is not with her;8 but if her husband is with her, he makes her warm. Even as R. Hisda's daughter performed tebillah within thirty days in her husband's absence,9 caught a chill, and was carried in a bed to Raba at Pumbeditha.
Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: We may make a fire for a lying-in woman on the Sabbath [in the winter].10 Now it was understood from him, only for a lying-in woman, but not for an invalid; only in winter, but not in summer. But that is not so: there is no difference between a lying-in woman and any [other] invalid, and summer and winter are alike. [This follows] since it was stated, R. Hiyya b. Abin said in Samuel's name: If one lets blood and catches a chill, a fire is made for him even on the Tammuz [summer] solstice.11 A teak chair was broken up for Samuel;12 a table [made] of juniper-wood was broken up for Rab Judah. A footstool was broken up for Rabbah, whereupon Abaye said to Rabbah, But you are infringing, thou shalt not destroy?13 'Thou shalt not destroy' in respect of my own body is more important to me, he retorted.
Rab Judah said in Rab's name: One should always sell [even] the beams of his house and buy shoes for his feet. If one has let blood and has nothing to eat, let him sell the shoes from off his feet and provide the requirements of a meal therewith. What are the requirements of a meal? - Rab said: Meat; while Samuel said: Wine. Rab said meat: life for life. While Samuel said, Wine: red [wine] to replace red [blood].
(Mnemonic: SHenimsar.)14 For Samuel on the day he was bled15 a dish of pieces of meat was prepared; R. Johanan drank until the smell [of the wine] issued from his ears; R. Nahman drank until his milt swam [in wine]; R. Joseph drank until it [the smell] issued from the puncture of bleeding.16 Raba sought Wine of a [vine] that had had three [changes of] foliage.17
R. Nahman b. Isaac said to his disciples: I beg of you, tell your wives on the day of blood-letting, Nahman is visiting us.18 Now, all artifices are forbidden, save the following article, which is permitted. Viz., if one is bled and cannot [buy wine],19 let him take a bad zuz20 and go to seven shops until he has tasted as much as a rebi'ith.21 But if not,22 let him eat seven black dates, rub his temples with oil, and sleep in the sun. Ablat23 found Samuel sleeping in the sun. Said he to him, O Jewish Sage! can that which is injurious be beneficial? It is a day of bleeding, replied he.24 Yet it is not so, but there is a day when the sun is beneficial for the whole year, [viz.,] the day of the Tammuz [summer]25 solstice, and he said to himself, I will not reveal it to him.26
(Mnemonic: Sparingly, wind, taste, tarry.) Rab and Samuel both Say: If one makes light of the meal after bleeding his food will be made light of by Heaven, for they Say; He has no compassion for his own life, shall I have compassion upon him! Rab and Samuel both say: He who is bled, let him, not sit where a wind can enfold [him], lest the cupper drained him [of blood] and reduced it27 to [just] a rebi'ith,28 and the wind come and drain him [still further], and thus he is in danger. Samuel was accustomed to be bled in a house [whose wall consisted] of seven whole bricks,29 and a half brick [in thickness]. One day he bled and felt himself [weak]; he examined [the wall] and found a half-brick missing.
Rab and Samuel both say: He who is bled must [first] partake of something and then go out; for if he does not eat anything, if he meets a corpse his face will turn green; if he meets a homicide he will die; and if he meets
(1) As there is no danger of life. Asheri, however, reads: If she says, 'I need it', we desecrate (the Sabbath); if she does not say, 'I need it', we do not desecrate.
(2) Asheri reads: If she says, 'I do not need it', we do not desecrate (the Sabbath); if she does not say. 'I do not need it'. we do desecrate.
(3) I.e, when she cannot walk.
(4) Var. lec.: or she does not say, 'I need it'; similarly infra.
(5) For she certainly does not need it and is in no danger.
(6) Lit., 'Syrian'.
(7) Which she must not take until thirty days for fear of a cold.
(8) After the ritual bath, which she takes in order to eat terumah, etc.
(9) Lit., 'not in her husband's presence'.
(10) Lit., 'in the rainy season'. This is bracketed in the text.
(11) Tammuz is the fourth month of the year, corresponding to about July.
(12) For a fire, other wood being unavailable.
(13) Deut. XX, 19. q.v.; this is understood as a general prohibition of wasteful destruction of any sort.
(14) V. p. 110, n. 1. SH=SHemuel (Samuel); N=R. Johanan; M=R. Nahman; S=R. Joseph; R=Raba.
(15) Lit., 'when he did the thing'.
(16) I.e., the hole made in his flesh when he was bled. Jast. s.v. כוסילתא translates: until the puncture was healed up.
(17) I.e., wine in its third year.
(18) That they may prepare substantial meals!
(19) Having no money.
(20) I.e., a worn-out one which is not accepted as current coin.
(21) A quarter of a log. Wine was tasted before buying; at each shop he would taste the wine and then proffer the coin, which, of course, would be refused.
(22) He does not even possess such a coin.
(23) A Persian sage and friend of Samuel, v. A.Z. 30a.
(24) And I require heat.
(25) Var. lec. Tebeth (winter).
(26) Samuel possessed medical knowledge and did not wish to reveal trade secrets.
(27) Lit., 'set it' .
(28) Which was held to be the minimum quantity of blood which can sustain life.
(29) A whole brick is three handbreadths,
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 129b
a swine,1 it [the meeting] is harmful in respect of something else.2
Rab and Samuel both say: One who is bled should tarry awhile and then rise, for a Master said: In five cases one is nearer to death than to life. And these are they: When one eats and [immediately] rises, drinks and rises, sleeps and rises, lets blood and rises, and cohabits and rises.
Samuel said: The correct interval for blood-letting is every thirty days; in middle age3 one should decrease [the frequency];4 at a [more] advanced age5 he should again decrease [the frequency]. Samuel also said: The correct time for bloodletting is on a Sunday Wednesday and Friday, but not on Monday or Thursday, because a Master said: He who possesses ancestral merit may let blood on Monday and Thursday, because the Heavenly Court and the human court are alike then.6 Why not on Tuesday?Because the planet Mars rules at even-numbered hours of the day.7 But on Friday too it rules at even-numbered hours? Since the multitude are accustomed to it,8 'the Lord preserveth the simple.'9 Samuel said: A Wednesday10 which is the fourth [of the month], a Wednesday which is the fourteenth, a Wednesday which is the twenty-fourth a Wednesday which is not followed by four [days]11 - [all] are dangerous.12 The first day of the month and the second [cause] weakness; the third is dangerous. The eve of a Festival [causes] weakness; the eve of Pentecost is dangerous, and the Rabbis laid an interdict upon the eve of every Festival on account of the Festival of Pentecost, when there issues a wind called Taboah,13 and had not the Israelites accepted the Torah it would absolutely have killed them.14
Samuel said: If one eats a grain of wheat and [then] lets blood, he has bled in respect of that grain only.15 Yet that is only as a remedy,16 but if it is to ease one,17 it does ease.18 When one is bled, drinking [is permissible] immediately; eating until half a mil.19 The scholars asked: [Does this mean], immediate drinking is beneficial, but after that it is injurious; or Perhaps [after that] it is neither harmful nor beneficial? - The question stands over. The scholars asked: Is eating beneficial only until half a mil, but before or after it is harmful; or perhaps it is [then] neither harmful nor beneficial? The question stands over.
Rab announced: A hundred gourds for one zuz, a hundred heads for one zuz, a hundred lips for nothing.20 R. Joseph said: When we were at R. Huna's academy, on a day that the scholars took a holiday they would say, 'This is a day of lips,' but I did not know what they meant.
WE TIE UP THE NAVEL-STRING. Our Rabbis taught: We tie up the navel-string. R. Jose said: We cut [it] too; and we hide the after-birth, so that the infant may be kept warm. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: princesses hide [it] in bowls of oil, wealthy women in wool fleeces, and poor women in soft rags.
R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name in Rab's name: The halachah is as R. Jose. R. Nahman also said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name in Rab's name: The Sages agree with R. Jose in the case of the navel-string of twins, that we cut them. What is the reason? Because they pull upon each other.21
R. Nahman also said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name in Rab's name: All that is mentioned in the chapter of rebuke22 is done for a lying-in woman on the Sabbath. As it is said, And as for thy nativity, in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut, neither wast thou washed in water to cleanse thee' thou wast not salted at all, nor swaddled at all.23 'And as for thy nativity, in the day thou wast born': hence an infant may be delivered on the Sabbath; 'thy navel was not cut': hence the navel-string is cut on the Sabbath: 'neither wast thou washed in water to cleanse thee': hence the infant is washed on the Sabbath; 'thou wast not salted at all': hence the infant is salted on the Sabbath; 'nor swaddled at all': hence the infant is swaddled on the Sabbath.24 [
(1) Lit., 'something else'.
(2) Viz., leprosy, which this may cause.
(3) Lit., "at the middle stages', viz., from forty onwards (Rashi).
(4) The body then begins to lose heat, and frequent bleeding may be injurious.
(5) Rashi: from the age of sixty.
(6) The court used to meet on Mondays and Thursdays, v. B.K. 82a. One's transgressions are punished in a time of natural risk. Cf. supra 32a.
(7) Jast. Ma'adim lit., means the reddener. The hours as well as the months were thought to stand under the influence of planets which moulded their nature. The planet Mars represented war and pestilence and retribution, whilst the even-numbered hours of the day were regarded as particularly susceptible to disaster. This double combination was therefore very dangerous, and bloodletting might have serious results.
(8) Sc. bleeding on Friday.
(9) Ps. CXVI, 6.
(10) Lit., 'fourth' day of the week.
(11) In the same month (Rashi).
(12) For bleeding.
(13) Lit., 'slaughter'.
(14) Lit., 'their flesh and blood.'
(15) I.e., bleeding immediately after a meal serves only to lighten one of that meal, but has no wider effects.
(16) If it is done as a remedy it is ineffective.
(17) E.g., if one suffers from high blood.pressure.
(18) Even if performed immediately after a meal.
(19) I.e., as long as it takes to walk that distance-about nine minutes; v. supra 34b, 35a.
(20) Rashi: gourds and animal-heads are but slightly beneficial, and they are worth having only when a hundred can be bought for one zuz; but the lips of animals are quite worthless. Tosaf., reading with R. Han. קרני instead of קרי translates: a hundred (surgeons') horns (i.e., bleedings) for one zuz, a hundred heads (i.e., hair cuttings) for one zuz, a hundred lips (trimmings of moustaches) for nothing, as this was free if done at the same time as the bleeding or hair cutting. Thus 'a day of lips' became a proverbial description of a day without profit.
(21) Which endangers their lives.
(22) Wherein Ezekiel rebukes the Jews; ch. XVI.
(23) Ezek. XVI, 4.
(24) no note.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 130a
MISHNAH. R. ELIEZER SAID: IF ONE DID NOT BRING AN INSTRUMENT ON THE EVE OF THE SABBATH,1 HE MUST BRING IT ON THE SABBATH UNCOVERED;2 BUT IN [TIMES OF] DANGER3 HE HIDES IT ON THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES. R. ELIEZER SAID FURTHER: ONE MAY CUT TIMBER TO MAKE CHARCOAL FOR MANUFACTURING IRON.4 R. AKIBA STATED A GENERAL PRINCIPLE: ANY [MANNER OF] WORK WHICH COULD BE PERFORMED ON SABBATH EVE DOES NOT SUPERSEDE THE SABBATH; BUT THAT WHICH COUld NOT BE PERFORMED ON SABBATH EVE DOES SUPERSEDE THE SABBATH.
GEMARA. The scholars asked: Is R. Eliezer's reason5 out of love for the precept6 or perhaps it is because of suspicions?7 What is the practical difference? Whether it may be brought covered on the testimony of witnesses. If you say it is out of love for the precept, it must be uncovered and not hidden. But if you say it is because of suspicions it is well even if hidden: what then? It was stated, R. Levi said: R. Eliezer ruled thus only out of love for the precept. It was taught likewise: He must bring it uncovered, and he must not bring it covered: this is R. Eliezer's opinion.8 R. Ashi said: Our Mishnah too proves this, because it states, BUT IN TIMES OF DANGER HE HIDES IT ON THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES; thus in times of danger only, but not when there is no danger. This proves that it is out of love for the precept: this proves it.
Another [Baraitha] taught: He brings it uncovered, but he must not bring it covered: this is R. Eliezer's view. R. Judah said in R. Eliezer's name: In times of danger it was the practice to bring it hidden on the testimony of witnesses.9 The scholars asked: The witnesses which he mentions, [does it mean] he and another one, or perhaps he and another two?- Come and hear: BUT IN [TIMES OF] DANGER HE HIDES IT ON THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES: if you agree to say he and two [others], it is well; but if you say he and another, what witnesses [are there]?10 - Such as are eligible to testify elsewhere.11
R. ELIEZER SAID FURTHER [etc.]. Our Rabbis taught: In R. Eliezer's locality they used to cut timber to make charcoal for making iron on the Sabbath. In the locality of R. Jose the Galilean they used to eat flesh of fowl with milk. Levi visited the home of Joseph the fowler [and] was offered the head of a peacock in milk, [which] he did not eat. When he came before Rabbi he asked him, Why did you not place them under the ban?12 It was the locality of R. Judah b. Bathyra, replied he, and I thought, Perhaps he has lectured to them in accordance with R. Jose the Galilean. For we learnt: R. Jose the Galilean said: It is said, Ye shall not eat any nebelah,13 and it is said, Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk:14 [this teaches,] that which is forbidden on the score of nebelah may not be seethed in milk. Now since a fowl is prohibited when nebelah, you might think that one must not seethe it in milk; therefore it is stated, 'in its mother's milk', hence a fowl is excluded, since it has no mother's milk.
R. Isaac said: There was one town in Palestine where they followed R. Eliezer,15 and they died there at the [proper] time,16 Moreover, the wicked State17 once promulgated a decree against Israel concerning circumcision,18 yet did not decree [it] against that town.
It was taught, R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Every precept which they accepted with joy, e.g., circumcision, as it is written, I rejoice at thy word, as one that findeth great spoil,19 they still observe with joy. While every precept which they accepted with displeasure,20 e.g., the forbidden degrees of consanguinity, as it is written, And Moses heard the people weeping throughout their families,21 [i.e.,] on account of the affairs of their families,22 they still perform them with strife, for there is no marriage settlement which does not contain a quarrel.23
It was taught, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Every precept for which Israel submitted to death at the time of the royal decree, e.g.,idolatry and circumcision,24 is still held firmly in their minds. Whereas every precept for which Israel did not submit to death at the time of the royal decree, e.g., tefillin, is still weak in their hands.25 For R. Jannai said: Tefillin demand a pure body, like Elisha-the-man-of-the-wings. What does this mean? - Abaye said: That one must not pass wind while wearing them; Raba said: That one must not sleep in them. And why is he called 'the man-of-the-wings'? Because the wicked State once proclaimed a decree against Israel that whoever donned tefillin should have his brains pierced through; yet Elisha put them on and went out into the streets. A quaestor saw him: he fled before him, and the latter gave pursuit. As he overtook him, he [Elisha] removed them from his head and held them in his hand, 'What is that in your hand?' he demanded, 'The wings of a dove,' was his reply. He stretched out his hand and the wings of a dove were found therein. Hence he is called 'Elisha-the-man-of-the-wings.' And why did he tell him the wings of a dove rather than that of other birds? Because the Congregation of Israel is likened to a dove, as it is said, as the wings of a dove covered with silver, and her pinions with yellow gold:26 just as a dove is protected by its wings, so with the Israelites, their precepts protect them.27
R. Abba b. R. adda said in R. Isaac's name: they once forgot to bring a knife on Sabbath eve, so they brought it on the Sabbath through roofs and courtyards,28
(1) A knife for circumcision.
(2) That all may see it.
(3) When circumcision is forbidden by the State, as during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes before the Maccabean revolt; v. 1 Macc. I, 48, 60, 11, 46. It was again forbidden during the Hadrianic persecution; cf. Mek. Yithro, Ba-Hodesh, VI; Graetz, Geschichte IV, 154.
(4) For a circumcision knife. Thus R. Eliezer permits not only circumcision but even its preparatory adjuncts, though these could have been prepared before the Sabbath.
(5) For requiring the knife to be brought uncovered.
(6) One must show how precious is circumcision that he even desecrates the Sabbath on its account.
(7) That would otherwise attach to the bringer, that he was unlawfully desecrating the Sabbath.
(8) The emphatic repetition shows that it must not be hidden on any account.
(9) 'It was the practice' implies that this is not a mere theoretical ruling but an actual account of what happened in the past. As R. Eliezer died before the Hadrianic wars, this must refer to the days of the persecution by Antiochus. - Weiss, Dor, II, p. 131. n. I.
(10) There is only one, as obviously he cannot be counted.
(11) In truth it may be he and another, nevertheless there are two who know the purpose of his carrying. and they are referred to as witnesses, since two in general can testify. Yet two independent witnesses may not be required, since there is no actual lawsuit.
(12) For infringing the dietary laws.
(13) Deut. XIV, 21.
(14) Ibid. 22 - these laws are stated successively.
(15) In respect of circumcision.
(16) Never prematurely.
(18) Forbidding it; v. p. 649, n. 3.
(19) Ps. CXIX, 162. This is understood to refer to circumcision, which is a single 'word', i.e., command, which preceded the bulk of Mosaic legislation (this dating back to Abraham, Gen. XVII, 10), and which the Jew, in virtue of being circumcised, ceaselessly performs.
(20) Lit., 'quarrelling'.
(21) Num. XI, 10.
(22) viz., because they were now interdicted in marriage.
(23) Lit., 'in which they (the parties concerned) throw no discord'.
(24) Cf. p. 649, n. 3. Antiochus demanded idol worship too; later, Caligula made a similar demand; v. Graetz, History (Eng. trans.) Vol. II, pp. 188 seqq.; cf. also Weiss, Dor, II, p. 5.
(25) V. Weiss, op. cit., p. 134.
(26) Ps. LXVIII, 14.
(27) Cf. also supra 49a and notes a.l.
(28) For which no 'erub (q.v. Glos) had been provided. It is normally forbidden to carry through such by Rabbinical law.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 130b
[this being] against the will of R. Eliezer. R. Joseph demurred: [You say] 'against the will of R. Eliezer'! on the contrary, it is R. Eliezer' who permits it even through the street;1 but only with the consent of the Rabbis, who forbid [it to be carried] through the street yet permit it through roofs, courtyards, and enclosures,2 - yet is this permitted? Surely it was taught: Just as one may not bring it through the street, so may one not bring it through roofs, through enclosures, or through courtyards? - Said R. Ashi: It was not with the consent of R. Eliezer and his opponent[s], but with the consent of R. Simeon. For we learnt, R. Simeon said: Roofs, enclosures and courtyards are all one domain3 in respect of utensils which spent the Sabbath therein,4 but not in respect of utensils which rested in the house.5
R. Zera asked R. Assi: In the case of an alley in which they [its residents] have not become partners,6 what about carrying in the whole of it?7 do we say it is like a courtyard: just as a courtyard, even if an 'erub has not been made, it is permitted to carry in the whole of it,8 so this too, though they have not become partners in it,9 it is permitted to carry in the whole of it; or perhaps it is unlike a courtyard; for a courtyard has four walls [partitions], whereas this has not four walls; alternatively, a courtyard has tenants,10 whereas this has no tenants? He was silent and said nothing to him. On a subsequent occasion he [R. Zera] found him [R. Assi] sitting and stating: 'R. Simeon b. Lakish said in the name of R. Judah the prince: They once forgot to bring a knife on Sabbath eve, so they brought it on the Sabbath. Now this matter was difficult for the Sages [to understand]: how could they abandon the opinion of the Sages and act as R. Eliezer: firstly, since R. Eliezer was [a follower] of Beth Shammai;11 and further, [where an individual and many [are in dispute], the halachah is as the many? Whereupon R. Oshaia said: I asked R. Judah the circumciser, and he told me, It was an alley wherein they [its residents] had not become partners, and they brought it [the knife] from one end to the other. Said he to him: Do you then hold that in the case of an alley in which they had not become partners, it is permitted to carry in the whole of it? Yes, he replied.' Said he [R. Zera] to him [R. Assi], But I once asked [it of] you and you did not answer me: perhaps in the rapid course [of your review] your tradition sped [back] to you?12 Yes, he replied; in the course of my review my tradition sped [back] to me.
It was stated, R. Zera said in Rab's name: In the case of an alley in which no partnership had been made, one may not carry therein save within four cubits. Abaye observed, R. Zera stated this law but did not explain it, until Rabbah b. Abbuha came and explained it. For R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name in Rab's name: In the case of an alley in which no partnership has been made, if the courtyards13 are combined with the houses,14 one may not carry therein [the alley] save within four cubits; [but] if the courtyards are not combined with the houses, one may carry over the whole of it.15 R. Hanina Hoza'ah16 said to Rabbah: Why does it differ when the courtyards are combined with the houses? [presumably] because the courtyards have been transformed17 and are become houses,18 Rab being consistent with his view; for Rab said: An alley does not become permitted [for carrying] through a stake and a beam unless
(1) It is a general principle (infra 133a) that where a positive command and a negative command are in question, both should be fulfilled wherever possible; hence it might be argued that R. Eliezer too agrees that it should not be carried through the street, since there is an alternative (Tosaf.). Yet it may be that since R. Eliezer's ruling is largely in order to emphasize the great esteem in which the precept is held (supra a), the Talmud felt that he would require it to be carried through the streets.
(2) Karpifoth; v. supra 7a.
(3) Carrying from one to another is permitted.
(4) I.e., which were there from the beginning of the Sabbath, v. 'Er. 91a.
(5) I.e., which were in the house at the beginning of the Sabbath. - Here the knife belonged to the former category (Tosaf.).
(6) By means of an 'erub; v. supra 23a.
(7) Sc. utensils which were there at the commencement of the Sabbath.
(8) Not from a house into the courtyard or from one courtyard into another, but in that courtyard itself.
(9) This is the technical term in respect of an alley, whereby it all ranks as a single and private domain for its residents.
(10) I.e., the residents of the houses which open into it put it to private use.
(11) So Rashi and Tosaf. on the strength of a statement in J. Sheb. IX, end; this does not mean that he actually belonged to the School of Shammai, but generally adopted their views (v. Weiss, Dor, II, p. 83, n. 2), which were always disregarded in favour of Beth Hillel's. Rashi suggests another meaning: he was under a ban (v. B.M. 59b).
(12) I.e., you recalled it. [Aliter: 'In the rapid course (of your study) your tradition escaped you', i.e., R. Oshaia's statement. V. Strashun].
(13) That open into the alley.
(14) Which give on the courtyards. I.e., all the houses served by the same courtyard are combined by means of an 'erub, so that they may carry to and fro between the houses and the courtyard belonging to same; but the courtyards themselves have not been made common partners in the alley.
(15) Sc. utensils which were in the alley at the beginning of the Sabbath.
(16) Of Be Hozae. V. p. 234, n. 3.
(17) Lit., 'torn away' from their original designation.
(18) I.e., they are now part of the houses and not courtyards at all.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 131a
houses and courtyards1 open into it, whereas here we have houses but not courtyards?2 Then even if they are not combined, let us regard these houses as though closed [up],3 so we have courtyards but not houses? - They can all renounce4 their rights in favour of one.5 But even so, we have a house, but not houses?6 - It is possible that from morning until midday [they renounce their rights] in favour of one, and from midday until evening in favour of another.7 But even so, when there is one there is not the other? - Rather said R. Ashi: What makes the courtyards interdicted [in respect of the alley]? [Of course] the houses; and these are non-existent.8
R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: Not in respect of everything did R. Eliezer rule that the preliminary preparations of a precept9 supersede the Sabbath, for lo! the two loaves10 are an obligation of the day,11 yet R. Eliezer did not learn them12 from aught but a gezerah shawah.13 For it was taught, R. Eliezer said: Whence do we know that the preliminaries of the two loaves supersede the Sabbath? 'Bringing' is stated in connection with the 'omer,14 and 'bringing' is stated in connection with the two loaves:15 just as with the 'bringing' stated in connection with the 'omer, its preliminaries16 supersede the Sabbath, so with the 'bringing' stated in connection with the two loaves their preliminaries supersede the Sabbath. These must be free,17 for if they are not free one can refute [this analogy]: as for the 'omer, [its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath] because if one finds it [already] cut,18 he must cut [other sheaves]; will you [then] say [the same] in the case of the two loaves, seeing that if one finds [the wheat therefore] cut he does not cut [any more]? in truth they are indeed free. [For] consider: it is written, then ye shall bring the sheaf of the first-fruits of your harvest unto the priest:19 what is the purpose of 'from the day that ye brought'? Infer from it that it is in order to be free. Yet it is still free on one side only, while we know R. Eliezer to hold that where it is free on one side [only], we deduce, but refute? - 'Ye shall bring' is an extension.20
What is it to exclude?21 Shall we say that it is to exclude the lulab,22 surely it was taught: The lulab and all its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath: this is R. Eliezer's view! Again, if it is to exclude sukkah,23 - surely it was taught: The sukkah and all its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath: this is R. Eliezer's view! Again, if it is to exclude unleavened bread,-surely it was taught: Unleavened bread and all its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath: this is R. Eliezer's view! If, on the other hand, it is to exclude the shofar,24 surely it was taught: The shofar and all its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath: this is R. Eliezer's view! - Said R. Adda b. Ahabah: It is to exclude fringes for one's garment and mezuzah for one's door.25 It was taught likewise: And they agree that if one inserts fringes in his garment or affixes a mezuzah to his door,26 he is culpable. What is the reason? R. Joseph said: Because no [definite] time is appointed for them. Said Abaye to him, On the contrary, since no time is appointed for them,
(1) I.e., two courtyards with two houses opening into each. V. 'Er. 5a and 73b.
(2) And for this reason when the courtyards are combined with the houses it is not permissible to carry save within four cubits.
(3) Since one cannot carry from the houses into the alley on account of the intervening courtyards. [The courtyards were in front of the houses.]
(4) Lit., 'annul'.
(5) The tenants of all the houses save one can renounce their rights in the courtyard in his favour; the courtyard is then his, and he may carry from his house into it.
(6) Whereas Rab needs at least two houses, v. p, 654, n.8.
(7) Thus we have houses.
(8) Rab holds ('Er. 74a) that a roof, courtyards, enclosures, and the alley are all one domain, and carrying is permitted from one to another, provided, however, that the houses are not combined with the courtyards, so that no utensils belonging to the houses are to be found in the courtyards which might then be carried into the alley. Hence the same applies to carrying in the alley itself: for if there are no houses at all a formal partnership is unnecessary, and carrying in the alley is permitted, just as from the alley into the courtyard. Since the houses are not combined with the courtyards and no utensils may be moved from the former into the latter, for all practical purposes the houses are non-existent: therefore one may carry over the whole of the alley itself.
(9) As distinct from the precept itself.
(10) Which are offered on the Feast of Weeks, v. Lev. XXIII, 17.
(11) Sc. the Feast of Weeks, and must not be postponed for the next day.
(12) That their baking supersedes the Sabbath; not the baking, but the offering 'unto the Lord' is the actual precept, the former being merely a necessary preparation.
(13) V. Glos. But if he held that all preparations supersede the Sabbath, the would not require the gezerah shawah in this particular case.
(14) V. Glos.
(15) Ibid. vv. 15, 17.
(16) Viz., the reaping, grinding. and sifting; Men. 72a.
(17) I.e., from the day that ye brought (v. 15) and 'ye shall bring' (v. 17) must have no other purpose than this gezerah shawah. There are three views on this matter: (i) Both parts of the gezerah shawah must be free, otherwise it can be refuted if they are dissimilar in other respects; (ii) Only one part must be free; and (iii) Even if both parts are required for another teaching too, the gezerah shawah cannot be refuted.
(18) But not for the express purpose of fulfilling the precept.
(19) Lev. XXIII, 10.
(20) Since Scripture could write, and ye shall offer a new meal-offering unto the Lord out of your habitations etc. The extension embraces the preliminaries of bringing, and intimates that these supersede the Sabbath.
(21) R. Johanan's statement that R. Eliezer did not rule that the preliminaries of all precepts etc.
(22) V. Glos. and Lev. XXIII, 40.
(23) V. Glos. and ibid. v. 42.
(24) V. Glos. and ibid. v. 24.
(25) These must not be inserted or affixed on the Sabbath.
(26) On the Sabbath,
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 131b
every moment1 is the [proper] time for them? - Rather said R. Nahman b. Isaac others state, R. Huna son of R. Joshua: Because it is in one's power to renounce their ownership.2
The Master said: 'The lulab and all its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath: this is R. Eliezer's view.' Whence does R. Eliezer know this? If from the 'omer and the two loaves, [that may be] because they are requirements of the Most High?3 - Rather Scripture saith, [And ye shall take ye] on the [first] day [...branches of palm trees, etc.]:4 'on the day' [intimating,] even on the Sabbath.5 Now in respect of which law?6 Shall we say, in respect of handling?7 Is a verse necessary to authorize handling!8 Hence it must be in respect of its preliminaries9 . And the Rabbis?10 That is required [to teach], by day,11 but not by night. Then R. Eliezer: whence does he [learn] 'by day but not by night'? He deduces it from, and ye shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days:12 days only, not nights. And the Rabbis?13 - It is necessary: you might argue, Let us learn [the meaning of] seven day's from the seven days of sukkah.- just as there 'days' [means] and even nights,14 so here too 'days', and even nights: hence it teaches us [otherwise]. Then let the Divine Law state it15 in the case of lulab, and these [others]16 could be adduced and learnt therefrom?17 - Because one could refute [the analogy]: as for lulab, [its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath] because it requires four species.18 'The sukkah and all its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath: this is R. Eliezer's view.' Whence does R. Eliezer learn this? If from the 'omer and the two loaves, - [there it may be] because they are requirements of the Most High; if from lulab, - [that may be] because it requires four species! Rather [the scope of] seven days' is deduced from the 'seven days' of lulab: just as there its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath, so here too its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath.19 Then let the Divine Law write it in connection with sukkah, and these [others] could be adduced and learnt therefrom? - Because one could refute [the analogy]: as for sukkah, that is because it [the precept] is binding by night just as by day.
'Unleavened bread and all its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath: this is R. Eliezer's view.' Whence does R. Eliezer know this? If from the 'omer and the two loaves, - [there it may be] because they are requirements of the Most High? If from lulab, because it requires four species? If from sukkah, - because it is binding by night just as by day? Rather the meaning of 'the fifteenth [day]' is learnt from the Festival of Tabernacles:20 just as there its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath, so here too its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath. Then let the Divine Law State it in connection with unleavened bread, and these [others] could be adduced and learnt therefrom? - Because one could refute [the analogy]: as for unleavened bread, that is because it is obligatory upon women just as upon men.21 'The shofar and all its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath: this is R. Eliezer's view., Whence does R. Eliezer know this? If from the 'omer and the two loaves, - because they are requirements of the Most-High? If from lulab, - because it requires four species? If from sukkah, - because it is binding by night just as by day? if from unleavened bread, - because it is obligatory upon women just as upon men? - Rather Scripture saith, It is in day of blowing of trumpets unto you:22 [it must be blown] by day, even on the Sabbath. And in respect of what?23 Shall we say in respect of blowing [the shofar], - but the School of Samuel24 taught: Ye shall do no servile work:25 the blowing of the shofar' and the removal of bread [from an oven] are excluded as being an art, not work. Hence [it must be] in respect of [its] preliminaries. And the26 Rabbis? - That is required [to teach], by day but not by night. Then R. Eliezer, whence does he learn, by day but not by night? - He deduces it from, in the day of atonement shall ye send abroad the trumpet throughout all your land,27 and these28 are learnt from each other.29 Now, let the Divine Law state it in connection with shofar, and these [others] can come and be learnt therefrom?One cannot learn from the blowing of the shofar on New Year, because it brings the remembrance of Israel to their Father in Heaven.30 One cannot learn from the blowing of the shofar on the day of atonement [either], because a Master said: When the Beth din blew the shofar, slaves departed to their homes and estates reverted to their [original] owners.31
Circumcision and all its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath: this is R. Eliezer's view. Whence does R. Eliezer learn this? If he learns [it] from all [the others, the objection is] as we stated.32 Moreover, as for those,
(1) Lit., 'hour'.
(2) Thus, when he comes to do it on the Sabbath, he could renounce ownership of the garment or the house, in which case these precepts are no longer incumbent on him.
(3) I.e., they are a direct offering.
(4) Lev. XXIII, 40.
(5) For 'on the first' suffices: hence 'day' teaches that the ceremony must be performed whatever the day.
(6) Is this intimation necessary?
(7) Permitting the handling of the lulab on the Sabbath.
(8) Surely not, for the interdict of handling is only Rabbinical.
(9) E.g., carrying the lulab through the streets, which would otherwise be Biblically forbidden.
(10) How do they interpret the superfluous 'day'?
(11) The lulab precept has to be performed by day.
(13) Do they not admit that it can be deduced from this latter verse?
(14) This is deduced in Suk. 43a.
(15) This law that the preliminaries supersede the Sabbath.
(16) Sc. the 'omer and the two loaves.
(17) That there too it is thus: why are separate verses required?
(18) Vis., those enumerated in Lev. XXIII, 40. Hence it is important that even its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath.
(19) Since this analogy is based on a gezerah shawah, it cannot be refuted as before, when the suggested analogy was based purely on logical grounds. (Rashi).
(20) Lev. XXIII, vv. 6 and 39.
(21) They too must partake thereof; v. Pes. 43b. But the precepts of lulab and sukkah are not incumbent upon women.
(22) Num. XXIX, 1.
(23) Does 'day' extend the law even to the Sabbath.
(24) This is rather unusual. Generally we have 'the School of R. Ishmael', and the present passage is so quoted supra 117b in cur. edd. R. Han. however, reads 'the School of Samuel' there too, and it is likewise so in R.H. 29b in cur. edd. Weiss, Dor, III, p. 169 maintains that the reference is to a collection of Baraithas compiled by Samuel. It may also be observed that the verse quoted here is not the same as that quoted supra in cur. edd., though Tosaf.'s reading is identical in both places. It is barely possible that two different Baraithas are referred to, both making the same deduction but from different verses.
(25) Lev. XXIII, 25.
(26) Hence no verse is required to teach that it is permitted.
(27) Ibid. XXV, 9.
(28) Sc. the blowing of the shofar on New Year and on the day of atonement.
(29) As shown in R.H. 33b.
(30) Hence it is so important that even its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath. But the same may not apply to other precepts.
(31) In accordance with Lev. XXV, 10. Hence this too was of particularly great importance.
(32) Each differs in some respect.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 132a
[they may supersede the Sabbath] because if their time passes they are annulled!1 Rather this is R. Eliezer s reason: Because Scripture saith, and in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised,2 [implying] even on the Sabbath.3 Then let the Divine Law write it in connection with circumcision, and these [others] can come to be deduced thence? Because one can refute [the analogy]: as for circumcision, that is because thirteen covenants were made in connection therewith.4
Now, the Rabbis disagree with R. Eliezer only in respect of the preliminaries of circumcision; but as for circumcision itself, all hold that it supersedes the Sabbath: whence do we know it?Said 'Ulla, It is a traditional law;5 and thus did R. Isaac say, It is a traditional law.
An objection is raised: How do we know that the saving of life supersedes the Sabbath? R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah said: If circumcision, which is [performed on but] one of the limbs of man, supersedes the Sabbath, the saving of life, a minori, must supersede the Sabbath. Now if you think that it is a traditional law, can one argue a minori from a traditional law? Surely it was taught, R. Eleazar said to him: Akiba! [That] a bone [of a corpse] the size of a barley grain defiles6 is a traditional law, whereas [that] a quarter [log] of blood [of a corpse] defies is [deduced by you] a minori,7 and we do not argue a minori from a traditional law! - Rather said R. Eleazar: We learn 'a sign' [written in connection with circumcision from] 'a sign' [written in connection with the Sabbath].8 If so, let Tefillin, in connection with which 'sign'9 is written, supersede the Sabbath?10 - Rather 'covenant' is learnt from, 'covenant'.11 Then let [the circumcision of] an adult, in connection with whom 'covenant' is written,12 supersede the Sabbath?13 - Rather 'generations' is learnt from 'generations'.14 Then let fringes, in connection with which 'generations' is written,15 supersede the Sabbath?16 Rather said R. Nahman b. Isaac: We learn 'sign,' 'covenant' and 'generations' from 'sign,' 'covenant' and 'generations,' thus excluding the others in connection with each of which only one is written.
R. Johanan said: Scripture saith, in the [eighth] day, 'in the day' [implying] even on the Sabbath.17 Resh Lakish objected to R. Johanan: If so, those who lack atonement,18 in connection with whom 'in the day' is written,19 do they too supersede the Sabbath?20 - That is required [for teaching], by day but not by night.21 But this too22 is required [for teaching], by day but not by night? That is deduced from, and he that is eight days old.23 But this too can be derived from, in the day that he commanded [the children of Israel to offer their oblations, etc.]?24 - Though it may be derived from, in the day that he commanded, [etc.]', yet it [the other verse] is necessary: you might argue, Since the Merciful One had compassion upon him, [permitting him] to bring [a lesser sacrifice] in poverty, he may bring [it] at night too: hence we are informed [otherwise]. Rabina demurred: If so,25 let a zar and an onen26 be eligible for them?27 Surely Scripture brought him back.28
R. Aha b. Jacob said, Scripture saith, 'the eighth', [intimating] the eighth, even if it is the Sabbath. But this 'eighth' is required to exclude the seventh?-That follows from, 'and the that is eight days old'. Yet they are still required, one to exclude the seventh and the other to exclude the ninth, for if [we deduced] from one [verse only] I might say, only the seventh is excluded, since its time [for circumcision] has not [yet] arrived, but from the eighth onward that is the [right] time? Hence it is clear [that it must be explained] as R. Johanan.
It was taught in accordance with R. Johanan and not as R. Aha b. Jacob: '[And in] the eighth [day the flesh of his foreskin] shall be circumcised': even on the Sabbath. Then to what do I apply, every one that profaneth it shall surely be put to death?29 To labours other than circumcision. Yet perhaps it is not so, but [it includes] even circumcision, whilst to what do I apply 'in the eighth... shall be circumcised': [To all days] except the Sabbath? Therefore 'in the day' is stated, [teaching], even on the Sabbath.
Raba observed: Why was this Tanna content at first, and what was his difficulty eventually?30 - He argues thus: '[in] the eighth shall be circumcised': even on the Sabbath. Then to what do I apply, every one that profaneth it shall be put to death'? To labours other than circumcision, but circumcision supersedes it. What is the reason? It [follows] a minori. If leprosy, which suspends the sacrificial service,31
(1) They must be performed at a certain time or not at all. But circumcision, though obligatory for the eighth day from birth, can and must be performed afterwards if not done then.
(2) Lev. XII, 3.
(3) It cannot be to teach that circumcision itself is performed on the Sabbath, because as stated infra that is already known by tradition, hence it must refer to its preliminaries.
(4) In the passage enjoining circumcision upon Abraham and his descendants (Gen. XVII) 'covenant' is mentioned thirteen times, which shows its great importance.
(5) Rashi: Received from Moses on Sinai.
(6) A nazirite by its touch, and he must commence again (cf. Num, VI, 9-12).
(7) R. Akiba deduced a minori from the former that if a nazirite is under the same covering as a quarter log of blood taken from a corpse he is defiled, just as in the first case; v. Naz. 57a.
(8) Circumcision: and it shall be a sign of a covenant betwixt me and you (Gen. XVII, 11); Sabbath: for it is a sign between me and you (Ex. XXXI, 13). Since both are so designated, it follows that the former must be performed even on the latter.
(9) Deut. VI, 8: And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand.
(10) [Probably, one should be permitted to carry them on him in the street on the Sabbath].
(11) V. n. 2 for circumcision; Sabbath: therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath...for a perpetual covenant (Ex. XXXI, 16).
(12) Gen, XVII, 14: And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin...hath broken my covenant. In Kid. 29a this is referred to an adult whom his father had omitted to circumcise, and it throws the obligation upon himself.
(13) Whereas it is stated infra that it supersedes the Sabbath only when performed on the eighth day.
(14) Sabbath: to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations (Ex. XXXI, 16); circumcision: every male throughout your generations (Gen. XVII, 12).
(15) Num. XV 38: bid them...make them fringes...throughout their generations.
(16) I.e., let it be permitted to insert them in garments on the Sabbath.
(17) This is according to the Rabbis. R. Eliezer, as stated supra, utilizes this in respect of the preliminaries. Hence he holds that circumcision itself is a traditional law, whilst he learns that life saving is permitted from a Scriptural verse (Yoma 85b).
(18) This is the technical designation of all unclean persons who must offer a sacrifice as part of their purification rites, viz., a zab and a zabah, a leper, and a woman after childbirth.
(19) E.g., this shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing (Lev. XIV, 2); similarly the rest.
(20) They are surely not permitted to bring their offerings on the Sabbath, for only public sacrifices were permitted on them.
(21) Sacrifices may not be offered up at night.
(22) 'Day' written in connection with circumcision.
(23) Gen. XVII. 12.
(24) Lev. VII, 38.
(25) That the leniency shown in poverty might be regarded as permitting other things which normally invalidate the sacrifice.
(26) V. Glos. for both.
(27) Sc. to offer these sacrifices. A zar may kill the sacrifice, but cannot perform any of the other services in connection therewith.
(28) In fact we see that this leniency was not extended to permission to offer at night: thus in all other respects the poor are governed by the same rules as the rich.
(29) Ex. XXXI, 14.
(30) Why does he assume at first that the eighth naturally supersedes the Sabbath, whereas subsequently he finds a difficulty in this assumption and proposes to reverse it?
(31) It is stated infra b that one may not cut away a leprous bright spot in order to be clean, and this holds good even on Passover: individuals may not do so in order to bring the Passover sacrifice, nor may Priests to enable them to perform the sacrificial service.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 132b
whilst the sacrificial service supersedes the Sabbath,1 yet circumcision supersedes it:2 then the Sabbath, which is superseded by the sacrificial service, surely circumcision supersedes it. And what is the 'or perhaps it is not so' which he states? - He then argues [thus]: yet whence [does it follow] that leprosy Is more stringent? Perhaps the Sabbath is more stringent, since there are many penalties and injunctions in connection therewith. Further, whence [does it follow] that it3 is because leprosy is more stringent, perhaps it is because the man is not fit;4 whilst to what do I apply, 'in the eighth... shall be circumcised', [to all days] except the Sabbath? Therefore 'in the day' is stated, teaching, even on the Sabbath.
Our Rabbis taught: Circumcision supersedes leprosy, whether [performed] at its [proper] time5 or not at its [proper] time; it supersedes Festivals only [when performed] at its [proper] time. How do we know this? - Because our Rabbis taught: ' The flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised', even if a bahereth6 is there it must be cut off. Then to what do I apply, 'Take heed in the plague of leprosy'?7 To other places, but excluding the foreskin. Or perhaps it is not so, but [it includes] even the foreskin, while how do I apply, 'the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised', when it does not contain a bahereth! Therefore 'flesh' is stated, intimating even when a bahereth is there. Raba observed: This Tanna, why was he content at first, and what was his difficulty eventually? He argues thus: 'The flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised': even if a bahereth is there. Then to what do I apply: 'Take heed in the plague of leprosy'? To other places, excluding the foreskin, yet circumcision supersedes leprosy. What is the reason? Because it is inferred a minori: if circumcision supersedes the Sabbath, which is stringent, how much more so leprosy. And what is the 'or perhaps it is not so which he states? He then argues: how do we know that the Sabbath is more stringent: perhaps leprosy is more stringent, since it supersedes the sacrificial service, while the sacrificial service supersedes the Sabbath? Therefore flesh is stated, intimating, even when a bahereth is there. Another version: circumcision supersedes leprosy: what is the reason? Because a positive command8 comes and supersedes a negative command.9 Then what is the 'or is it not so' which he states? He then argues: Perhaps we rule that a positive command comes and supersedes a negative command [only in the case of] a negative command by itself but this is a positive command plus a negative command.10 Then how do I apply, the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised? When it does not contain a bahereth. Therefore flesh is stated, intimating, even when a bahereth is there.
Now, this is well of an adult, in connection with whom 'flesh' is written; of an infant too 'flesh is written; but whence do we know one of intermediate age?11 Said Abaye, It is inferred from the other two combined:12 it cannot be inferred from an adult [alone], Since there is the penalty of kareth13 [in his case]; it cannot be inferred from an infant [eight days old], since [there] it is circumcision at the proper time. The feature common to both is that they must be circumcised and they supersede leprosy: so all who must be circumcised supersede leprosy.
Raba said: [That] circumcision at the proper time supersedes [leprosy] requires no verse, [for] it is inferred a minori: If it supersedes the Sabbath, which is [more] stringent, how much more so leprosy! Said R. Safra to Raba: How do you know that the Sabbath is [more] stringent, perhaps leprosy is [more] stringent, seeing that it supersedes the sacrificial service, whilst the sacrificial service supersedes the Sabbath? - There it is not because leprosy is more stringent but because the person is unfit. Why so? Let him cut off the bahereth and perform the service? - He [still] lacks tebillah. This is well of unclean eruptions! what can be said of clean eruptions?14 - Rather R. Ashi said: Where do we rule that a positive command comes and supersedes a negative one? E.g., circumcision in [the place of] leprosy, or fringes and kil'ayim,15 where at the very moment that the negative injunction is disregarded16 the positive command is fulfilled;17 but here at the moment that the negative injunction is disregarded the positive command is not fulfilled.18
Now, this [discussion] of Raba and R. Safra
(1) Public sacrifices being brought thereon.
(2) The injunction not to cut away a leprous bright spot is disregarded when it is on the foreskin which is to be circumcised.
(3) Sc. the reason that the sacrificial service does not supersede leprosy.
(4) For, as stated infra, even if the bright spot is cut away he is still unfit to offer the Passover sacrifice until he performs tebillah and the sun sets.
(5) The eighth day from birth.
(6) A bright, snow-white v. Neg. I, 1 spot on the skin, which is a symptom of leprosy (Lev. Xli, 2 seq.).
(7) Deut, XXIV, 8; this is interpreted as an injunction against cutting away a leprous bright spot, etc,
(8) To circumcise
(9) Not to cut the bahereth away.
(10) Negative: Take heed in the plague of leprosy, 'Take heed' always being so regarded; positive: that thou observe diligently, etc.
(11) The following three passages are applied to three different cases of circumcision: (i) And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people (Gen. XVII, 14) - this applies to an adult whom his father did not circumcise as an infant. (ii) And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised (Lev. XII, 3) this is a command to the father of the child. (iii) Every male among you shall be circumcised (Gen. XVII, 10) - this is a general command, e.g., to the Beth din, for a child to be circumcised after his eighth day if not circumcised at the proper time. Now, 'flesh' is written in (i) and (ii), but not in (iii), which refers to a child of intermediate age, i.e., between eight days and thirteen years and a day, when he becomes an adult.
(12) Lit., 'from between them'.
(13) V. Glos.
(14) E.g., where the leprosy covers the whole skin (v. Lev. XII, 12f). Even then it must not be cut away and supersedes the sacrificial service.
(15) V. Glos. and Deut. XXII, 11f: Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff, wool and linen together. Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four borders of thy vesture. The juxtaposition of these two laws is interpreted as showing that the former is suspended in the case of fringes, and the garment may be of linen while the fringes are of wool.
(16) Lit., 'uprooted'.
(17) I.e., the latter is fulfilled through the disregard of the former.
(18) The cutting away of the bahereth itself is not a fulfilment of the command to offer a Passover sacrifice, but merely preliminary thereto, so that the fact that leprosy supersedes the sacrificial service is no mark of the stringency of leprosy.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 133a
is [a controversy between] Tannaim. For it was taught: 'Flesh', and even if a bahereth is there, 'it shall be circumcised': the words of R. Josiah. R. Jonathan said: This is unnecessary: if it supersedes the Sabbath [which is more] Stringent, how much more so leprosy.1
The Master said: '"Flesh", and even if a bahereth is there, "it shall be circumcised": the words of R. Josiah.' Why is a verse required for this: it is an unintentional act,2 and an unintentional act is permitted? - Said Abaye, This is only necessary according to R. Judah, who maintains: An unintentional act is forbidden. Raba said, You may even say [according to] R. Simeon: R. Simeon admits in the case of 'cut off his head but let him not die.'3 Now, does not Abaye accept this reasoning? Surely Abaye and Raba both said, R. Simeon admits in the case of, 'cut off his head but let him not die'? - After hearing it from Raba he accepted its logic.
Others recite this [dictum] of Abaye and Raba in reference to the following: Take heed in the plague of leprosy, that thou observe diligently, to do [etc.]:4 'to do' thou art forbidden,5 but thou mayest effect it by means of bast on the foot or a pole on the shoulder, and if it goes it goes.6 But what need of a verse for this: it is an unintentional act, and an unintentional act is permitted? - Said Abaye: It is only necessary according to R. Judah, who maintained: An unintentional act is forbidden. But Raba said: You may even say [that it agrees with] R. Simeon, yet R. Simeon admits in the case of 'cut off his head but let him not die.' Now, does not Abaye accept this reasoning? Surely Abaye and Raba both said, R. Simeon admits in the case of 'cut off his head but let him not die'? After hearing it from Raba, he accepted its logic.
Now Abaye on R. Simeon's view,7 how does he utilize this [word] 'flesh'? - Said R. Amram: As referring to one who asserts that it is his intention to cut off his bahereth.8 That is well of an adult: what can be said of an infant?9 Said R. Mesharsheya: It refers to the infant's father who asserts that it is his [specific] intention to cut off his son's bahereth. Then if there is another,10 let another perform it; for R. Simeon b. Lakish said: Wherever you find a positive command and a negative command [in opposition], if you can fulfil both of them, it is preferable;11 but if not, let the positive command come and supersede the negative command?12 - This is where there is no stranger.
The Master said, 'It supersedes Festivals only [when performed] at its [proper] time.' Hezekiah said, and the School of Hezekiah taught likewise: And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning [but that which remaineth of it] until the morning [ye shall burn with fire]:13 now [the second] until the morning need not be stated: What then is the teaching of, until the morning? Scripture comes to appoint the second morning for its burning. Abaye said: Scripture saith, the burnt-offering of the Sabbath [shall be burnt] on its Sabbath,14 but not the burnt-offering of weekdays on the Sabbath, nor the burnt-offering of weekdays on Festivals. Raba said: Scripture saith, [no manner of work shall be done in them save that which every man must eat], that only may be done of you:15 'that', but not its preliminaries; 'only', but not circumcision out of its proper time, which might [otherwise] be inferred a minori. R. Ashi said: [On the seventh day is a Sabbath of] holy rest [shabbathon]16 is an affirmative precept, thus there is an affirmative and a negative precept in respect of Festivals, and an affirmative precept cannot supersede a negative plus an affirmative precept.17
R. AKIBA STATED A GENERAL PRINCIPLE, etc. Rab Judah said in Rab's name: The halachah is as R. Akiba. And we learnt similarly in respect to the Passover sacrifice: R. Akiba stated a general principle: Any labour which can be performed on the eve of the Sabbath does not supersede the Sabbath; slaughtering [the Passover sacrifice], which can not be done on the eve of the Sabbath,18 supersedes the Sabbath; and Rab Judah said in Rab's name: The halachah is as R. Akiba. And these are necessary. For if he informed us [of the halachah] in connection with circumcision, - It is only there that the preparatory requirements which could be done the previous day do not supersede the Sabbath, since there is no kareth,19 but as for the Passover sacrifice, where there is kareth,20 you might argue, Let them [the preliminaries] supersede the Sabbath. And if he told us [the halachah] about the Passover sacrifice, - that is because thirteen covenants were not made in connection therewith; but as for circumcision, seeing that thirteen covenants were made in connection therewith21 I would say, Let them [the preliminaries] supersede the Sabbath - Thus they are necessary.22
MISHNAH. WE PERFORM ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF CIRCUMCISION ON THE SABBATH. WE CIRCUMCISE,23 UNCOVER [THE CORONA],24 SUCK [THE WOUND],25 AND PLACE A COMPRESS AND CUMMIN UPON IT.26 IF ONE DID NOT CRUSH [THE CUMMIN] ON THE EVE OF THE SABBATH, HE MUST CHEW [IT] WITH HIS TEETH AND APPLY [IT TO THE WOUND]; IF HE DID NOT BEAT UP WINE AND OIL ON THE EVE OF THE SABBATH,27 EACH MUST BE APPLIED SEPARATELY. WE MAY NOT MAKE A HALUK28 FOR IT IN THE FIRST PLACE, BUT MUST WRAP A RAG ABOUT IT. IF THIS WAS NOT PREPARED FROM THE EVE OF THE SABBATH, ONE WINDS IT ABOUT HIS FINGER29 AND BRINGS IT, AND EVEN THROUGH ANOTHER COURTYARD.
(1) Thus R. Josiah learns that circumcision at the proper time supersedes leprosy from 'flesh', whilst the same for circumcision after the eighth day must be inferred from the common feature (v. supra 132b), this agreeing with R. Safra's rejection of Raba's argument. Whereas R. Jonathan infers the former a minori, so that 'flesh' may be applied to the other case, as Raba.
(2) Sc. the cutting away of the bahereth.
(3) V. p. 357, n. 8.
(4) Deut. XXIV, 8.
(5) Lit., 'thou mayest not do'. I.e., one may not intentionally cut off a bahereth.
(6) I.e., one need not refrain from wearing a tight shoe of bast or carrying a heavy burden on his shoulder, though these may remove the bahereth.
(7) Before he accepted Raba's dictum.
(8) In order to be rendered clean. Yet even so it is permitted for the sake of circumcision.
(9) Eight days old. He has no intention, yet 'flesh' is written in his case too (v. supra 132b, p. 665 n. 1).
(10) Available to perform the circumcision - the prohibition concerning the bahereth will not apply to him, since he has no interest in the child's ritual cleanness.
(11) Thus, if a stranger performs it, the positive command of circumcision is fulfilled without violating the injunction of leprosy, since the stranger has no such intention.
(12) And thus the question remains: what need is there for the word 'flesh' in the case of the infant?
(13) Ex. XII, 10.
(14) Num. XXVIII, 10.
(15) Ex. XII, 16.
(16) Lev. XXIII, 3.
(17) V. supra 24b and 25a for notes. From all the foregoing we see that labour which can be done on weekdays or which belongs primarily to weekdays does not supersede Festivals even in the fulfilment of a precept, and the same applies here.
(18) If the fourteenth of Nisan falls on the Sabbath.
(19) When circumcision is postponed.
(20) For not offering it.
(21) V. supra 132a top.
(22) V. Pes. 66a.
(23) Cut off the foreskin.
(24) Peri'ah. By splitting the the membrane and pulling it down.
(25) Mezizah. Nowadays the suction is accomplished by means of a glass cylinder.
(26) To make the wound heal.
(27) This too was applied to the wound.
(28) A kind of shirt-shaped bandage placed over the membrum and tied at the corona, to prevent the flesh from growing back and recovering the membrum.
(29) As though it were a garment, so that it shall not be carried just like on weekdays.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 133b
GEMARA. Consider: He [the Tanna] states them all [separately]: what is ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF CIRCUMCISION to include? - It is to include that which our Rabbis taught: He who circumcises,1 as long as he is engaged in the circumcision, he returns both for the shreds [of the corona] which invalidate the circumcision and for those which do not invalidate the circumcision.2 Once he has withdrawn,3 he returns on account of the shreds which invalidate the circumcision, but not for the shreds which do not invalidate the circumcision.
Who teaches: Once he has withdrawn, he must not return? Said Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in R. Johanan's name: It is R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Berokah. For it was taught: If the fourteenth [of Nisan] falls on the Sabbath, the passover sacrifice is flayed as far as the breast: this is the view of R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Berokah. But the Sages maintain: We flay the whole of it.4 But how so? R. Johanan may rule [thus] only there, because we do not require [the application of the verse,] This is my God, and I will adorn him,5 but here that we require, 'This is my God, and I will adorn him',6 that indeed is so!7 (For it was taught: This is my God, and I will adorn him: [i.e.,] adorn thyself before Him in [the fulfilment of] precepts. [Thus:] make a beautiful sukkah in His honour,8 a beautiful lulab, a beautiful shofar, beautiful fringes, and a beautiful Scroll of the Law, and write it with fine ink, a fine reed [-pen], and a skilled penman, and wrap it about with beautiful silks. Abba Saul interpreted, and I will be like him:9 be thou like Him: just as He is gracious and compassionate, so be thou gracious and compassionate.) - Rather said R. Ashi, Which [Tanna] is this? It is R. Jose. For we learnt: Whether it is clearly visible or it is not clearly visible,10 the Sabbath is desecrated on its account.11 R. Jose ruled: If it is clearly visible, they must not desecrate the Sabbath for it.12 But how so? Perhaps R. Jose rules [thus] only there, because the Sabbath was not given to be superseded;13 but here that the Sabbath was given to be superseded,14 it indeed is so?15 - Rather said the scholars of Nehardea: It is the Rabbis who disagree with R. Jose. For we learnt: Four priests entered:16 two held two courses [of loaves] in their hands, and two held two censers;17 and four preceded them, two in order to remove the two courses,18 and two to remove the two censers. Those who brought in [the new loaves and frankincense] stood in the north facing the south,19 while those who carried [them] out stood in the south facing the north:20 these withdrew [the old] and these laid down [the new], the handbreadth of one at the side of the handbreadth of the other,21 because it is said, [And thou shalt set upon the table shewbread] before me alway.22 R. Jose said: Even if these remove and the other replace [it later], that too constitutes 'alway'.23
Our Rabbis taught: The membrum must be trimmed,24 and if one does not trim it, he is punished with kareth. Who? R. Kahana said: The surgeon.25 R. Papa demurred 'The surgeon'! he can say to them, 'I have performed half of the precept: do you perform half of the precept.'26 Rather said R. Papa: An adult.27 R. Ashi demurred: Of an adult it is explicitly stated, and the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, [that soul shall be cut off from his people]?28 Rather said R. Ashi: In truth it means the surgeon: e.g.,if he came at twilight on the Sabbath, and they warned him, 'you have no time,'29 but he insisted, 'I have time : So he performed it but had not time [to complete it]. Thus the net result is30 that he [merely] made a wound,31 hence he is punished with kareth.32
WE SUCK OUT, etc. R. Papa said: If a surgeon does not suck [the WOUND], it is dangerous and he is dismissed. It is obvious? Since we desecrate the Sabbath for it, it is dangerous?33 - You might say that this blood is stored up, therefore he informs us that it is the result of a wound, and it is like a bandage and cummin: just as when one does not apply a bandage and cummin there is danger, so here too if one does not do it there is danger.34
WE PLACE A COMPRESS UPON IT. Abaye said: Mother told me,35 A salve [compress] for all pains [is made of] seven parts of fat and one of wax. Raba said: Wax and resin36 Raba taught this publicly at Mahoza, [whereupon] the family of Benjamin the doctor tore up their [bandage] cloths.37 Said he to them. Yet I have left you one [cure unrevealed]. For Samuel said: He who washes his face and does not dry it well, scabs will break out on him.
(1) On the Sabbath.
(2) This is what the Mishnah includes.
(3) From circumcising, thinking it finished.
(4) v. Supra 116b. When one reaches the breast he temporarily ceases flaying in order to remove the fats; this cessation is analogous to withdrawing in the case of circumcision, and R. Ishmael rules that he must not return to complete the flaying.
(5) Ex. XV, 2. Or perhaps, and I will adorn myself for His sake. Once the fats are removed for sacrificial purposes there is no adornment of the precept in trimming the flesh and making it look presentable.
(6) The cutting away even of the shreds which does not invalidate circumcision is nevertheless an adornment thereof
(7) And may be permitted even by R. Ishmael.
(8) Lit., 'before Him'.
(9) Reading אנוהו as a combination אני והוא I and He (have to act alike).
(10) Viz., the crescent of the New Moon, which had to be seen and attested by two witnesses before the Beth din could sanctify the beginning of the month, v. R.H. 21b.
(11) By the two witnesses appointed to look out for it. They must come to the Beth din to testify, even if it is the Sabbath and they are without the tehum (q.v. Glos.), though since it is clearly visible the Beth din is in any case aware of its presence.
(12) Because it is unnecessary. The same applies to the shreds which do not invalidate the circumcision.
(13) From the very outset there was no need to desecrate the Sabbath, since the new moon is clearly visible to all.
(14) On account of the circumcision.
(15) That one must cut away all shreds.
(16) The Temple on the Sabbath to set the shewbread.
(17) Of frankincense for the loaves, v. Lev. XXIV, 7.
(18) Of the previous week's loaves.
(19) Because the Table was placed east to west, and the priests stood at its side facing its breadths.
(20) I.e., opposite the other priests across the Table.
(21) I.e., the withdrawing and the replacing were almost simultaneous.
(22) Ex. XXV, 30.
(23) I.e., 'alway' merely indicates that a night must not pass without shewbread lying upon the table. But the Rabbis hold that an interval would mark a new placing, not a continuation of the old, and so 'alway' would be unfulfilled. Similarly, when one withdraws from circumcision, to return for the shreds is a new act, hence not permitted unless these invalidate circumcision.
(24) I.e., the shreds which invalidate the circumcision must be removed; this appears to be the interpretation of Rashi and R. Han. Jast.: (One may) trim the preputium by splitting and drawing it upwards so as to form a pouch around the denuded cone. v. R. Han. second interpretation.
(25) Because he violated the Sabbath without completely fulfilling the precept. On this interpretation the reference is to the Sabbath.
(26) I.e., his labour was certainly permitted as far as it went.
(27) It refers to an adult who circumcises himself on weekdays, and he is punished by kareth because he remains uncircumcised on account of these shreds.
(28) Gen. XVII, 14; v. p. 665, n. 1. Why then state it here?
(29) To perform the whole (if the circumcision before the day ends.
(30) Lit., 'it is found'.
(31) It is not regarded as circumcision.
(32) Because he had no right even to start.
(33) Otherwise it would not be permitted, as it is not actually part of circumcision.
(34) If the blood were held to be stored up in a separate receptacle, as it were, there would be no desecration of the Sabbath in sucking it out, and therefore the fact that it is done on the Sabbath would not prove that its omission is dangerous. But since it comes out as a result of a wound, i.e.,the pressing causes a wound and thus forces out the blood, it is permitted only because its omission is dangerous.
(35) She was really his foster-mother, v. Kid. 31b.
(36) רישינא is a commentator's Gloss; v. Jast.
(37) They had not more need for them, the secret now being known to all. The phrase may also mean: they tore their garments
(in despair and vexation).
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 134a
What is his remedy? Let him wash it well in beet juice.1
IF ONE DID NOT CRUSH [IT] ON THE EVE OF THE SABBATH. Our Rabbis taught: The things which may not be done for circumcicision on the Sabbath may be done on Festivals: cummin may be crushed, and wine and oil may be beaten up together on its account. Abaye asked R. Joseph: Wherein does [the powdering of] cummin on Festivals differ? [presumably] because it can be used in a dish?2 then wine and oil too are fit for an invalid on the Sabbath? For it was taught: One may not beat up wine and oil for an invalid on the Sabbath. R. Simeon b. Eleazar said in R. Meir's name: One may indeed beat up wine and oil. R. Simeon b. Eleazar related, R. Meir was once suffering internally,3 and we wished to beat up wine and oil for him, but he would not permit us. Said we to him, Your words shall be made void in your own lifetime! Though I rule thus, he replied, yet my colleagues rule otherwise, [and] have never4 presumed to disregard the words of my colleagues. Now he was stringent in respect to himself, but for all others it is permitted? - There it need not be well beaten, whereas here it needs to be well beaten. Then let us do likewise here too and not mix it well? - That is what he teaches, EACH MUST BE PLACED SEPARATELY.5
Our Rabbis taught: One may not strain mustard grain through its own strainer,6 nor sweeten it with a glowing coal.7 Abaye asked R. Joseph: Wherein does it differ from what we learnt: An egg may be passed through a mustard strainer?8 There it does not look like selecting,9 whereas here it looks like selecting,10 he replied. 'Nor sweeten it with a glowing coal'. But surely it was taught, One may sweeten it with a glowing coal? - There is no difficulty: one refers to a metal coal, the other to a wood coal.11 Abaye asked R. Joseph: Wherein does it differ from [roasting] meat on coals?12 - There it is impossible,13 whereas here it is possible.14 Abaye asked R. Joseph: What about cheese-making?15 - It is forbidden, answered he. Wherein does it differ from kneading [dough]? - There it is impossible, here it is possible, replied he.16 But the people of Nehardea say: Freshly-made17 cheese is palatable? - They mean this: even freshly-made cheese is palatable.18
ONE MAY NOT MAKE A HALUK FOR IT, etc. Abaye said, Mother told me: The side-selvedge of an infant's haluk should be uppermost,19 lest a thread thereof stick and he [the infant] may become privily mutilated.20 Abaye's mother used to make a lining21 for half [the haluk].22
Abaye said: If there is no haluk for an infant, a hemmed rag should be brought, and the hem tied round at the bottom23 and doubled over at the top.24
Abaye also said: Mother told me, An infant whose anus is not visible should be rubbed with oil and stood in the sun, and where it shows transparent it should be torn crosswise with a barley grain, but not with a metal instrument, because that causes inflammation.
Abaye also said: Mother told me, If an infant cannot suck, his lips are cold. What is the remedy? A vessel of burning coals should be brought and held near his nostrils, so as to heat it; then he will suck.
Abaye also said: Mother told me, If an infant does not breathe,25 he should be fanned with a fan, and he will breathe.
Abaye also said: Mother told me, If an infant cannot breathe easily,26 his mother's after-birth should be brought and rubbed over him, [and] he will breathe easily.
Abaye also said: Mother told me, If an infant is too thin, his mother's after-birth should be brought and rubbed over him from its narrow end to its wide end;27 if he is too fat, [it should be rubbed] from the wide to the narrow end.
Abaye also said: Mother told me, If an infant is too red, so that the blood is not yet absorbed in him,28 we must wait until his blood is absorbed and then circumcise him. If he is green, so that he is deficient in blood,29 we must wait until he is full-blooded and then circumcise him. For it was taught, R. Nathan said: I once visited the Sea-towns,30 and a woman came before me who had circumcised her first son and he had died and her second son and he had died; the third she brought before me. Seeing that he was [too] red I said to her, Wait until his blood is absorbed. So she waited until his blood was absorbed and [then] circumcised hini and he lived; and they called him Nathan the Babylonian after my name. On another occasion I visited the Province of Cappadocia,31 and a woman came before me who had circumcised her first son and he had died and her second son and he had died; the third she brought before me. Seeing that he was green, I examined hini and saw no covenant blood32 in him. I said to her, Wait until he is full-blooded; she waited and [then] circumcised him and he lived, and they called him Nathan the Babylonian, after my name.
(1) Or, water in which vegetables were thoroughly boiled.
(2) Hence since it is permitted for this purpose, it is permitted for circumcision too.
(3) Lit., 'in his bowels'.
(4) Lit., 'throughout my days'.
(5) Which means that they may be poured together but not mixed well.
(6) On Festivals.
(7) The meat made the mustard more palatable.
(8) To render the egg clear.
(9) Because all of it passes through.
(10) Because some of the inferior grains remain on top. - Nevertheless it is not actual selecting, because even they are fit for use (Tosaf.).
(11) The latter is forbidden, as it is extinguished in the process, which is prohibited on Festivals.
(12) Though this puts them out.
(13) That the meat should be roasted before the Festival and be just as tasty.
(14) The mustard grains could have been sweetened the previous day.
(15) On Festivals.
(16) V.p. 673, nn. 12,13.
(17) Lit., 'of the (same) day'.
(18) But It is still more so when it is made the previous day.
(19) I.e., not facing the flesh.
(20) When the haluk is pulled away.
(21) Lit., 'covering'.
(22) I.e., she left the seam or selvedge on the inner side, but lined it half way down, so that it should not touch the membrum.
(23) Of the membrum, so as not to touch the wound.
(24) Thus the edge is on the outside.
(25) I.e., gives no signs of life (Rashi and Jast.). 'Ar.: does not urinate.
(26) Rashi. Jast.: cry.
(27) Starting with the former and continuing until the latter. - This is symbolical: even so should the infant progress (Rashi).
(28) Into his limbs, but it is still so the under-surface of the skin. This makes circumcision dangerous.
(29) Lit., the blood has not yet fallen into him'.
(30) Tyre, etc.
(31) A district of Asia Minor.
(32) The blood which circumcision causes to flow is so designated. Thus circumcision would be physically dangerous, and furthermore even if performed it would be inadequate, as covenant blood is required.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 134b
MISHNAH. WE MAY BATHE THE INFANT BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE CIRCUMCISION, AND SPRINKle [WARM WATER] OVER HIM BY HAND BUT NOT WITH A VESSEL. R. ELEAZAR B. 'AZARIAH SAID: WE MAY BATHE AN INFANT ON THE THIRD DAY [OF CIRCUMCISION] WHICH FALLS ON THE SABBATH, BECAUSE IT IS SAID, AND IT CAME TO PASS ON THE THIRD DAY, WHEN THEY WERE SORE.1 AS FOR ONE WHO IS DOUBTFUL,2 AND AN HERMAPHRODITE, WE MAY NOT DESECRATE THE SABBATH ON THEIR ACCOUNT; BUT R. JUDAH PERMITS [IT] IN THE CASE OF AN HERMAPHRODITE.
GEMARA. But you say in the first clause, WE MAY BATHE?3 - Rab Judah and Rabbah b. Abbuha both said: He [the Tanna] teaches how [it is to be done]. [Thus:] WE MAY BATHE THE INFANT BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE CIRCUMCISION. How? WE SPRINKLE [WARM WATER] OVER HIM BY HAND, BUT NOT WITH A VESSEL. Raba objected: But he states, WE MAY BATHE?4 Rather said Raba, He teaches thus: WE MAY BATHE THE INFANT BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER CIRCUMCISION on the first day in the normal manner; but on the third day which falls on the Sabbath, WE SPRINKLE [WARM WATER] OVER HIM BY HAND BUT NOT WITH A VESSEL. R. ELEAZAR B. AZARIAH SAID: WE MAY BATHE AN INFANT ON THE THIRD DAY WHICH FALLS ON THE SABBATH, BECAUSE IT IS SAID, AND IT CAME TO PASS ON THE THIRD DAY, WHEN THEY WERE SORE. It was taught in accordance with Raba: We may bathe the infant before and after the circumcision on the first day in the normal manner, but on the third day which falls on the Sabbath we besprinkle him by hand. R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah said: We may bathe an infant on the third day which falls on the Sabbath, and though there is no proof, there is an allusion thereto, for it is said, 'And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore'. And when they sprinkle, they sprinkle neither with a glass nor with a dish nor with a vessel, but only by hand - this agrees with the first Tanna. Why [does he say,] though there is no proof, there is an allusion thereto?5 Because an adult's flesh does not heal quickly, whereas an infant's does.6
A certain [person] came before Raba, [and] he gave him a ruling in accordance with his view.7 [Then] Raba fell ill. Said he: What business did I have with the interpretation of the older scholars?8 [Thereupon] the Rabbis said to Raba: But it was taught in accordance with the Master? Our Mishnah supports them, he replied. How so? Since it states, R. ELEAZAR B. 'AZARIAH SAID: WE MAY BATHE THE INFANT ON THE THIRD DAY WHICH FALLS ON THE SABBATH. It is well if you assume that the first Tanna means [that] we may [merely] sprinkle: hence R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah says to him, We may bathe. But if you explain that the first Tanna means, We may bathe on the first day and sprinkle on the third day, then [instead of] this [statement], R. ELEAZAR B. AZARIAH SAID: WE MAY SPRINKLE, 'WE MAY ALSO SPRINKLE [ON THE THIRD DAY]' is required.
When R. Dimi came,9 he said in R. Eleazar's name: The halachah is as R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah. In the West [Palestine] they pondered thereon: is the bathing of the whole body [permitted], or [only] the bathing of the membrum? Said one of the Rabbis, named R. Jacob, it is logical [that it means] the bathing of the whole body. For should you think, the bathing of the membrum, is this worse [less important] than hot water on a wound? For Rab said, One does not withhold hot water and oil from a wound on the Sabbath.10 R. Joseph demurred: And do you not admit a distinction between hot water heated on the Sabbath and hot water heated on the eve of the Sabbath?11 To this R. Dimi demurred: And whence [does it follow] that they differ here in respect of hot water heated on the Sabbath? Perhaps they differ in respect of hot water heated on the eve of the Sabbath? - Said Abaye, I wanted to answer him, but R. Joseph anticipated [me] and answered him: Because it is a danger for him.12 It was stated likewise: When Rabin came,13 he said in R. Abbahu's name in R. Eleazar's name - others state, R. Abbahu said in R. Johanan's name: The halachah is as R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah in respect of both hot water heated on the Sabbath and hot water heated on the eve of the Sabbath, whether for the bathing of the whole body or for the bathing of the membrum, because it is dangerous for him.
[To turn to] the main text: 'Rab said: One does not withhold hot water and oil from a wound on the Sabbath. But Samuel said: One must place it outside the wound, and it flows down on to the wound'. An objection is raised: One may not put oil and hot water on a rag to apply it to a wound on the Sabbath? - There it is on account of wringing out.14 Come and hear: One may not pour hot water and oil on a rag which is on a wound on the Sabbath? - There too it is because of wringing out. It was taught in accordance with Samuel: One may not apply hot water and oil to a wound on the Sabbath, but one may put it outside the wound, and it flows down on to the wound.
Our Rabbis taught: One may apply dry wadding or a dry sponge to a wound15 but not a dry reed or dry rags [of cloth]. [The rulings on] rags are contradictory?16 There is no difficulty: the one treats of new [rags];17 the other of old.18 Abaye observed: This proves that rags heal.
ONE WHO IS DOUBTFUL, AND AN HERMAPHRODITE, etc. Our Rabbis taught, [And in the eighth day the flesh of] his foreskin [shall be circumcised]:19 'his foreskin', [the foreskin of] one who is certain20 supersedes the Sabbath,
(1) Gen. XXXIV, 25. This shows that the third day is a dangerous period, and therefore the infant may be bathed even on the Sabbath.
(2) One who is born prematurely, and he may be an eight months' child. The Rabbis held that such could not possibly live, and therefore the Sabbath might not be violated for his circumcision.
(3) Which implies in the normal manner, sc. in a bath.
(4) Sprinkling is not bathing.
(5) Surely this is a proof that the third day is dangerous.
(6) The verse quoted, q.v., treats of the former.
(7) Permitting the infant to be bathed on the first day, which was a Sabbath, in the usual way.
(8) Sc. Rab Judah and Rabbah b. Abbuha. I.e., 'why did I interfere and disregard it?' He regarded his illness as a punishment.
(9) V.p. 12, n. 9.
(10) Whereas according to the present interpretation the first Tanna permits even sprinkling on the first day only, but not on the third.
(11) Rab refers to the latter, while R. Joseph assumed that the Mishnah refers to the former.
(12) Hence the Mishnah must certainly refer to water heated on the Sabbath.
(13) V.p. 12, n. 9.
(14) One may pour too much on the rag and then wring it out, which is forbidden.
(15) These are not intended for healing but merely as a protection.
(16) A dry rag too is a fragment, and it is permitted.
(17) These heal and are forbidden.
(18) Which do not heal (Rashi). 11. Han. reverses it.
(19) Lev. XII, 3; 'day' includes the Sabbath, supra 132a.
(20) I,e., who is certainly subject to the obligation.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 135a
but [of] one in doubt does not supersede the Sabbath; 'his foreskin' [of] one who is certain supersedes the Sabbath, but an hermaphrodite does not supersede the Sabbath. R. Judah maintained: An hermaphrodite supersedes the Sabbath and there is the penalty of kareth. 'His foreskin': [of] one who is certain supersedes the Sabbath, but [of] one born at twilight1 does not supersede the Sabbath; his foreskin: one who is certain supersedes the Sabbath, but one who is born circumcised does not supersede the Sabbath, for Beth Shammai maintain: One must cause a few drops of the covenant blood to flow from him, while Beth Hillel rule: It is unnecessary. R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel did not differ concerning him who is born circumcised that you must cause a few drops of the covenant blood to flow from him, because it is a suppressed foreskin:2 about what do they differ? about a proselyte who was converted when [already] circumcised: there Beth Shammai maintain: One must cause a few drops of the covenant blood to flow from him; whereas Beth Hillel rule: One need not cause a few drops of the covenant blood to flow from him.
The Master said: 'But [of] one that is doubtful does not supersede the Sabbath.' What does this include?3 - It includes the following which was taught by our Rabbis: For a seven-months' infant4 one may desecrate the Sabbath, but for an eight-months' infant one may not desecrate the Sabbath.5 For one in doubt whether the is a seven-months' or an eight-months' infant, one may not desecrate the Sabbath. An eight-months' infant is like a stone and may not be handled, but his mother bends [over] and suckles him because of the danger.6
It was stated: Rab said: The halachah is as the first Tanna;7 while Samuel said: The halachah is as R. Simeon b. Eleazar. A circumcised child was born to R. Adda b. Ahabah. He took him to thirteen circumcisers,8 until he mutilated him privily.9 I deserve it for transgressing Rab's [ruling], said he. Said R. Nahman to him, And did you not violate Samuel's [ruling]? Samuel ruled this only of weekdays, but did he rule this of the Sabbath? - He [R. Adda b. Ahabah] held that it is definitely a suppressed foreskin.10 For it was stated: Rabbah said: We suspect that it may be a suppressed foreskin;11 R. Joseph said: It is certainly a suppressed foreskin.
R. Joseph said: Whence do I know it? Because it was taught, R. Eliezer ha-Kappar said: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel do not disagree concerning him who is born circumcised, that one must cause a few drops of the covenant blood to flow from him. Concerning what do they differ? As to whether the Sabbath is desecrated on his account: Beth Shammai maintain, We desecrate the Sabbath on his account; while Beth Hillel rule: We must not desecrate the Sabbath on his account. Does it then not follow that the first Tanna holds, We desecrate the Sabbath for him?12 But perhaps the first Tanna maintains that all agree that we may not desecrate the Sabbath for him? - If so, R. Eliezer ha-Kappar comes to teach us Beth Shammai's view!13 But perhaps he means this: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel did not disagree in this matter!14 R. Assi said: He whose mother is defiled through confinement must be circumcised at eight [days], but he whose mother is not defiled through confinement15 is not circumcised on the eighth day,16 because it is said, If a woman conceive seed, and bear a man child, then she shall be unclean, etc. . . And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.17 Said Abaye to him, Let the early generations18 prove [the reverse], where the mother was not defiled through confinement,19 yet circumcision was of the eighth day!20 - The Torah was given, replied he,
(1) On Friday, and it is not known whether it was then Friday or the Sabbath.
(2) I.e., the foreskin which seems absent is pressed to the membrum.
(3) For the various cases of doubt are enumerated in detail.
(4) I.e., one born after seven months of pregnancy.
(5) The Rabbis held that such could not possibly live; hence there is no point in desecrating the Sabbath by circumcising him.
(6) To herself, if she is not eased of her milk.
(7) Who taught that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel disagree about a child who is born circumcised; the halachah then naturally being as Beth Hillel.
(8) That they might cause a few drops of the covenant blood to flow. It was the Sabbath, and they all refused.
(9) Eventually he performed the operation himself unskillfully, with that result.
(10) There is no element of doubt at all, and therefore it must be done even on the Sabbath.
(11) It is only because of this doubt that some drops of blood must be made to flow.
(12) Even in Beth Hillel's opinion. Hence Beth Hillel must hold that it is certainly a suppressed foreskin.
(13) Surely that is of no interest, since the halacha is as Beth Hillel.
(14) Thus: the first Tanna maintains that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel agree that we may not desecrate the Sabbath; hence their controversy must refer to weekdays, Beth Hillel holding that no blood-flow at all is required, whereupon R. Eleazar ha-Kappar stated that this is incorrect, there being no dispute in respect to weekdays, for even Beth Hillel necessitate a blood-flow, and they differ only in respect of the Sabbath. On this interpretation he informs us of Beth Hillel's view in respect to weekdays.
(15) E.g., if the child is not born in the usual manner but extracted through the cesarean section; or if a Gentile woman gives birth and becomes a proselyte the following day.
(16) But immediately.
(17) Lev. XII, 2f. Thus the two are interdependent.
(18) Viz., those preceding the giving of the Torah.
(19) The law of defilement being as yet non-existent.
(20) In accordance with God's command to Abraham; v. Gen. XVII, 12.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 135b
and then a new law was decreed.1 But that is not so? for it was stated: If one is extracted through the cesarean section, or has two foreskins,2 - R. Huna and R. Hiyya b. Rab [differ thereon]: one maintains, We desecrate the Sabbath for them; whilst the other holds, We do not desecrate the Sabbath for them. Thus, they differ only concerning the desecration of the Sabbath for them, but we certainly circumcise them on the eighth day? - One is dependent on the other.3
This is a controversy of Tannaim: [For it was taught], There is [a slave] born in his [master's] house who is circumcised on the first [day], and there is one born in his [master's] house who is circumcised on the eighth [day]; there is [a slave] bought with money who is circumcised on the first [day], and there is [a slave] bought with money who is circumcised on the eighth day. 'There is [a slave] bought with money who is circumcised on the first [day], and there is [a slave] bought with money who is circumcised on the eighth day.' How so? If one purchases a pregnant female slave and then she gives birth, that [the infant] is an acquired slave who is circumcised at eight days - If one purchases a female slave together with her infant child, that is a slave bought with money who is circumcised on the first day.4 'And there is [a slave] born in [his] master's house who is circumcised on the eighth day' - How so? If one purchases a female slave and she conceives in his house and gives birth, that is [a slave] born in his [master's] house who is circumcised at eight days. R - Hama said:5 If she gives birth and then has a ritual bath,6 that is [a slave] born in his [master's] house who is circumcised on the first day; if she has a ritual bath and then gives birth, that is [a slave] born in his [master's] house who is circumcised at eight days. But the first Tanna allows no distinction between one who [first] has a ritual bath and then gives birth and one who gives birth and then has a ritual bath, so that though his mother is not defiled through her confinement he is circumcised on the eighth day.7 Raba said:8 As for R. Hama, it is well: we find [a slave] born in his [master's] house who is circumcised on the first day, and one who is circumcised on the eighth day; one bought with money who is circumcised on the first day, and one bought with money who is circumcised on the eighth day. [Thus:] if she gives birth and then has a ritual bath, that is [a slave] born in his [master's] house who is circumcised on the first day; if she has a ritual bath and then gives birth, that is [a slave] born in the house who is circumcised on the eighth [day].9 'One bought with money who is circumcised on the eighth [day]': e.g., if one purchases a pregnant female slave and she has a ritual bath and then gives birth; 'one bought with money who is circumcised on the first day': e.g., where one buys a [pregnant] female slave and another buys her unborn child.10 But according to the first Tanna, as for all [others] it is well: they are conceivable.11 But how can [a slave] born in the house be found who is circumcised on the first day?12 - Said R. Jeremiah: In the case of one who buys a female slave for her unborn child.13 This is satisfactory on the view that a title to the usufruct is not as a title to the principal; but on the view that a title to the usufruct is as a title to the principal, what can be said?14 - Said R. Mesharsheya: [It is possible] where one buys a female slave on condition that he will not subject her to a ritual bath.15
It was taught, R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Any human being who lives16 thirty days is not a nefel,17 because it is said, And those that are to be redeemed of them from a month old shalt thou redeem.18 An animal [which lives] eight days is not a nefel, for it is said, and from the eighth day and henceforth it shall be accepted for an oblation, etc.19 This implies that if it [an infant] does not last [so long], it is doubtful;
(1) Viz., that the two are interdependent.
(2) Two skins on top of each other. Or, two separate membra.
(3) The infant who must be circumcised on the eighth day must be circumcised even on the Sabbath, since that is deduced from (eighth) day (supra 132a) ; but where the eighth day is necessary the Sabbath may not be desecrated.
(4) Of purchase, even if he is not eight days old yet.
(5) [Probably R. Hama the father of R. Oshaia, v. Hyman, Toledoth II p. 456].
(6) By this rite she enters the Jewish household as slave, becoming liable to all duties enjoined upon a Jewish woman. V. next note.
(7) These laws centre on Gen. XVII, 12, 13: And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed (v. 12). He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised (v. 13). Whereas v. 12 specifies circumcision for the eighth day, v. 13 does not, which implies at the earliest possible moment. Now it is logical that v. 12 refers to a slave who is as like as possible to a full Jew, that being the implication of 'among you', intimating those that are similar to you. viz., one born in his master's house after he was purchased. i.e., his mother was bearing him when she was bought; whilst v. 13 applies to a slave who is unlike a full Jew, vi., he was already born before he was bought. R. Hama draws this distinction: If his mother has a ritual bath, whereby she formally becomes a Jewish-owned slave in that she is bound to observe all the laws incumbent upon Jewesses in general, so that her confinement renders her unclean just like a Jewess, and then she gives birth, the infant is circumcised on the eighth day. But otherwise the infant is not like a Jewish-born child, and is circumcised on the first day. But the first Tanna ignores this distinction: thus R. Assi's ruling is a matter of controversy between the first Tanna and R. Hama.
(8) Maharam deletes this.
(9) Both of these refer to a slave who conceived in her master's house, so that the infant is not 'bought with money'.
(10) Since the latter does not own the mother, the child is not like a Jewish-born infant, and therefore he is circumcised on the first day.
(11) As already stated supra.
(12) Since he rejects the distinction based on when the mother had her ritual bath, one born in the house is certainly similar to a Jew.
(13) Even if he buys her from a Jew, and she has already had her ritual bath and is subject to the uncleanness of confinement, the child is nevertheless unlike a Jewish child, since his owner has no share in the mother.
(14) V. B.B. 136a; the mother is the principal, while the child is the usufruct. On the latter view he is like a Jewish-born child
(15) There her child is certainly unlike a Jewish-born one.
(16) Lit., 'tarries'.
(17) A nonviable, premature birth.
(18) Num. XVIII, 16. Since he must then be redeemed, it follows that he is viable.
(19) Lev. XXII, 27.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 136a
how then can we circumcise him?1 - Said R. Adda b. Ahabah: We circumcise him in either case: if he is viable, the is rightly circumcised; whilst if not, one [merely] cuts flesh.2 Then as to what was taught, If there is doubt whether he is a seven-months' [infant] or an eight-months', we must not desecrate the Sabbath on his account:3 why so? let us circumcise him in either case: if he is viable, he is rightly circumcised; if not, you [merely] cut flesh? - Mar the son of Rabina said: R. Nehumi b. Zechariah and I explained it: We do indeed circumcise him; this [teaching] is required only in respect of the preliminaries of circumcision, this being in accordance with R. Eliezer.4
Abaye said, This is dependent on Tannaim:5 And if any beast, of which ye may eat, die: [he that toucheth the carcase thereof shall be unclean until the even];6 this is to include an eight-months' [animal],7 [teaching] that shechitah8 does not render it clean.9 R. Jose son of R. Judah and R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon maintain: It is shechitah does render it clean. Surely they differ in this: one Master holds, It is a living creature;10 whilst the other Master holds, It is [technically] dead? - Said Raba: If so, instead of disputing on the matter of uncleanness and cleanness, let them dispute on the question of consumption.'-' Rather [say then] all hold that it is [technically] dead, but R. Jose son of R. Judah and R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon argue, it is as a terefah:11 a terefah, though indeed it is dead, does not shechitah render it clean?12 So here too it is not different. But the Rabbis [reason]: it is unlike a terefah, for a terefah had a period of fitness,13 whereas this one enjoyed no period of fitness. And should you object, what can be said about a terefah from birth?14 There shechitah is efficacious for its kind, whereas here shechitah is not efficacious for its kind.15
The scholars asked: Do the Rabbis disagree with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel16 or not?17 Should you answer [that] they differ, is the halachah as he or not? - Come and hear: If a calf is born on a festival, one may slaughter it on a festival!18 - What case do we treat of here? Where we know for certain that its months [of bearing] were complete.19 Come and hear: And they agree that if it is born together with its blemish, it is mukan!20 Here too [it is said] where its months [of bearing] were complete. Come and hear: For Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: The halachah, is as R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. 'The halachah [is thus]' implies that they [the Rabbis] disagree.21 This proves it.
Abaye said: If it falls from a roof or is devoured by a lion, all hold that it was viable.22 When do they differ? if it yawns and dies.23 One Master holds: It was viable; whilst the other Master holds: it was [technically] dead. What is the practical difference? Whether it frees the mother from Levirate marriage.24
'If it falls from a roof or is devoured by a lion, all hold that it was viable.' But surely R. Papa and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua visited the house of R. Iddi b. Abin's son, who prepared a third-born calf25 for them on its seventh day [from birth], whereupon they said to him, 'Had you waited with it until evening26 we would have eaten thereof: now we will not eat thereof'!27 - Rather [say thus:] If it yawns and dies, all agree that it was dead [non-viable]; they differ where it falls from a roof or is devoured by a lion, one Master holding that it was viable; the other Master, that it was dead.28
A child was born to the son of R. Dimi b. Joseph, [and] it died within thirty days. [Thereupon] he sat and mourned for it.29 Said his father to him, 'Do you wish to eat dainties?'30 'I know for certain that its months [of pregnancy] were complete.' R. Ashi visited R. Kahana: a mishap befell him within the thirty days.31 Seeing him sitting and mourning for it, he said to him, 'Does the Master not agree with what Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: The halachah is as R. Simeon b. Gamaliel?' - 'I know for certain that its months were complete,' replied he.
It was stated: If it died within thirty days,32 and she [the mother] arose and was betrothed,33 - Rabina said in Raba's name:
(1) On the eighth day which falls on the Sabbath, seeing that he may be non-viable, in which case there is really no obligation to circumcise him at all,
(2) Which cannot be regarded as the inflicting of a wound (this is the form of labour to which circumcision belongs). since the infant is already as dead.
(3) V. supra 135a.
(4) Supra 130a; but here the Sabbath may not be violated for the preliminaries.
(5) Sc. whether a non-viable infant is so completely regarded as dead that the infliction of a wound on it is merely flesh cutting.
(6) Lev. XI, 39.
(7) I.e., a calf born in, the eighth month of bearing instead of in the usual ninth.
(8) V. Glos.
(9) For even if ritually slaughtered, it may not be eaten, since it was non-viable (v. p. 679, n. 5; the same applies to animals), and therefore it is the same as though it had died of itself.
(10) Therefore shechitah renders it clean, just as in the case of any other animal that is permitted as food. (12) According to the first Tanna shechitah should make it fit for food, but not according to the others.
(11) An animal suffering with some disease or illness on account of which it may not be eaten after shechitah. It too is regarded as technically dead.
(12) This is deduced by the Rabbis from the present verse.
(13) Before it contracted that disease.
(14) Lit., 'the womb'.
(15) An animal born at nine months belongs to the species where shechitah counts, though this particular one is an exception. But no eight-months' animal is rendered fit for food by shechitah.
(16) Supra 135b bottom,
(17) The question is whether they permit a young animal to be eaten before it is eight days old.
(18) Though it is only one day old.
(19) Then it is definitely viable.
(20) V. Glos. The reference is to a firstling born blemished on a festival. A firstling might not be eaten before it received a blemish and we are taught there that this animal is mukan and may be eaten on the day of its birth. V. Bez. 26b.
(21) Cf. supra 106b.
(22) I.e., if the infant dies through an external cause before thirty, days, we assume that it was viable. Hence if he was an only child and survived his father, no matter by how short a time, his mother is free from Levirate marriage (v. Deut. XXV, 5), since his father did have a son. Similarly in the case of an animal, if slaughtered before it is eight days old it may be eaten, because we assume that it was viable,
(23) I.e., it dies naturally within thirty days, having shown very little vitality.
(24) V.p. 685, n. 12.
(25) I.e., the third which its mother had calved. Aliter: (a) a third-grown calf; (b) a calf in its third year.
(26) When it would have been eight days old.
(27) Though it was slaughtered.
(28) Hence the attitude of R. Papa and R. Huna b. R. Joshua.
(29) I.e., he performed the ritual mourning rites which are obligatory upon a bereaved father.
(30) Lit., 'throat-ticklers'; Jast.: Which friends send to mourners - i.e., you should not mourn for him, seeing that he was non-viable.
(31) I.e., his child died within thirty days from birth.
(32) V. supra n. 13; the same case is referred to here.
(33) At a later date, thinking that the child had freed her from the levirate obligation.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 136b
If she is an Israelite's wife,1 she must perform halizah;2 but if she is a priest's wife,3 she does not perform halizah.4 But R. Sherabia5 ruled in Raba's name: Both the one and the other must perform halizah. Rabina said to R. Sherabia: In the evening Raba did rule thus, but the [following] morning he retracted.6 You would permit her,7 he retorted: would that you permitted forbidden fat!
R. JUDAH PERMITS, etc. R. Shizbi said in R. Hisda's name: Not in respect of everything did R. Judah rule [that] an hermaphrodite is a male; for if you do say thus, in the case of vows of valuation8 let him be subject to valuation - And how do we know that he is not subject to 'valuation'? Because it was taught: '[And thy estimation shall be of] the male [from twenty years old, etc.]:9 but not a tumtum10 or an hermaphrodite. You might think that he does not come within the valuation of a man, yet he does come within the valuation of a woman; therefore it is stated, . . . the male . . . and if it be a female:11 a certain male, a certain female, but not a tumtum or a hermaphrodite'. -
(1) I.e., if her second husband is an Israelite, i.e., not a priest, and may marry a haluzah (q.v. Glos.). - Betrothal was the first stage of marriage, and binding like marriage; v. Kid., Sonc. ed., p. 1, n. 9.
(2) V. Glos.: for the child may have been non-viable.
(3) Who may not marry a haluzah.
(4) But may assume that her child was viable, relying on the majority of births, and therefore she has no levirate obligation.
(5) In Yeb. 36b the reading is: R. Mesharsheya.
(6) Ruling that she need not perform halizah if she is a priest's wife.
(7) Without halizah, thus disregarding the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel.
(8) 'Arakin, - vows whereby one offers his own or another person's 'valuation,' to the Temple. The valuations were fixed and dependent on the age and sex of the person concerned, v. Lev. XXVII, 1ff
(9) Lev. XXVII, 3.
(10) One whose genitals are hidden or undeveloped, so that his sex is doubtful. In Bek. 42a the Talmud deletes 'tumtum' from this passage.
(11) Ibid. 4.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 137a
And an anonymous [statement in the] Sifra1 is according to R. Judah.2 R. Nahman b. Isaac said: We too learnt likewise: All are eligible to sanctify,3 save a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor. R. Judah admits a minor, but invalidates a woman and an hermaphrodite. This proves it - And why is circumcision different?4 Because it is written, every male among you shall be circumcised.5
MISHNAH. IF A MAN HAS TWO INFANTS, ONE FOR CIRCUMCISION AFTER THE SABBATH AND THE OTHER FOR CIRCUMCISION ON THE SABBATH, AND HE ERRS6 AND CIRCUMCISES THE ONE BELONGING TO AFTER THE SABBATH ON THE SABBATH, HE IS CULPABLE.7 [IF HE HAS] ONE FOR CIRCUMCISION ON THE EVE OF THE SABBATH AND ANOTHER FOR CIRCUMCISION ON THE SABBATH, AND HE ERRS AND CIRCUMCISES THE ONE BELONGING TO THE EVE OF THE SABBATH ON THE SABBATH, - R. ELIEZER HOLDS [HIM] LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING;8 BUT R. JOSHUA EXEMPTS [HIM].9
GEMARA. R. Huna recited: He is culpable;10 Rab Judah recited: He is not culpable. 'R. Huna recited: He is culpable'; because it was taught, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: R. Eliezer and R. Joshua did not differ concerning a man who has two infants, one for circumcision on the Sabbath and another for circumcision after the Sabbath, and he errs and circumcises the one belonging to after the Sabbath on the Sabbath, that he is culpable. About what do they disagree? About him, who has two infants, one for circumcision on the eve of the Sabbath and another for circumcision on the Sabbath, and he errs and circumcises the one belonging to the eve of the Sabbath on the Sabbath, R. Eliezer declaring [him] liable to a sin-offering, while R. Joshua exempts [him]. Now, both learn it from nought but idolatry:11 R. Eliezer holds, it is like idolatry: just as idolatry, the Divine Law decreed, Do not engage [therein], and if one engages [therein] he is culpable, so here too it is not different. But R. Joshua [argues]: there there is no precept [fulfilled], whereas here there is a precept. 'Rab Judah recited; He is not culpable.' For it was taught, R. Meir said: R. Eliezer and R. Joshua did not differ concerning a man who has two infants, one for circumcision on the eve of the Sabbath and another for circumcision on the Sabbath, and he errs and circumcises the one belonging to the eve of the Sabbath on the Sabbath, that he is not culpable. About what do they disagree? About him who has two infants, one for circumcision after the Sabbath and another for circumcision on the Sabbath, and he errs and circumcises the one belonging to after the Sabbath on the Sabbath, R. Eliezer declaring [him] liable to a sin-offering, while R. Joshua exempts him. Now, both learn it from nought save idolatry: R. Eliezer holds, It is like idolatry: just as idolatry, the Divine Law decreed, Do not engage [therein], and if one engages [therein] he is culpable, so here too it is not different - But R. Joshua [argues:] There he is not preoccupied with a precept, whereas here he is preoccupied with a precept.12
R. Hiyya taught, R. Meir used to say: R. Eliezer and R. Joshua did not differ concerning him who has two infants, one for circumcision on the eve of the Sabbath and one for circumcision on the Sabbath, and he errs and circumcises the one belonging to the eve of the Sabbath on the Sabbath, that he is culpable. About what, do they disagree? About a man who has two infants, one for circumcision after the Sabbath and another for circumcision on the Sabbath, and he errs and circumcises the one belonging to after the Sabbath on the Sabbath, R. Eliezer declaring [him] liable to a sin-offering, while R. Joshua exempts him. Now if R. Joshua exempts him, in the second clause, though he does not fulfil a precept, shall he declare him culpable in the first clause, where he does fulfil a Precept!13 The School of R. Jannai said: The first clause is, e.g., where the [infant] belonging to the Sabbath was previously circumcised on the eve of the Sabbath, so that the Sabbath does not stand to be superseded;14 but in the second clause the Sabbath stands to be superseded. Said R. Ashi to R. Kahana: [But] in the first clause too the Sabbath stands to be superseded in connection with infants in general? - Nevertheless as far as this man [is concerned] it does not stand to be superseded.
MISHNAH. AN INFANT IS TO BE CIRCUMCISED ON THE EIGHTH, NINTH, TENTH, ELEVENTH, AND TWELFTH [DAYS], NEITHER EARLIER NOR LATER. HOW SO? IN THE NORMAL COURSE, IT IS ON THE EIGHTH; IF HE IS BORN AT TWILIGHT, ON THE NINTH;15 AT TWILIGHT ON SABBATH EVE, ON THE TENTH;16 IF A FESTIVAL FOLLOWS THE SABBATH, ON THE ELEVENTH;17 IF THE TWO DAYS OF NEW YEAR [FOLLOW THE SABBATH, ON THE TWELFTH.18 AN INFANT WHO IS ILL IS NOT CIRCUMCISED UNTIL HE RECOVERS.
GEMARA. Samuel said: When his temperature subsides [to normal], we allow him full seven days for his [complete] recovery. The scholars asked: Do we require twenty-four hours' days?19 Come and hear: For Luda taught: The day of his recovery is like the day of his birth. Surely that means, just as with the day of his birth, we do not require a twenty-four hours' day,20 so with the day of his recovery, we do not require a twenty-four hours' day? - No: the day of his recovery is stronger than the day of his birth, for whereas with the day of his birth we do not require a twenty-four hours' day, with the day of his recovery we do require a twenty-four hours' day.
MISHNAH. THESE ARE THE SHREDS WHICH INVALIDATE CIRCUMCISION: FLESH THAT COVERS THE GREATER PART OF THE CORONA; AND HE MUST NOT PARTAKE OF TERUMAH.21 AND IF HE IS FLESHY,22 HE MUST REPAIR IT FOR APPEARANCES SAKE.
(1) The halachah midrash on Leviticus, in which this passage occurs.
(2) This principle was laid down by R. Johanan; v. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 567, n. 1. - Thus R. Judah does not regard him as a male in this respect.
(3) The waters of lustration by placing the ashes therein; v. Num. XIX, 17.
(4) That an hermaphrodite is considered a male.
(5) Gen. X VII, 10: 'every' is an extension, and teaches the inclusion of an hermaphrodite.
(6) Lit., 'forgets'.
(7) For unwittingly desecrating the Sabbath. For since circumcision is obligatory from the eighth day only, this is not circumcision, but the mere inflicting of a wound, which entails culpability.
(8) For though he has actually fulfilled a precept, nevertheless circumcision after the proper time does not supersede the Sabbath.
(9) He erred through the fulfilment of a precept, viz., because he was occupied with the circumcision of the second, which actually was to be done that day; he also did fulfil a precept by circumcising the first, and R. Joshua holds that in such a case one is not culpable.
(10) In the first clause of the Mishnah, as our text.
(11) The obligations to all sin-offerings are learnt from the unwitting offence of idolatry, which serves as a model; v. Num. XV. 29-30 (v. 30 is understood to refer to deliberate idolatry, and shows that the preceding verses refer to all unwitting offences which are similar thereto).
(12) He is anxious to carry out the obligation which rests on him, and this preoccupation excuses his error. Rab Judah accordingly reads the Mishnah quite differently, and in accordance with the present view.
(13) Surely not, v. p. 688, n. 4.
(14) There is no infant left for whom the Sabbath must be violated. There was therefore no preoccupation with a precept and the error consequently was inexcusable, hence he is culpable.
(15) As it may have been night already, and circumcision must not take place before the eighth.
(16) Sc. the following Sunday week.
(17) The following Monday week.
(18) In Palestine all Festivals are of one day's duration, in accordance with Scripture, save New Year, which is of two days. - In the last three cases the infant cannot be circumcised on the following Friday, in case it is the seventh day, nor on the Sabbath or Festival, in case Friday was the eighth day, and circumcision after its proper time does not supersede them.
(19) Lit., 'from time to time'. Must we wait seven whole days to the hour, or can we circumcise any time on the seventh day?
(20) E.g., we do not wait eight full days to the hour for a normal circumcision, but perform it any time on the eighth day.
(21) If he is a priest and was thus inadequately circumcised, v. Yeb. 70a.
(22) So that though the circumcision was correctly performed the foreskin nevertheless looks as though it was uncircumcised.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 137b
IF ONE CIRCUMCISES BUT DOES NOT UNCOVER THE CIRCUMCISION,1 IT IS AS THOUGH HE HAS NOT CIRCUMCISED.
GEMARA. R. Abina said in the name of R. Jeremiah b. Abba in Rab's name: [This means,] the flesh that covers the greater part of the height of the corona.
AND IF HE IS FLESHY, etc. Samuel said: If an infant['s membrum] is overgrown with flesh, we examine him: as long as he appears circumcised when he forces himself, it is unnecessary to recircumcise him; but if not he must be recircumcised. In a Baraitha It was taught: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: If an infant['s membrum] is overgrown with flesh, we examine him: if he does not appear circumcised when he forces himself, he must be recircumcised: otherwise he need not be recircumcised. Wherein do they differ? - They differ where it is only partially visible.2 IF ONE CIRCUMCISES BUT DOES NOT UNCOVER THE CIRCUMCISION. Our Rabbis taught: He who circumcises must recite: '. . . Who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments, and hast commanded us concerning circumcision.' The father of the infant recites, '. . . Who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments and hast commanded us to lead him into the covenant of our father Abraham.' The bystanders exclaim, 'Even as he has entered the covenant, so may he enter into the Torah, the marriage canopy, and good deeds.' And he who pronounces the benediction recites: '... Who hast sanctified the beloved one3 from the womb; He set a statute in his flesh, and his offsprings he sealed with the sign of the holy covenant. Therefore as a reward for this, O living God Who art our portion, give command to save the beloved of our flesh from the pit, for the sake of Thy covenant which Thou hast set in our flesh. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, Who makest the covenant. He who circumcises proselytes says, 'Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, Who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments and hast commanded us concerning circumcision.' He who pronounces the benediction recites, '...Who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments and hast commanded us to circumcise proselytes and to cause the drops of the blood of the covenant to flow from them, since but for the blood of the covenant Heaven and earth would not endure, as it is said, If not my covenant by day and by night, I had not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth.4 Blessed art Thou, O Lord, Who makest the covenant.' He who circumcises slaves recites: '...Who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments and hast commanded us concerning circumcision. While he who pronounces the benediction recites: '...Who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments and hast commanded us to cause the drops of the blood of the covenant to flow from them, since but for the blood of the covenant the ordinances of heaven and earth would not endure, as it is said, If not my covenant by day and by night, I had not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, Who makest the covenant.'5
MISHNAH. R. ELIEZER SAID: ONE MAY SUSPEND A STRAINER ON FESTIVALS, AND POUR [WINE] THROUGH A SUSPENDED [STRAINER] ON THE SABBATH.6 BUT THE SAGES RULE: ONE MAY NOT SUSPEND A STRAINER ON FESTIVALS, NOR POUR [WINE] THROUGH A SUSPENDED [STRAINER] ON THE SABBATH, BUT WE MAY POUR [IT] THROUGH A SUSPENDED [STRAINER] ON FESTIVALS.
GEMARA. Seeing that R. Eliezer [holds] that we may not [even] add to a temporary tent, can it be permitted to make [one] in the first place?7 What is this allusion? For we learnt: As for the stopper of a skylight, - R. Eliezer said: When it is fastened and suspended, one may close [the skylight] with it; if not, one may not close [the skylight] with it. But the Sages maintain: In both cases you may close [the skylight] with it. Whereon Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: All agree that a temporary tent may not be made on Festivals, whilst on the Sabbath it goes without saying. They differ only in respect of adding [to a tent]; R. Eliezer maintaining. One may not add on a Festival, whilst on the Sabbath it goes without saying; whereas the Sages rule: One may add on the Sabbath, whilst it is superfluous to speak of Festivals!8 - R. Eliezer agrees with R. Judah. For it was taught: The only difference between Festivals and the Sabbath is in respect of food for consumption.9 R. Judah permits the preliminary preparations of food for consumption too.10 But say that we know R. Judah [to rule thus] of preparations which could not be done on the eve of the Festival; do you know him [to rule thus] of preparations which could be done on the eve of the Festival?- R. Eliezer's [ruling] goes further than R. Judah's.11
BUT THE SAGES RULE, '[etc.]. The scholars asked: What if one does suspend [it]? - R. Joseph said: If one suspends [it] he is liable to a sin-offering. Said Abaye to him: If so, if one hangs a pitcher on a peg. is he too liable?12
(1) I.e., the corona, by splitting the membrane and pulling it down. - He did not perform the peri'ah. V. supra 133a. (5) To cause his bowels to function.
(2) Lit., 'he appears and does not appear'. Samuel maintains that unless it is fully visible he must be circumcised, whereas the Baraitha teaches that only where it is quite invisible is recircumcision required.
(3) Rashi refers this to Isaac; Tosaf. to Abraham.
(4) Jer. XXXIII, 25.
(5) The emphasis on the extreme importance of circumcision was probably meant to counteract the early Christian teaching, which abrogated circumcision entirely in order to attract converts; v. Weiss, Dor, II, 9. It is perhaps noteworthy that in the present passage it is precisely in connection with proselytes and slaves that this is so much emphasized.
(6) When a strainer is 'suspended', i.e., set over the vessel which receives the liquid, a 'tent' is technically made, in that the strainer covers the vessel like the top of a tent cover and protects that which is beneath it. R. Eliezer permits this on Festivals but not on the Sabbath. Again, when the liquid, e.g., wine, is poured through the strainer, the lees are separated from the wine; nevertheless he does not regard this as 'selecting' (v. supra 73a) and permits it on the Sabbath. A cloth strainer is probably meant; v. T.A.II, p. 243.
(7) As he does permit it in the Mishnah.
(8) This means that R. Eliezer forbids even adding to a temporary tent.
(9) V. p. 281, n. 8.
(10) The suspending of a strainer falls within this category.
(11) For he permits it even in the latter case.
(12) Surely not. Here too it is not a real building and is forbidden by Rabbinical law only.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 138a
Rather said Abaye: It is [forbidden] by Rabbinical law, in order that one should not act in the very way he acts on weekdays.
Abaye collected some general principles of Baraithas, and he recited: One must not stretch out a leather bag,1 a strainer, a canopy,2 or a camp chair;3 and if he does he is not culpable. but it is forbidden. One must not make a permanent tent, and if he does he is liable to a sin-offering. But a bed, chair, three-legged stool, and a footstool may be set up at the very outset.4
NOR POUR [WINE] THROUGH A SUSPENDED (STRAINER] ON THE SABBATH. The scholars asked: What if one does strain [wine]? - R. Kahana said: If one strains he incurs a sin-offering. R. Shesheth demurred: Is there aught for which the Rabbis impose a sin-offering whereas R. Eliezer permits it at the very outset? To this R. Joseph demurred: Why not? Surely there is a 'golden city',5 where R. Meir imposes a sin-offering. while R. Eliezer gives permission at the very outset. What is this? For it was taught: A woman must not go out with a 'golden city', and if she does go out, she is liable to a sin-offering: this is R. Meir's view: but the Sages rule: She may not go out [with it]. yet if she goes out she is not culpable. R. Eliezer maintained: A woman may go out with a 'golden city' at the very outset! - Said Abaye to him, Do you think that R. Eliezer refers to R. Meir, who rules that she is liable to a sin-offering? He refers to the Rabbis, who maintain that there is no culpability. though it is forbidden; whereupon he said to then,, It is permitted at the very outset.6
On what grounds is he warned?7 - Rabbah said: On the grounds of selecting;8 R. Zera said: On the score of sifting.9 Rabbah said, Reason supports my view: What is usual in selecting? One takes the edible matter and leaves the refuse, so here too he takes the edible [the wine] and leaves the refuse. R. Zera said, Reason supports my view: what is usual in sifting? The refuse [remains] on top whilst the edible matter [falls] below, so here too, - the refuse [remains] on top whilst the edible matter [drops] below.
Rami b. Ezekiel recited: One must not spread a doubled-over sheet;10 yet if he does he is not culpable,11 but it is forbidden. If a thread or a cord was wound about it,12 it may be spread at the very outset. R. Kahana asked Rab: What about a canopy?13 A bed too is forbidden. What about a bed? A canopy too is permitted, he replied. What about a canopy and a bed? A canopy is forbidden, replied he, while a bed is permitted. Yet there are no contradictions: when he said, A bed too is forbidden, [he meant one] like that used by the Carmanians.14 When he said to him, A canopy too is permitted, [he referred to] one like Rami b. Ezekiel['s].15 A canopy is forbidden while a bed is permitted refers to one like ours.16 R. Joseph said: I saw the canopy beds of R. Huna's house stretched out at night and thrown down in the morning.17
Rab said in R. Hiyya's name: A [door] curtain may be hung up and taken down.18 And Samuel said in R. Hiyya's name:
(1) Gud is a broad leather bag into which wine or milk was poured. It was stretched out at night tent-wise for the liquid to cool in the night air.
(2) Rashi: whose top is a handbreadth in width. Alfasi and Maim.: whose top is less than a handbreadth in width.
(3) Jast. Tosaf.: a framework over which the leather seat was stretched; this is like the making of a tent.
(4) If they have fallen. The covers or tops of these are permanently spread, so no 'tent' is made.
(5) This was a kind of ornamental headdress containing a picture of Jerusalem; v. supra 59b.
(6) Abaye's reasoning is difficult to follow unless he means that R. Eliezer was altogether ignorant of R. Meir's view (Tosaf. and marginal Gloss.).
(7) A deliberate offence is not punishable unless the transgressor is previously warned that his proposed action is forbidden on such and such a score; in the case of the violation of the Sabbath he must be advised under what category of labour his action is prohibited. The selection here is in regard to the straining of wine.
(8) He is warned that straining is tantamount to selecting.
(9) V. supra 73a for these two labours.
(10) Tent-wise over a pole. the ends being fastened to the ground, so that the whole forms a tent under which he can lie (R. Han.).
(11) Because the top or roof of this improvised tent is less than a handbreadth in width.
(12) The sheet was already on the pole from before the Sabbath, and a thread or cord was attached thereto by means of which it might be pulled down. When it is pulled down one merely adds to a temporary or improvised tent, and this Baraitha permits it-.
(13) V. supra p. 695, n. 6.
(14) Inhabitants of Carmania, a province of the ancient Persian empire, with the capital Carmana. Others: a frame used by vendors of linen garments. On both translations the frameworks were such that they were taken apart and then set up; this constitutes a forbidden labour.
(15) I.e., one about which a cord was wound, and which he permits in this passage.
(16) V. p. 695, n. 8.
(17) Which shows that they may be taken apart - he was speaking of the Sabbath - and in the same way they may be set up
(18) It is not a 'tent', since it has no roof.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 138b
A bridal bed may be set up and it may be dismantled.1 R. Shesheth son of R. Idi said: That was said only where its roof is not a handbreadth [in width],2 but if its roof is a handbreadth, it is forbidden. And even if the roof is not a handbreadth, this was said only where there is not [the width of] a handbreadth within three [handbreadths] from the top; but if there is a handbreadth within three from the top. it is forbidden. And this is said only if its slope is less than a handbreadth, but if its slope is a hand breadth, the slopes of tents are as tents.3 And it was said only if it does not descend a handbreadth below the bed; but if it descends a handbreadth below the bed, it is forbidden.
R. Shesheth son of R. Idi also said: A peaked cap4 is permitted. But it was stated: a peaked cap is forbidden? - There is no difficulty: in the one case it is a handbreadth [in size];5 in the other it is not a handbreadth. If so, if one lets his cloak protrude a handbreadth,6 is he too culpable?;7 - Rather [say] there is no difficulty: here it is tightly fitted [on his head]; there it is not tightly fitted.8
Rami b. Ezekiel sent to R. Huna: Tell us, pray. those well-favoured dicta which you told us [formerly] in Rab's name, two about the Sabbath and one about Torah. He sent [back] to him: As to what was taught, It is permitted to stretch the leather bag9 by its thongs,10 Rab said: They learnt this only of two men; but [if done] by one man, it is forbidden.11 Abaye said: But a canopy. even [if stretched] by ten men, is forbidden, [for] it is impossible that it shall not be somewhat stretched.
What is the other [dictum]? If one of the shafts of a stove falls off, it [the stove] may be handled; if both [fall off], it may not be handled,12 Rab said: Even if one [falls out] it is forbidden, lest he [re]fix it.13
'[And one about] Torah': for Rab said: The Torah is destined to be forgotten in Israel, because it is said, Then the Lord will make thy plagues wonderful:14 now, I do not know what this wonder is, but when it is said, Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a wonderful work among this people, even a wonderful work and a wonder [and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish],15 it follows that this wonder refers to Torah.
Our Rabbis taught: When our Masters entered the vineyard at Yabneh,16 they said, The Torah is destined to be forgotten in Israel, as it is said, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord. And it is said, And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east; they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.17 'The word of the Lord' means halachah,' 'the word of the Lord' means 'The End';18 'the word of the Lord' means prophecy. And what does 'they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord' mean? Said they, A woman is destined to take a loaf of terumah and go about in the synagogues and academies to know whether it is unclean or clean, and none will know19 whether it is clean or unclean. But that is explicitly stated, All food which may be eaten [...shall be unclean]?20 Rather to know whether it is a first degree or a second degree [of uncleanness],21 and none will know. But that too is a Mishnah. For we learnt: If a [dead] creeping thing22 is found in an oven, the bread within it is a second, because the oven is a first?23 - They will be in doubt over what R. Adda b. Ahabah asked Raba: Let us regard this oven as though it were filled with uncleanness, and let the bread be a first? He replied, We do not say. Let us regard this oven as though it were filled with uncleanness. For it was taught: You might think that all utensils become unclean in the air space of an earthen vessel: therefore it is stated, whatsoever is in it shall be unclean...all food therein which may be eaten: food and liquids become unclean in the air space of an earthen vessel.24 It was taught. R. Simeon b. Yohai said: Heaven forfend that the Torah be forgotten in Israel, for it is said, for it shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their seed.25 Then how do I interpret, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it? They will not find
(1) v. p. 696. n. 6; also T.A. II, p. 457. n. 311, where it is understood as a sedan chair or litter.
(2) It being spread over a very narrow pole.
(3) Hence it is forbidden. By 'its slope' is meant the distance at the base from the vertical. Obviously such is unfit for use, and Rashi observes that a bridal bed was not for sleeping. This is unsatisfactory, and Tosaf. suggests other interpretations but rejects them too as equally unsatisfactory. V. 'Er. 102a (Sonc. ed., p. 709. n. 15).
(4) Jast.: A felt cap with a shade in front.
(5) It may not be worn on the Sabbath, as it technically forms a tent.
(6) He winds it about his head so as to protrude this distance.
(7) Read with Asheri, is it too forbidden'?
(8) Rashi: In the latter case a peaked cap is forbidden, not as a 'tent' but lest the wind blow it off and he come to carry it.
(9) V. p. 695. n. 5.
(10) The interdict supra a is only where it is unprovided with thongs or straps.
(11) Rashi: two men do not stretch it well; but one person is forced to tie one end to a stake, stretch it, and then tie the other end to another stake, whereby it becomes a tent. Rashi however is dissatisfied with this explanation and states that he does not understand it, nor are other commentators more satisfactory.
(12) The shafts are the four feet upon which it stands.
(13) Which is labour. But the first view is that it can stand well enough with one shaft missing to make this fear unlikely.
(14) Deut. XXVIII, 59.
(15) Isa. XXIX, 14.
(16) Whither R. Johanan b. Zakkai transported or founded an academy after the destruction of the second Temple. Vineyard' is a metaphor for the academy, because the scholars sat in rows like vines, J. Ber. IV, 1. The time referred to here is probably that of the Hadrianic persecutions.
(17) Amos VIII, 11f
(18) The designated time of redemption, when the Messiah will appear. Tosaf. finds the analogy for this interpretation in Ezra I.
(19) Lit., 'understand'.
(20) Lev. XI, 34. Surely the Written Law will be available.
(21) V. p. 55. n. 6.
(22) Sherez, which defiles utensils and food.
(23) The sherez touches the oven, which in turn touches the bread, The Rabbis could not imagine complete forgetfulness even of the Mishnah. (9) For immediately the sherez enters the air space of the oven, even before it actually touches it, it defiles, hence one should regard the sherez as though completely filling it.
(24) But if the sherez were regarded as completely filling the oven, utensils therein too should be unclean, as though they touched the sherez, for direct contact therewith does defile them. Thus in the future it will be doubtful whose view, R. Adda b. Ahabah's or Raba's, is correct.
(25) Deut. XXXI, 21.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 139a
a clear halachah or a clear Mishnah1 in any place.2
It was taught. R. Jose b. Elisha said: If you see a generation overwhelmed by many troubles, go forth and examine the judges of Israel, for all retribution that comes to the world comes only on account of the Judges of Israel, as it is said, Hear this, I pray you ye heads of the house of Jacob, and rulers of the house of Israel, that abhor judgment, and pervert all equity. They build up Zion with blood and Jerusalem with iniquity. The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money; yet will they lean upon the Lord, etc.3 They are wicked, but they place their confidence in Him Who decreed, and the world came into existence.4 Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, will bring three punishments upon them answering to the three sins which they cultivate,5 as it is said, Therefore shall Zion for your sake be ploughed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest.6 And the Holy One, blessed be He, will not cause His Divine presence to rest upon Israel until the wicked judges and officers cease out of Israel, for it is said, And I will turn my hand upon thee, and thoroughly purge away thy dross, and will take away all thy tin. And I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning, etc.7
'Ulla said: Jerusalem shall be redeemed only by righteousness,8 as it is written, Zion shall be redeemed with judgement, and her converts with righteousness.9
R. Papa said: When the haughty cease to exist [in Israel], the magi10 shall cease [among the Persians]. When the judges cease to exist [in Israel], the chiliarchi11 shall cease. 'When the haughty cease to exist [in Israel], the magi shall cease [among the Persians]'; as it is written, And I will surely purge away thy haughty ones.12 When the judges cease to exist [in Israel], the chiliarchi shall cease, as it is written, The Lord hath taken away thy judgements, he hath cast out thine enemy.13
R. Melai14 said in the name of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon: What is meant by the verse, The Lord hath broken the staff of the wicked, the sceptre of the rulers?15 'The Lord hath broken the staff of the wicked' refers to the judges who become a staff for their sheriffs;16 'the sceptre of the rulers' refers to the scholars in the families of the judges.17 Mar Zutra said: This refers to the scholars who teach the laws of the public18 to ignorant judges.19
R. Eleazar b. Melai said in the name of Resh Lakish: What is meant by the verse, For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue muttereth wickedness?20 'For your hands are defiled with blood': this refers to the judges: 'and your fingers with iniquity', to the judges' scribes;21 'your lips have spoken lies' to the advocates of the judges;22 'your tongue muttereth wickedness' - to the litigants. R. Melai also said in the name of R. Isaac of Magdala: From the day that Joseph departed from his brothers he did not taste wine, for it is written, [The blessings of thy father...shall be on the head of Joseph]. And on the crown of the head of him who was a nazirite [since his departure] from his brethren.23 R. Jose b. R. Hanina said: They too did not taste wine, for it is written, And they drank, and drank largely with him:24 which implies [that they did] not [drink] until then. And the other?25 - There was no extensive drinking,26 yet there was [moderate] drinking.27
R. Melai also said: As a reward for, and when he seeth thee, he shall be glad in his heart,28 he was privileged to wear the breastplate of judgment upon his heart.
The citizens of Bashkar29 sent [a question] to Levi: What about [setting up] a canopy [on the Sabbath]; what about cuscuta in a vineyard?30 what about a dead man on a Festival?31 By the time he [the messenger] arrived [at Levi's home] Levi had died. Said Samuel to R. Menashia, If you are wise, send them [an answer]. [So] he sent [word] to them: 'As for a canopy, we have examined it from all aspects and do not find any aspect by which it can be permitted'. But let him send them [a permissive ruling] in accordance with Rami b. Ezekiel?32 [He did not do this] because they were not learned in the law.33 'Cuscuta in a vineyard is a [forbidden] mixture'. But let him send them [a reply] in accordance with R. Tarfon. For it was taught: As for cuscuta, R. Tarfon maintains: It is not kil'ayim34 in a vineyard; while the Sages rule: It is kil'ayim in a vineyard. And it is an established principle: The view of him, who is lenient in respect to Palestine,35 is halachah without Palestine?- [Likewise] because they were not learnt in the law. Rab announced: He who wishes to sow cuscuta in a vineyard, let him sow.36 R. Amram the pious would ban [a person] for this. R. Mesharsheya would give a perutah37 to a Gentile child to sow it for him.38 Then let him give it to an Israelite child? - He would come to adhere [to this practice when he grew up]. Then let him give it to an adult Gentile?-He might come to substitute an Israelite for him.
As for a corpse. he sent [word to them]: Neither Jews nor Syrians [non-Jews] may occupy themselves with a corpse, neither on the first day of a Festival nor on the second.39 But that is not so? For R. Judah b. Shilath said in R. Assi's name: Such a case happened in the synagogue of Ma'on40 on a Festival near the Sabbath,
(1) I.e., an absolute and definite ruling. completely intelligible and not subject to controversy.
(2) Lit., 'in one place'. I.e., in any of the places whither they shall wander (Maharsha).
(3) Mic. III, 9-11.
(4) This phrase is now liturgical.
(5) Lit., 'which is in their hand'.
(6) Ibid. 12.
(7) Isa. I, 25f.
(8) I.e., through the exercise of righteousness.
(9) Isa. I, 27.
(10) The Guebres, who caused the Jews much suffering under the Sassanians, cf. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p 504, n. 6.
(11) [גזירפטי (Pers. Wezirpat, a ruler, Funk, Schwarz, Festschrift, p. 432) the name of a class of oppressive Persian officers.]
(12) Deriving סיגיך from סגי, great, haughty.
(13) Zeph. III, 15.
(14) MS. O.: Simlai.
(15) Isa. XIV, 5.
(16) They support their underlings in evil; or, support them in their refusal to summon the defendant to court or to enforce the court verdict unless they are well-paid for it (Rashi).
(17) I.e., unfit judges appointed by the scholars of their family.
(18) הלכות צבור. Probably laws concerning communal matters, the imposts of levies for communal and charitable purposes v. Herzog, The Main Institutions of Jewish Law. Vol. 1, XXIII.
(19) Rashi: the judges being appointed in reliance that these scholars would guide them in law, whereas they subsequently act of their own accord in many cases.
(20) Isa. LIX, 3.
(21) Who record verdicts falsely.
(22) Rashi: who instruct the litigants how to plead. V, Aboth, Sonc. ed., p. 6, n, 1.
(23) Gen. XLIX, 26. E.V.: 'of him that was separate from his brethren'. A nazirite is forbidden wine, Num. VI, 2-3.
(24) Gen. XLIII, 34.
(25) R. Melai: why does he omit the brothers?
(26) Lit., 'no drunkenness'. During the period of separation.
(27) On the part of the brothers.
(28) Ex. IV, 14 - the reference is to Aaron.
(29) Caskar, the chief town in the Mesene region. on the right bank of the old Tigris; directly opposite, on the left bank, lay Wasit, and the two are to some extent identified; v. Obermeyer. pp. 91-3.
(30) Does it infringe the prohibition against divers plants being sown together? v. Deut. XXII, 9.
(31) What arrangements are permissible for handling him, the funeral, etc.
(32) Who permits its spreading when it is furnished with cords, v. supra 138a.
(33) They would go still further.
(34) V. GIos.
(35) Lit., 'the land' par excellence.
(36) V. Halevy. Doroth, I, 3, p. 137 (סט).
(37) A small coin.
(38) He agreed with Rab, nevertheless he did it in an unusual manner, so as not to encourage laxity.
(39) Though the second is only a Rabbinical institution.
(40) A town near Tiberias.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 139b
though I do not know whether it preceded or followed it,1 and when they went before R. Johanan, he said to them: Let Gentiles occupy themselves with him [the dead]. Raba too said: As for a corpse,2 on the first day of Festivals Gentiles should occupy themselves with him; on the second day of Festivals Israelites may occupy themselves with him, and even on the second day of New Year, which is not so in the case of an egg?3 [Here too] because they were not learned in the law.
R. Abin b. R. Huna said in R. Hama b. Guria's name: A man may wrap himself in a canopy sheet and [tie it] with its cords to go out into the street on the Sabbath without fear.4 How does this differ from R. Huna's [dictum]. for R. Huna said in Rab's name: If one goes out on the Sabbath wearing a garment not provided with [proper] fringes as required by law, he is liable to a sin-offering?5 - Fringes are important in relation to the cloak, hence they are not merged [therein]; these are not of [separate] importance, and [so] are accounted as nought.
Rabbah6 son of R. Huna said: A man may employ an artifice in connection with a strainer on a festival, suspending it for pomegranates yet straining lees therein.7 Said R. Ashi: Provided he does place pomegranates in it.8 How does it differ from what was taught: One may brew beer on the [intermediate days of a] Festival9 when it is required for the Festival, but if not required for the Festival it is forbidden: [this applies to] both barley beer and date beer. Though one has old [beer]. he may practise an evasion10 and drink of the new? - There the matter is not evident;11 here the matter is evident.12
The scholars said to R. Ashi: See, sir, a Rabbinical disciple. whose name is R. Huna b. Hiwan - others State, R. Huna b. Hilwon - who took peel of garlic,13 placed it in the bung hole of a barrel, and asserted, 'My intention is to put it away [here].'14 He also went and dozed in a ferry and thus crossed to the other side and looked after his fruit, asserting, 'My intention was to sleep.' Said he to them, You speak of an artifice: it is an artifice [in connection with] a Rabbinical [interdict].15 and a disciple of the Rabbis will not come to do this at the very outset.16
MISHNAH. WATER MAY BE POURED OVER LEES IN ORDER TO CLARIFY THEM, AND WINE MAY BE STRAINED THROUGH CLOTHS AND THROUGH A BASKET MADE OF PALM TWIGS; AND AN EGG MAY BE PASSED THROUGH A MUSTARD STRAINER;17 AND ENOMLIN18 MAY BE PREPARED ON THE SABBATH. R. JUDAH SAID: ON THE SABBATH [IT MAY ONLY BE MADE] IN A GOBLET; ON FESTIVALS, IN A LAGIN;19 AND ON THE INTERMEDIATE DAYS OF FESTIVALs IN A BARREL. R. ZADOK SAID: IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE [NUMBER OF] GUESTS.
GEMARA. Ze'iri said: One may pour clear wine and clear water into a strainer on the Sabbath without fear,20 but not turbid [liquids]. An objection is raised: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: One may stir up a barrel of wine, [i.e..] the wine and the lees, and pour it into a strainer on the Sabbath without fear!21 - Ze'iri explained it: They learnt this of the season of the wine pressing.22
WINE MAY BE STRAINED THROUGH CLOTHS. R. Shimi b. Hiyya said: Provided that one does not make a hollow.23
AND THROUGH A BASKET MADE OF PALM TWIGS. R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in Rab's name: Provided he does not lift it [the basket] a handbreadth from the bottom of the vessel.24
Rab said: [Spreading] a rag over half a cask [to cover it] is permitted; over the whole cask, is forbidden.
R. Papa said: A man must not stuff chips into the mouth of a cask jug.25 because it looks like a strainer. R. Papa's household poured wine slowly from one vessel to another.26 R. Aha of Difti27 objected: But there is the residue?28 - The residue had no value in R. Papa's household.29
AN EGG MAY BE PASSED THROUGH A MUSTARD STRAINER. R. Jacob Karhah recited:
(1) I.e., whether the Festival fell on Friday on which day the death occurred, so that it had to be buried on the same day, or whether it fell on Sunday and the death occurred on the Sabbath, so that the burial could not be delayed any longer.
(2) Of a person who died on a Sabbath which was followed by a Festival.
(3) An egg laid on the first day of any Festival except New Year may be eaten on the second day too. But in respect to a corpse New Year is the same as other Festivals.
(4) Of transgression.
(5) The garment has fringes. but since they are not in accordance with the law they are regarded not as part thereof but as a burden which entails a sin offering. Thus here too, since the normal function of the cords is to spread the sheet, not to tie it round a person, they constitute a burden.
(6) Var. lec.: R. Abin.
(7) Lit., to suspend pomegranates therein, but he suspends lees therein.
(8) For some time.
(9) I.e.,the intermediate days of Passover and Tabernacles, which enjoy semi-sanctity, being treated as profane in some respects and as holy in others.
(10) Of the law.
(11) The evasion is not obvious, for a person who sees him brew beer does not know that he has sufficient already for the festival.
(12) That he is evading the law, unless he actually puts pomegranates in it, since its usual function is to strain them.
(13) Jast. R. Han.: a head of garlic.
(14) But actually it was to prevent the wine from running out, and thus he repaired the barrel, as it were.
(15) For even if he did these without an artifice he would only violate a Rabbinical, not a Scriptural interdict.
(16) Without an artifice - hence he does nothing wrong.
(17) Rashi: the strainer contains mustard, and when the egg is poured upon it the yolk passes through and the white remains on top. R. Halevi (quoted by Rash): the egg is strained into a dish, not into mustard, but a mustard strainer is specified in order that the action on the Sabbath, though permitted, shall be done differently from what it is on weekdays.
(18) V. Gemara infra.
(19) Larger than a goblet (כוס) but smaller than a barrel (חבית).
(20) Of transgression.
(21) Though the liquid is turbid through the stirring.
(22) All wine is turbid then and drunk thus; hence it is not made fit for drinking (which would be forbidden on the Sabbath) by being put through the strainer.
(23) The cloth must be taut and not form a hollow
(24) Which receives the wine. Otherwise it forms a 'tent', v. p. 694, n. 1. (9) In the latter case a 'tent' is made.
(25) I.e., a jug used for taking wine out of a cask; the chips act as a strainer.
(26) So as to leave the sediment behind.
(27) V. p. 35, n. 5.
(28) The last drops percolating through the dregs left behind in the first vessel, which shows that their purpose was to strain the wine.
(29) He was a beer brewer (B.M. 65b) and could afford to throw away the little wine left at the bottom together with the chips, thus leaving nothing at all there to show their real motive.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 140a
Because it is only done for colouring.1
It was stated: If mustard grain is kneaded on Sabbath eve, - on the morrow, Rab said: One must crush [dissolve] it2 'with a utensil, but not by hand.3 Said Samuel to him: 'By hand'! Does one then crush it every day by hand - is it asses' food? Rather said Samuel: He must crush it by hand, but not with a utensil. It was stated, R. Eleazar said: Both the one and the other are forbidden; while R. Johanan ruled: Both the one and the other are permitted. Abaye and Raba both say: The halachah is not as R. Johanan. R. Johanan [subsequently] adopted R. Eleazar's thesis, while R. Eleazar adopted Samuel's thesis. Abaye and Raba both said [then]: The halachah is as R. Johanan.
Abaye's mother4 prepared [it] for him, but he would not eat [it]. Ze'iri's wife prepared [some] for R. Hiyya b. Ashi, but he would not eat [it]. Said she to him, 'I prepared it for your teacher [Ze'iri] and he ate, whilst you do not eat!'
Raba b. Shaba said: I was standing before Rabina and I stirred [the mustard] for him with the smooth [inner] part of the garlic, and he ate it.
Mar Zutra said: The law is not as all these opinions. but as the following which was stated; If mustard is kneaded on the eve of the Sabbath, on the morrow one may crush [dissolve] it both by hand or with a utensil; he may pour honey in it, yet he must not beat it up but may mix them. If cress was chopped up on the eve of the Sabbath, on the morrow one may put oil and vinegar into it and add ammitha5 thereto; and he must not beat then, up but may mix them. If garlic was crushed on the eve of the Sabbath, on the morrow one may put beans and grits therein, yet he must not pound then,, but may mix them, and one may add ammitha to it. What is ammitha? - Ninya,6 Abaye observed: This proves that ninya is good for [seasoning] cress.
AND ENOMLIN MAY BE PREPARED ON THE SABBATH. Our Rabbis taught: Enomlin may be prepared on the Sabbath but aluntith may not be prepared on the Sabbath. What is enomlin and what is aluntith? - Enomlin is [a mixture of] wine, honey, and pepper. Aluntith is [a mixture of] old wine, clear water and balsam, which is prepared as a cooling [draught] in the baths.7 R. Joseph said: I Once entered the baths after Mar 'Ukba; on leaving I was offered a cup of [such] wine, and I experienced [a cooling sensation] from the hair of my head [right] down to my toe nails; and had I drunk another glass I would have been afraid lest it be deducted from my merits in the future world.8 But Mar 'Ukba drank it every day? Mar 'Ukba was different, because he was accustomed to it.
MISHNAH. HILTITH9 MUST NOT BE DISSOLVED IN WARM WATER,10 BUT IT MAY BE PUT INTO VINEGAR; AND ONE MUST NOT CAUSE LEEKS TO FLOAT,11 NOR RUB THEM;12 BUT THEY MAY BE PUT INTO A SIEVE13 OR A BASKET.14 STUBBLE MAY NOT BE SIFTED THROUGH A SIEVE, NOR PLACED ON AN EMINENCE, FOR THE CHAFF TO DROP DOWN; BUT ONE MAY TAKE IT UP IN A SIEVE AND PUT IT INTO THE MANGER.15
GEMARA. The scholars asked: What if one does dissolve [it]? R. Adda of Naresh16 maintained before R. Joseph: If one dissolves [it] he is liable to a sin-offering. Said Abaye to him: If so,if one soaks17 raw meat in water, is he too liable?18 Rather said Abaye: It is a Rabbinical [prohibition], that one should not act as he does during the week. R. Johanan asked R. Jannai: May hiltith be dissolved in cold water? It is forbidden. replied he. But we learnt: HILTITH MUST NOT BE DISSOLVED IN WARM WATER, implying that it is permitted in cold water? If so,19 what is the difference between you and me? Our Mishnah is [the opinion of] an individual. For it was taught: Hiltith may be dissolved neither in warm nor in cold water; R. Jose said: In warm water it is forbidden; in cold it is permitted.
What is it made for? [As a remedy] for asthma.20 R. Aha b.Joseph suffered with asthma. He went to Mar 'Ukba, [who] advised him, 'Go and drink three [gold denar] weights of hiltith on three days.' He went and drank it on Thursday and Friday. The following morning he went and asked [about it] in the Beth Hamidrash.21 Said they to him, The school of R. Adda-others state, the school of Mar son of R. Adda recited: One may drink a kab or two kabs without fear.22 About drinking, said he, I do not ask.23 My question is, What about dissolving it?24 R. Hiyya b. Abin observed to them: This case happened to me, and I went and consulted R. Adda b. Ahabah. but he could not inform me. [So] I went and asked R. Huna, and he answered me, Thus did Rab say: He may dissolve [it] in cold water and place it in the sun. Is this [only] according to him who permits [dissolving]? [No.] It is even according to him who forbids [it]: that is only if one had not drunk at all; but here, since he had drunk [it] on Thursday and Friday, if he would not drink it on the Sabbath he would be endangered.
R. Aha b. Joseph was walking along, leaning25 on the shoulder of R. Nahman b. Isaac, his sister's son. When we reach R. Safra's house, lead me in, he requested.26 When they arrived [there] he led him in. How about rubbing [the stiffness out of] linen [washing]?27 asked he; is his intention to soften the linen, and it is permitted, or perhaps his intention is to make it whiter,28 which is forbidden? - His intention is to soften it, replied he, and it is permitted. When he went out he [R. Nahman] enquired, What did you ask him? I asked him, What about rubbing linen on the Sabbath, replied he, and he answered me, It is permitted. But let the Master inquire about a scarf?29 I do not ask about a scarf, because I asked it of R. Huna and he decided it' for me. Then let the Master solve this from a scarf?- There it looks like making it whiter,30 but here it does not look like making it whiter.
R. Hisda said: As for linen,
(1) Sc. when the yolk is poured into a stew; but actually both the yolk and the white are fit for food, and therefore this is not an act of 'selecting' (v. Mishnah 73a).
(2) In water.
(3) He regards the latter as the usual way. and therefore it is forbidden on the Sabbath.
(4) v. p. 316, n. 3.
(5) A kind of cress or pepperwort (Lepidum sativum) Jast.
(6) Jast.: ammi, Bishop's weed. Rashi: mint.
(7) , Hence it partakes somewhat of the nature of a medicine, and therefore it is forbidden.
(8) A second glass would inevitably have killed me but for a miracle, which would be ultimately debited to my account.
(9) Jast. assa foetida, an umbelliferous plant used as a resin in leaves, for a spice and for medicinal purposes.
(10) To be drunk medicinally.
(11) I.e.. pour water over them to make the refuse float up so that it can be removed.
(12) By hand, likewise to remove the refuse.
(13) And the refuse may fall through.
(14) Probably an open-work basket is meant which may act somewhat as a sieve. Though sifting is forbidden, these are permitted, because even if the refuse does fall through it is only incidental.
(15) Though some chaff may fall through. this is unintentional, the Mishnah agreeing with R. Simeon that whatever is unintentional is permitted.
(16) V. p. 279. n. 11.
(17) The Hebrew is the same for dissolves and soaks.
(18) Surely not.
(19) That you do not accept me as a greater authority on the Mishnah than yourself.
(20) Lit., 'heaviness of heart'.
(21) To ask whether he might take it on Sabbath.
(22) Of transgression.
(23) Lit., 'it was not in his hand'.
(24) If the hiltith is dissolved before the Sabbath.
(25) Lit., 'Supporting himself.
(26) He was an old man.
(27) When it is starched. The rubbing softens it and makes it whiter.
(28) Lit., 'to beget whiteness'.
(29) Or, turban.
(30) One is more particular about a scarf.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 140b
to draw it away from the cane is permitted; to draw out the cane from it is forbidden.1 Raba said: But if it is a weaver's implement, it is permitted.2
R. Hisda said: A bunch of vegetables, if fit as food for animals, may be handled; if not, it is forbidden.
R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in Rab's name: A meat hook3 is permitted [to be handled]; a fish [hook] is forbidden.4
R. Kattina said: He who stands in the middle of a [marital] bed is as though he stood on a woman's stomach.5 But this is incorrect.
R. Hisda also said: When a scholar buys vegetables, let him buy long ones, for one bunch is like another [in thickness], and so the length [comes] of itself.6
R. Hisda also said: When a scholar buys canes,7 let him buy long ones; one load is like another, so the length [comes] of itself.
R. Hisda also said: When a scholar has but little bread, let him not eat vegetables, because it whets [the appetite]. R. Hisda also said: I ate vegetables neither when poor nor when rich.8 When poor, because it whets [the appetite]; when rich, because I say, Where the vegetables are to enter, let fish and meat enter!9
R. Hisda also said: If a scholar has but little bread he should not divide [his meal].10 R. Hisda also said: If a scholar has but little bread he should break [bread].11 What is the reason? Because he does not do it generously.12 R. Hisda also said: Formerly I would not break [bread] until I had passed my hand through the whole of my wallet and found there as much as I needed.
R. Hisda also said: When one can eat barley bread but eats wheaten bread he violates, thou shalt not destroy.13 R. Papa said: When one can drink beer but drinks wine, he violates, thou shalt not destroy.14 But this is incorrect: Thou shalt not destroy, as applied to one's own person, stands higher.15
R. Hisda also said: When a scholar has no oil, let him wash with pit water.16
R. Hisda also said: If a scholar buys raw meat he should buy the neck, because it contains three kinds of meat.
R. Hisda also said: When a scholar buys linen [underwear], he should buy it from the Nehar Abba17 and wash18 it every thirty days, and I guarantee that it will relieve him [from buying another] for a full year. What does kitonitha [underwear] mean? Kitta na'ah [fine flax].19
R. Hisda also said: A scholar should not sit upon a new mat, because it destroys the garments.20
R. Hisda also said: A scholar should not send his garments to his host21 for washing, for this is not in good taste, lest he see something22 and he come to despise him.
R. Hisda advised his daughters: Act modestly before your husbands: do not eat bread before your husbands,23 do not eat greens at night,24 do not eat dates at night nor drink beer at night,25 and do not ease yourselves where your husbands do,26 and when someone calls at the door, do not say 'who is he' but 'who is she?'27 He [R. Hisda] held a jewel in one hand and a [valueless] seed grain in the other; the pearl he showed them but the seed grain he did not show them until they were suffering,28 and then he showed it to them.29
ONE MUST NOT CAUSE LEEKS TO FLOAT. Our Mishnah30 does not agree with the following Tanna. For it was taught, R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: One must not look at the sieve at all.31
MISHNAH. ONE MAY SWEEP OUT [THE MANGER] FOR A STALL OX,32 AND MOVE [THE REMNANTS] ASIDE FOR THE SAKE OF A GRAZING ANIMAL:33 THIS IS R. DOSA'S VIEW, BUT THE SAGES FORBID IT. ONE MAY TAKE [FODDER] FROM ONE ANIMAL AND PLACE IT BEFORE ANOTHER ANIMAL ON THE SABBATH.34
GEMARA. The scholars asked: Do the Rabbis disagree with the first clause, or with the second, or with both?- Come and hear: For it was taught, But the Sages maintain: Both the one and the other35 must not be moved on a side.36
R. Hisda said: They differ in respect of a ground manger,37 but all agree that a manger which is a vessel38 is permitted. But is there any opinion that a ground manger is permitted: surely one levels the holes? - Rather if stated, it was thus stated: R. Hisda said: They differ in respect of a vessel manger, but all hold that a ground manger is forbidden.
ONE MAY TAKE [FODDER] FROM ONE ANIMAL [etc.]. One [Baraitha] taught: One may take [fodder] from before an animal that is fastidious and place [it] before an animal that is not fastidious; while another taught: One may take [fodder] from before an animal that is not fastidious and place [it] before an animal that is fastidious. Abaye observed: Both [Baraithas hold] that one may take from an ass [to put] before an ox, but not from an ox [and place it] before an ass. Now, when it is taught, 'One may take from before an animal that is fastidious', it refers to an ass, which does not drop saliva [into its food]; 'and place [it] before an animal that is not fastidious', to a cow,
(1) Linen was hung up on a cane passing through the sleeves to dry. A cane must not be handled on the Sabbath, being regarded as mukzeh, as it stands to be used as fuel.
(2) For it is then a utensil, which may be handled.
(3) Lit., 'a suspender of meat' - i.e., a hook. Tosaf. and Jast.
(4) The first was more like a utensil than the second.
(5) Because he is incited to impure thoughts.
(6) I.e., the additional length is extra value - presumably the price was not increased.
(7) For fuel.
(8) Or, I would eat vegetables neither when rich nor when poor.
(9) Which are more nutritious.
(10) Eat a little now and a little later, as at no time will he have enough.
(11) To distribute it among the guests at a meal.
(12) MS. M. deletes the two intervening passages.
(13) Deut. XX, 19. I.e., it is wasteful extravagance.
(14) Was his attitude influenced by the fact that he was a beer brewer?
(15) To consume better food and drink is beneficial, not wasteful.
(16) The scum thickens it into a semblance of oil.
(17) A canal in the Bagdad region; Obermeyer, p. 239.
(18) Lit., 'whiten'.
(19) Jast. Rashi: the upper class - its wearer is fit to be a member of the upper classes - a play on words, of course.
(20) Being hard, it injures the texture.
(21) The keeper of the boarding house where he stays.
(22) A euphemism for semen.
(23) You may eat too much.
(24) Because of their odour.
(25) Because of their laxative properties.
(26) Even in their absence.
(27) I.e., 'who is it' but in the feminine, not the masculine form.
(28) With curiosity, to know what he was holding.
(29) To prove the folly of curiosity (Jast. s.v. בזרא, which 'Aruch reads instead of כורא).
(30) Which continues, BUT THEY MAY BE PUT INTO A SIEVE.
(31) I.e., one must not handle it for any purpose on the Sabbath.
(32) If it contains chips, etc., they may render the straw repulsive and cause the animal to go off its feed.
(33) Which is ordinarily fed on pasture. - R. Han. and Jast. Rashi translates: one may move aside the straw, if there is much, lest the animal tread it into the dung.
(34) Because the second will eat it, and therefore it is not unnecessary handling.
(35) Sc. fodder in a manger and straw lying in front of an animal.
(36) Thus they disagree with both clauses.
(37) I.e., a small low fenced enclosure on the ground. The Rabbis forbid it lest one comes to level up holes in the ground.
(38) I.e., a real manger.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 141a
which drops saliva.1 And when it is taught, 'One may take [fodder] from before an animal that is not fastidious', it refers to an ass, which is not particular about what it eats;2 'and put [it] before an animal that is fastidious,' to a cow, which is particular about what it eats.3
MISHNAH. ONE MUST NOT MOVE STRAW [LYING] UPON A BED WITH HIS HAND, YET HE MAY MOVE IT WITH HIS BODY. BUT IF IT IS FODDER FOR ANIMALS, OR A PILLOW OR A SHEET WAS UPON IT BEFORE NIGHTFALL, HE MAY MOVE IT WITH HIS HAND.4 ONE MAY UNDO A HOUSEHOLDER'S CLOTHES PRESS,5 BUT NOT FORCE IT DOWN.6 BUT A LAUNDERER'S [PRESS] MAY NOT BE TOUCHED.7 R. JUDAH SAID: IF IT WAS UNDONE BEFORE THE SABBATH, ONE MAY UNFASTEN THE WHOLE AND REMOVE IT.
GEMARA. R. Nahman said: A radish, if it is the right way up, it is permitted; if it is reversed, it is forbidden.8 R. Adda b. Abba said, The scholars9 said, We learnt [a Mishnah] in disagreement with R. Nahman: ONE MUST NOT MOVE STRAW [LYING] UPON A BED WITH HIS HAND, YET HE MAY MOVE IT WITH HIS BODY. BUT IF IT IS FODDER FOR ANIMALS, OR A PILLOW ON A SHEET WAS UPON IT BEFORE NIGHTFALL, HE MAY MOVE IT WITH HIS HAND: this proves, indirect10 handling is not designated handling;11 this proves it.
Rab Judah12 said: To crush peppergrains one by one with a knife-handle is permitted; in twos, it is forbidden.13 Raba said: Since he does it in a different way,14 crushing even many [is permitted] too.
Rab Judah also said: If one bathes in water, he should first dry himself15 and then ascend, lest he come to carry16 four cubits in a karmelith.17 If so, when he enters18 too, his force propels the water four cubits,19 which is forbidden? - They did not prohibit one's force in a karmelith.
Abaye - others state, Rab Judah - said: One may scrape off the clay from his foot on to the ground, but not on to a wall. Said Raba, Why not on to a wall? because It looks like building?20 but it is ignorant building?21 Rather said Raba: He may scrape it off on to a wall but not on to the ground, lest he come to level holes. It was stated, Mar son of Rabina said: Both are forbidden; R. Papa said: Both are permitted. According to Mar son of Rabina, whereon shall he scrape it? He scrapes it on a plank.22
Raba said: A man should not sit on the top of a stake,23 lest an article roll away from him24 and he come to fetch it.
Raba also said: One must not bend sideways a cask [which is standing] on the ground,25 lest he come to level hollows.
Raba also said: One must not squeeze a cloth stopper into the mouth of a jug, lest he come to wring [it] out.
R. Kahana said: As for the clay [mire] on one's garment, he may rub off from the inside but not from the outside.26 An objection is raised: One may scrape off the clay from his shoes with the back of a knife, and that which is on one's garment he may scrape off with [even]27 his finger nail, providing that he does not rub it. Surely that means that he must not rub it at all? - No: he must not rub it from the outside but only from the inside.
R. Abbahu said in R. Eleazar's name in R. Jannai's name: A new shoe may be scraped, but not an old one.
(1) Hence the cow will eat after the ass.
(2) It eats fodder even when it contains thorns and thistles.
(3) Spurning thorns and thistles.
(4) V. supra 50a for notes.
(5) The two boards of the press fitted on to four perforated rods: the upper board was pressed down and pegs were inserted in the holes to keep it there. The press may be undone by withdrawing these pegs, because the clothes are required for the Sabbath.
(6) As the clothes will be wanted during the week, but not on the Sabbath.
(7) This was screwed down very tightly, and undoing it would resemble taking a utensil to pieces.
(8) V. supra 123a for notes.
(9) Be rab may mean either the academy founded by Rab, or scholars in general, v. Weiss, Dor, III, 158.
(10) Lit., 'from the side'.
(11) Cf. supra 43b, p 201, n. 1,
(12) Asheri in Bez. I, 21 reads: R. Huna.
(13) Because then it looks like grinding.
(14) From usual, which is in a mill or a mortar.
(15) I.e.,the part of his body that is not in the water.
(16) The water upon him.
(17) V. Glos.
(18) Lit., 'goes down'.
(19) His weight makes the water spurt that distance.
(20) Sc. the addition of clay to the wall.
(21) Lit., 'a field labourer'. I.e., surely none but the ignorant would think of building in such a manner.
(22) Lying on the ground.
(23) At the entrance to an alley. whereby carrying therein is permitted; v. p. 30, n. 2.
(24) 'Without the entrance, where it is public ground.
(25) Text as emended by Bah.
(26) In the latter case he looks as though he desires to wash the garment, though it is not actual washing.
(27) So Wilna Gaon.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 141b
With what does one scrape it? - Said R. Abbahu: With the back of a knife. A certain old man said to him, Delete your [teaching] on account of what R. Hiyya taught: One must not scrape either a new shoe or all old one, nor must he rub his foot with oil while it is in the shoe or sandal;1 but one may rub his foot with oil and place it in his shoe or sandal; he may also oil his whole body and roll himself on a leather spread without fear.2 R. Hisda said: They learnt this only [if his intention is] to polish it;3 but [if it is] to dress it,4 it is forbidden. 'To dress it'? surely that is obvious? Moreover, does any one permit it [if he desires] to polish it? - Rather if stated, It was thus stated: R. Hisda said: They learnt this only of a quantity [sufficient merely] to polish it; but [if] the quantity5 [is sufficient] to dress it, it is forbidden. Our Rabbis taught: A small[-footed] man must not go out with the shoe of a large[-footed] man,6 but he may go out with [too] large a shirt. A woman must not go out with a gaping shoe,7 nor may she perform halizah therewith; yet if she does perform halizah therewith, the halizah is valid. And one must not go out with a new shoe: of what shoe did they rule this? Of a woman's shoe.8 Bar Kappara taught: They learnt [this] only where she had not gone out therein one hour before nightfall;9 but if she went out therein on the eve of the Sabbath, it is permitted.
One [Baraitha] taught: A shoe may be removed from its last; while another taught: It may not be removed. There is no difficulty: one is [according to] R. Eliezer, the other [according to] the Rabbis. For we learnt: If a shoe is on the last, - R. Eliezer declares it clean, while the Sages declare it is unclean.10 This is well according to Raba, who maintained: It is permitted [to handle] an article whose function is for a forbidden purpose, whether it is required itself or for its place: then it is correct. But on Abaye's view that it may be [handled] for itself, but it is forbidden [to handle it] when its place is required,11 what can be said?12 - We treat here of one [a shoe] that is loose [on the last].13 For it was taught, R. Judah said: If it is loose. it is permitted [to remove it]. The reason [then why it is permitted] is because it is loose. But if it is not loose it is not [permitted]? This is well on Abaye's view that an article whose function is for a forbidden purpose may be [handled] when required for itself, but not when its place [only] is required: then it is correct. But according to Raba, who maintains, it is permitted [to handle it] both when required for itself or when its place is required, what can be said: [for] why particularly a loose [shoe], - even if not loose too it is thus? That14 represents R. Judah's view in R. Eliezer's name. For it was taught: R. Judah said in R. Eliezer's name: If it is loose, it is permitted.15
MISHNAH. A MAN MAY TAKE UP HIS SON WHILE HE HAS A STONE IN HIS HAND OR A BASKET WITH A STONE IN IT; AND UNCLEAN TERUMAH MAY BE HANDLED TOGETHER WITH CLEAN [TERUMAH] OR WITH HULLIN.16 R. JUDAH SAID: ONE MAY ALSO REMOVE17 THE ADMIXTURE [OF TERUMAH IN HULLIN] WHEN ONE [PART IS NEUTRALIZED] IN A HUNDRED [PARTS].18
GEMARA. Raba said: If one carries out19 a live child with a purse hanging around its neck, he is culpable on account of the purse; a dead child with a purse hanging around its neck, he is not culpable. 'A live child with a purse hanging around its neck, he is culpable on account of the purse. But let him be culpable on account of the child? - Raba agrees with R. Nathan, who maintained, A living [person] carries himself.20 But let the purse be counted as nought in relation to the child? Did we not learn, [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? - A bed is accounted as nought in relation to a living person,21 but a purse is not accounted as nought in relation to the child.
'A dead child with a purse hanging around its neck, he is not culpable.' But let him be culpable on account of the child? Raba agrees with R. Simeon, who maintained: One is not culpable on account of a labour unrequired per se.22
We learnt: A MAN MAY TAKE UP HIS SON WHILE HE HAS A STONE IN HIS HAND?'23 - The School of R. Jannai said: This refers to a child who pines for his father.24 If so,
(1) Because the oil incidentally softens the leather, which is forbidden.
(2) Of transgression.
(3) When he puts his oiled foot in the shoe or sandal his purpose is to polish the leather.
(4) To soften the leather or make it more pliable.
(5) Of oil rubbed on to the foot.
(6) Lest it fall off, and he come to carry it.
(7) Rashi. Jast.: 'a flappy (outworn) shoe' - either because she may be laughed at and so she will take it off' (Rashi), or it fall off, and she come to carry it.
(8) She is particular about the fit, and if it is not exact, she may remove and carry it. 'New' means never worn at all.
(9) Lit., 'while it was yet day Friday.'
(10) 'Clean' and 'unclean' mean not susceptible and susceptible to uncleanness respectively. R. Eliezer holds that as long as it is on the last it is not a completely finished article, whereas only such can become unclean. Since it is not a finished article, it may not be handled on the Sabbath. The view of the Rabbis is the reverse.
(11) V. notes supra 123b.
(12) For the function of the last is a forbidden one, and in removing the shoe one must necessarily handle the last, though he does not require the use of the last itself, and according to Abaye that is forbidden.
(13) So that the last is not handled at all.
(14) The Baraitha which makes a distinction between where it is loose or not
(15) Though R. Eliezer holds that as long as it is on the last it is not completely finished (v. supra) and therefore may not be handled, that is only if it is tightly fitted on it, so that there is some difficulty in removing it. But if it is loose and comes off easily he admits that it is finished; hence it ranks as an article, is susceptible to defilement, and may be handled on the Sabbath.
(16) Although the stone or the unclean terumah by itself may not be handled as mukzeh.
(17) Lit., 'take up'.
(18) If one part of terumah is accidentally mixed with a hundred parts of hullin it is neutralized and the mixture is permitted to non-priests. Nevertheless, since it does contain some terumah, though it cannot be distinguished from the rest, one part must be removed, and R. Judah permits this on the Sabbath.
(19) From a private into a public domain.
(20) V. supra 94a.
(21) Since the bed is required for him.
(22) V. supra 30a; carrying out a dead child comes under this category, supra 94b.
(23) This proves that the man is not regarded as himself holding the stone, which would be forbidden. Hence by analogy he does not carry out the purse suspended around the child's neck; why then is he culpable on its account?
(24) If he does not take him up he may sicken with pining, though it will not actually endanger him: hence since the father does not actually handle the stone himself he is permitted to take him up.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 142a
why particularly a stone? the same applies to a denar! Why did Raba say: They learnt only a stone, but a denar is forbidden? - In the case of a stone, if it falls down the father will not come to fetch it, [but] with a denar, if it falls down the father will come to fetch it. It was taught in accordance with Raba: If one carries out his garments folded up and lying on his shoulder, or his sandals or his rings in his hands, he is liable; but if he was wearing them, he is not culpable. If one carries out a person with his garments' upon him, with his sandals on his feet and his rings on his hands,1 he is not culpable. Hence if he carried them as they are2 he would be culpable.3 A BASKET WITH A STONE IN IT: yet why? let the basket be [regarded as] a stand for a forbidden article?4 - Said Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in R. Johanan's name: We treat here of a basket full of produce.5 Then let the produce be thrown out, and let the stone be thrown out, and then we can collect [the produce] by hand?6 - As R. Elai said [elsewhere] in Rab's name: The reference is to fruit which becomes soiled, so here too [we treat] of fruit which becomes soiled.7 Then let one shake it [the basket] about?8 - Said R. Hiyya b. Ashi in Raba's name: We treat here of a broken basket, so that the stone itself becomes a wall for the basket.9
[UNCLEAN] TERUMAH MAY BE HANDLED, etc. R. Hisda said: They learnt [this] only where the clean [terumah] is underneath and the unclean is on top; but if the clean [terumah] is on top and the unclean underneath, one must take the clean and leave the unclean.10 But if the clean is underneath too, let him throw off [the unclean] and take it? - Said R. Elai in Rab's name: We treat of fruit which becomes soiled. An objection is raised: One may handle unclean terumah together with clean terumah or with hullin, whether the clean is on top and the unclean is below, or the unclean is on top and the clean is underneath; this refutes R. Hisda? - R. Hisda answers you: Our Mishnah [means that] it is required for itself;11 the Baraitha is where its place is required.12 What compels R. Hisda to interpret our Mishnah as meaning that it is required for itself?13 - Said Raba, Our Mishnah, by deduction, supports him. For the second clause14 states: If money is lying on a cushion, one shakes the cushion, and it falls off. Whereon Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: They learnt this only if it [the cushion] is required for itself; but if its place is required, one removes it while it [the money] is upon it. And since the second clause means that it is required for itself, the first clause too means that it is required for itself.
R. JUDAH SAID: ONE MAY ALSO REMOVE, etc. Yet why? surely he makes it fit?15 - R. Judah agrees with R. Eliezer, who maintains: The terumah lies as a [separate] entity.16 For we learnt: If a se'ah of terumah falls into less than a hundred,17 and thus they become a [forbidden] mixture, and then some of the mixture falls elsewhere,18 R. Eliezer said: It creates a [forbidden] mixture as though it were certain terumah,19 but the Sages maintain: The mixture creates a [forbidden] mixture only in proportion.20 [But] say that you know him [to rule thus] with stringency; do you know him [to rule thus] with lenience?21 - Rather [reply thus]: He [R. Judah] rules as R. Simeon, as we learnt: If a se'ah of terumah falls into a hundred,22 and one has no time to remove [it] until another falls in, it is [all] forbidden;23 but R. Simeon permits it.24 Yet how [does this follow]? Perhaps there they differ in this: viz., the first Tanna holds: Though they fell in consecutively it is as though they fell in simultaneously, so that each falls into fifty; whereas R. Simeon holds: The first is neutralized in the hundred, and this one is neutralized in a hundred and one?25 - Rather [reply thus]: He [R. Judah] rules as R. Simeon b. Eleazar. For it was taught, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: One may cast his eyes at one side and eat from the other.26 Yet does he agree with him?
(1) I.e., the man is wearing them.
(2) If the person carried were holding, not wearing them.
(3) This is analogous to Raba's dictum, for a purse 'suspended from a child's neck is not in the position of being worn.
(4) V. p. 213, n. 4.
(5) 'So that the basket serves as a stand for a permitted thing.
(6) And replace it in the basket. Why did they permit to carry the stone?
(7) If thrown on the ground, e.g., figs and grapes.
(8) Until the stone lies at a side, when it can be thrown out without affecting the produce.
(9) By filling up the gap.
(10) And there is no reason for handling the unclean.
(11) I.e., he wishes to eat the terumah. Therefore if the clean terumah is on top he can simply take it and leave the rest.
(12) He needs the place where the utensil containing it is standing: therefore he must remove them - Sc. the clean and the unclean - together, whatever their position.
(13) So that he has to explain the Mishnah as referring to when the unclean terumah is on top.
(14) Sc. the Mishnah infra b.
(15) For use. This should be preventively forbidden out of consideration for that which is made fit by means of labour.
(16) Since one part is to be removed, it is as though the terumah therein lay separate and distinct, and therefore the whole mixture is fit for use in any case.
(17) Se'ahs of hullin.
(18) I.e., into another pile of produce.
(19) Sc. as though it were all terumah and therefore it can only be neutralized by a hundred times its quantity. Thus he regards the terumah as distinct.
(20) E.g., if a se'ah of terumah falls into nine se'ahs of hullin in the first place, and then a se'ah of the mixture falls into another heap of produce, this second se'ah is regarded as containing one tenth of a se'ah of terumah only, and if the second pile contains ten se'ahs it neutralizes it.
(21) As in our Mishnah, where this view would result in greater lenience.
(22) Hence it is neutralized, but that one se'ah of the whole must be removed.
(23) Since here are now two se'ahs of terumah in one hundred of hullin.
(24) It is now assumed that his reason is because he regards the first se'ah as lying distinct and apart, and therefore the second se'ah alone is counted, and that too is neutralized.
(25) Hence on the contrary, instead of regarding the terumah as a thing apart, he maintains that it becomes entirely one with the hullin.
(26) I.e., he may decide to remove a se'ah from one side of the pile and then, without actually removing it, eat from the other. Thus the removing is not essential.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 142b
surely he disagrees? For it was taught, R. Judah said: One removes the admixture [of terumah in hullin] when one part [is neutralized] in a hundred and one parts;1 R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: One casts his eyes at one side and eats from the other?2 - R. Judah's [ruling] goes beyond R. Simeon b. Eleazar's.3
MISHNAH. IF A STONE IS ON THE MOUTH OF A CASK [OF WINE], ONE TILTS IT ON A SIDE AND IT FALLS OFF.4 IF IT [THE CASK] IS [STANDING] AMONG [OTHER] CASKS,5 HE LIFTS IT OUT, TILTS IT ON A SIDE, AND IT FALLS OFF. IF MONEY IS LYING ON A CUSHION, ONE SHAKES THE CUSHION, AND IT FALLS OFF. IF DIRT6 IS UPON IT, ONE WIPES IT OFF WITH A RAG;7 IF IT IS OF LEATHER,8 WATER IS POURED OVER IT UNTIL IT DISAPPEARS.
GEMARA. R. Huna said in Rab's name: They learnt this only where one forgot [it there], but if he placed [it there]. it [the cask] becomes a stand for a forbidden article.
IF IT IS [STANDING] AMONG [OTHER] CASKS, etc. Which Tanna holds that wherever there is something permitted and something forbidden, one must occupy oneself with what is permitted, not with what is forbidden?9 - Said Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in R. Johanan's name, It is R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. For we learnt: If one selects beans on a festival, Beth Shammai maintain: He must select the edible [beans] and eat them;10 whereas Beth Hillel rule: He may select in the usual way11 into his lap or into a plate. Now it was taught, R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: When was this said? When the edible exceeds the non-edible;12 but if the non-edible exceeds the edible, all agree that he must select the edible. But here it is analogous to where the edible exceeds the non-edible?13 -Since he cannot take [the whole of] the wine, should he desire it, unless he lifts it up, it is analogous to where the non-edible exceeds the edible.14 IF IT IS [STANDING] AMONG THE CASKS, HE LIFTS IT OUT. It was taught, R. Jose said: If the cask is lying among a store [of casks], or if glassware is lying under it, he lifts it out elsewhere, tilts it on a side, so that it falls off, takes thereof what he requires, and replaces it.
IF MONEY IS LYING ON A CUSHION: R. Hiyya b. Ashi said: They learnt this only where one forgot [it there]; but if he placed [it there],15 it [the cushion] became a stand for a forbidden article. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said: They learnt this only when it is required for itself; but if its place is required, one may remove it [the cushion] while they [the coins] are yet upon it. And thus did Hiyya b. Rab of Difti16 recite: They learnt this only when it is required for itself; but if its place is required, one may move it while they are yet upon it.
IF MONEY IS LYING ON A CUSHION, ONE SHAKES, etc. R. Oshaia said: If one forgets a purse in a courtyard, he places a loaf or a child thereon and moves it. R. Isaac said: If one forgets a brick in a courtyard, he places a loaf or a child thereon and moves it. R. Judah b. Shila said in R. Assi's name: They once forgot a saddlebag full of money in the street, and went and consulted R. Johanan and he told them, Place a loaf or a child thereon and move it.17 Mar Zutra said: The law is as all these rulings, where one forgets. R. Ashi said: Even if one forgets, this is still not [permitted], and they permitted [the expedient of] a loaf or a child only in connection with a corpse.18
Abaye placed a ladle on a pile of sheaves;19 Raba placed a knife on a young dove20 and handled it. Said R. Joseph: How keen are the rulings of children!21 assume that the Rabbis ruled thus when one forgets: but was it said [that it is permitted] at the very outset? Abaye retorted: But that I am a person of importance,22 would I need a ladle on sheaves: surely they are fit for reclining thereon.23 Raba retorted: But that I am a person of importance, would I need a knife on a young dove? surely it is fit for me as raw meat.24 Thus the reason is because it is fit as raw meat; but if it were not fit as raw meat it might not [be handled]:25 shall we say that Raba agrees with R. Judah?26 But surely Raba said to his servant, Roast me a duck27 and throw its entrails to a cat?28
(1) One hundred and one is stated inclusively.
(2) Thus R. Judah insists on actual removal.
(3) He agrees with R. Simeon b. Eleazar but adds that since mere intention suffices to make the mixture fit, one can also remove the se'ah on the Sabbath.
(4) When he wishes to draw the contents.
(5) And the falling stone might cause damage.
(6) E.g., secretion, spittle, etc.
(7) But not with water, which is forbidden as washing.
(8) Which is not such as is washed with water.
(9) As here: one must not handle the stone, a forbidden article, but the whole cask, which is a permitted object, even though the stone lies upon it.
(10) Leaving the non-edible beans in the bowl.
(11) I.e., he can remove the non-edible beans, if he wishes.
(12) Then Beth Hillel permit the latter to be picked out, because it is less trouble.
(13) For there is more trouble in lifting out the whole cask than in simply removing the stone.
(14) Eventually he must lift out the cask and tilt it in order to obtain the wine at the very bottom; hence there is no more trouble in lifting it out now.
(15) Before the Sabbath.
(16) V. p. 35, n. 5.
(17) Less than four cubits at a time, since carrying in a street is forbidden; or, within a barrier formed by a chain of persons, v. 'Er. 43b.
(18) V. supra 30b.
(19) To handle the latter in virtue of the former.
(20) Killed, raw and unsalted.
(21) Said sarcastically.
(22) Who sets an example.
(23) Hence I may hand]e them in any case, and I place the ladle there merely because I do not wish to encourage laxity of observance.
(24) Which used to be eaten in his days.
(25) Though it would still be fit for dogs; thus fitness for dogs does not permit handling by humans.
(26) Who holds the view expressed in the preceding note; v. Bez. 6b.
(27) It was a festival.
(28) Thus he permitted him to handle it, though unfit for human beings just then, entrails not being eaten on Festivals: nevertheless on the previous day, before the festival commenced, they would have been fit for human beings too.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 143a
There, since they would putrefy,1 his mind was [set] upon them from the previous day.2 Logic too indicates that Raba agrees with R. Judah. For Raba lectured: A woman must not enter a wood-shed to take thence a wood poker;3 and if a wood poker is broken [on a Festival], it may not be used as fuel on the Festival, because we may heat with utensils but not with fragments of utensils. This proves it.4
MISHNAH. BETH SHAMMAI SAY: ONE MAY REMOVE BONES AND [NUT]SHELLS FROM THE TABLE;5 BUT BETH HILLEL RULE: ONE MUST TAKE AWAY THE WHOLE BOARD AND SHAKE IT.6 ONE MAY REMOVE FROM THE TABLE CRUMBS LESS THAN THE SIZE OF AN OLIVE AND THE PANICLES OF BEANS AND LENTILS, BECAUSE THEY ARE FOOD FOR ANIMALS. AS FOR A SPONGE, IF IT HAS A LEATHERN HANDLE, ONE MAY WIPE [THE BOARD] WITH IT; IF NOT, ONE MAY NOT WIPE [THE BOARD] WITH IT.7 [THE SAGES MAINTAIN]:8 IN EITHER CASE IT MAY BE HANDLED ON THE SABBATH9 AND IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO DEFILEMENT.10
GEMARA. R. Nahman said: As for us, we have no other [view] but that Beth Shammai agrees with R. Judah, and Beth Hillel with R. Simeon.11
ONE MAY REMOVE CRUMBS FROM THE TABLE.This supports R. Johanan. For R. Johanan said: Crumbs less than an olive in size may not be wantonly12 destroyed.13
PANICLES OF BEANS. Who is the authority? [Apparently] R. Simeon, who rejects [the interdict of] mukzeh?14 Then consider the final clause: AS FOR A SPONGE, IF IT HAS A LEATHERN HANDLE, ONE MAY WIPE [THE BOARD] WITH IT; IF NOT, ONE MAY NOT WIPE WITH IT: this agrees with R. Judah, who maintains, That which is unintentional is forbidden?15 - Here even R. Simeon agrees, for Abaye and Raba both maintained: R. Simeon admits in a case of 'cut off his head but let him not die.'16
The kernels of Syrian dates17 may be handled, since they are fit [for cattle] on account of their parent source,18 but those of Persian [dates] are forbidden.19 Samuel handled them in virtue of [a piece of] bread.20 (Mnemonic: SHarnas SHapaz.)21 Samuel is consistent with his view, for Samuel said: One may carry out all his requirements with bread.22 Rabbah handled them in virtue of a bowl [flask] of water. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua made them as a pot of excrements.23 Said R. Ashi to Amemar: But may we make a pot of excrements at the outset?24 R. Shesheth threw them away [spat them out] with his tongue. R. Papa threw them behind the couch.25 It was said of R. Zechariah b. Eucolos that he would turn his face to the back of the couch and throw them away. [
(1) If left until the evening after the Festival.
(2) Intending them for cats, and therefore they are mukan (q.v. Glos.).
(3) For wood in a shed is generally meant for fuel, not to be used as a utensil,
(4) That Raba accepts the interdict of mukzeh, in accordance with R. Judah.
(5) By hand, though they are not even fit for a dog - dry and hard bones are referred to for Beth Shammai do not accept the interdict of mukzeh.
(6) But the bones and nutshells may not be handled, Beth Hillel accepting the interdict of mukzeh.
(7) For fear of wringing out the absorbed moisture.
(8) This is omitted in some versions.
(9) When dry.
(10) Being neither a wooden utensil, a garment, a sack, nor metal, and only these can become unclean.
(11) R. Judah accepts the interdict of mukzeh; R. Simeon does not. Hence the views ascribed to Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel respectively in our Mishnah must be reversed.
(12) Lit., 'by hand'.
(13) Rashi: since the Mishnah states, ONE MAY REMOVE, implying that they are removed by hand, and must not be thrown away. Tosaf. rejects this deduction: moreover, it appears from Ber. 52b that 'may be destroyed' is the correct reading. Accordingly, Tosaf. reads there: ...may be wantonly destroyed, the deduction being from the statement, BECAUSE THEY ARE FOOD FOR ANIMALS, which may be destroyed.
(14) For on Judah's view it is mukzeh, since it was together with the edible portion before the Sabbath when it was not mukan for animals.
(15) The unintentional act is that in holding it water is wrung out.
(16) V. p. 357, n. 8.
(17) These were of an inferior quality and only fit for cattle.
(18) Lit., 'their mother'. Sc. the date itself, v. n. 8, the case here being the reverse.
(19) Because the dates themselves were fit for human beings.
(20) Similar to the cases given supra 142b.
(21) V. p. 149, n. 6. SH=SHemuel (Samuel). R=Rabbah; N=R. Huna; S=R. AShi, SH=SHesheth, P=R. Papa; Z=R. Zechariah.
(22) Supra 50b.
(23) He collected all the kernels in front of him; the quantity made them repulsive and he could treat them as a pot of excrements, which may be removed.
(24) Surely not. Thus he disagrees with R. Huna.
(25) Upon which he reclined while eating.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 143b
MISHNAH. IF A CASK [OF WINE] IS BROKEN,1 ONE MAY SAVE THEREOF THE REQUIREMENTS2 FOR THREE MEALS, AND HE [THE OWNER] CAN SAY TO OTHERS, 'COME AND SAVE FOR YOURSELVES', PROVIDED THAT HE DOES NOT SPONGE IT UP.3 FRUIT MAY NOT BE SQUEEZED IN ORDER TO EXPRESS THEIR JUICES:4 IF THEY EXUDE OF THEIR OWN ACCORD THEY ARE PROHIBITED. R. JUDAH SAID: IF [THEY STAND] AS EATABLES,5 THAT WHICH EXUDES FROM THEM IS PERMITTED; BUT IF FOR LIQUIDS,6 THAT WHICH EXUDES FROM THEM IS PROHIBITED. IF HONEYCOMBS ARE CRUSHED ON THE EVE OF THE SABBATH AND IT [THE HONEY] EXUDES SPONTANEOUSLY, IT IS FORBIDDEN; BUT R. ELEAZAR7 PERMITS IT.
GEMARA. A Tanna taught: One must not sponge up wine nor dab up oil,8 so that he should not act as he does during the week.
Our Rabbis taught: If one's produce is scattered in his courtyard, he may collect a little at a time and eat it,9 but not into a basket or a tub, so that he should not act as he does during the week. FRUIT MAY NOT BE SQUEEZED, [etc.]. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: R. Judah agreed with the Sages in respect to olives and grapes. What is the reason? Since they are [normally] for expressing, he puts his mind to them.10 But 'Ulla said in Rab's name: R. Judah disagreed in respect of olives and grapes too. While R. Johanan said: The halachah is as R. Judah in the case of other produce, but the halachah is not as R. Judah in the case of olives and grapes. Rabbah said in Rab Judah's name in Samuel's name: R. Judah agreed with the Sages in respect of olives and grapes, while the Sages agreed with R. Judah in respect of other produce. Said R. Jeremiah to R. Abba: Then wherein do they differ? When you find it [I will tell you,] he replied.11 R. Nahman b. Isaac said: It is reasonable that they differ in the case of mulberries and pomegranates.12 For it was taught: If one draws off oil from olives, or wine from grapes,13 and [then] carries them in,14 whether as eatables or for their liquids, that which exudes from them is forbidden. If one draws fluid out of mulberries or juice15 out of pomegranates, and [then] carries them in, as eatables, that which exudes from them is permitted; [if he carries them in] for their liquid or without specifying [their purpose], that which exudes from them is forbidden: the words of R. Judah. But the Sages maintain: Whether for eating or for drinking, that which exudes from them is forbidden.
Now, does R. Judah hold that if it [the purpose] is unspecified, it [the exuding liquid] is forbidden? But surely we learnt: A woman's milk defiles,16 [whether it flows] with or without [the woman's] desire; a cow's milk defiles only [when it flows] with [its owner's] desire.17 Said R. Akiba, It [the reverse] follows a minori: if woman's milk, which is set apart for infants only, defiles [whether it flows] with or without [her] desire, then cow's milk, which is set apart for both infants and adults, surely defiles [whether it flows] with or without [the owner's] desire.18 [Said they to him]: If a woman's milk is unclean19 without [her] desire, that may be because the blood of her wound is unclean;20 shall cow's milk be unclean
(1) On the Sabbath.
(2) Lit., 'food'.
(3) I.e., he must not absorb the spilt wine in a sponge, lest he wring it out (into a vessel), which is forbidden.
(4) This is forbidden under threshing, v. supra 73a.
(5) E.g., dates which are intended for eating.
(6) E.g., dates intended for honey.
(7) This is the reading supra 19b, R. Eleazar b. Shammua' being the Tanna that is meant - Rashi ibid; v. Bah. Cur. edd. R. Eliezer.
(8) With his hands, which he then wipes on the edge of a vessel so that the oil runs unto it.
(9) This implies that he may collect only what he intends eating there and then. Tosaf. however, favours the deletion of 'and eat it'.
(10) If they exude their liquid he does not mind, or is even pleased.
(11) Probably: if you think carefully about it you will find the answer yourself.
(12) Which were not usually pressed for juice.
(13) Ri. (v. Tosaf. a.l.) Rashi translates; if oil oozes out of olives, etc. - of its own accord.
(14) To the house for storing. 'Then' is added on the Ri's explanation. Rashi: he had (previously) carried in.
(15) Lit., 'wine'.
(16) I.e., if it falls on a food-stuff it makes it liable to defilement, cf. p. 45, n. 1, likewise, it is defiled itself if it comes into contact with a dead sherez (q.v. Glos.)- Rashi, Maim. and Asheri in Maksh. VI, 8.
(17) Cf. p. 45, n. 1.
(18) For the power of rendering food susceptible to uncleanness depends upon whether the fluid is regarded as a liquid or not. Hence since cows milk is more widely used as a liquid than woman's milk, its power in this respect cannot be less than that of the latter.
(19) In the same sense as in p. 727, n. 7.
(20) Likewise in the same sense; Nid. 55b.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 144a
without [the owner's] desire, though the blood of its wound is clean? I am more stringent in the case of milk than in the case of blood, replied he, because if one milks1 as a remedy2 it [the milk] is unclean, whereas if one lets blood as a remedy it is clean. Said they to him: Let baskets of olives and grapes prove it, for the liquid that exudes from them with [their owner's] desire is unclean; without [their owner's] desire, is clean. Now does not 'with desire' mean that he [the owner] is pleased therewith;3 whilst 'without [his] desire' means that it [the purpose] is unspecified?4 Now if olives and grapes, which stand to be pressed, yet where [the juice exudes] without desire it is nothing: how much more so mulberries and pomegranates, which do not stand to be pressed?5 - No: 'with desire' means that it is unexpressed, whilst 'without desire means that he [the owner] revealed his mind, saying, 'It does not please me An alternative answer is: baskets of olives and grapes are different, [for] since it stands to be wasted,6 he [the owner] indeed renounces it beforehand.7 We have [thus] found that R. Judah agrees with the Rabbis in the case of olives and grapes. How do we know that the Rabbis agree with R. Judah in the case of other fruits?8 Because it was taught: One may express
(1) A cow, or if one draws off a woman's milk.
(2) Not because the milk is required, but because its presence in the animal or woman may be injurious to them.
(3) I.e., from his explicit statements we understand that he is pleased therewith. - It may be observed that where fruit is kept for its juice, its exuding is regarded as in conformity with the owner's desire, whether he actually wanted it just then or not.
(4) In which case it is clean, because it is not regarded as a liquid. This must at least represent the view of R. Judah, whose range of liquids is more restricted than that of the Rabbis.
(5) And since according to R. Judah it is not a liquid in respect of defilement, when it exudes on the Sabbath it should be permitted. This is the point of the difficulty.
(6) Sc. the liquid that exudes. Thus 'baskets' is intentionally stated here, for the juice runs out through the holes.
(7) Hence it certainly does not exude with his desire. But if the fruit is in other
(8) Excluding mulberries and pomegranates.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 144b
plums, quinces and sorb-apples,1 but not pomegranates, and [indeed] the household of Menasia b. Menahem used to express pomegranates.2 And how do you know that this is the [ruling of] the Rabbis: perhaps it is R. Judah['s view]?- Even granted that it is R. Judah['s]: when have you heard R. Judah [to permit the juice], when it exudes of itself: have you heard him [to rule that] we may express it at the very outset?3 But what you must answer is since they are not intended for pressing, [it is permitted] even at the outset; consequently even if it is assumed to be the ruling of the Rabbis, since they are not intended for pressing [it is permitted] at the very outset. Hence it follows that this [agrees with] the Rabbis [too].4 This proves it.
'The household of Menasia b. Menahem used to express pomegranates.' R. Nahman said: The halachah is in accordance with the household of Menasia b. Menahem. Said Raba to R. Nahman: Was then Menasia b. Menahem a Tanna?5 And should you say [that you mean], The halachah is as this Tanna6 because he agrees with the [practice of] Menasia b. Menahem: just because he agrees with Menasia b. Menahem, the halachah is as he! Does Menasia b. Menahem represent the majority of people?7 Yes. For we learnt: If one maintains thorns in a vineyard, - R. Eleazar said: They are forbidden;8 but the Sages maintained: Only that the like of which is [normally] kept9 creates an interdict. Now R.
utensils which conserve the liquid, it is regarded as exuding with his desire even where he said nothing. Hanina said: What is R. Eleazar's reason? Because in Arabia the thorns of fields are kept for the camels.10 How compare! Arabia is a [whole] region, but here his practice11 counts as nought in relation to that of all [other] people! - Rather this is the reason,12 as R. Hisda. For R. Hisda said: If beets are expressed and [the juice] poured into a mikweh,13 it renders the mikweh unfit on account of changed appearance.14 But these are not normally expressed?15 What you must then answer is that since he assigned value thereto,16 it ranks as liquid;17 so here too, since one assigns a value thereto, it ranks as a liquid.18 R. Papa said: The reason is that it is something wherewith a mikweh may not be made in the first place, and everything wherewith a mikweh may not be made in the first place renders a mikweh unfit through changed appearance.19 We learnt elsewhere: If wine, vinegar, or secretion [of olives]20 falls therein [a mikweh] and changes its appearance, it is unfit.21 Which Tanna holds that secretion [of olives] is a liquid?22 - Said Abaye, It is R. Jacob. For it was taught, R. Jacob said: The secretion is as a liquid, and why did they [the Sages] rule, The secretion which exudes at the beginning23 is clean?24 Because one does not desire to keep it. R. Simeon said: Secretion is not as a liquid, and why did they rule, The secretion that exudes from the bale made up for the press25 is unclean? Because it cannot but contain particles of diluted oil. Wherein do they differ?26 They differ in respect to what oozes after [the olives have been subject to their own] pressure. Raba said: The reason is because it is something whereof a mikweh may not be made, and such renders a mikweh unfit through change of colour.27 Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: One may squeeze out a cluster of grapes into a pot,28 but not into a plate.29 R. Hisda observed: From our master's words we may learn [that] one may milk a goat into a pot [of food], but not into a plate. This proves that he holds: a liquid that unites with30 a [solid] foodstuff is [accounted] a foodstuff. Rami b. Hama objected: If a zab milks a goat, the milk is unclean.31 But if you say, A liquid that unites with a [solid] foodstuff is a foodstuff, whereby did it become susceptible?32 - As R. Johanan said [elsewhere], By the drop [of milk] smeared on the nipple: so here too by the drop smeared on the nipple.33 Rabina objected: If a person unclean through a corpse squeezes out olives or grapes
(1) Because their juice is not normally expressed, and therefore that is not akin to threshing, which is the reason of the prohibition in the case of other fruits.
(2) On weekdays, which shows that pomegranates are intended for this.
(3) Surely not.
(4) For the same logic holds good on their view too.
(5) Of course not. The practice of this household is merely quoted, but he himself could give no ruling.
(6) Who forbids with pomegranates.
(7) That the halachah should be decided by his practice.
(8) Lit., 'sanctified'. Viz., the grapes, on account of the mixture of plants; Deut. XXII, 9.
(9) I.e., a plant which is wanted and valuable, which excludes thorns.
(10) Thus Arabian practice decides the law, and the same is true here.
(11) Lit., 'mind'.
(12) For R. Nahman's ruling that one may not press pomegranate..
(13) V. Glos.
(14) The water is stained red and no longer looks like water.
(15) Hence their juice should be of no account.
(16) Sc. the juices.
(17) Which can invalidate a mikweh.
(18) Viz.,the juice of pomegranates. Rashi: R. Nahman accordingly explains the Baraitha thus: - One may squeeze plums, etc., not for their juice, since this would automatically give the juice a value of its own as a liquid, which in turn prohibits squeezing, but in order to improve the taste of the fruit. But not pomegranates. even to improve the fruit, for since some, as the house of Menasia b. Menahem, squeeze it for the sake of the juice, should you permit the former the latter too may be done. This does not apply to plums etc. which no-one squeezes for the sake of their juice.
(19) Yet no value is assigned thereto and the juice is not a liquid.
(20) A fluid given off by olives before the actual oil is expressed. It is in fact a kind of diluted oil.
(21) V. Mik. VII, 4.
(22) To invalidate a mikweh.
(23) When the olives are first loaded in the press, but before they are actually pressed.
(24) It does not render food insusceptible to defilement; v. p. 45, n. 1.
(25) Jast.: a bale of loose texture containing the olive pulp to be pressed. This fluid denotes a further stage than the previous.
(26) Since both admit that the first fluid is clean, while that which oozes from the olive pulp is unclean, in respect of what do they disagree?
(27) That is why the serial fluid makes the mikweh unfit; accordingly that ruling agrees with all.
(28) Of food, for obviously the juice will not be drunk separately but is meant to season the food; as such it remains a food, i.e., a solid, itself.
(29) As it may then be drunk separately,notwithstanding that one does not generally drink from a plate.
(30) Lit., comes into'.
(31) A zab defiles everything through hesset (v. p. 395, n. 1); here too he exercises hesset on the milk.
(32) To defilement, for no foodstuff can be unclean unless a liquid has previously fallen upon it (v. p. 45, n. 1). - The law is stated generally- which implies that it is so even if he milks it into a pot of food.
(33) The milker smears the first drop around the nipple, to facilitate the flow. This drop of course counts as a liquid, and all the subsequent milk is touched thereby.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 145a
exactly as much as an egg [in quantity] it is clean.1 Hence if more than an egg [in quantity] it [the juice] is unclean; but if you say, A liquid that unites with a [solid] foodstuff is a foodstuff, whereby did it become susceptible? He raised the objection and he himself answered it: It refers to squeezing out into a plate.
R. Jeremiah said, This is dependent on Tannaim: If one smooths [the surface of dough] with grapes [grape juice], it does not become susceptible [to defilement];2 R. Judah maintained: It is made susceptible, Do they not differ in this: one Master holds, A liquid that unites with a [solid] foodstuff is a foodstuff, while the other Master holds that it is not a foodstuff? - Said R. Papa. All hold, A liquid that unites with a foodstuff is not a foodstuff,3 but here they differ in respect of a liquid that will eventually be destroyed:4 one Master holds, It is [accounted] a liquid; while the other Master holds, It is not a liquid. And [they differ] in the [same] controversy as that of these Tannaim. For it was taught: If one splits olives5 with unclean hands, they are rendered susceptible;6 if in order to salt them,7 they are not rendered susceptible; if in order to know whether the olives are ripe8 for gathering9 or not, they do not become susceptible; R. Judah said: They do become susceptible. Now, surely they differ in this, viz., one Master holds: A liquid that stands to be destroyed10 is [accounted] a liquid, while the other Master holds that it is not a liquid!11 -Said R. Huna the son of R. Joshua: These [latter] Tannaim [indeed] differ in respect of a liquid that stands to be destroyed, while the former Tannaim12 differ in respect of liquid whose purpose is to polish [the dough].13 R. Zera said in R. Hiyya b. Ashi's name in Rab's name: A man may squeeze a bunch of grapes into a pot [of food], but not into a plate; but [one may squeeze] a fish for its brine even into a plate.14 Now, R. Dimi sat and stated this ruling. Said Abaye to R. Dimi, You recite it in Rab's name, hence it presents no difficulty to you; [but] we recite it in Samuel's name, so it presents a difficulty to us. Did Samuel say, '[One may squeeze] a fish for its brine even into a plate'? Surely it was stated: If one presses out [pickled] preserves,15 - Rab said: If for their own sake,16 it is permitted; if for their fluid,17 he is not culpable, nevertheless it is forbidden. But with boiled preserves, whether for their own sake or for their fluid, it is permitted. While Samuel ruled: Both with [pickled] preserves and boiled preserves, if for their own sake, it is permitted; if for their fluid, he is not culpable, yet it is forbidden!18 - By God! replied he, 'Mine eyes have beheld, and not a stranger':19 I heard it from R. Jeremiah's mouth, and R. Jeremiah from R. Zera, and R. Zera from R. Hiyya b. Ashi, and R. Hiyya b. Ashi from Rab.
To turn to [the main] text: 'If one presses out [pickled] preserves, - Rab said: If for their own sake, it is permitted; if for their fluid, he is not culpable, nevertheless it is forbidden. But with boiled preserves, whether for their own sake or for their fluid, it is permitted. While Samuel ruled: Both with [pickled] preserves and boiled preserves, if for their own sake, it is permitted; if for their fluid, he is not culpable, yet it is forbidden. R. Johanan said: Both with [pickled] and boiled preserves, if for their own sake, it is permitted; if for their fluid, he is liable to a sin-offering'. An objection is raised: One may squeeze [pickled] preserves on the Sabbath for the requirements of the Sabbath, but not against the termination of the Sabbath; but one must not express olives and grapes, and if he does, he is liable to a sin-offering: this is a difficulty according to Rab, Samuel, and R. Johanan? - Rab reconciles it with his view, Samuel with his, and R. Johanan with his. 'Rab reconciles it with his view': One may squeeze [pickled] preserves on the Sabbath for the requirements of the Sabbath, but not against the termination of the Sabbath. When is this said? when it is [done] for their own sake; but if for their fluid, he is not culpable, yet it is forbidden; while [as for] boiled preserves, whether [done] for their own sake or for their fluid, it is permitted. But one must not express olives and grapes, and if he does he is liable to a sin-offering. 'Samuel explains it according to his view': One may squeeze [pickled] preserves on the Sabbath for the requirements of the Sabbath, [and] the same applies to boiled preserves. When is this said? When it is for their own sakes; but if for their fluid, he is not culpable, yet it is forbidden. And one must not express olives and grapes, and if he does, he is liable to a sin-offering. 'R. Johanan explains it according to his view': One may squeeze [pickled] preserves for the requirements of the Sabbath, but not against the termination of the Sabbath. This applies to both [pickled] and boiled preserves. When is that said? When it is for their own sake; but he must not squeeze them for their fluid, and if he does, it is as though he squeezed olives and grapes, and he is liable to a sin-offering. R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in Rab's name: By the words of the Torah20 one is culpable for the treading out of olives and grapes alone. And the School of Menasseh taught likewise: By the words of the Torah one is culpable for the treading out of olives and grapes alone. And a witness [attesting] what he heard from21 another witness is valid
(1) This person defiles food, and in turn the food, if not less than the size of an egg in quantity, defiles liquids. Here the man does not touch the expressed juice. Now from the very first drop that issues the residue is less than the necessary minimum, and therefore it cannot defile the liquid that follows. V. Toh. III, 3; v. Pes., Sonc. ed., p. 153, n. 2.
(2) Presumably the flour was kneaded with eggs, which do not render it susceptible, and the first Tanna teaches that the grape juice does not do so either.
(3) So cur, edd., which Rashi and Tosaf. support. Wilna Gaon states that the reading of the Geonim, as well as that of Alfasi, is: is a foodstuff.
(4) For the heat of the oven will dry it up.
(5) Rashi: to soften them.
(6) To defilement through the liquid that oozes out because he is pleased with it, since the olives are softened thereby, v. p. 45, nn. 1,4.
(7) When very hard they cannot take salt, and therefore he desires to soften them slightly, but not so much that the juice oozes out; hence he is not pleased therewith.
(8) Lit., 'have arrived'.
(9) Whether they are soft enough for the oil to be easily expressed.
(10) The liquid which oozes out of course is lost.
(11) And similarly do the Tannaim of the former Baraitha differ on the same question.
(12) Who discuss the smoothing of dough.
(13) But the question of waste does not enter here, because this liquid serves a definite purpose. giving the dough a brighter colour.
(14) Because it is a foodstuff, not a drink, and the squeezing merely separate. its composite parts, viz., the brine from the flesh.
(15) I.e., raw vegetables, preserved or pickled in wine or vinegar.
(16) I.e., he wishes to eat them, and they bear too much moisture at present.
(17) He actually wishes to drink its fluid.
(18) Now the squeezing of boiled preserves is like that of a fish for its brine. Thus Samuel is self-contradictory.
(19) Job XIX, 27. That Rab is the authority for the reported ruling.
(20) Pentateuchal law.
(21) Lit., 'from the mouth'.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 145b
in evidence concerning a woman alone.1 The scholars asked: What about a witness [attesting] what he heard from another witness in evidence relating to a firstling?2 - R. Ammi forbids [the admission of his testimony]; while R. Assi permits it. Said R. Ammi to R. Ashi, But the School of Menasseh taught: A witness testifying what he heard from another witness is valid in testimony concerning a woman alone? - Say: Only in testimony for which a woman is valid.3 R. Yemar recognized as fit a witness [testifying] from the mouth of another witness in respect to a firstling, [whereupon] Meremar called him 'Yemar who permits firstlings.'4 Yet the law is, A witness [testifying] from the mouth of another witness is valid in respect to firstlings.
HONEYCOMBS. When R. Oshaia came from Nehardea, he came and brought a Baraitha with him:5 If one crushes olives and grapes on the eve of the Sabbath, and they [their juices] ooze out of themselves, they are forbidden; but R. Eleazar and R. Simeon permit them. R. Joseph observed. Does he come to inform us of another person?6 - Said Abaye to him, He comes to tell us much. For if [we learnt] from our Mishnah [alone], I would argue, Only there [is it thus], since it [the honey] was a [solid] foodstuff originally and is now a foodstuff; but here that they [the grapes, etc.] were originally a foodstuff but now7 a fluid, I would say, It is not so. Hence he informs us [otherwise].
MISHNAH. WHATEVER WAS PUT INTO HOT WATER BEFORE THE SABBATH MAY BE STEEPED [AGAIN] IN HOT WATER ON THE SABBATH; BUT WHATEVER WAS NOT PUT INTO HOT WATER BEFORE THE SABBATH MAY [ONLY] BE RINSED WITH HOT WATER ON THE SABBATH, EXCEPT OLD SALTED [PICKLED] FISH, [SMALL SALTED FISH],8 AND THE COLIAS OF THE SPANIARDS,9 BECAUSE THEIR RINSING COMPLETES THEIR PREPARATION.10
GEMARA. What, for example?11 R. Safra said: E.g., R. Abba's fowl[s].12 R. Safra also said: I once paid a visit there [Palestine] and ate thereof, and but for R. Abba who made me drink wine of three foliages13 I would have been in danger.14 R. Johanan expectorated at [the mention of] Babylonian kutah.15 Said R. Joseph: Then we [Babylonians] should expectorate at R. Abba's fowl!16 Moreover, R. Gaza has related, I once paid a visit there [in Palestine] and prepared some Babylonian kutah, and all the invalids of the West [Palestine] asked me for it.
WHATEVER WAS NOT PUT INTO HOT WATER, etc. What if one does rinse [them]?17 R. Joseph said: If one rinses them, he incurs a sin-offering. Mar the son of Rabina said, We too learnt thus: EXCEPT OLD SALTED [PICKLED] FISH, AND THE COLIAS OF THE SPANIARDS, BECAUSE THEIR RINSING COMPLETES THEIR PREPARATION: this proves it.18
R. Hiyya b. Abba and R. Assi were sitting before R. Johanan, while R. Johanan was sitting and dozing. Now, R. Hiyya b. Abba asked R. Assi, Why are the fowls in Babylonia fat?19 Go to the wilderness of Gaza, replied he, and I will show you fatter ones. Why are the festivals in Babylon [so] joyous? Because they [its inhabitants] are poor.20 Why are the scholars in Babylonia distinguished [in dress]? Because they are not well learned.21 Why are idolaters lustful? Because they eat abominable and creeping things. R. Johanan awoke thereat [and] said to them, Children! did I not this teach you: Say unto wisdom, Thou art my sister:22 if the matter is as clear to thee as that thy sister is interdicted to thee, say it; but if not do not say it? Said they to him, Then let the Master tell us some of these? Why are the fowls of Babylonia fat? Because they were not sent into exile, as it is said, Moab hath been at ease from his youth, and he hath settled on his lees...neither hath he gone into capacity: [therefore his taste remaineth in him, and his scent is not changed].23 And how do we know that they suffered exile here [in Palestine]? Because it was taught, R. Judah said: For fifty-two years no man passed through Judea, as it is said, For the mountains will I take up a weeping and wailing, and for the pastures of the wilderness a lamentation, because they are burned up, so that none passeth through...both the fowl of the heavens and the beast [behemah] are fled, they are gone:24 the numerical value of behemah is fifty-two.25 R. Jacob said in R. Johanan's name: They all returned save the colias of the Spaniards. For Rab said: The water courses of Babylonia carry back the water to the fountain of Etam;26 but these [colias], since their spine is not firm, could not go up.27 Why are the festivals in Babylonia joyous? Because they were not subject to that curse, whereof it is written, I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feasts, her new moons, her Sabbaths, and all her solemn assemblies,'28 and it is written, Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me.29 What does 'they are a trouble unto me' mean? - Said R. Eleazar: The Holy One, blessed be He, saith, Not enough is it for Israel that they sin before Me, but that they trouble Me to know which evil decree I am to bring upon them. R. Isaac said: There is no single festival when troops did not come to Sepphoris.30 R. Hanina said: There is no single festival when there did not come to Tiberias a general with his suite and centurions.31
Why are the scholars of Babylonia distinguished [in dress]? Because they are not in their [original] homes,32 as People say, In my own town my name [is sufficient]; away from home, my dress.33 In days to come shall Jacob take root, Israel shall blossom [yaziz] and bud [ufarah].34 R. Joseph recited, This refers to scholars in Babylonia who wreathe blossoms [ziziz] and flowers [perahim] around the Torah.35
Why are idolaters lustful? Because they did not stand at Mount Sinai. For when
(1) He is valid to attest a man's death, so that his wife may remarry v. Yeb. 90b.
(2) A firstling of animals may not be eaten until it receives a blemish accidentally, which must be proved by witnesses.
(3) A woman is a valid witness only in certain matters, which includes a firstling's blemish, and in these hearsay too is admissible.
(4) Said in a critical spirit.
(5) Lit., 'in his hand'.
(6) What purpose does this Baraitha serve? The, same principle is expressed in our Mishnah by R. Eleazar, and he merely tells us that it is also R. Simeon's view.
(7) Lit., 'at the end'.
(8) Var. lec. omits this.
(9) A kind of tunny-fish.
(10) V. supra 39a top for notes.
(11) Is put into hot water and then steeped again.
(12) Which he boiled and kept many days in hot water until they dissolved; then he ate them as a remedy.
(13) I.e.,in the third year.
(14) I was moved to expectorate, so sickly was it.
(15) He disliked it so much.
(16) The disparagement of the Babylonian delicacy gave him offence.
(17) The old salted fish etc.
(18) Since it completes their preparation it is the equivalent of boiling.
(19) Fatter than the Palestinian ones.
(20) And live drably during the rest of the year, therefore they appreciate the festivals all the more.
(21) Lit., 'they are not sons of (i.e., they do not possess) the Torah'. - Hence they have nothing else but dress to distinguish them.
(22) Prov. VII, 4.
(23) Jer. XLVIII, 11. The verse is quoted to show the adverse physical effects of exile.
(24) Ibid. IX, 9 (E.V. 10).
(25) I.e., ב=2; ה=5 מ=40; ה=5. Thus he translates: the fowl of the heavens is fled for fifty-two (years). Of course, the fifty-two years of desolation are based on historical figures (Meg. 11b), and this verse is merely quoted as a support or hint. (Tosaf.).
(26) The highest eminence in Palestine (Zeb. 54b). According to Josephus (Ant. VIII, 7,3) it was sixty stadia south of Jerusalem, and it supplied the city with water. The mikweh used by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement, which was situated above the Water Gate, was also drawn thence (Yoma 31a). - Thus as the water flowed from Babylonia it carried along the fish which had migrated from Palestine.
(27) The whole discussion was probably a mere jeu d'espirit as a relaxation after serious study.
(28) Hos. II, 13.
(29) Isa. I, 14.
(30) V. p. 16, n. 6. They were quartered on the Jews and naturally hindered the joy of the festival.
(31) אגמון lit., 'cane bearer', but MS.O. reads: הגמון, a general. For קומטון Jast. suggests that קומים (= comites, members of the imperial cabinet) should be read. בעלי זמורה = rod bearers, i.e., centurions.
(32) i.e., they hail from Palestine.
(33) There I must make myself known and distinguished through dress. - This is certainly a more charitable explanation than the previous.
(34) Isa. XXVII, 6.
(35) This is in support of R. Johanan's estimate of the Babylonian scholars.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 146a
the serpent came upon Eve he injected a lust into her:1 [as for] the Israelites who stood at Mount Sinai, their lustfulness departed; the idolaters, who did not stand at Mount Sinai, their lustfulness did not depart.2 R. Aha son of Raba asked R. Ashi. What about proselytes? Though they were not present, their guiding stars3 were present, as it is written, [Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath], but with him that standeth here with us this day before the Lord our God, and also with him that is not here with us this day.4 Now he differs from R. Abba b. Kahana, for R. Abba b. Kahana said: Until three generations the lustful [strain] did not disappear from our Patriarchs: Abraham begat Ishmael, Isaac begat Esau, [but] Jacob begat the twelve tribes in whom there was no taint whatsoever.5
MISHNAH. ONE MAY BREAK OPEN A CASK IN ORDER TO EAT RAISINS THEREOF, PROVIDED THAT HE DOES NOT DESIGN MAKING A UTENSIL;6 AND ONE MAY NOT PERFORATE THE BUNG OF A CASK:7 THIS IS R. JUDAH'S RULING; BUT THE SAGES PERMIT IT. AND ONE MUST NOT PIERCE IT AT THE SIDE THEREOF,8 WHILE IF IT IS PERFORATED9 ONE MUST NOT PLACE WAX UPON IT, BECAUSE HE CRUSHES IT.10 R. JUDAH SAID: [SUCH] AN INCIDENT CAME BEFORE R. JOHANAN B. ZAKKAI IN ARAB11 AND HE SAID, I FEAR ON HIS ACCOUNT [THAT HE MAY BE LIABLE] TO A SIN-OFFERING.
GEMARA. R. Oshaia said: They learnt this only of pressed [raisins]; but not when they are loose [apart].12 'But not if they are loose [apart]'? An objection is raised: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: One may bring a cask of wine, strike off its head with a sword, and place it before guests on the Sabbath, and he need have no fear!13 - That is [according to] the Rabbis: our Mishnah is [according to] R. Nehemiah.14 Now, what compels R. Oshaia to establish our Mishnah as agreeing with R. Nehemiah, so that it refers to pressed [raisins]; let him explain it as referring to loose [raisins] and [in agreement with] the Rabbis? - Said Raba, Our Mishnah presents a difficulty to him: why particularly teach 'RAISINS : let him [the Tanna] teach 'fruit?' Hence it follows thence that the reference is to pressed [raisins].
One [Baraitha] taught: One may untie, unravel, or cut through the wicker wrappers of raisins and dates.15 Another was taught: One may untie, but not unravel or cut. There is no difficulty: one agrees with the Rabbis; the other with R. Nehemiah. For it was taught, R. Nehemiah said: Even a spoon, even a robe, and even a knife may be handled only when required for their [usual] function.
R. Shesheth was asked: What about piercing a cask with a spit16 on the Sabbath? does he intend [making] an opening, so it is forbidden, or perhaps his intention is to be generous17 and it is permitted? - He intends [making] an opening, replied he, and it is forbidden. An objection is raised: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: One may bring a cask of wine and strike off its head with a sword? - There his intention is certainly to be generous: but here, if he really means to be generous - let him open it.18
ONE MAY NOT PERFORATE THE BUNG, etc. R. Huna said: The controversy is [in respect of a hole] at the top;19 but all agree that it is forbidden at the side,20 and thus he teaches, ONE MUST NOT PIERCE IT AT THE SIDE THEREOF. But R. Hisda maintained: The controversy is in [respect of a hole] at the side, but all agree that it is permitted on the top, and as to what he teaches, ONE MUST NOT PIERCE IT AT THE SIDE THEREOF, there it refers to the cask itself.21
Our Rabbis taught: One may not pierce a new hole22 on the Sabbath, but if one comes to add,23 he may add; but some say, One may not add. But they all agree that one may pierce an old hole24 at the very outset. Now as to the first Tanna, wherein does it differ from [boring] a new hole, which may not [be done]? [Presumably] because an opening is [thereby] effected! Then in adding too an opening is improved (effected]?25 - Said Rabbah: By the words of the Torah26 every opening which is not made for putting in and taking out is not an opening, and it was the Rabbis who forbade it27 on account of [the ventilation of] a hen-coop, which is made to permit the fresh air to enter and the fumes to pass out.28 Hence 'if one comes to add, he may add': [for] in a hen-coop one will certainly not come to add,
(1) Cf. II Esdras IV, 30.
(2) The idea is that the serpent infected Eve (i.e., the human race) with lust, from which, however, those who accept the moral teachings of the Torah are freed. Cf. B.B. 16a: The Holy One, blessed be He, created the evil passions, but He also created the Torah as their antidote. Thus this passage does not teach the doctrine of 'Original Sin', which Judaism rejects; v. Hertz, Genesis, pp. 59-60, 'Jewish view on the "Fall of Man,''. V. also Weiss, Dor, II, p. 9.
(3) On mazzal v. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 629, n. 10.
(4) Deut. XXIX, 14f. The teachings of Judaism and its spiritual ennoblement were freely meant for all mankind.
(5) Even before the Revelation at Sinai.
(6) i.e., a proper opening for the cask; this constitutes a labour.
(7) If it is tightly fitted in the cask, so that wine etc., may be poured out through the perforation, R. Han. regards the bung as the whole cover fitted into the top of the cask.
(8) This is explained in the Gemara.
(9) And one wishes to close the holes.
(10) I.e., he spreads it, which is forbidden.
(11) v. p. 600, n. 5.
(12) If the raisins are pressed together, a knife must be handled for cutting them out, and at the same time the barrel may be broken open with it. But if they are loose, so that a knife or axe is not required, it may not be handled merely for breaking the cask open.
(13) Of violating the Sabbath.
(14) That a utensil may be handled only for its normal use.
(15) Unripe dates and raisins were packed in wrappers made of plaited palm branches, to ripen. If the wrapper is tied with a cord one may untie it, unravel its strands, or cut it.
(16) I.e., by forcing it between the splices.
(17) Lit., 'a good eye' - i.e.,to widen the opening so that the wine may flow freely, not niggardly but he does not mean to make a permanent opening.
(18) By withdrawing the bung, when the wine would flow no less freely.
(19) There the Rabbis permit it, because it is unusual to make an opening there, but rather the whole bung is removed.
(20) As an opening is sometimes made there in preference to withdrawing the stopper from the top, lest dust etc., fall in. 'Side' and 'top' both refer to the bung or lid, viz., the side of the bung and the top of the bung, hut not to the sides of the cask itself.
(21) Not the bung.
(22) In a vessel.
(23) I.e., enlarge an existing hole.
(24) Which became stopped up.
(25) כמתקן may mean both effected and improved. - By enlarging the hole he completes its work.
(26) By Pentateuchal law.
(27) Sc. the hole under discussion, as the wine is not poured into the barrel through it.
(28) V. supra 102b.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 146b
on account of insects.1 Yet 'some say, One may not add': Sometimes one may not make it [the hole] [properly] in the first place, and so come to enlarge it. R. Nahman lectured on the authority of R. Johanan: The halachah is as 'some maintain'.
But they all agree that you may pierce an old hole at the very outset! Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: They learnt this only where it was done in order to conserve [the fragrance];2 but if in order to strengthen it [the cask], it is forbidden.3 How is it [when it is] to conserve, and how is it [when meant] to strengthen?4 - Said R. Hisda: If it is above the [level of the] wine, its purpose is to conserve; if below the [top of the] wine, its purpose is to strengthen.5 Rabbah said: [If] below the [top of the] wine, that too is to conserve. Then how is it to strengthen? - E.g. if it was pierced below the lees.6
Abaye said to Rabbah, Something which supports you was taught: A closed house has four cubits; if one had broken open its door-frame, it does not receive four cubits.7 A closed house [room] does not defile all around it; if he had broken through the door-frame, it defiles all around it.8
[The insertion of] a tube,9 Rab forbids, while Samuel permits. As for cutting it in the first place,10 all agree that it is forbidden; [again], all agree that replacing it11 is permitted. They differ only where it is cut but not made to measure:12 he who forbids [its insertion] [holds that] we preventively prohibit [it], lest he come to cut it out in the first place; while he who permits it, [holds that] we do not preventively prohibit.
This is dependent on Tannaim: One may not cut a tube on a Festival, and it is superfluous to speak of the Sabbath. If it falls out,13 it may be replaced on the Sabbath, and it goes without saying on Festival[s]. While R. Josiah is lenient. To what does R. Josiah refer, Shall we say, to the first clause? Surely he prepares a utensil?14 Again, if to the second clause, the first Tanna too certainly permits it? Hence they must differ where it is cut but not made to measure: one Master holds, we preventively prohibit, while the other Master holds, We do not preventively prohibit. R. Shisha son of R. Idi lectured in R. Johanan's name: The halachah is as R. Josiah. WHILE IF IT IS PERFORATED, etc. Oil [to stop up the hole], Rab forbids, while Samuel permits.15 He who forbids [holds]: We preventively prohibit on account of wax;16 while he who permits [holds]: We do not preventively prohibit. R. Samuel b. Bar Hanah observed to R. Joseph: You distinctly told us in Rab's name [that with] oil [it] is permitted
Tabuth the fowler17 said in Samuel's name: [To shape] a myrtle leaf18 is forbidden. - What is the reason? R. Yemar of Difti19 said: It is a preventive measure on account of [the making of] a pipe. R. Ashi said: It is a preventive measure lest one pluck it [from the tree]. Wherein do they differ? They differ where it is [already] plucked and [others too] are lying about.20
[To wear] linen sheets,21 Rab forbids, while Samuel permits.22 Of soft ones all agree that it is permitted;23 in the case of hard ones all agree that it is forbidden.24 They differ in respect of medium ones: he who forbids [holds that] they look like a burden; while he who permits [holds that] they do not look like a burden. Now, this [view] of Rab was stated not explicitly but by inference. For Rab visited a certain place where he had no room.25 So he went out and sat in a karmelith. Linen sheets were brought him,26 [but] he did not sit [upon them]. He who saw this thought that it was because linen sheets are forbidden. Yet that is not so, for Rab had indeed announced [that] linen sheets are permitted, but he did not sit on them out of respect for our masters: and who are they? R. Kahana and R. Assi.27
MISHNAH. A DISH MAY BE PLACED IN A PIT FOR IT TO BE GUARDED, AND WHOLESOME WATER INTO NOISOME WATER FOR IT TO BE COOLED, OR COLD WATER IN THE SUN FOR IT TO BE HEATED. IF ONE'S GARMENTS FALL INTO WATER ON THE ROAD, HE MAY WALK IN THEM WITHOUT FEAR. WHEN HE REACHES THE OUTERMOST COURTYARD28 HE MAY SPREAD THEM OUT IN THE SUN, BUT NOT IN SIGHT OF THE PEOPLE.29
GEMARA. [But] it is obvious?30 - You might say, Let us preventively forbid it on account of the levelling of depressions;31 hence he [the Tanna] informs us [otherwise].
AND WHOLESOME WATER, [etc.] It is obvious? - The second clause is required: OR COLD WATER IN THE SUN, [etc.]. That too is obvious? - You, might say, Let us preventively forbid it, lest he come to put it away in [hot] ashes;32 therefore he teaches us [otherwise].
IF ONE'S GARMENTS DROP, [etc.] Rab Judah said in Rab's name: Wherever the Sages forbade [aught] for appearance s sake, it is forbidden even in the innermost chambers.33 We learnt: HE MAY SPREAD THEM OUT IN THE SUN, BUT NOT IN SIGHT OF THE PEOPLE? - it is [a controversy of] Tannaim. For it was taught: He may spread them out in the sun, but not in sight of the people; R. Eleazar and R. Simeon forbid it.
R. Huna said:
(1) One does not make the ventilation hole too large for fear of insects, worms, etc., entering.
(2) I.e., the hole was closed up for that purpose. The closing is done quite feebly, and there is no real work in reopening it.
(3) To reopen it, because it was firmly closed and its re-opening is tantamount to making a new hole.
(4) What is the general rule which determines its purpose?
(5) That the wine should not drip out.
(6) There it has to bear the weight of all the wine and so must be strengthened.
(7) If a number of houses open into a common courtyard and their owners wish to divide it, each to have his own privately, each receives four cubits along the breadth of the courtyard for every door to his house that gives upon it, and the rest is shared equally. Now, if one of the doors had been walled up, but without its frame being broken through, its owner can still claim the four cubits for it; but if the frame was first broken through and then it was closed up, it ceases to count as a door, and the four cubits are lost. V. B.B. 12a.
(8) If a room containing a corpse is closed, i.e., the door is walled up, the defilement of the corpse does not extend beyond it. But if the door-frame was first broken and then walled up, so that no aperture at all is visible, the house is regarded as a grave and defiles everything around it to a distance of four cubits. - Thus an opening must be absolutely closed before it ceases to count as such, and the same applies to the cask.
(9) I.e.,into a barrel, as a pipe.
(10) To the required size of the hole.
(11) Sc. a fitted tube which had fallen out.
(12) It had not been tested in the hole to see whether it fits exactly.
(13) From the bottle, where it serves as a pipe.
(14) Surely he does not permit the making of a tube!
(15) Rab forbids thick semi-solid oil to be spread over the hole, while Samuel permits it.
(16) The spreading of wax too may be regarded as permissible if one is allowed to spread oil.
(17) Rashi. Others: = ריש בי אבא, the head of the family (in Ta'an. 10a).
(18) One may not shape a myrtle leaf into a funnel or pipe and insert it into the mouth of a bottle or cask.
(19) V. p. 35, n. 5.
(20) There are plenty of leaves, so that there is no fear that one may pluck it, hence it is permitted (Wilna Gaon); but the first reason still holds good. R. Han. explains it thus: All agree that one may not make a funnel and insert it in the hole of a cask, but they differ where the leaf was already lying in the hole as a funnel from before the Sabbath. According to R. Yemar it is still forbidden to pour wine through it, lest he make a funnel, but according to R. Ashi it is permitted, since there is no fear of plucking a leaf from the tree.
(21) Which are folded together and used as a pillow or bolster.
(22) Rab forbids a person to wrap them about himself and walk through the streets, thus wearing them as a garment, while Samuel permits it.
(23) They give warmth and therefore may certainly be regarded as a garment.
(24) They give no warmth and are merely a burden.
(25) Rashi: for his disciples.
(26) Tosaf: of medium quality, neither hard nor soft.
(27) They were his disciple-colleagues (v. Sanh. 36b), and it was not fitting that he should enjoy a comfort which had not been provided for them.
(28) Within the town.
(29) Lest they suspect him of having washed them on the Sabbath.
(30) That a dish may be placed in a pit.
(31) He may find depressions in the floor of the pit and level them.
(32) Which is forbidden.
(33) V. Bez. 9a.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 147a
If one shakes out his cloak1 on the Sabbath, he is liable to a sin-offering.2 Now, we said this only of new ones, but in the case of old ones we have nought against it; and this is said only of black ones, but in the case of white or red ones we have nought against it; [but in any case there is no culpability] unless he is particular about them.3
'Ulla visited Pumbeditha. Seeing the scholars shaking their garments he observed, 'The scholars are desecrating the Sabbath.' Said Rab Judah to them, 'Shake them in his presence, [for] we are not particular at all [about the clothes].' Abaye was standing before R. Joseph. Said he to him, 'Give me my hat.' Seeing some dew upon it he hesitated to give it to him. 'Shake it and throw it off,' he directed, '[for] we are not particular at all.'
R. Isaac b. Joseph said in R. Johanan's name: If one goes out on the Sabbath with a cloak folded up [and] lying on his shoulders, he is liable to a sin-offering.4 It was taught likewise: Clothes vendors who go out on the Sabbath with cloaks folded up [and] lying on their shoulders are liable to a sin-offering. And they [the Sages] said this not of clothes vendors alone but of all men, but that it is the nature of merchants to go out thus. Again, if a shopkeeper goes out with coins bound up in his wrapper, he is liable to a sin-offering. And they said this not of a shopkeeper alone but of all men, but that it is a shopkeeper's nature to go out thus. And runners may go out with the scarfs on their shoulders;5 and they said this not of runners alone but of all men, but that it is the nature of runners to go out thus.6
R. Judah said: It once happened that Hyrcanus, son of R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, went out on the Sabbath with the scarf on his shoulder, but that a thread [thereof] was wound round his finger.7 But when the matter came before the Sages they said, [It is permitted] even if a thread is not wound about one's finger. R. Nahman b. R. Hisda lectured in R. Hisda's name: The halachah is [that it is permissible] even if a thread is not wound about his finger.
'Ulla visited the academy of Assi b. Hini [and] was asked: Is it permitted to make a marzeb on the Sabbath? Said he to them, Thus did R. Ilai say: It is forbidden to make a marzeb on the Sabbath. What is a marzeb? - Said R. Zera: The capes8 worn by Babylonian women.9 R. Jeremiah was sitting before R. Zera [and] asked him, How is it thus? It is forbidden, replied he. And how is it thus? It is forbidden, replied he.10 R. Papa said: Adopt this general rule: Whatever [is done] with the intention of gathering it [the skirts] up11 is forbidden; whatever is for adornment is permitted. Just as R. Shisha son of R. Idi used to adorn himself with his cloak.12
When R. Dimi came,13 he said: On one occasion Rabbi went out into the field with the two ends of his cloak lying on his shoulder. [Thereupon] Joshua b. Ziruz, the son of R. Meir's father-in-law, said to him: Did not R. Meir declare one liable to a sin-offering in such a case?14 Was R. Meir so very particular?15 he exclaimed.' [So] Rabbi let his cloak fall. When Rabin came,16 he said: It was not Joshua b. Ziruz but Joshua b. Kapusai, R. Akiba's son-in-law. Said he: Did not R. Akiba declare one liable to a sin-offering in such a case? Was R. Akiba so very particular? he exclaimed. [So] Rabbi let his cloak fall. When R. Samuel b. R. Judah came, he said: It was stated that this [question] was asked.17
MISHNAH. IF ONE BATHES IN THE WATER OF A PIT18 OR IN THE WATER OF TIBERIAS19 AND DRIES HIMSELF EVEN WITH TEN TOWELS, HE MUST NOT FETCH THEM IN HIS HAND.20 BUT TEN MEN MAY DRY THEIR FACES, HANDS, AND FEET ON ONE TOWEL AND FETCH IT IN THEIR HANDS. ONE MAY OIL AND [LIGHTLY] MASSAGE [THE BODY]. BUT NOT KNEAD21 OR SCRAPE.22 YOU MUST NOT GO DOWN TO A WRESTLING GROUND,23 OR INDUCE VOMITING,24 OR STRAIGHTEN AN INFANT['S LIMBS],25 OR SET A BROKEN BONE. IF ONE'S HAND OR FOOT IS DISLOCATED, HE MUST NOT AGITATE IT VIOLENTLY IN COLD WATER BUT MAY BATHE IT IN THE USUAL WAY, AND IF IT HEALS, IT HEALS.
GEMARA. THE WATER OF A PIT is taught analogous to THE WATER OF TIBERIAS: just as the water of Tiberias is hot, so [by] the water of a pit hot [water is meant]; [and furthermore, it states] IF ONE BATHES: only if it is done, but not at the outset.26 Hence
(1) Rashi: to free it from the dust. Tosaf.: he shakes off the dew.
(2) As it is tantamount to washing it.
(3) He would never put them on thus; then the dusting is tantamount to washing. But if he is not particular about the dust there is no culpability in any case.
(4) The part which is thrown over the shoulder is considered a burden.
(5) These were swift runners, e.g., for carrying express messages. In T.A. I, p. 603, n. 530b, it is conjectured that the סודר (scarf) was their only garment, apart from a loincloth.
(6) Even if they are folded up and not hanging down (Wilna Gaon and 'Aruk) - though presumably they are wound round their necks in the first place.
(7) To prevent it from falling off.
(8) Lit., 'pouches'.
(9) Formed by drawing up the skirts of their garments backwards and attaching it with ribbons, thus shaping it like a tube or gutter, which is the meaning of marzeb.
(10) He gathered up his skirts in various ways and asked him whether such were permissible on the Sabbath.
(11) Rashi: to remain so permanently. Wilna Gaon, citing Maim.: to prevent it from being torn or soiled. Jast. translates: with the intention of creasing.
(12) After putting it on he would smooth and straighten it out to make it more becoming. This is permitted even on the Sabbath.
(13) v. p. 12, n. 9.
(14) For it is not wearing but carrying a burden.
(15) As to call this a burden.
(16) V. p. 12, n. 9.
(17) The incident did not actually happen, but the question was asked in the academy: Rabbi thought of permitting it, but was dissuaded when told of R. Meir's (or, R. Akiba's) view.
(18) Which had been heated.
(19) Which was naturally hot-Tiberias possessed thermal springs.
(20) Even if carrying is permitted, e.g..in his house or where an 'erub has been provided.
(21) I.e., massage strongly.
(22) With a scraper, perhaps a strigil, to invigorate the circulation.
(23) So Jast. Heb. Kordima. MS.M. and Jer. read: כלפילומא i.e., the clay ground (of the brickyard). Rashi translates: the name of a river.
(24) By means of an emetic.
(25) By manipulation.
(26) For otherwise the Mishnah should read: one may bathe.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 147b
sousing the whole body1 is well [permitted] even at the very outset.2 Who (is the authority for this]? It is R. Simeon. For it was taught: A man must not souse the whole of his body, either with hot or with cold water: this is R. Meir's view; but R. Simeon permits it. R. Judah said: It is forbidden with hot water, but permitted with cold.
AND DRIES HIMSELF EVEN WITH TEN TOWELS. The first clause informs us of the most surprising ruling. and the second clause informs us of the most surprising ruling. 'The first clause informs us of the most surprising ruling': even these, which do not contain much water, [are forbidden]; for since there is only one person, he will come to wring it out. 'And the second clause informs us of the most surprising ruling': even these, though they contain very much water [are permitted]; for since there are many, they will remind each other.3
Our Rabbis taught: A man may dry himself with a towel and place it on the window-sill, but he must not give it to the bath attendants, because they are suspected of that thing.4 R. Simeon said: One may dry himself with one towel and bring it home.5 Abaye asked R. Joseph: What is the law? Said he to him, Lo! there is R. Simeon; lo! there is Rabbi; lo! there is Samuel; lo! there is R. Johanan.6 'R. Simeon', as we have stated. 'Rabbi': for it was taught. Rabbi said: When we learnt Torah at R. Simeon['s academy] in Tekoa,7 we used to carry up oil and towels from the courtyard to the roof and from the roof to an enclosure,8 until we came to the fountain where we bathed. 'Samuel': for Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: A person may dry himself with a towel and carry it home [wrapped round] his hand.9 'R. Johanan': for R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: The halachah is: A person may dry himself with a towel and carry it home [wrapped round] his hand. Yet did R. Johanan say thus: surely R. Johanan said, The halachah is as an anonymous Mishnah, whereas we learnt: AND DRIES HIMSELF EVEN WITH TEN TOWELS, HE MUST NOT FETCH THEM IN HIS HAND? - He recited this as Ben Hakinai['s view].10
R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: The bath attendants may bring women's bathing clothes to the baths, providing that they cover their heads and the greater part of their bodies in them.11 As for a sabnitha,12 R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: One must tie its two bottom ends.13 R. Hiyya b. Abba also said in R. Johanan's name: [That means] below the shoulders.14 Raba said to the citizens of Mahoza: When you carry the apparel of the troops,15 let them drop below your shoulders.16
ONE MAY OIL AND LIGHTLY MASSAGE [THE BODY]. Our Rabbis taught: One may oil and massage the bowels [of an invalid] on the Sabbath, provided this is not done as on weekdays. How then shall it be done? - R. Hama son of R. Hanina said: They must first be oiled and then massaged.17 R. Johanan said: The oiling and massaging must be done simultaneously.
BUT [ONE MAY] NOT KNEAD. R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name; One may not stand on the mud of Diomsith,18 because it stimulates [the body] and loosens [the bowels]. Rab Judah said in Rab's name: The complete period of Diomsith is twenty-one days, and Pentecost is included.19 The scholars asked: Does Pentecost belong to this end or to that end?20 - Come and hear: For Samuel said: All potions [medicines] [taken] between Passover and Pentecost are beneficial.21 Perhaps that is [only] there, where it is beneficial [only] as long as the weather is cold: but here it is on account of the heat,22 [so] when the weather is warm it is [even] more beneficial.
R. Helbo said: The wine of Perugitha23 and the water of Diomsith cut off the Ten Tribes from Israel.24 R. Eleazar b. 'Arak visited that place. He was attracted to them,25 and [in consequence] his learning vanished. When he returned, he arose to read in the Scroll [of the Torah].26 He wished to read, Hahodesh hazeh lakem [This month shall be unto you, etc.],27 [instead of which] he read haharesh hayah libbam.28 But the scholars prayed for him, and his learning returned. And it is thus that we learnt, R. Nehorai said: Be exiled to a place of Torah, and say not that it will follow thee, for thy companions will establish it in thy possession;29 and do not rely on thine own understanding.30 A Tanna taught: His name was not R. Nehorai but R. Nehemiah; whilst others state, his name was R. Eleazar b. 'Arak, and why was he called R. Nehorai? Because he enlightened [manhir] the eyes of the Sages in halachah.31
BUT [ONE MAY] NOT SCRAPE. Our Rabbis taught: One may not scrape with a strigil on the Sabbath. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: If one's feet are soiled with clay and dirt he may scrape them off in the usual way, without fear. R. Samuel b. Judah's mother made him a silver strigil. YOU MAY NOT GO DOWN TO A WRESTLING GROUND. What is the reason? Because of sinking [in the clay soil].32
ONE MAY NOT INDUCE VOMITING ON THE SABBATH. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: They learnt this only [when it Is effected] by a drug, but it may be done by hand33 It was taught, R. Nehemiah said: It is forbidden even during the week, because of the waste of food.
OR STRAIGHTEN AN INFANT['S LIMBS]. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: To swaddle an infant on the Sabbath is permitted. But we learnt: YOU MAY NOT STRAIGHTEN?34 There it refers to the spinal vertebrae, which appears as building.35
ONE MAY NOT RESET A BROKEN BONE. R. Hana of Bagdad said in Samuel's name:
(1) As opposed to an actual bath.
(2) Even in hot water.
(3) Should one forget himself and wish to wring it out.
(4) Sc. of wringing it out and giving it to others. V. 'Er., Sonc. ed., p. 610 notes.
(5) Presumably wrapped about him as a garment, or where an 'erub is provided.
(6) All these have stated their view, and surely they furnish a reliable guide.
(7) Near Bethlehem in Judea.
(8) V. supra 7a.
(9) V. n. 4.
(10) Not anonymously.
(11) So that they are brought as garments.
(12) 'Aruch; Cur. edd. saknitha. Rashi: a large cloth covering, falling over the shoulders. Maim: a small cloth, not large enough to cover the head and the greater part of the body.
(13) So that it should not fall off.
(14) So that it looks like wearing apparel.
(15) To the baths. The troops (non-Jewish) were billeted in Jewish houses (Cf. Ta'an. 21a), and the Jews had to perform such offices as bringing their bathing outfits to the baths, carrying them through the streets.
(16) V. p. 745, n. 5.
(17) On weekdays it was reversed.
(18) Jast.: identical with Emmaus, a town in the plain of Judea renowned in Talmudic days for its warm springs and luxurious life.
(19) Only twenty-one days in the year does one derive medical benefit from Diomsith, and Pentecost is included in those twenty-one days.
(20) I.e., does the period commence with Pentecost or end with it?
(21) Hence Pentecost ends the period.
(22) I.e.,the healing properties of Diomsith reside in the heat of its springs.
(23) A place in northern Israel famous for its wine. A similar statement is made in Lev. Rab. about the wine of Pelugto. near Tiberias, and probably the two are identical.
(24) They were so much pre-occupied with these pleasures that they neglected learning and lost faith, which ultimately led to their exile and disappearance.
(25) Sc. its inhabitants and their luxurious life.
(26) In Talmudic days the weekly lesson of the Pentateuch was read by a number of the congregation, each of whom read a part.
(27) Ex. XII, 2.
(28) Their hearts were silent; or perhaps it is an unintelligible phrase. Each word differs only by one letter from the original to which in turn it bears some resemblance, and the story is quoted as an illustration of the seductive powers of Diomsith!
(29) Intellectual intercourse is essential if one is to retain his learning.
(30) V. Ab. IV, 14.
(31) If R. Nehorai was identical with R. Eleazar b. 'Arak, his statement was thus a result of personal experience.
(32) This makes walking a labour (Jast.). Rashi: the clay of that river (v. n. on Mishnah) is slippery, and so one may fall into the water, saturate his garments, and then ring them out. R. Han.: one may easily sink into the soft mud, thus giving many people the labour of hauling him out.
(33) By thrusting the finger down the throat.
(34) And that is the purpose of swaddling.
(35) If one is dislocated it may not be reset.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 148a
The halachah is that one may reset a fracture.1 Rabbah b. Bar Hanah visited Pumbeditha. He did not attend Rab Judah's session, [so] he sent Adda the waiter to him and said, 'Go and seize him.'2 So he went and seized him. When he [Rabbah] appeared, he found him [Rab Judah] lecturing, One may not reset a fracture. Said he to him, Thus did R. Hana of Bagdad say in Samuel's name: The halachah is that one may reset a fracture. Said he to him, Surely Hana is one of ours and Samuel is one of ours,3 yet I have not heard this; did I then not summon you justly?4
IF ONE'S HAND IS DISLOCATED, etc. R. Awia was sitting before R. Joseph. when his hand became dislocated.5 How is it thus? asked he. It is forbidden. And how is it thus?6 It is forbidden. In the meantime his hand reset itself.7 Said he to him, what is your question? Surely we learnt, IF ONE'S HAND OR FOOT IS DISLOCATED HE MUST NOT AGITATE IT VIOLENTLY IN COLD WATER, BUT MAY BATHE IT IN THE USUAL WAY, AND IF IT HEALS, IT HEALS. But did we not learn: ONE MAY NOT RESET A FRACTURE, he retorted, yet R. Hana of Bagdad said in Samuel's name, The halachah is that one may reset a fracture.8 - Will you weave all in one web?9 he replied; where it was stated it was stated, but where it was not stated it was not stated.10
MISHNAH. A MAN MAY BORROW PITCHERS OF WINE AND PITCHERS OF OIL FROM HIS NEIGHBOUR, PROVIDED HE DOES NOT SAY TO HIM, 'LEND [THEM] [HALWENI] TO ME';11 AND SIMILARLY A WOMAN [MAY BORROW] LOAVES FROM HER NEIGHBOUR. IF HE DOES NOT TRUST HIM HE LEAVES HIS CLOAK WITH HIM [AS A PLEDGE] AND MAKES A RECKONING WITH HIM AFTER THE SABBATH. IN THE SAME WAY, IF THE EVE OF PASSOVER IN JERUSALEM FALLS ON A SABBATH, ONE LEAVES HIS CLOAK WITH HIM [THE VENDOR] AND RECEIVES HIS PASCHAL LAMB12 AND MAKES A RECKONING WITH HIM AFTER THE FESTIVAL.
GEMARA.Raba son of R. Hanan asked Abaye: Wherein does halweni differ from hash'ileni?13 In the case of hash'ileni, he replied, he [the lender] will not come to write it down;14 whereas [if he says] halweni he will come to write it down. But since on weekdays it sometimes happens that one wishes to say halweni but says hash'ileni, yet he is not particular15 and comes to write it down, so on the Sabbath too he may come to write it down?16 - On the Sabbath, he replied since the Rabbis permitted hash'ileni only, but not halweni, the matter is distinguishable and he will not come to write.
Raba son of R. Hanan said to Abaye: Consider! The Rabbis said, 'Regarding all actions on Festivals, as far as it is possible to vary, we vary them;17 then the women who fill their pitchers on Festivals, why do they not vary [their way of doing it]? Because it is impossible. How should they do it: shall those who [usually] draw [water] with a large pitcher [now] draw [it] with a small pitcher? then they increase the amount of walking! Shall those who [usually] draw [water] with, a small pitcher [now] draw it with a large one? then they increase the burden.
(1) He held that this is the correct reading of the Mishnah.
(2) Rashi: take his coat until he comes.
(3) They are both of our district.
(4) Otherwise we would have remained in error.
(5) Lit., 'his hand changed' - from its place.
(6) He manipulated his hand in various ways and asked of each whether it was permitted on the Sabbath.
(7) Lit., 'was healed'.
(8) Which shows that the text may be corrupt. and so the same may apply to the present quotation.
(9) Will you apply the same argument to all?
(10) You cannot assume that the text is corrupt here too.
(11) This is explained in the Gemara.
(12) If one forgot to buy an animal before the Sabbath, he leaves his cloak as a pledge with a vendor on the Sabbath, and takes an animal, but must not actually buy it then, fixing its price.
(13) Both mean 'lend me', the first implying for a considerable time, the second for a short period (Rashi). - The Mishnah forbids the use of the first term. [Tosaf.: in the first case the object itself passes into the possession of the borrower; in the second, the borrower enjoys only right of use in the object while the object itself remains the possession of the lender. V. Tosaf. a.l., Kid. 47b and Rappaport J. Das Darlehen pp. 29ff.]
(14) He expects to remember it in any case.
(15) He allows him to keep it for a long time, though the request was only hash'ileni.
(16) Thinking that the borrower may keep it a long time.
(17) So as not to do them in the same way as during the week, even where they are permitted.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 148b
Shall one spread a cloth? then he may come to wring it out. Shall one cover it with a lid? it [the string wherewith it is tied] may break and he will come to knot it.1 Therefore it is impossible.
Raba son of R. Hanan also said to Abaye: We learnt, One must not clap [the hands], beat [the breast], or dance2 on Festivals. Yet we see that they do it, and do not rebuke them in any way? - Then on your reasoning, when Rabbah said: A man should not sit on the top of a stake, lest an article roll away from him and he come to fetch it,3 - yet we see [women]4 who carry pitchers and sit at the entrance of alleys, and we do not rebuke them? But leave Israel: better that they should [sin] in ignorance than deliberately. Now, he understood from this that that [principle] holds good only in respect of Rabbinical [enactments] but not Scriptural laws.5 Yet that is not so: there is no difference between a Rabbinical and a Scriptural law. For lo! the addition to the Day of Atonement is Scriptural,6 yet we see them [women] eat and drink until it is dark and do not rebuke them.
AND SIMILARLY A WOMAN [MAY BORROW] LOAVES FROM HER NEIGHBOUR, [etc.] Only on the Sabbath is it forbidden, but on weekdays it is well. Shall we say that our Mishnah does not agree with Hillel, for we learnt: And thus Hillel used to say: A woman must not lend a loaf to her neighbour without first valuing it, lest wheat advances and they [the lender and the borrower] come to [transgress the prohibition of] usury?7 - You may even say [that it agrees with] Hillel: the one is in a place where its value is fixed; the other, where its value is not fixed.8
IF HE DOES NOT TRUST HIM. It was stated: As for a loan made on a Festival, - R. Joseph said: It cannot be claimed;9 whilst Rabbah10 said: It can be claimed. 'R. Joseph said: It cannot be claimed', for if you say that it can be claimed, he [the lender] will come to record it. 'Rabbah said: It can be claimed', for if you say that it cannot, he will not lend him, and so he will come to abstain from the joy of the Festival.
We learnt: IF HE DOES NOT TRUST HIM, HE LEAVES HIS CLOAK WITH HIM: now, it is well if you say that it cannot be claimed, therefore he must leave his cloak with him and make a reckoning with him after the Sabbath. But if you say that it can be claimed, why must he leave his cloak with him: let him, lend it and then [re-]claim it? - He says, I do not wish to stand at court and before judges.
R. Idi b. Abin objected: If one kills a cow and apportions it on New Year, [then] if the month was prolonged it cancels [the debt]; but if not, it does not cancel the debt.11 But if it cannot be claimed,12 what does it cancel! - There it is different, because it is [retrospectively] revealed that it was a weekday.13 Come and hear [a refutation] from the second clause: 'but if not, it does not cancel the debt'. Now, it is well if you say that it can be claimed, hence he teaches [that] it does not cancel [the debt]; but if you say that it cannot be claimed, then what is meant by 'it does not cancel [the debt]'? - That if he [the debtor] pays him, he accepts it: whence it follows that the first clause means that [even] if he pays him he must not accept!14 - In the first clause he must tell him, 'l release it,' while in the second he need not say, 'l release it'. As we learnt: If one repays a debt in the seventh year he [the creditor] must tell him, 'I release it;' but if he [the debtor] replies, '[I repay] even so,' he may accept it from him, for it is said, And this is the word15 of the release.16
R. Awia used to take a pledge.17 Rabbah18 b. 'Ulla had recourse to an artifice.19
IN THE SAME WAY, IF THE EVE OF PASSOVER, etc. R. Johanan said: One may sanctify his Passover sacrifice on the Sabbath20 and his Festival sacrifice on the Festival.21 Shall we say that we can support him: IN THE SAME WAY, IF THE EVE OF PASSOVER IN JERUSALEM FALLS ON A SABBATH, ONE LEAVES HIS CLOAK WITH HIM AND RECEIVES HIS PASCHAL LAMB, AND MAKES A RECKONING WITH HIM AFTER THE FESTIVAl?22 - [No.] We treat here of one who assigns shares to others together with himself in his Passover sacrifice,23 so that it stands sanctified from before. But we learnt: One may not enrol [to share] in an animal on the Festival in the first place?24 - Here it is different: since he is a habitue of his, it is as though he had enrolled for it beforehand. But R. Oshaia taught: 'A man can go to a shepherd to whom he is accustomed to go and he gives him a sheep for his Passover sacrifice, and he sanctifies it and fulfils his obligation therewith? - There too, since he is accustomed to go to him, he [the shepherd] does indeed sanctify it beforehand.25 But he states, 'he sanctifies it'?26 - This sanctification is a Rabbinical preferment.27 But did R. Johanan say thus? Surely R. Johanan said: The halachah is [always] as an anonymous Mishnah, whereas we learnt: One may not sanctify, vow a 'valuation',28 devote,29 or separate terumoth and tithes: all these were said of Festivals, and how much more so of the Sabbath! - There is no difficulty: One refers to obligatory offerings for which there is a fixed time;30 the other refers to obligations for which there is no fixed time.
MISHNAH. A MAN MAY COUNT HIS GUESTS AND HIS DAINTY PORTIONS BY WORD OF MOUTH, BUT NOT FROM WRITING. A MAN MAY CAST LOTS WITH HIS SONS AND THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD FOR THE TABLE,31 PROVIDED THAT HE DOES NOT INTEND TO OFFSET A LARGE PORTION AGAINST A SMALl ONE.32 AND [PRIESTS] MAY CAST LOTS FOR SACRIFICES ON FESTIVALS, BUT NOT FOR THE PORTIONS.33 [
(1) With a permanent knot, which is forbidden.
(2) The former two in grief the third in joy.
(3) V. supra 141a.
(4) V. Bah.
(5) Both cases mentioned here are Rabbinical.
(6) The fast must begin before the Day of Atonement actually commences, and this is deduced from Scripture; v. Yoma 81b.
(7) V. B.M. 75a.
(8) If the price of the loaf is fixed (and our Mishnah refers to such) even Hillel agrees, because if it advances the lender will make an allowance when it is returned.
(9) In a court of Law.
(10) Alfasi and Asheri read: Raba.
(11) This refers to New Year following the seventh year, debts contracted during which are void (v. Deut. XV, 1, 2). The months consist of either thirty or twenty-nine days; in the former case the following month is celebrated with two days as New Moon, the first of which is the last day of the previous month. Now if a butcher kills a cow and divides it among his customers on credit on the first New Year's day following the seventh year: if the previous month, Elul, consisted of thirty days, this New Year's Day was really the last day of Elul, i.e., of the seventh year, and therefore the debt cannot be claimed. But if Elul consisted of twenty-nine days, this New Year's Day is the first of the eighth year, hence the debt can be claimed. - New Year, of course, is a Festival.
(12) Sc. a debt contracted on any Festival.
(13) Sc. the last day of Elul, in spite of the fact that it was celebrated as New Year.
(14) Surely not! The year of release does not actually cancel debts but merely deprives the creditor of his right to exact them.
(15) E. V. 'manner'.
(16) Deut. XV, 2.I.e., the creditor must inform the debtor of the release.
(17) From anyone who borrowed from him on a Festival.
(18) Var. lec.: Raba.
(19) Rashi: after the Festival he would take an article from the debtor and then detain it.
(20) I.e., when the eve of Passover falls on the Sabbath.
(21) An animal must be formally sanctified before it may be offered as a sacrifice. This may not be done on Sabbaths or Festivals, but since two animals are actually offered on those days respectively they may be sanctified too, if that was not done previously.
(22) And of course he would have to sanctify it on the same day.
(23) Those who participate in the sacrifice must formally enrol themselves as members to share in that particular animal (v. Ex. Xli, 4). Thus the payment is merely for a share in an animal which is already consecrated.
(24) Because it is regarded as transacting business, v. Bez. 27b.
(25) I.e., the shepherd sanctifies it on the festival even on his behalf.
(26) l.e., when he receives it.
(27) l.e. the Rabbis held it more fitting that the owner too should sanctify the animal, but actually that has already been done.
(28) Heb. מעריכין This is the technical term for a vow to give one's own or another person's 'valuation' to the Temple. V. Lev. XXVII, 1ff
(29) Heb. מהרימין, i.e. renounce an object by dedicating it absolutely for priestly use; v. Lev. XXVII, 28f.
(30) E.g., the Passover sacrifice and Festive offerings. Such may be sanctified on the Sabbath and Festivals, as otherwise the obligation must remain unfulfilled.
(31) Which portion of the food shall belong to each.
(32) The portions must be alike in size, not one larger and one smaller, so that the first drawn by lot shall receive the largest, etc.
(33) This is explained in the Gemara.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 149a
GEMARA. What is the reason? - R. Bibi said: It is a preventive measure, lest he erase.1 Abaye said: It is a preventive measure, lest he read.2 Wherein do they differ? - They differ where it is written high up on the wall: according to him who says, Lest he erase, we do not fear; but according to him who says, Lest he read [secular documents], we do fear. Now, as to him who says, 'Lest he erase', let us fear lest he read [secular documents]? Moreover, have we no fear that he may erase?3 Surely we learnt: One may not read by the light of a lamp; whereon Rabbah said: Even if it is as high as twice a man's stature, even if it is as high as [the measurement of] two ox-goads, or even as ten houses on top of each other, he must not read?4 - Rather they differ where it is written on the wall and is low down: according to him who says, 'Lest he erase', we fear; [but] according to him who says, 'Lest he read [secular documents]', we do not fear, [for] one will not confuse a wall with a document.5
Now, according to him who says, 'Lest he read [etc.]', let us fear lest he erase? - Rather they differ where it is engraved on a tablet or a board: on the view that it is 'lest he erase', we have no fear; but on the view that it is 'lest he read', we do fear. But according to him who says, lest he erase, let us fear lest he read [etc.]? And should you answer, a tablet or a board cannot be confused with a document, - surely it was taught: A man may count how many shall be within and how many without6 and how many portions he is to set before them, from writing on a wall, but not from writing on a tablet or a board. How is it meant? Shall we say that it is indeed written, wherein does one differ from the other? Hence it must surely mean that it is engraved, yet he states, 'from writing on the wall, but not from writing on a tablet or a board'? - Rather [say thus]: In truth [they differ] where it is written high up on the wall, and as for your difficulty about Rabbah's [ruling], [the ruling] of Rabbah is dependent on Tannaim. For it was taught: A man may count his guests and his dainty portions by word of mouth, but not from writing. R. Aha permits [it] from writing on the wall. How is it meant: Shall we say that it is written low down, - then let us fear lest he erase it? Hence it must surely mean that it is written high up, which proves that Rabah's [ruling] is dependent on Tannaim.
Now these Tannaim are as the following: For it was taught: One must not look in a mirror on the Sabbath; R. Meir permits [one to look]7 in a mirror that is fixed to the wall. Why is one fixed to the wall different? - [Presumably] because in the meanwhile8 he will recollect!9 then even if it is not fixed, he will recollect? - We treat here of a metal mirror, and [the reason is] in accordance with R. Nahman's [dictum] in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name. For R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: Why was it ruled that a metal mirror is forbidden? Because a man usually removes straggling hairs with it.10
Our Rabbis taught: The writing under a painting or an image11 may not be read on the Sabbath. And as for the image itself, one must not look at it even on weekdays, because it is said, Turn ye not unto idols.12 How is that taught? - Said R. Hanin: [Its interpretation is,] Turn not unto that conceived in your own minds.13
A MAN MAY CAST LOTS WITH HIS SONS, etc. Only with his sons and household, but not with strangers:14 what is the reason? As Rab Judah said in Samuel's name. For Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: The members of a company who are particular with each other15 transgress [the prohibitions of] measure, weight, number, borrowing and repaying on the Festival,16
(1) He may find too many names on the list and erase some before instructing his servant to invite the guests.
(2) Secular documents.
(3) If the list is high up.
(4) V. supra 11a. Though he could not reach the lamp to tilt it; hence the same reasoning applies here.
(5) No one is likely to think that since he may read something written on a wall he may also read business documents.
(6) I.e., how many guests shall be placed at the top of the table - 'within' the privileged circle - and how many at the bottom - 'without'.
(7) Lest he see uneven locks of hair and trim them
(8) While he goes for a pair of scissors.
(9) That it is the Sabbath.
(10) Its edge being sharpened. Now the first Tanna forbids all mirrors, drawing no distinctions; whilst R. Meir does draw a distinction. That is similar to the matter just debated
(11) I.e., the written legend beneath a picture.
(12) Lev. XIX, 4.
(13) Tosaf.: the interdict is only against images (or perhaps statues - Jast.) made for idolatrous purposes, but others are permitted.
(14) For otherwise the Tanna would simply teach, A MAN MAY CAST LOTS.
(15) I.e., members of a company at one table, each of whom has his own provisions, and when one borrows from another, are particular to weigh, measure, or count, that the exact quantity may be returned.
(16) On Festivals one may borrow from his neighbour. but not by weight, measure or number. Likewise, he may not use the terms 'lend' and 'repay'. for these belong to monetary transactions. When members of a company are particular with each other, they are likely to be led into a transgression of these prohibitions.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 149b
and according to Beth1 Hillel, usury too.2 If so, the same applies to his sons and household? - As for his sons and household, this is the reason, as Rab Judah [said] in Rab's name. For Rab Judah said in Rab's name: One may lend to his sons and household on interest, in order to give them experience thereof.3 If so, a large portion [set off] against a small portion [should be permitted] too? - That indeed is so, and there is a lacuna, while it is thus taught: 'A MAN MAY CAST LOTS FOR HIS SONS AND HOUSEHOLD FOR THE TABLE, even [setting] a large portion against a small portion'. What is the reason?- As Rab Judah['s dictum] in Rab's name. Yet only for his sons and household, but not for strangers. What is the reason? - As Rab Judah['s dictum] in Samuel's name. [Further, 'setting] A LARGE PORTION AGAINST A SMALL PORTION is forbidden even on weekdays in the case of strangers'. What is the reason? - On account of gambling.4
AND [PRIESTS] MAY CAST LOTS FOR, etc. What does BUT NOT FOR THE PORTIONS mean? - Said R. Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob: But [one must not cast lots] for the portions of weekday [sacrifices] on the Festivals. That is obvious? You might argue, since it is written, for thy people are like the Priests that quarrel,5 even the portions of weekdays too:6 therefore he informs us [that it is not so].
R. Jacob son of Jacob's daughter also said: He through whom his neighbour is punished is not permitted to enter within the barrier [precincts] of the Holy One, blessed be He. How do we know this? Shall we say, because it is written, And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one said on this manner; and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him. And he said, I will go forth and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his Prophets. And he [the Lord] said, Thou shalt entice him, and shalt prevail also: go forth, and do so.7 Now we discussed, What spirit is meant? And R. Johanan answered: The spirit of Naboth the Jezreelite.8 And what does 'go forth' mean? Said Rab, Go forth from within My precincts!9 But perhaps there this is the reason, [viz.,] because it is written, He that speaketh falsehood shall not be established before mine eyes?10 Again, [if] it is derived from here: Thou art filled with shame for glory: drink thou also, and be as one uncircumcised, etc.;11 and it is maintained: 'Thou art filled with shame for glory' refers to Nebuchadnezzar: [whilst] 'drink thou also and be as one uncircumcised', refers to Zedekiah,12 - one [objection] is that the whole verse is written in reference to Nebuchadnezzar;13 and further, what could the righteous Zedekiah have done to him, for Rab Judah said in Rab's name: When that wicked man [Nebuchadnezzar] wished to do thus to that righteous man [Zedekiah]. etc.?14 Rather [it follows] from this: Also to punish the righteous is not good.15 Now, 'is not good' can mean nought but [that he is] evil,16 and it is written, For thou art a God that hath no pleasure in wickedness, evil shall not sojourn with thee, [which means,] Thou art righteous, therefore evil shall not sojourn in thy habitation.17
How is it implied that HALASHIM18 connotes lots? - Because it is written, How art thou fallen from heaven, O day star, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground thou holesh [who didst cast lots]19 over the nations, etc.20 Rabbah son of R. Huna said: This teaches that he [Nebuchadnezzar] cast lots over the royal chiefs21 to ascertain whose turn22 it was for pederasty. And it is written, All the kings of the nations, all of them, [sleep in glory. etc.].23 R. Johanan said: That means that they rested from pederasty.24
R. Johanan also said: As long as that wicked man lived mirth was never heard25 in the mouth of any living being, for it is written, the whole world is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing:26 whence it follows that hitherto27 there was no singing.
R. Isaac also said in R. Johanan's name: One may not stand in that wicked man's palace, for it is said, and satyrs shall dance there.28
Rab Judah said in Rab's name: When that wicked man [Nebuchadnezzar] wished to treat that righteous one [Zedekiah] thus,29 his membrum was extended three hundred cubits and wagged in front of the whole company [of captive kings]. for it is said, Thou art filled with shame for glory: drink thou also, and be as one uncircumcised [he'orel]: the numerical value of 'orel' is three hundred.
Rab Judah also said in Rab's name: When that wicked man descended to Gehenna,30 all who had [previously] descended thither trembled, saying, Does he come to rule over us, or to be as weak as we [are], for it is said, Art thou also become weak as we? or art thou to rule over us?31 A Heavenly Echo went forth and declared, Whom dost thou pass in beauty? go down with, and be thou laid with the uncircumcised.32
How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city [madhebah] ceased.33 Rab Judah said in Rab's name: This people hath ceased, that demanded,
(1) Var. lec. omit 'Beth', v. supra 148b.
(2) When they are not particular with each other, and one borrows and returns the same amount after its price advances, there is no usury, since neither cares whether the exact amount is returned or not. But there every change in value is scrupulously noted, and therefore if it advances there is usury. This does not refer particularly to Festivals.
(3) Lit., 'to let them know the taste of usury', i.e., the grief and anxiety it causes.
(4) Which this resembles.
(5) Hos. IV, 4 (E. V. 'for thy people are as they that strive with the priest)'.
(6) To save them from quarrelling.
(7) 1 Kings XXII, 20ff
(8) This is deduced from the employment of the def. art. in Hebrew: 'and the spirit came forth', implying a particular one, viz., that of Naboth the Jezreelite, whom Ahab had turned from a living human being into a spirit - by judicial murder; v. ibid, ch. XXI.
(9) Because he lured Ahab, to destruction, which proves the dictum of R. Jacob.
(10) Ps. CI, 7. Though God sought to lure Ahab to his doom, He nevertheless desired it to be done by arguments drawn from true facts (Maharsha in Sanh. 89a).
(11) Hab. II, 16.
(12) And the verse is interpreted in the sense that Zedekiah too is regarded as uncircumcised and not permitted to enter the precincts of the Almighty, because Nebuchadnezzar was punished on his account.
(13) I.e., it can be so interpreted.
(14) V. infra for the complete allusion.
(15) Prov. XVII, 26.
(16) Translating the verse thus: even the righteous, when made the cause or vehicle of punishment, is accounted evil.
(17) Ps. V,5 (E.V. 4).
(18) The word used in the Mishnah.
(19) Which didst lay low.
(20) Isa. XIV, 12.
(21) The kings he had captured in battle.
(22) Lit., 'day'.
(23) Ibid. 18.
(24) The ascription of pederasty to Nebuchadnezzar may be a covert allusion to the fact that the Romans were addicted to this vice; v. Weiss, Dor, II, 21.
(25) Lit., 'found'.
(26) Isa. XIV,7.
(27) I.e., before Nebuchadnezzar's death.
(28) Ibid. Xlii, 21.
(29) I.e., submit him to sexual abuse.
(30) V. p. 153, n.8.
(31) Isa. XIV, 10. This connects נמשלת with משל, to rule E.V..: art thou become like unto us,
(32) Ezek. XXXII, 19.
(33) Isa. XIV, 4.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 150a
Measure out [tribute] and bring it [to us]; others interpret: that demanded, Bring ever more and more, without measure.1
And excellent greatness was added to me:2 Rab Judah said in R. Jeremiah b. Abba's name: This teaches that he rode upon a male lion to whose head he had tied a snake [for reins]. in fulfilment of what is said, and the beasts of the field also have I given him to serve him.3
MISHNAH. A MAN MUST NOT HIRE LABOURERS ON THE SABBATH, NOR INSTRUCT HIS NEIGHBOUR TO HIRE LABOURERS ON HIS BEHALF. ONE MUST NOT GO TO THE TEHUM TO AWAIT NIGHTFALL4 IN ORDER TO HIRE LABOURERS OR BRING IN PRODUCE; BUT ONE MAY DO SO IN ORDER TO WATCH [HIS FIELD]. AND [THEN] HE CAN BRING [HOME] PRODUCE WITH HIM.5 ABBA SAUL STATED A GENERAl PRINCIPLE: WHATEVER I HAVE A RIGHT TO INSTRUCT [THAT IT BE DONE], I AM PERMITTED TO GO TO AWAIT NIGHTFAll, FOR IT [AT THE TEHUM].
GEMARA. Wherein does he differ from his neighbour?6 - Said R. Papa: A Gentile neighbour [is meant]. R. Ashi demurred: [Surely] an order to a Gentile is [forbidden as] a shebuth?7 Rather said R. Ashi: One may even say [that] an Israelite neighbour [is meant]. [Yet] he [the Tanna] informs us this: One may not say to his neighbour, 'Hire labourers for me,' but one may say to his neighbour, 'Well, we shall see8 whether you join me9 in the evening!'10 And with whom does our Mishnah agree? With R. Joshua b. Karhah. For it was taught: One must not say to his neighbour, 'Well, we shall see whether you join me in the evening'! R. Joshua b. Karhah said: One may say to his neighbour, 'Well, we shall see whether you join me in the evening'! Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: The halachah is as R. Joshua b. Karhah. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah also said in R. Johanan s name: What is R. Judah b. Karhah's reason? Because it is written, nor finding thine own pleasure nor speaking thine own words:11 [explicit] speech is forbidden, but thought is permitted.12
R. Aha son of R. Huna pointed out a contradiction to Raba. Did R. Johanan say: Speech is forbidden, thought is permitted, which shows that thought is not the same as speech? But surely Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: One may meditate [on learning] everywhere, except at the baths or in a privy? There it is different, because [the fulfilment of] and thy camp shall be holy13 is required, which is absent.14 But it is also written, that he see no indecent speech [dabar] in thee?15 - That is required for Rab Judah['s dictum]. For Rab Judah said: One may not recite the shema'16 in the presence of a naked heathen. Why particularly a heathen: even an Israelite too? - He proceeds to a climax:17 it is superfluous to state that it is forbidden [in the presence of a naked] Israelite; but as for a heathen, Since it is written of him, whose flesh is the flesh of asses,18 I might say that it is permitted therefore he tells us [otherwise]. Yet perhaps that indeed is so? Scripture saith, and they saw not their father's nakedness.19
Now, is speech forbidden? Surely R. Hisda and R: Hamnuna both said: Accounts in connection with religion may be calculated [discussed] on the Sabbath. And R. Eleazar said: One may determine charity [grants] to the poor on the Sabbath. Again, R. Jacob b. Idi said in R. Johanan's name: One may supervise matters of life and death and matters of communal urgency on the Sabbath, and one may go to the synagogues to attend to communal affairs on the Sabbath. Also, R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Johanan's name: One may go to theatres and circuses and basilicas to attend to communal affairs on the Sabbath. Further, the School of Manasseh taught: One may make arrangements on the Sabbath for the betrothal of young girls and the elementary education20 of a child and to teach him a trade!21 - Scripture saith, nor finding thine own affairs nor speaking thine own words: thine affairs are forbidden, the affairs of Heaven [religious matters] are permitted.
Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: Unimportant accounts22 and past expenditure accounts23 may be calculated on the Sabbath. It was taught likewise: One may not calculate past or future accounts,24 [but accounts] of unimportance
(1) These interpret madhebah either as me'od habeh (count and bring) or me'od habi (belo) middah (bring much, without measure).
(2) Dan. IV, 36. This was said by Nebuchadnezzar when he regained sanity after having lived seven years like a wild beast.
(3) Jer. XXVII, 6.
(4) Lit., 'for nightfall'. I.e., one may not go as far as the tehum on the Sabbath in readiness to cross it immediately the Sabbath terminates.
(5) Lit., 'in his hand'. Though he may not go to the tehum in the first place for this purpose, yet since he did so primarily in order to watch his field, he may take advantage of the fact and bring home produce too.
(6) It is obvious that if he must not engage labourers his neighbours must not either.
(7) V. Glos. This is a well-known general principle, already taught in the Mishnah supra 121a, and it need not be repeated.
(8) הנראה. The exact meaning of the expression is not established.
(9) Lit., 'stand with me'.
(10) Though both understand it as a hint that he desires to engage him.
(11) Isa. LVIII, 13, q.v.
(12) A hint is not explicit but left to the understanding.
(13) Deut. XXIII, 15.
(14) For speech is not mentioned in that passage.
(15) Ibid. E.V.: 'that he see no unclean thing in thee'.
(16) V. Glos.
(17) Lit., 'he states, "it is unnecessary"'.
(18) Ezek. XXIII, 20. [I.e., nudity is common among them].
(19) Gen, IX, 23: This shows that it is indecent in all cases.
(20) Lit., 'to teach him (the) book'.
(21) All these involve actual speech.
(22) Lit., 'accounts of what is it to thee'. Rashi. 'Aruch and R. Han.: accounts of guests, i.e., how many guests will be present, etc.
(23) Rashi. Lit., 'what (cost) lies in this', Aliter: 'of no practical value'. Lit., 'of what is in it'.
(24) I.e., I have expended or will have to expend so much or so much.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 150b
or of past expenditure may be calculated. But the following contradicts it: One may reckon up accounts that are not required, but one may not reckon up on the Sabbath accounts that are necessary. E.g., a man may say to his neighbour, 'I hired so many labourers for this field,' 'I expended so many denarii for this residence.' But he must not say to him, 'I have expended so much and am [yet] to expend so much'! - Then according to your reasoning, that [Baraitha] itself presents a difficulty.1 But in the one case he is [still] in possession of his employee's wages;2 in the other he is not in possession of his employee's wages.
ONE MUST NOT GO TO THE TEHUM TO AWAIT NIGHTFALL. Our Rabbis taught: It once happened that a breach was made in the field of a pious man and he decided to fence it about, when he recalled that it was the Sabbath, so he refrained and did not repair it; thereupon a miracle was performed for him, a caper bush grew up there, whence he and his household derived their livelihood.
Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: One may say to his neighbour [on the Sabbath]. 'I am going to that town to-morrow,' for if there are stations [on the road] he may go [on the Sabbath itself].3 We learnt: ONE MUST NOT GO TO THE TEHUM TO AWAIT NIGHTFALL IN ORDER TO HIRE LABOURERS OR BRING IN PRODUCE. As for hiring, labourers, it is well, since one may not hire them on the Sabbath; but to fetch produce. let us say [that it is permitted], for if there were walls [partitions] there he might bring [it even on the Sabbath]?4 - This [ruling of our Mishnah] can refer to produce attached [to the soil].5 But R. Oshaia taught: One must not go to the tehum to await nightfall in order to bring straw or stubble. As for stubble, it is well: this can refer to attached; but to what can straw refer?6 - Offensive smelling straw.7 Come and hear: One may go to the tehum to await nightfall to attend to the affairs of a bride and the business of a corpse.8 Thus, only for the affairs of a bride or a corpse, but not for the business of any other. As for another [with a purpose] analogous to [that of] a bride, it is well:9 this is conceivable where one desires to cut a myrtle for him.10 But what can the purpose in connection with a corpse be? [Presumably] in order to bring a coffin and shrouds; yet he [the Tanna] specifies a corpse. but not another;11 yet why so: let us argue that [it is permissible for another too], for if there were walls there he might bring [articles even on the Sabbath]? - In the case of a corpse too, it is conceivable where the purpose is to cut out shrouds for him.12
BUT ONE MAY GO TO THE TEHUM TO AWAIT NIGHTFALL, etc. Though he did not recite habdalah?13 Surely R. Eleazar b. Antigonus said on R. Eliezer b. Jacob's authority: One is forbidden to attend to his affairs before reciting habdalah. And should you answer that he recites habdalah in the Prayer,14 surely Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: He who recites habdalah in the Prayer must [also] recite it over a cup [of wine]?15 And should you answer that he does recite habdalah over a cup. - [it may be asked] is a cup procurable in the fields? - R. Nathan b. Ammi explained this before Raba: They learnt this of the season of wine pressing.16 R. Abba said to R. Ashi: In the West [Palestine] we say thus: 'He who makes a distinction between holy and profane', and then we attend to our affairs. R. Ashi related: 'When I was at R. Kahana's academy he used to recite, 'Who makest a distinction between holy and profane,' and then we chopped up logs. ABBA SAUL STATED A GENERAL PRINCIPLE: WHATEVER I HAVE, etc. To what does Abba Saul refer? Shall we say that he refers to the first clause, [viz.,] ONE MUST NOT GO TO THE TEHUM TO AWAIT NIGHTFALL, IN ORDER TO HIRE LABOURERS OR BRING IN PRODUCE, -
(1) The first Baraitha states in its first clause that one must not calculate past accounts, while the second clause states that past expenditure accounts are permitted.
(2) Then it is forbidden, for though incurred in the past, it has still to be paid.
(3) Burgin, pl. burganim, is an isolated residence on a road, often used as a station for travellers (Jast.). If the road to the town were dotted with these stations at intervals of less than seventy cubits the journey might be made even on the Sabbath. It is therefore permitted to mention it even in the absence of such stations.
(4) I.e.,if the road lay between walls it might technically be a private domain wherein carrying is permitted.
(5) Which may not be detached under any circumstances.
(6) Which straw can be meant which shall not be permitted by Rab Judah's logic?
(7) Which may not be handled in any case, as it is mukzeh on account of its repulsiveness (v. supra 46a).
(8) E.g. to arrange for the funeral.
(9) For the implication must be that for the same purpose where it is permitted in connection with a bride or a corpse it is forbidden in connection with another.
(10) An overhead awning of myrtles was erected for a bride. Thus it is permitted for a bride, but not for another, since the myrtles are attached to the soil and may not be cut on the Sabbath.
(11) Though bringing a coffin and shrouds is just the same as bringing any other article.
(12) By analogy, another might desire to go to the tehum in order to be ready to cut out a suit, and this is forbidden.
(13) V. Glos.. and p. 333, n. 2. The difficulty is the last clause: surely he may not cut down produce before reciting habdalah?
(14) The 'Prayer' always refers to the 'Eighteen Benedictions', in the fourth of which a habdalah passage is inserted; v. P.B. p. 94d; Elbogen, Der Judische Gottesdienst, pp. 46f; 120f.
(15) Habdalah originally was not a statutory addition to the Sabbath evening Prayer; op. cit.
(16) A cup of wine is then obtainable in the fields.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 151a
then instead of WHATEVER I HAVE A RIGHT TO INSTRUCT [THAT IT BE DONE], I AM PERMITTED TO AWAIT NIGHTFALL, FOR IT, he should state, 'Whatever I have no right to instruct [that it be done]. I am not permitted to await nightfall for it'.1 Whereas if he bases himself on the second clause, BUT ONE MAY DO SO IN ORDER TO WATCH OVER HIS FIELDS, AND [THEN] HE CAN BRING [HOME] PRODUCE WITH HIM, then he should state, 'Whatever I have a right to await nightfall [at the tehum], I am permitted to instruct [that it be done]'? - In truth he refers to the second clause, but Abba Saul bases himself on the following. For Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: One may say to his neighbour, 'Watch for me over the fruit in your tehum, and I will watch for you over the fruit in my tehum.' And thus Abba Saul argues with the first Tanna: Do you not admit that one may say to his neighbour, 'Watch for me over the fruit in your tehum and I will watch for you over the fruit in my tehum?' then say, WHATEVER I HAVE A RIGHT TO INSTRUCT [THAT IT BE DONE]. I AM PERMITTED TO AWAIT NIGHTFALL FOR IT.2
What does the general principle add?3 - It adds the following, which our Rabbis taught: One may not go to the tehum to await nightfall in order to bring an animal. If it is standing without the tehum, one may call it and it comes. Abba Saul stated a general principle: Whatever I have a right to say [that it shall be done],4 I am permitted to await nightfall [at the tehum] for it. And one may go to await nightfall in order to attend to the affairs of a bride or of a corpse, to bring a coffin and shrouds for him. And one may give instructions to another, 'Go to such and such a place, and if you cannot obtain them from there, bring them from elsewhere; if you cannot obtain them for a maneh, obtain them for two manehs.' R. Jose son of R. Judah said: Provided that he does not mention the exact price to him.5
MISHNAH. YOU MAY GO TO THE TEHUM AGAINST NIGHTFALL IN ORDER TO ATTEND TO THE AFFAIRS OF A BRIDE OR OF A CORPSE, TO BRING A COFFIN AND SHROUDS FOR HIM. IF A GENTILE BRINGS REED-PIPES ON THE SABBATH,6 ONE MUST NOT BEWAIL AN ISRAELITE ON THEM, UNLESS THEY CAME FROM A NEAR PLACE.7 IF HE [A GENTILE] MADE A COFFIN FOR HIMSELF OR DUG A GRAVE FOR HIMSELF,8 AN ISRAELITE MAY BE BURIED THEREIN. BUT IF [HE MADE IT] FOR THE SAKE OF AN ISRAELITE, HE MAY NEVER BE BURIED THEREIN.9
GEMARA. What does FROM A NEAR PLACE mean? Rab said: Literally from a near place.10 While Samuel said: We conjecture that they [the reed-pipes] were [just] without the [city] wall during the night.11 [Raba said.]12 The deduction of our Mishnah supports Samuel, for it is stated: IF HE [A GENTILE] MADE A COFFIN FOR HIMSELF OR DUG A GRAVE FOR HIMSELF, AN ISRAELITE MAY BE BURIED THEREIN. This proves that it is permitted on account of a doubt;13 so here too, it is permitted on account of a doubt. And we learnt in accordance with Rab [too]: A city inhabited by Israelites and Gentiles which contains baths where there is bathing on the Sabbath, if the majority are Gentiles, one [an Israelite] may bathe therein immediately; if the majority are Israelites, one must wait until hot water could be heated;14 if half and half, one must wait until hot water could be heated.15 R. Judah said: In the case of a small bath, if there is there16 [a man of authority],17 he [an Israelite] may bathe therein immediately. What is '[a man of] authority?' Said Rab Judah in the name of R. Isaac son of Rab Judah: If there is there an important personage who possesses ten slaves who heat ten kettles [of water] for him simultaneously, then if it is a small bath he [the Israelite] may bathe therein immediately.18
IF HE [A GENTILE] MADE A COFFIN FOR HIMSELF OR DUG A GRAVE FOR HIMSELF, etc. Yet why so? here too, let him wait until it could be made?19 - Said 'Ulla: It refers to one [a grave] that stands in an [army] camp.20 That is well of a grave; [but] what can be said of a coffin? Said R. Abbahu: It refers to [a coffin] that is lying on his grave.21 MISHNAH. ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEAD MAY BE DONE; HE MAY BE ANOINTED WITH OIL AND WASHED, PROVIDED THAT NO LIMB OF HIS IS MOVED. THE PILLOW MAY BE REMOVED FROM UNDER HIM, AND HE MAY BE PLACED ON SAND, IN ORDER THAT
(1) So that the principle is parallel to the clause upon which it is based.
(2) It is assumed that both accept Samuel's ruling, Hence the permission given by the first Tanna to go to the end of the tehum to watch over produce would be included in Abba Saul's principle, and all other permitted cases likewise, and there is no need for the first Tanna to give a specific instance.
(3) It is axiomatic that when a general principle is stated it is to add a case that is not explicitly taught.
(4) Which includes calling an animal from beyond the tehum.
(5) He may authorize him to pay a high price if he cannot buy them cheaply. but must not state the exact figures.
(6) For playing at a Jew's funeral, which formed part of the obsequies, cf. B.M. VI, 1 and note a.I. in Sonc. ed.
(7) I.e., within the tehum.
(8) Either for his own use or in order to sell. - The reference is to the Sabbath.
(9) [According to Maim. the reference is to the Israelite for whom the grave was dug. He may not, that is to say. be buried even בכדי שיעשו i.e., after sufficient time has elapsed after the termination of the Sabbath for the grave to be dug.]
(10) We must know this for certain, having seen that he had them in his house within the city.
(11) Even if they were not in his house we may assume that they were only just without the city wall, yet within the tehum, unless we know to the contrary. Lit., 'we apprehend lest', The phrase is also used with lenient implications, v. Hag. 15a (Rashi). Normally the more stringent possibility is acted upon, but here it is the reverse, for the sake of the dead.
(12) So text as emended by Bah.
(13) For he might actually have made it for a Jew. [Tosaf. a.l. deletes this passage as in this Mishnah the question of doubt does not arise as explained in the Gemara infra.]
(14) V. supra 122a, for notes.
(15) Which shows that in a case of doubt we are stringent, and this agrees with Rab.
(16) In the city.
(17) Jast.: a Roman official.
(18) As the water may have been thus prepared after the Sabbath.
(19) For the Gentile may have had a Jew in mind.
(20) Aliter: in the broad open street. It is unusual for Jews to be buried there.
(21) Sc. the Gentile's grave dug in the camp.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 151b
HE MAY BE ABLE TO KEEP.1 THE JAW MAY BE TIED UP, NOT IN ORDER THAT IT SHOULD CLOSE2 BUT THAT IT SHOULD NOT GO FURTHER [OPEN]. AND LIKEWISE, IF A BEAM IS BROKEN, IT MAY BE SUPPORTED BY A BENCH OR BED STAVES, NOT IN ORDER THAT IT [THE BREAK] SHOULD CLOSE UP, BUT THAT IT SHOULD GO NO FURTHER.
GEMARA. But Surely Rab Judah related in Samuel's name: It once happened that a disciple of R. Meir followed him into the baths and wished to swill the ground for him, [but] he said to him, One may not swill; then he wished to oil the ground for him, but he said to him, One may not oil?3 - Ground may be confused with ground. but a corpse cannot be confused with ground.4
What does ALL add? It adds the following, which our Rabbis taught: Cooling vessels and metal vessels may be brought and placed on his [the corpse's] stomach, in order that he should not swell, and his apertures may be stopped up, in order that the air should not enter. And [thus] said Solomon too in his wisdom: 'Or ever the silver cord be snapped asunder' - this refers to the spinal cord; 'and the golden bowl be broken' - this alludes to the membrum; 'and the pitcher be broken at the fountain' - that means the stomach; 'and the wheel broken, at the cistern' - this refers to the excrements.5 And thus it is said, and I will spread dung on your faces, even the dung of your feasts.6 R. Huna - others state, R. Haga- said: This refers to people who abandon study7 and spend all their days at feasts. R. Levi said in R. Pappi's name in R. Joshua's name: After three days [from death] the stomach bursts and it [its contents] lies cast out before his face and exclaims, 'Take what you have put in me.'
MISHNAH. ONE MAY NOT CLOSE [THE EYES OF] A CORPSE ON THE SABBATH, NOR ON WEEKDAYS WHEN HE IS ABOUT TO DIE, AND HE WHO CLOSES THE EYES [OF A DYING PERSON] AT THE POINT OF DEATH8 IS A MURDERER.9
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: He who closes [the eyes of a dying man] at the point of death is a murderer. This may be compared to a lamp that is going out: If a man places his finger upon it, it is immediately extinguished. It was taught, R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: If one desires that a dead man's eyes should close, let him blow wine into his nostrils and apply oil between his two eyelids and hold his two big toes; then they close of their own accord.
It was taught, R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: For a day-old infant the Sabbath is desecrated; for David, King of Israel, dead, the Sabbath must not be desecrated. 'For a day-old infant the Sabbath is desecrated': the Torah ordered, Desecrate one Sabbath on his account so that he may keep many Sabbaths. 'For David, King of Israel, dead, the Sabbath must not be desecrated': Once man dies he is free from [all] obligations, and thus R. Johanan interpreted: Among the dead I am free:10 once a man is dead he is free from religious duties. It was further taught, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: A day-old infant, alive, need not be guarded from weasels or mice, but Og , king of Bashan,11 dead, needs guarding from weasels and mice, as it is said, and the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth:12 as long as a man is alive, his fear lies upon dumb creatures; once he dies his fear ceases. R. Papa said: We hold [as tradition] that a lion does not attack two persons [together]. But we see that it does? - That is [explained] as Rami b. Abba. For Rami b. Abba said: A beast has no power over man until it appears to it as an animal, for it is said, Man that is in honour, and understandeth not, is like the beasts that perish.13
R. Hanina said: One may not sleep in a house alone,14 and whoever sleeps in a house alone is seized by Lilith.15
It was further taught, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Perform [righteousness and charity] whilst thou canst find [an object for thy charity], hast the opportunity,16 and it is yet in thy power,17 and Solomon in his wisdom too said: 'Remember also thy creator in the days of thy youth, or ever the evil days come' - this refers to the days of old age; 'and the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them'18 - this refers to the Messianic era, wherein there is neither merit nor guilt. Now he disagrees with Samuel, who said: The only difference between this world and the Messianic era is in respect of servitude to [foreign] powers, for it is said, For the poor shall never cease out of the land.19
It was taught, R. Eleazar ha-Kappar said: Let one always pray to be spared this fate [poverty], for if he does not descend [to poverty] his son will, and if not his son, his grandson, for it is said, because that for [bi-gelal] this thing, [etc.].20 The School of R. Ishmael taught: It is a wheel [galal] that revolves in the world.21 R. Joseph said: We hold [as tradition] that a Rabbinical student will not suffer poverty. But we see that he does suffer poverty? Even if he suffers poverty, he [nevertheless] does not engage in begging.22 R. Hiyya said to his wife: When a poor man comes, be quick to offer him bread, so that others may be quick to offer it to your children. You curse them! she exclaimed. A verse is written, he replied: 'because that for [bi-gelal] this thing', whereon the School of R. Ishmael taught: It is a wheel that revolves in the world. It was taught R. Gamaliel Beribbi23 said: And he shall give24 thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee:25 he Who is merciful to others, mercy is shown to him by Heaven, while he who is not merciful to others, mercy is not shown to him by Heaven.26
'Or ever the sun and the light be darkened':27 this refers to the forehead and the nose; 'and the moon' - this is the soul; 'and the stars' these are the cheeks; 'and the clouds return after the rain' - this is the light of man's eyes [his eyesight], which is lost after weeping.28 Samuel said: For tears, until the age of forty there is a recovery, but thenceforth there is no recovery.29 And R. Nahman said: As for kohl,30 until the age of forty it improves [the eyesight], but thereafter, even if the paint-stick is as thick [with paint] as a weaver's pin, it may indeed stay [the ravages of time], but will certainly not improve [the eyesight]. What does he inform us? That the thicker the paint-stick the more beneficial it is.
R. Hanina's daughter died, [but] he did not weep for her. Said his wife to him, 'Hast thou sent out a fowl from thy house?'31 '[Shall I suffer] two [evils],' he retorted, 'bereavement and blindness?' He held as R. Johanan said in the name of R. Jose the son of a laundress: There are six kinds of tears, three being beneficial and three harmful: those caused by smoke, weeping,32
(1) Until the funeral without putrefying.
(2) Lit., 'go up' - to meet the top jaw.
(3) v. supra 40b. This shows that whatever may not be handled may not be oiled.
(4) The reason there is not because handling is forbidden, but lest he make ruts (v. p. 189, n. 3); and though that is impossible, since baths are provided with stone flooring. yet it is forbidden lest it be thought that it may likewise be done to an earth flooring. But no one will think that if a corpse may be oiled ground may be oiled too.
(5) Eccl. Xli, 6. He translates galgal (E.V. wheel) as galal (dung).
(6) Mal. II, 3.
(7) Lit., 'words of the Torah'.
(8) Lit., 'with the departure of the soul'.
(9) Lit:, 'he sheds blood' - because he hastens death.
(10) Ps. LXXXVIII, 6 (E.V. 5: cast off among the dead).
(11) V. Ber. 54b.
(12) Gen. IX, 2.
(13) Ps. XLIX, 14 and 21 (E.V. 20). He appears to translate:... not, he is ruled over (by wild beasts) when he appears (to them) like a beast. - This is a punishment for misdeeds.
(14) Aliter: He who sleeps in a lonely (situated) house.
(15) The night demon. V.J.E. art. Lilith,
(16) Lit., 'it is found with thee' - sc. the means.
(17) I.e., during thy lifetime.
(18) Eccl. XII, 1.
(19) Deut. XV, 11; v. supra 63a for notes.
(20) Ibid. 10.
(21) Coming to all people or their descendants; Gelal is thus connected with galgal.
(22) Lit., 'going about the doors' (of houses).
(23) V. p. 564, n. 6.
(24) E.V. show.
(25) Deut. XIII, 17.
(26) He translates the verse thus; and he shall give, i.e. Inspire thee with mercy - towards others - then he shall have mercy upon thee.
(27) Eccl. XII, 2.
(28) The weeping of old age - caused by trouble and sickness - impairs or destroys the eyesight.
(29) The eyes recover from the weakening effect of tears until one is forty years old, but not after.
(30) An eye-salve.
(31) Was she nothing more to you than that?
(32) In grief.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 152a
and the privy1 are harmful; those caused by chemicals, laughter, or plants2 are beneficial. In the day when the keeper of the house shall tremble; and the strong men shall bow themselves, etc.3 In the day when the keeper of the house shall tremble' - these are the flanks [sides] and the ribs; 'and the strong men shall bow themselves' - the legs; 'and the grinders cease' - the teeth; 'and those that look out of the windows darkened' - the eyes. The emperor asked R. Joshua b. Hanania,4 'Why did you not attend the Be Abedan?'5 'The mountain is snowy, it is surrounded by ice,6 the dog does not bark and the grinders do not grind,' he replied.7 The School of Rab was wont to say: 'What I did not lose I seek.'8
It was taught, R. Jose b. Kisma said: Two are better than three,9 and woe for the one thing that goes and does not return. What is that? Said R. Hisda: One's youth. When R. Dimi came,10 he said: Youth is a crown of roses; old age is a crown of willowrods.11 It was taught in R. Meir's name: Chew well with your teeth, and you will find it in your steps, as it is said, for then we had plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.12 Samuel said to Rab Judah: O keen scholar!13 open your mouth14 and let your food enter. Until the age of forty food is more beneficial; thenceforth drink is more beneficial.
A certain eunuch [gawzaah] said to R. Joshua b. Karhah [Baldhead]: 'How far is it from here to Karhina [Baldtown]? 'As far as from here to Gawzania [Eunuchtown],' he replied.15 Said the Sadducee to him, 'A bald buck is worth four denarii.' 'A goat, if castrated, is worth eight,' he retorted. Now, he [the Sadducee] saw that he [R. Joshua] was not wearing shoes, [whereupon] he remarked, 'He [who rides] on a horse is a king, upon an ass, is a free man, and he who has shoes on his feet is a human being; but he who has none of these, one who is dead16 and buried is better off.' 'O eunuch, O eunuch,' he retorted, 'you have enumerated three things to me, [and now] you will hear three things: the glory of a face is its beard; the rejoicing of one's heart is a wife; the heritage of the Lord is children;17 blessed be the Omnipresent, Who has denied you all these!' 'O quarrelsome baldhead,' he jeered at him. 'A castrated buck and [you will] reprove!'18 he retorted.
Rabbi asked R. Simeon b. Halafta: 'Why were we not permitted to receive you on the Festival, as my ancestors used to receive your ancestors?' 'The rocks have grown tall, the near have become distant, two have turned into three, and the peacemaker of the home has ceased, he replied.19
And the doors shall be shut in the streets:20 this refers to the apertures of man; 'when the sound of the grinding is low' - on account of the stomach's failing to digest;21 'and one shall rise up at the voice of a bird', - even a bird will awake him from sleep; 'and all the daughters of the music shall be brought low - even the voices of male singers and female singers sound to him like a whisper. And thus too did Barzillai the Gileadite say to David: 'I am this day fourscore years old: can I discern between good and bad'? This shows that the opinions of old men are changeable [changed]; 'can thy servant taste what I eat or drink'? this shows that the lips of old men grow slack;22 'can I hear any more the voice of singing men and singing women'?23 this proves that the ears of old men are heavy.24 Rab said: Barzillai the Gileadite was a liar. For there was a servant in Rab's house, ninety-two years old, who could taste the dish[es]. Raba said: Barzillai the Gileadite was steeped in lewdness, and whoever is steeped in lewdness, old age hastens upon him. It was taught, R. Ishmael son of R. Jose said: As for scholars, the older they grow the more wisdom they acquire, for it is said, With aged men is wisdom, and in length of days understanding.25 But the ignorant, as they wax older, become more foolish, for it is said, He removeth the speech of the trusty, and taketh away the understanding of the elders.26
Yea, they shall be afraid of that which is high27 - even a small knoll looks to him like the highest of mountains; 'and terrors shall be in the way' - when he walks on a road his heart is filled with fears;28 and the almond tree shall blossom' - that refers to the coccyx29 'and the grasshopper shall be a burden'30 - the rump; 'and desire shall fail' the passions. R. Kahana was expounding a portion [of scripture]31 before Rab. When he came to this verse, he [Rab] uttered a long sigh. This shows that Rab's desires have ceased, observed he. R. Kahana said: What is meant by, 'For he decreed, and it was':32 this refers to a woman;33 'he commanded; and it did stand' - this refers to children. A Tanna taught: Though a woman be as a pitcher full of filth and her mouth be full of blood, yet all speed after her.
Because man goeth to his long home.34 R. Isaac observed: This teaches that every righteous person is given a habitation as befits his honour. This may be compared to a king who enters a town together with his servants. They all enter through the same gate, [yet] when they spend the night [there] each is given a lodging as befits his honour.
R. Isaac also said: What means the verse, For youth and the prime of life are vanity?35 The things a man does in his youth blacken his face36 in his old age.37
R. Isaac also said: Worms are as painful to the dead as a needle in the flesh of the living, for it is said, But his flesh upon him hath pain.38 R. Hisda said: A man's soul mourns for him [after death] seven whole [days]. for it is said, And his soul mourneth for him;39 and it is written, and he made a mourning for his father seven days.40
Rab Judah said: If there are none to be comforted for a dead person.41 ten people go and sit in his place.42 A certain man died in the neighbourhood of Rab Judah. As there were none to be comforted,
(1) I.e., through internal disorders.
(2) E.g., onions or mustard.
(3) Eccl. XII. 2.
(4) V. p. 587. n. 2.
(5) V. supra 116a and notes a.l.
(6) Lit., 'its surroundings are ice'.
(7) My head is snowy white, my beard likewise, my voice feeble and my teeth do not function. - I am too old to attend.
(8) This was their description of old age. One goes about bent and stooping, appearing to seek an article which he has not lost.
(9) The two legs in youth are better than the three - i.e., the additional stick - of old age.
(10) V. p. 12, n. 9.
(11) Heavy to bear.
(12) Jer. XLIV, 17.
(13) Or, man of long teeth.
(14) Lit., 'thy sack'.
(15) Both fictitious places, of course, playfully formed from their names and persons.
(16) Lit., 'one for whom a grave is dug'.
(17) Ps. CXXVII, 3.
(18) Rashi. R. Han.: O castrated goat. I do but rebuke, not quarrel with thee.
(19) I.e., I have grown old, even those near are as difficult to visit as those at a distance, my two legs need an additional stick for walking, and I can no longer exercise a man's functions.
(20) Eccl. XII, 4.
(21) Lit., 'grind'.
(22) I.e., fall apart and cannot enjoy the taste of food.
(23) II Sam. XIX, 35.
(24) They are hard of hearing.
(25) Job XII. 12.
(26) Ibid. 20.
(27) Eccl. XII, 5.
(28) Yalkut Koheleth 989 reads: it (the road) becomes for him full of terrors.
(29) The lowest end of the vertebrae - the extreme weakness of old age causes it to 'blossom', i.e., protrude and be moved from its place.
(30) Or, shall drag itself along.
(31) פסיק סדרא, v. supra p. 572, n. 1.
(32) Ps. XXXIII, 9.
(33) It is God's decree that man shall desire woman.
(34) Eccl. XII, 5.
(35) Ibid. XI. 10.
(36) Rashi: weaken him, the reference being to sexual indulgence. The passage may also refer to actions in general for which one in old age feels himself blackened with shame.
(37) He derives shaharuth (E.V. prime of life) from shahor, black, and translates: 'for youth and the blackening (of old age) are vanity'.
(38) Job XIV, 22.
(39) Job XIV, 22.
(40) Gen. L, 10.
(41) I.e., there are no mourners. Lit., 'a dead person for whom there are no comforters'.
(42) Where he died, and engage in religious exercises such as prayer and study.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 152b
Rab Judah assembled ten men every day and they sat in his place. After seven days he [the dead man] appeared to him in a dream and said to him, 'Thy mind be at rest, for thou hast set my mind at rest.' R. Abbahu said: The dead man knows all that is said in his presence until the top-stone [golel] closes [the grave].1 R. Hiyya and R. Simeon b. Rabbi differ therein: one maintains, until the top-stone closes [the grave]; whilst the other says, until the flesh rots away. He who says, until the flesh rots away. - because it is written, But his flesh upon him hath pain and his soul within him mourneth.2 He who says, until the top-stone closes [the grave]. - because it is written, and the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit return unto God.3
Our Rabbis taught: 'And the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit return unto God who gave it': Render it back to him as He gave it to thee, [viz.,] in purity, so do thou [return it] in purity. This may be compared to a mortal king4 who distributed royal apparel to his servants. The wise among them folded it up and laid it away in a chest, whereas the fools among them went and did their work in them. After a time the king demanded his garments: the wise among them returned them to him immaculate, [but] the fools among them returned them soiled. The king was pleased with the wise but angry with the fools. Of the wise he said, 'Let my robes be placed in my treasury and they can go home in peace'; while of the fools he said, 'Let my robes be given to the fuller, and let them be confined in prison.' Thus too, with the Holy One, blessed be He: concerning the bodies of the righteous He says, He entereth into peace, they rest in their beds;5 while concerning their souls He says, yet the soul of my Lord shall be bound up in the bundle of life with the Lord thy God.6 But concerning the bodies of the wicked He says, There is no peace saith the Lord, unto the wicked;7 while concerning their souls He says, and the souls of thine enemies, them shall he sling out, as from the hollow of a sling.8
It was taught, R. Eliezer said: The souls of the righteous are hidden under the Throne of Glory, as it is said, yet the soul of thine Lord shall be bound up in the bundle of life.8 But those of the wicked continue to be imprisoned,9 while one angel stands at one end of the world and a second stands at the other end, and they sling their souls to each other, for it is said, and the souls of thine enemies, them shall he sling out, as from the hollow of a sling. Rabbah asked R. Nahman: What about those who are intermediate? Had I died I could not have told you this, he replied. Thus did Samuel say: Both these and those [the wicked and the intermediate] are delivered to Dumah;10 these enjoy rest, whereas the others have no rest. R. Mari said: [Even] the righteous are fated to be dust, for it is written, 'and the dust return to the earth as it was'. Certain diggers were digging in R. Nahman's ground, [when] R. Ahai b. Josiah11 snorted at them. So they went and told R. Nahman, 'A man snorted at us.' He went and asked him, 'Who are you?' 'I am Ahai b. Josiah.' 'But did not R. Mari say. [Even] the righteous are fated to be dust?' said he. 'But who is Mari,' he retorted 'I do not know him.' Yet surely a verse is written, 'and the dust returns to the earth as it was'? he urged. 'He who taught you Ecclesiastes did not teach you Proverbs,' he answered, 'for it is written, But envy is the rottenness of the bones:12 he who has envy in his heart, his bones rot away. [but] he who has no envy in his heart, his bones do not rot away.' He then felt him and perceived that there was substance in him. 'Let my master arise [and come] to my house,' he invited him. 'You have thus disclosed that you have not even studied the prophets, for it is written, And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when l open your graves,'13 said he to him, 'But it is written, for dust art thou, and unto dust thou shalt return?'14 'That means one hour before the resurrection of the dead', replied he.
A certain Sadducee said to R. Abbahu:15 You maintain that the souls of the righteous are hidden under the Throne of Glory: then how did the bone [- practising] necromancer bring up Samuel by means of his necromancy?16 - There it was within twelve months [of death], he replied. For it was taught: For full [twelve months] the body is in existence and the soul ascends and descends; after twelve months the body ceases to exist
(1) R. Tam. Rashi: until the coffin-lid is closed, v. Nazir, Sonc. ed., p. 302, n. 5'
(2) I.e., he suffers pain and grief - a sign of consciousness - as long as his flesh is upon him.
(3) Eccl. XII, 7. I.e., immediately the dust - sc. the body - returns to the earth, the spirit returns to God, and there is no further consciousness of earthly matters.
(4) Lit., 'a king of flesh and blood'.
(5) Isa. LVII, 2.
(6) I Sam. XXV, 29.
(7) Isa. XLVIII, 22.
(8) Sam. ibid.
(9) Lit., 'muzzled'. Marginal translation: are eternally pressed down - sc. in the sling of destruction.
(10) The guardian angel of the deceased. [The name is probably Silence, which is the meaning of Dumah, personified.]
(11) Who was buried there.
(12) Prov. XIV, 30.
(13) Ezek. XXXVII, 13; i.e., God alone can free men from their graves.
(14) Gen. 111,19.
(15) MS.M. min (v. Glos.). This is preferable as there were no Sadducees in the time of R. Abbahu; cf. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p, 706, n. 8.
(16) v. i Sam, XXVIII, 7. Bones were used in necromancy.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 153a
and the soul ascends but descends nevermore.
Rab Judah son of R. Samuel b. Shila said in Rab's name: From the funeral eulogy pronounced over a man it may be known whether the future world is his or not.1 But that is not so? for Rab said to R. Samuel b. Shilath, 'Be fervent in my funeral eulogy. for I will be standing there'?2 - There is no difficulty: in the one case a fervent lament is pronounced and one is deeply moved,3 in the other a fervent lament is pronounced and one is not moved. Abaye asked Rabbah: 'You, for instance, whom the whole of the Pumbeditheans hate,4 who will arouse lamentation for you?' 'You and Rabbah b. R. Hanan will suffice,' he replied.
R. Eleazar asked Rab: Which man has earned [enjoyment of] the future world? Said he to him, And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it,' when, ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left.5 R. Hanina said: He with whom his teachers are pleased.6
And the mourners go about the streets.7 The Galileans said: Perform actions [which shall be lamented] in front of thy bier; the Judaeans said: Perform actions [to be lamented] behind thy bier. But they do not differ: each [spoke] in accordance with [the usage in] his locality.8
We learnt elsewhere, R. Eliezer said: Repent one day before your death.9 His disciples asked him, Does then one know on what day he will die? Then all the more reason that he repent to-day, he replied, lest he die to-morrow, and thus his whole life is spent in repentance. And Solomon too said in his wisdom, Let thy garments be always white; and let not thy head lack ointment.10 R. Johanan b. Zakkai said: This may be compared to a king who summoned his servants to a banquet without appointing a time. The wise ones adorned themselves and sat at the door of the palace. ['for,'] said they. 'is anything lacking in a royal palace?'11 The fools went about their work, saying, 'can there be a banquet without preparations'?12 Suddenly the king desired [the presence of] his servants: the wise entered adorned, while the fools entered soiled. The king rejoiced at the wise but was angry with the fools. 'Those who adorned themselves for the banquet,' ordered he, 'let them sit, eat and drink. But those who did not adorn themselves for the banquet, let them stand and watch.' R. Meir's son-in-law said in R. Meir's name: Then they too would [merely] look as being in attendance.13 But both sit, the former eating and the latter hungering, the former drinking and the latter thirsting, for it is said, Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, my servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry: behold, my servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty: [behold, my servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be ashamed:] behold, my servants shall sing for joy of heart, but ye shall cry for sorrow of heart.14 Another, interpretation: 'Let thy garments be always white' - this refers to fringes; 'and let not thy head lack ointment' - to tefillin.
MISHNAH. IF DARKNESS FALLS UPON A PERSON ON A ROAD,15 HE ENTRUSTS HIS PURSE TO A GENTILE;16 BUT IF THERE IS NO GENTILE WITH HIM, HE PLACES IT ON THE ASS. WHEN HE REACHES THE OUTERMOST COURTYARD17 HE REMOVES THE OBJECTS WHICH MAY BE HANDLED ON THE SABBATH, WHILST AS FOR THOSE WHICH MAY NOT BE HANDLED ON THE SABBATH, HE UNTIES THE CORDS18 AND THE SACKS FALL OFF AUTOMATICALLY.
GEMARA. Why did the Rabbis permit him to entrust his purse to a Gentile?19 - The Rabbis knew for certain20 that no man will restrain himself where his money is concerned; if you do not permit it to him, he will come to carry it four cubits in public ground.
Raba said: His purse only, but not something found. That is obvious, [for] we learnt HIS PURSE? - You might say, The same law applies even to a find, and why does he mention HIS PURSE - as a natural course:21 therefore he informs us [that it is not so]. Yet we said this only where it did not come into his possession [before the Sabbath], but if it came into his possession, it is the same as his purse. Others state, Raba asked: What about a find that came into his possession [before nightfall]? since it came into this possession, it is the same as his purse; or perhaps since he had no trouble over it, it is not the same as his purse? The question stands over.
IF THERE IS NO GENTILE WITH HIM, [etc.]. The reason is that there is no Gentile with him, but if there is a Gentile with him he must give it to him:22 what is the reason? - As for an ass, you are under an obligation that it should rest;23 but as for a Gentile, you are under no obligation [to ensure] that he should rest.
[If there is] an ass, and a deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor:24 he must place it on the ass and not give it to the deaf-mute, imbecile or minor. What is the reason? The latter are human beings whereas the former is not. [In the case of] a deaf-mute and an imbecile: [he must give it] to the imbecile; [in the case of] an imbecile and a minor - to the imbecile. The scholars asked: What of a deaf-mute and a minor? On R. Eliezer's view there is no questions for it was taught: R. Isaac said in R. Eliezer's name: The terumah of a deaf-mute25
(1) If it arouses widespread grief he must have been a good man who earned the enjoyment of the future world.
(2) When it is pronounced. But if he felt certain that a funeral lament for a good man is spontaneously fervent and deep, what need of exhortation?
(3) Lit., 'warmed'.
(4) Rashi: because of his outspokenness, v. Hul. 127a.
(5) Isa. XXX, 21. I.e., if one hears a voice proclaiming thus after his death, he has earned the world to come.
(6) Var. lec. our teachers.
(7) Eccl. XII, 5.
(8) In Galilee the professional mourners walked in front of the bier, in Judah behind.
(9) A similar thought is expressed in the Book of Ben Sira, V, 8.
(10) Eccl. IX, 8.
(11) The summons to enter may come at any moment.
(12) Lit., 'trouble'.
(13) Their punishment would not be so great.
(14) Isa. LXV, 13f.
(15) The Sabbath commences.
(16) V. supra 17b.
(17) Of the first town where he arrives.
(18) Whereby they are fastened to the saddle.
(19) Though that is tantamount to instructing the Gentile to carry it for him, which is forbidden.
(20) Lit., 'it was established to the Rabbis'.
(21) Finds are rare.
(22) In preference.
(23) V. Ex. XX, 10
(24) These three are frequently linked together as being the same in law.
(25) I.e., separated by him.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 153b
does not revert to hullin, because it is doubtful.1 The question is on the Rabbis' view. For we learnt: Five must not separate terumah, and if they do their separation is not valid. And these are they: a deaf-mute, imbecile, minor, one who separates terumah on [produce] that is not his,2 and a Gentile who separates terumah on an Israelite's [produce] even with [the latter's] permission, his separation is not valid. What then? must he give it to the deaf-mute, seeing that the minor will arrive at understanding;3 or perhaps he must give it to the minor, because a deaf-mute may be confused with an intelligent adult? - Some rule: He must give it to the deaf-mute; others maintain; he must entrust it to the minor.
What if neither a Gentile, an ass, a deaf-mute, an imbecile nor a minor is there? - R. Isaac said: There was yet another [expedient], but the Sages did not wish to reveal it. What was the other [expedient]? - One may carry it in stretches of less than four cubits at a time.4 Why were the Sages unwilling to reveal it? Because, It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.5 Yet what glory of God is there here? - Lest one come to carry it four cubits in public ground.
It was taught, R. Eliezer said: On that day6 they overfilled the measure;7 R. Joshua said: On that day they made the measure deficient.8 It was taught, As an illustration, what does this resemble on R. Eliezer's view? A basket full of cucumbers and gourds: a man puts mustard [grain] therein and it holds it.9 As an illustration, what does this resemble on R. Joshua's view? A tub full of honey: if one puts pomegranates and nuts therein, it [the tub] overflows.10
The Master said: 'If there is no Gentile with him, he places it on his ass'. But he [thereby] leads a [laden] ass, whereas Scripture saith, [In it] thou shalt not do any work, [thou . . . nor thy cattle]?11 Said R. Adda b. Ahabah: He places it upon her while she is walking.12 But it is impossible that she shall not stop for the calls of Nature,13 and so there is removing and depositing? - When she is walking he places it upon her, and when she stops he removes it from her. If so, [the same may be done] even [to] his neighbour too? - R. Papa answered: Where one is liable to a sin-offering in his own case, in the case of his neighbour though he is not culpable nevertheless it is forbidden;14 and wherever in the case of one's neighbour he is not culpable though it is forbidden, in the case of one's ass it is permitted at the outset.
R. Adda b. Ahabah said: If one's bundle is lying on his shoulder, he must run with it until he arrives home. He may only run, but not walk leisurely. What is the reason? - Since he has nothing to mark a distinction, he will come to perform removing and depositing. Yet after all, when he arrives at the house it is impossible that he shall not stop for a moment, and so he carries it from public to private ground? - He throws it in a 'back-handed manner.'15
Rami b. Hama said: If one leads a laden ass on the Sabbath unwittingly, he is liable to a sin-offering; if deliberately, he is liable to stoning.16 What is the reason? Said Rabbah, because Scripture said, Thou shalt not do any work, - thou, . . - nor thy cattle: his cattle is assimilated to himself. Just as when he [himself does work], if unwittingly, he is liable to a sin-offering: if deliberately, he is liable to stoning: so [when he works with] his cattle too, if unwittingly, he is liable to a sin-offering; if deliberately, he is liable to stoning. Raba observed, There are two objections to this. Firstly, because it is written, Ye shall have one law for him that doeth aught unwittingly . . . But the soul that doeth aught with a high hand, [etc.]:17 all laws are assimilated to idolatry: just as in the case of idolatry, he personally performs an action, so here too [one does not incur a sin-offering] unless he personally performs work. Moreover, we learnt: He who desecrates the Sabbath [is stoned], provided that it is an offence punished by stoning18 if deliberate, and by a sin-offering if unwitting. Hence it follows that there is an offence for which if done unwittingly one does not incur a sin-offering, nor stoning if deliberate: and what is that? Surely leading a laden ass? - No: [the violation of] tehumin,19 in accordance with R. Akiba's view,20 or kindling, in accordance with R. Jose s view.21 [
(1) Whether his action is valid or not, as his mind may have been clear. On that view a minor stands lower, and the purse must certainly be given to the minor.
(2) Without having been previously authorized.
(3) Thus he is at least potentially an adult of intelligence.
(4) V. supra p. 194, n. 5.
(5) Prov. XXV, 2.
(6) When they entered the upper chambers of Hezekiah b. Garon for the eighteen enactments, v. supra 13b and p. 54, n. 1.
(7) They did well in enacting so many preventive laws, thereby safeguarding Israel from transgression.
(8) Or, they just levelled the measure. I.e., they imposed so many prohibitions as to defeat their own object, for by a reaction Israel would be more likely to sin now than hitherto. - This is mentioned here be cause the entrusting of one's purse to a Gentile was one of those eighteen laws.
(9) Though full it is still capable of receiving more.
(10) Lit., 'it spews forth' - some of the honey itself.
(11) Ex. XX, 10.
(12) If one places a burden on a man while he is walking he is not culpable, because there is no 'removal' in a technical sense; v. supra 3a. Hence it does not constitute labour, and therefore the same applies here too.
(13) And when she recommences there is 'removal', and when she stops again there is 'depositing', which together constitute 'work'.
(14) For if a man carries an article four cubits in public ground, even if he picks it up while walking, he is culpable. Consequently one must not put a burden upon another person while walking, though there is no culpability.
(15) V. p. 188, n. 2.
(16) In theory only. In actual practice the death penalty was restricted by so many conditions as to be non-existent in all but cases of murder (cf. Herzog. Main Institutions of Jewish Law, Vol. I, Introduction, XXI).
(17) Num. XV, 29f, q.v. The latter refers to idolatry.
(18) In Sanh. 66a the reading is: kareth.
(19) Tehum, pl. tehumin, v. Glos.
(20) Who regards the prohibition as Biblical, v. Sot. 36b.
(21) V. supra 70a.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 154a
R. Zebid recited it thus: Rami b. Hama said: If one leads a laden ass on the Sabbath: if unwittingly, he does not incur a sin-offering: if deliberately, he is liable to stoning. Raba objected: He who desecrates the Sabbath by an offence for which, if unwitting, a sin-offering is incurred, if deliberate he is liable to stoning. Hence if one does not incur a sin-offering when it is unwitting, there is no stoning when it is deliberate? - Does he [the Tanna] then teach, 'Hence if one does not incur a sin-offering,' etc.? [Surely] he says thus: [Every] offence for which, if unwitting, one is liable to a sin-offering, if deliberate he is liable to stoning. Yet there is an offence for which, if unwitting, a sin-offering is not incurred, nevertheless if deliberate one is liable to stoning. And what is it? Leading a laden ass.
Raba, the brother of R. Mari b. Rachel, others state, the father of R. Mari b. Rachel -
(on the second version there is the difficulty that Rab declared R. Mari b. Rachel eligible [to hold office] and appointed him one of the collectors of Babylonia?1 - perhaps there were two men of the name of Mari b. Rachel)2 recited this discussion in R. Johanan's name, teaching non-culpability. [Thus:] R. Johanan said: If one drives a laden animal on the Sabbath he is not culpable at all. If it is unwitting he does not incur a sin-offering, because the whole Torah is assimilated to idolatry. If deliberate he is not culpable, because we learnt: He who desecrates the Sabbath [is stoned], provided that it is an offence for which a sin-offering is incurred if it is unwitting and stoning if it is deliberate:3 hence if the unwitting offence does not involve a sin-offering, the deliberate offence does not involve stoning. Neither is he liable for [the violation of] a negative precept,4 because it is a negative precept for which a warning of capital punishment at the hands of Beth din may be given, and for such there is no flagellation.5
(1) V. Yeb., Sonc. ed., p. 297 and notes. Such positions were only open to men of Jewish parentage, yet Rab declared him eligible because It was sufficient that his mother was a Jewess. That contradicts the present statement that his father too was a Jew.
(2) Bah deletes the bracketed passage, and the same appears from Rashi and Tosaf.
(3) This is the reading in cur. edd., and must be retained if the introductory phrase, 'we learnt', which always precedes a Mishnah, is correct, the Mishnah being that on Sanh. 66a (quoted supra 153b bottom). Bah however emends the text thus: if it is an offence for which a sin-offering is incurred if unwitting, stoning is incurred when deliberate. This suits the context better, this being the Baraitha quoted by Raba supra. But in that case the introductory phrase must be emended to 'it was taught'.
(4) The penalty for which is flagellation.
(5) I.e., the offender could be formally warned against driving a laden ass on the grounds that it is punishable by death; in such a case there is no flagellation even if the death penalty is not imposed.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 154b
And even on the view that we do flagellate [in such a case],1 let the Divine Law write, 'Thou shalt not do any work nor thy cattle': why state 'thou'? [To teach:] only [when] he personally [works] is he liable, but [if] his animal works, he is not liable.
WHEN HE REACHES THE OUTERMOST COURTYARD, etc. R. Huna said: If his animal is laden with glassware, he brings mattresses and pillows, places [them] under it, unties the cords, and the sacks fall off. But we learnt: HE REMOVES THE OBJECTS WHICH MAY BE HANDLED ON THE SABBATH?2 - R. Huna spoke of surgeon's horns,3 which are not fit for him.4 But he makes a utensil lose its readiness [for use]?5 - The reference is to small bags.6
An objection is raised: If one's animal is laden with tebel or glass balls,7 he must untie the cords and the sacks fall off, though they are broken? - There it treats of glass lumps.8 This may be proved too, for it is taught analogous to tebel: just as tebel is of no use to him, so here too [it means something] that is of no use to him. Then why state, 'though they are broken'?9 - You might say that they [the Sages] were concerned even about a trifling loss: hence he informs us [otherwise].
It was taught R. Simeon b. Yohai said: If the animal is laden with a bag of corn,10 one places his head under it and moves it to the other side, so that it falls off automatically. R. Gamaliel's ass was laden with honey, but he would not unload it until the termination of the Sabbath. On the termination of the Sabbath it died. But we learnt: HE REMOVES THE OBJECTS WHICH MAY BE HANDLED?11 - It had gone rancid. If it had gone rancid, of what use was it?12 - For camels' sores.13 Then he should have untied the cords so that the sacks would fall off? - The gourds [containers] would burst - Then he should have brought mattresses and pillows and placed them beneath them? - They would become soiled14 and he would deprive a utensil of its readiness [for use]. But there was suffering of dumb animals? - He holds that the suffering of dumb animals is [only] Rabbinically [forbidden].15
Abaye found Rabbah letting his son glide down the back of an ass.16 Said he to him, You are making use of dumb creatures [on the Sabbath]? - It is but on the sides [of the animal], he replied, and in that case the Rabbis did not impose an interdict.17 How do you know it? - Because we learnt: HE UNTIES THE CORDS AND THE SACKS FALL OFF AUTOMATICALLY. Does that not refer to a pair of coupled haversacks?18 No: a balanced load is meant;19 alternatively, it means where [the sacks are fastened] by a bolt.20
He raised an objection: If two [walls] are [made] by man and a third is on a tree, it is valid, but one must not ascend [enter] therein on the Festival.21 Does that not mean that one made grooves on the tree,22 so that it is the sides [only that would be used], and thus the sides are forbidden? - No: It means that he bent over [the branches of] the tree and placed the roofing - upon it, so that he makes use of the tree. If so, consider the second clause: If three are made by man and a fourth is in a tree, it is valid, and one may ascend therein on the Festival. But if he bent over the tree, why may he ascend therein on the Festival?23 - Then what would you: that the sides are forbidden,24 - then still the question remains: why may one ascend therein on the Festival? But there it treats of spreading branches, and the tree itself was merely made a wall.25 This may be proved too, for he states, This is the general rule: wherever it [the sukkah] can stand if the tree were removed, one may ascend therein on the Festival.26 This proves it.
Shall we say that this is dependent on Tannaim? [For it was taught.] One may not ascend therein on the Festival; R. Simeon b. Eleazar said in R. Meir's name: One may ascend therein on the Festival. Is that not [to be explained] that they differ in this, viz., one Master holds: The sides are forbidden; while the other Master holds: The sides are permitted?27 - Said Abaye, No: All hold that the sides are forbidden, but here they differ in respect of the sides of the sides:28 one Master holds: The sides of the sides are forbidden; while the other Master holds: The sides of the sides are permitted.
Raba maintained: He who forbids the sides forbids the sides of the sides too, while he who permits the sides of the sides permits the sides too. R. Mesharsheya raised an objection to Raba: If one drives
(1) V. Mak. 13b.
(2) Glassware may be handled.
(3) Used in bleeding.
(4) For handling on the Sabbath.
(5) V. supra 43a. These pillows, etc. may be handled, but not when the sacks fall upon them.
(6) The pillows can be pulled away from under them - which is permitted - without hurt, as they have not far to fall.
(7) The word denotes lumps of glass. lanterns, etc.
(8) Which may be broken without loss.
(9) Seeing that no loss is incurred.
(10) Of tebel.
(11) Which includes honey.
(12) Why did he trouble to bring it at all?
(13) Caused by the chafing of the saddle.
(14) If any of the honey were spilt.
(15) This may seem non-humane, but it must be borne in mind that this was held long before other peoples gave the slightest consideration to animals. Cf. p. 640, n. 2 and p. 577, n. 6.
(16) To amuse him.
(17) It is not the normal way of employing an animal.
(18) Coupled or tied together by a cord, a sack hanging down from each side of the animal. To make them fall one would have to lift them off and lean and rub against the animal in doing so which is making use of its sides. Hence this shows that it is permitted.
(19) Each sack being separately attached to a ring by a hook; a slight jerk would suffice. to unhook it, and he would not make use of the animal. V. Jast s.v. חבר.
(20) A wooden cross-bar which can easily be pulled out, letting the sacks drop.
(21) V. Suk. 22a. A sukkah (q.v. Glos.) requires three walls only. Now if two are erected in the normal fashion, whilst the third is made of a tree (this may mean either that the tree constitutes the third wall or that the third wall is fastened to the tree), the sukkah is valid. Nevertheless, one may not enter it on the Festival itself but only during the intermediate days. For the roof is attached to the tree and various utensils, etc., were hung on the roof; thus indirectly one would be using the tree itself, which is forbidden on Festivals. 'Ascending' is mentioned because the sukkah was often built above the ground, e.g., on a roof (Rashi).
(22) 'Wherein he fitted the third wall. - This assumes the second of the two meanings in n. 1.
(23) He still makes use of the tree, in spite of the other three walls.
(24) You wish to adhere to your original hypothesis, whence this follows.
(25) I.e., the thick branches were allowed to form a fourth wall, the sukkah coming right up to them, but the roofing rested on the three other walls, not on the branches. The previous answer could have been retained, viz.,that he bent over the branches of the tree, but rested the roofing on the other three walls. Since however a fourth wall is not required at all, it is assumed that one would not go to this trouble unless he meant the roofing to rest upon it (Rashi).
(26) That is the reason of the second clause quoted above. Hence it must be assumed that the sukkah is so made that the roofing does not rest on the tree at all, as otherwise it could not stand if the tree were removed.
(27) Assuming that grooves were made in the tree etc., as above.
(28) The laths or canes fitted in the grooves are the sides, whilst the roofing which rests on the laths are the sides of the sides. I.e., they differ as to whether one may make indirect use of the sides.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 155a
a peg in a tree and hangs a basket thereon1 above ten handbreadths [from the ground], his 'erub is not an 'erub;2 below ten handbreadths, his 'erub is an 'erub. Thus it is only because he fixed a peg in the tree, but if he did not, even if it is below ten handbreadths his 'erub is not an 'erub.3 Thus this Tanna forbids the sides yet permits the indirect use of the sides? - Said R. Papa: Here we treat of a narrow-mouthed basket, so that in taking out the 'erub he sways the tree, and thus makes use of the tree itself. Now the law is that the sides are forbidden, but the sides of the sides are permitted. R. Ashi said: Now that you have ruled that the sides are forbidden, one must not rest the lodge-ladder4 on the palm tree, because that is tantamount to the [use of the] sides [of the trees;]5 but he must rest it on pegs without the tree,6 and when he ascends he should place his foot not on the pegs but on the rungs.7 MISHNAH. BUNDLES [PEKI'IN] OF SHEAVES MAY BE UNTIED FOR CATTLE AND BUNCHES [KIPPIN] MAY BE SPREAD OUT, BUT NOT SMALL BUNDLES [ZIRIN].8 NEITHER FODDER9 NOR CAROBS MAY BE CHOPPED UP FOR CATTLE, WHETHER SMALL OR LARGE;10 R. JUDAH PERMITS IN THE CASE OF CAROBS FOR SMALL CATTLE.
GEMARA. R. Huna said: PEKI'IN and KIPPIN are identical, [save that] peki'in are two [bunches tied together], while kippin are three; zirin are young shoots of cedar trees.11 And this is what he [the Tanna] teaches: BUNDLES [PEKI'IN] OF SHEAVES MAY BE UNTIED FOR CATTle, AND THEY MAY BE SPREAD, and the same applies to KIPPIN, BUT NOT TO ZIRIN, which may neither be spread out nor untied - R. Hisda said, What is R. Huna's reason? He holds that we may indeed take trouble over [natural] foodstuffs,12 but we may not turn something into foodstuffs.13 Rab Judah said: Peki'in and zirin are identical, [save that] peki'in are two [bunches tied together], whilst Zirin are three; kippin are young cedar shoots. And this is what he teaches: BUNDLES [PEKI'IN] OF SHEAVES MAYBE UNTIED FOR CATTLE, but not spread out, but as for KIPPIN, [THEY] MAY [INDEED] BE SPREAD OUT; BUT NOT ZIRIN, [which it is not permitted] to spread out but [merely] to untie. Raba said, What is Rab Judah's reason? He holds that we may indeed turn something into fodder, but may not take trouble over fodder.14
We learnt: NEITHER FODDER NOR CAROBS MAY BE CHOPPED UP FOR CATTLE, WHETHER SMALL OR LARGE: [Surely it means] carobs like fodder: just as fodder is soft, so are soft carobs meant, thus proving that we may not take trouble over [what is] foodstuff [in any case], which refutes R. Huna? - R. Huna can answer you: No: fodder like carobs: just as carobs are hard, so hard fodder15 is meant.16 Where is that possible?17 In the case of very young foals.
Come and hear: R. JUDAH PERMITS IN THE CASE OF CAROBS FOR SMALL CATTLE. Thus, only for small but not for large: now it is well if you agree that the first Tanna holds that we may not take trouble over foodstuffs, yet we may turn [something] into foodstuffs: hence R. Judah argues [that cutting up] carobs for small cattle is also [an act of] turning [it] into fodder. But if you maintain that the first Tanna holds that we may not turn [aught] into fodder, yet we may take trouble over fodder, then R. JUDAH PERMITS IN THE CASE OF CAROBS FOR SMALL CATTLE [only]? all the more so for large cattle!18 - Do you think that dakkah [small] is literally meant? [No] By dakkah large cattle is meant, yet why is it called dakkah? Because it grinds [dayyka] its food.19 But since the first clause states, WHETHER SMALL OR LARGE, it follows that R. Judah means literally small? This is indeed a difficulty.
Come and hear: One may cut up
(1) And places his 'erub-an 'erub of boundaries (v. Glos.) - in it, intending to spend the Sabbath under the tree. - An 'erub is not valid unless it is accessible on the Sabbath.
(2) Because a basket is generally four handbreadths square, and if it is ten from the ground it is technically a private domain (cf. supra 6a), whereas the ground below is a public domain, and so one must not take the 'erub from the basket; hence it is not accessible.
(3) I.e., if he merely tied the basket to the tree. The 'erub is invalid because in order to get at it he must make use of the side of the tree; where it is hanging on a peg, however, he only makes indirect use of the sides.
(4) A ladder for ascending to a lodge set high up on poles near a tree.
(5) When he ascends on the Sabbath.
(6) I.e., pegs driven into the tree (Rashi). Jast.: on the branches spreading beyond the circumference of the tree.
(7) Or, on the canes protruding from the poles on which the lodge is built.
(8) The Gemara discusses the exact meaning of the terms used.
(9) Shahath is corn not fully grown as fodder.
(10) 'Small cattle' - sheep, goats, calves, etc.; large - cows and oxen.
(11) Cut from the tree. While yet moist they are fit for fodder, though most people leave them to dry for fuel.
(12) Such as bundles of sheaves.
(13) Such as young shoots which are normally intended for fuel.
(14) When the bundles are tied they are not fit for fodder, therefore they may be untied; but it is superfluous indulgence to spread them out, and that is forbidden. Bunches of young shoots, however, are unfit for fodder unless they are spread out; hence it is permitted.
(15) E.g., if the corn has gone dry.
(16) Without being cut up they are altogether unfit; hence they may not be cut up.
(17) That unless cut up they are unfit. - Generally animals can eat them even when hard.
(18) Since carobs are fit in any case, but are more easily eaten when cut up. 'All the more so' because if they are fit in their present state for small cattle, they are certainly fit for large.
(19) Chewing it until it is finely cut up.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 155b
gourds for cattle and a carcass for dogs - Surely fit means] gourds like a carcass: just as a carcass is soft, so are soft gourds meant, which proves that we may take trouble over foodstuffs,1 which refutes Rab Judah? Rab Judah can answer you: No. A carcass like gourds: just as gourds are hard, so a hard carcass [is meant].2 And where is it possible?3 In the case of split meat4 or in the case of very young dogs.5 Come and hear: For R. Hanan of Nehardea recited: 'One may break up straw and corn fodder6 and mix them together' . This proves that we may take trouble over fodder? - Straw means putrefying straw;7 as for corn fodder [the reference is] to young foals.
MISHNAH. ONE MUST NOT STUFF A CAMEL. [WITH FOOD] NOR CRAM [IT]. BUT ONE MAY PUT FOOD INTO ITS MOUTH; AND ONE MUST NOT FATTEN CALVES,8 BUT ONE MAY PUT FOOD INTO THEIR MOUTH. AND FOWLS MAY BE MADE TO TAKE UP FOOD. WATER MAY BE POURED INTO BRAN, BUT WE MAY NOT MIX IT [INTO A MASS]. AND WATER MAY NOT BE PLACED FOR BEES OR FOR DOVES IN A DOVE-COTE, BUT IT MAY BE PLACED BEFORE GEESE, FOWLS AND HARDISIAN DOVES.9
GEMARA. What does ONE MUST NOT STUFF [OBSIN] mean? - Said Rab Judah: One must not make a manger [ebus] in its stomach.10 Is such possible? - Even so, and as R. Jeremiah of Difti11 related: I myself saw a certain Arab feed it with a kor and load it with a kor.12
ONE MUST NOT FATTEN, [MA'AMIRIN]. What is hamra'ah and what is hal'atah?13 - Said Rab Judah: Hamra'ah [is forcing the food] so far that it cannot return; hal'atah is [only] so far that it can return. R. Hisda said: Both mean so far that it cannot return, but hamra'ah is [done] with a utensil, [while] hal'atah is by hand.14 R. Joseph objected: One may force fowls to take food [mehalkitin], and it is superfluous to state that we may fatten [malkitin] them; but one may not fatten [malkitin] the doves of the dove-cote or of the loft, and it is superfluous to state that we may not force them [mehalkitin]. What is mehalkitin and what is malkitin? Shall we say that mehalkitin is hand feeding, while malkitin is throwing [grain, etc.] in front of them? Whence it follows that one may not even cast [grain] before the doves of the dove-cote or of the loft!15 Hence mehalkitin is surely [forcing food] so far down that it cannot return, while malkitin is [only] so far that it can return. From this it follows that hamra'ah means [stuffing] with a utensil, which refutes Rab Judah?16 - Rab Judah can answer you: In truth mehalkitin means feeding by hand, while malkitin means casting [the food] before them, but as to your difficulty, Is it then not even permitted to cast [food] before the doves of the dove-cote and of the loft, [that indeed is so, for] you are responsible for the food of the former [sc. fowls], but not for that of the latter.17 Even as it was taught: Food may be placed before a dog but not before a swine. And what is the difference between them? You are responsible for the food of the one, but you are not responsible for the food of the other. R. Ashi said, Our Mishnah too implies this: WATER MAY NOT BE PLACED FOR BEES OR FOR DOVES IN A DOVECOTE, BUT IT MAY BE PLACED BEFORE GEESE, FOWLS, AND HARDISIAN DOVES. What is the reason? Is it not because you are responsible for the food of the former, but you are not responsible for the food of the latter? - But according to your reasoning, why particularly water: even wheat and barley too may not [be placed before them]? Rather [say] water is different, because it is found in pools.
R. Jonah lectured at the entrance to the Nasi's academy:18 What is meant by the verse, The righteous knoweth the cause of the poor?19 The Holy One, blessed be He, knoweth that a dog's food is scanty,20 therefore He makes him retain his food in his stomach for three days. As we learnt: How long shall the food remain in its stomach and yet defile? In the case of a dog, three full days of twenty-four hours; while in the case of birds or fish, as long as it would take for it [the food] to fall into the fire and be burnt.21 R. Hamnuna said: This proves22 that it is the proper thing23 to throw raw meat to a dog. And how much? Said R. Mari: Measure its ear and the stick [straight] after!24 But that is only in the fields but not in town, because it will come to follow him. R. Papa said: None are poorer than a dog and none richer than a swine.25
It was taught in accordance with Rab Judah: What is hamra'ah and what is hal'atah? Hamra'ah: one makes it [the animal] lie down, opens the mouth wide, and forces it to swallow vetches and water simultaneously; hal'atah: he feeds it standing and waters it standing, and puts vetches separately and water separately [into its mouth].26
FOWLS MAY BE MADE TO TAKE UP FOOD. Abaye said, I asked this before the Master [Rabbah]: With whom does our Mishnah agree?27 And he answered me, With R. Jose b. Judah. For it was taught: If one pours in flour and another water, the second is liable: this is Rabbi's view. R. Jose b. Judah said: He is not liable unless he kneads [them].28 Yet perhaps R. Jose b. Judah ruled thus only there, in respect of flour, which is used for kneading; but as for bran, which is not used for kneading, even R. Jose b. Judah may admit [that he is liable]? - You cannot think so, because it was explicitly taught: Water must not be poured into bran: this is Rabbi's view. R. Jose b. Judah ruled: Water may be poured into bran.
Our Rabbis taught: Parched corn may not be mixed,29 but others maintain, It may be mixed. Who are the 'others'? - Said R. Hisda:
(1) For the gourds can be eaten even if not cut up.
(2) They are uneatable unless cut up.
(3) Cf. n. 3.
(4) Meat that has gone so hard and dry that there are splits in it.
(5) They cannot eat any flesh unless it is cut up.
(6) I.e., shahath, v. p. 792, n. 2.
(7) Though not quite putrid, for that would be unfit and mukzeh.
(8) By stuffing them with food against their will.
(9) A species of domesticated doves, probably so named from the manner of their fructification (Jast. s.v. הרדסיאות). Aliter: Herodian doves, a species of domesticated doves supposed to have been bred by Herod, v. Hul. 139b. - The Gemara discusses the various terms used in the Mishnah.
(10) By excessively stuffing it.
(11) V. p. 35, n. 5.
(12) Of fodder for the journey-this is a very great quantity indeed.
(13) Mal'itin is the term used in the Mishnah for putting food into their mouth.
(14) Hence not so forcible.
(15) Surely that is incorrect!
(16) For the Mishnah employs mehalkitin in respect of fowls and mal'itin i.e., hal'atah in respect of calves as parallel terms, and both are permissible. Hence hamra'ah, which is forbidden, must refer to feeding with a utensil.
(17) Because doves can fly about in the fields and find their own food.
(18) Or, house. It would appear that popular lectures were given there in the open.
(19) Prov. XXIX, 7.
(20) Few people trouble about dogs. - Many of the dogs in the East are semi-savage, and this 'would account for their neglect; v. J.E. art. Dog.
(21) If an animal consumes flesh of a corpse and then dies in a house before it is completely digested, the contents of the house are unclean. The Mishnah quoted states how long we are to regard the flesh as undigested.
(22) Sc. the care that the Almighty takes over a dog's food.
(23) Lit., 'the way of the world'.
(24) Give it a little, only as large as its ear, then immediately drive it off.
(25) Rashi: because the swine eats anything, and it is also given much food.
(26) Obviously in the former case the food can be forced down so far that it will not return, but not in the latter case.
(27) That the mere pouring in of water does not constitute kneading.
(28) V. supra 18a.
(29) With water and oil to make of it a beverage.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 156a
It is R. Jose son of R. Judah. But that is only if one does it in an unusual manner. How does one do it in an unusual manner? Said R. Hisda: Little by little.1 Yet they agree that shatith2 may be stirred round on the Sabbath, and Egyptian beer may be drunk.3 But you said that we must not mix?4 - There is no difficulty: the one treats of a thick mass;5 the other of a loose [one].6 And that is only if he does it in an unusual manner. How does one do it in an unusual manner? - Said R. Joseph: During the week the vinegar is [first] poured in and then the shatith, whereas on the Sabbath the shatith is [first] poured in and then the vinegar.
Levi son of R. Huna b. Hiyya found [on Sabbath] the mixer of his father's household7 mashing [up bran] and feeding the oxen. Thereupon he rebuked him - Then his father came and found him [there]. Said he to him. Thus did your maternal grandfather, viz., R. Jeremiah b. Abba, say in Rab's name: One may mash [bran] but not force it [on the animal]; and if it [the animal] cannot take it [the fodder] up with its tongue one may feed it;8 provided, however, that it is done in an unusual manner. How does one do it in an unusual manner? - Said R. Yemar b. Shalmia in Rab's name: [By stirring it] crosswise.9 But he cannot mix it well [then]? - Said Rab Judah: He shakes up the vessel [itself]. It was recorded in Ze'iri's notebook: I asked my teacher, viz., R. Hiyya. What about kneading?10 It is forbidden, replied he. What about emptying?11 It is permitted, he answered. R. Menassia said: It is well [to place] one [measure of food] for one animal, and two for two; but [to place] three [measures] for two [animals] is forbidden.12 R. Jose said: A kab and even two kabs [may be set]. 'Ulla said: A kor and even two kor.13
It was recorded in Levi's notebook: I spoke to my teacher, viz., our holy Master,14 about those who mix shatitha in Babylonia, and my teacher, viz., our holy Master, protested [vociferously] against the practice of mixing shatitha, but none heeded him, and he lacked the power to forbid it, on account of R. Jose b. Judah.15
It was recorded in R. Joshua b. Levi's notebook: He who [is born] on the first day of the week [Sunday] shall be a man without one [thing] in him - What does 'without one [thing] in him' mean? Shall we say, without one virtue?16 Surely R. Ashi said: I was born on the first day of the week! Hence it must surely mean, one vice. But Surely R. Ashi said: I and Dimi b. Kakuzta were born on the first day of the week: I am a king17 and he is the captain of thieves!18 - Rather it means either completely virtuous or completely wicked.19 [What is the reason? Because light and darkness were created on that day.]20 He who is born on the second day of the week will be bad-tempered - What is the reason? Because the waters were divided thereon.21 He who is born on the third day of the week will be wealthy and unchaste. What is the reason? Because herbs were created thereon.22 He who is born on the fourth day of the week will be wise and of a retentive memory.23 What is the reason? Because the luminaries were suspended [thereon] - He who is born on the fifth day of the week will practise benevolence. What is the reason? Because the fishes and birds were created thereon.24 He who is born on the eve of the Sabbath will be a seeker. R. Nahman b. Isaac commented: A seeker after good deeds.25 He who is born on the Sabbath will die on the Sabbath, because the great day of the Sabbath was desecrated on his account. Raba son of R. Shila observed: And he shall be called a great and holy man.26
R. Hanina said to then, [his disciples]: Go out and tell the son of Levi, Not the constellation of the day but that of the hour is the determining influence. He who is born under the constellation of the sun27 will be a distinguished28 man: he will eat and drink of his own and his secrets will lie uncovered; if a thief, he will have no success. He who is born under Venus will be wealthy and unchaste [immoral]. What is the reason? Because fire was created therein.29 He who is born under Mercury will be of a retentive memory and wise. What is the reason? Because it [Mercury] is the sun's scribe. He who is born under the Moon will be a man to suffer evil, building and demolishing, demolishing and building. eating and drinking that which is not his and his secrets will remain hidden: if a thief, he will be successful.30 He who is born under Saturn will be a man whose plans will be frustrated.31 Others say: All [nefarious] designs against him will be frustrated. He who is born under Zedek [Jupiter] will be a right-doing man [zadkan] R. Nahman b. Isaac observed: Right-doing in good deeds. 'He who is born under Mars will be a shedder of blood. R. Ashi observed: Either a surgeon, a thief, a slaughterer, or a circumciser. Rabbah said: I was born under Mars.32 Abaye retorted: You too inflict punishment and kill.33
It was stated. R. Hanina said: The planetary influence gives wisdom, the planetary influence gives wealth, and Israel stands under planetary influence. R. Johanan maintained: Israel is immune from planetary influence.34 Now, R. Johanan is consistent with his view, for R. Johanan said: How do we know that Israel is immune from planetary influence? Because it is said, Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the nations, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven, for the nations are dismayed at them:35 they are dismayed but not Israel.36 Rab too holds that Israel is immune from planetary influence. For Rab Judah said in Rab's name: How do we know that Israel is immune from planetary influence? Because it is said, and he brought him forth from abroad.37 Abraham pleaded before the Holy One, blessed be He, 'Sovereign of the Universe! one born in mine house is mine heir.'38 'Not so,' He replied, 'but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels.'39 'Sovereign of the Universe!' cried he, 'I have looked at my constellation and find that I am not fated to beget child.' 'Go forth from [i.e., cease] thy planet [gazing], for Israel is free from planetary influence. What is thy calculation?
(1) Lit., 'by hand, by hand'.
(2) A drink prepared of flour and honey.
(3) Though sometimes taken for medicinal purposes it is also imbibed as an ordinary beverage, and hence permitted; cf. supra 109b.
(4) Stirring shatith is the same.
(5) Such as a dough that is forbidden.
(6) Such as shatith.
(7) It was his duty to mix the fodder for his father's cattle.
(8) E.g., food may be put into the mouth of a young calf.
(9) Instead of round and round.
(10) Or, mashing - bran.
(11) A mash from one vessel into another, in order to mix it (Tosaf.). Rashi: from the vessel standing in front of one animal and pouring it out for another animal.
(12) One may set its usual quantity of food before an animal on the Sabbath, - i.e., as much as it generally consumes; similarly, a double quantity for two, if they both feed out of the same manger. But one may not set a treble quantity for two animals, since they do not eat so much during the week.
(13) There is no limit.
(14) R. Judah the prince.
(15) Who permits it supra.
(16) Lit., 'one (thing) in (his) favour'.
(17) I.e., the head of the academy.
(18) An anticipation of gangsterdom?
(19) I.e., he shall be a man complete in his mode of life, without any opposing principle within him.
(20) Hence his nature shall be the one or the other. - Rashal, for some reason which is not clear, deletes the bracketed passage.
(21) Division or disunity is caused by bad temper. - Rashi: so will he be estranged from other people (through his temper).
(22) Herbs multiply very rapidly and also continually intermingle with other herbs.
(23) 'Aruk. Rashi: bright, lustrous.
(24) Which are fed by God's lovingkindness.
(25) Just as on the eve of the Sabbath one seeks to complete the details necessary for the proper observance of the Sabbath.
(26) Maharsha: Not all born on the Sabbath die on the Sabbath, but only those who are very holy.
(27) I.e., when the sun, as one of the planets, wields its influence on man.
(28) Or: bright, handsome.
(29) During the hours ruled over by Mercury.
(30) Just like the moon, which waxes and wanes, has no light of its own but merely reflects the sun's light, and is in general dark.
(31) בטל (to frustrate) is the Chaldaic equivalent of שבת.
(10) Rash: charitable.
(32) And am none of these.
(33) Not to be taken literally. of course. V. supra 153a.
(34) Lit., there is no mazzal (planetary influence) to Israel.
(35) Jer. X, 2.
(36) Israel being uninfluenced by 'the signs of heaven'.
(37) Gen. XV, 5, q.v.
(38) Ibid. 3.
(39) Ibid. 4.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 156b
Because Zedek [Jupiter]1 stands in the West?2 I will turn it back and place it in the East.' And thus it is written, Who hath raised up Zedek from the east?3 He hath summoned it for his sake.4
From Samuel too [we learn that] Israel is immune from planetary influence. For Samuel and Ablat were sitting, while certain people were going to a lake.5 Said Ablat6 to Samuel: 'That man is going but will not return, [for] a snake will bite him and he will die.' 'If he is an Israelite,' replied Samuel. 'he will go and return.'7 While they were sitting he went and returned. [Thereupon] Ablat arose and threw off his [the man's] knapsack, [and] found a snake therein cut up and lying in two pieces - Said Samuel to him, 'What did you do?'8 'Every day we pooled our bread and ate it; but to-day one of us had no bread, and he was ashamed. Said I to them, "I will go and collect [the bread]".9 When I came to him, I pretended to take [bread] from him, so that he should not be ashamed.' 'You have done a good deed,' said he to him. Then Samuel went out and lectured: But charity10 delivereth from death;11 and [this does not mean] from an unnatural death, but from death itself.
From R. Akiba too [we learn that] Israel is free from planetary influence. For R. Akiba had a daughter. Now, astrologers12 told him, On the day she enters the bridal chamber a snake will bite her and she will die. He was very worried about this. On that day [of her marriage] she took a brooch [and] stuck it into the wall and by chance it penetrated [sank] into the eye of a serpent. The following morning, when she took it out, the snake came trailing after it. 'What did you do?' her father asked her. 'A poor man came to our door in the evening.' she replied, 'and everybody was busy at the banquet, and there was none to attend to him. So I took the portion which was given to me and gave it to him. 'You have done a good deed,' said he to her. Thereupon R. Akiba went out and lectured: 'But charity delivereth from death': and not [merely] from an unnatural death, but from death itself.
From R. Nahman b. Isaac too [we learn that] Israel is free from planetary influence. For R. Nahman b. Isaac's mother was told by astrologers, Your son will be a thief. [So] she did not let him [be] bareheaded, saying to him, 'Cover your head so that the fear of heaven may be upon you, and pray [for mercy]'. Now, he did not know why she spoke that to him. One day he was sitting and studying under a palm tree; temptation13 overcame him, he climbed up and bit off a cluster [of dates] with his teeth.14 MISHNAH. GOURDS MAY BE CUT UP FOR CATTLE,15 AND A CARCASE FOR DOGS. R. JUDAH SAID: IF IT WAS NOT NEBELAH BY THE EVE OF THE SABBATH IT IS FORBIDDEN, BECAUSE IT IS NOT MUKAN.16
GEMARA. It was stated: (Mnemonic: 'arel SHahaz).17 'Ulla said; the halachah is as R. Judah. And Rab too holds [that] the halachah is as R. Judah; [this follows] from ship mattings,18 which Rab forbids while Samuel permits. And Levi too holds [that] the halachah is as R. Judah. For when a terefah was brought before him on a Festival,19 he would not inspect it save when he sat by a dunghill, for he said, perhaps it will not be found fit, in which case it is of no use even for dogs. But Samuel maintained: The halachah is as R. Simeon.20 And Ze'iri too holds [that] the halachah is as R. Simeon, for we learnt: If an animal dies, it must not be moved from its place: and Ze'iri interpreted this as referring to a sacred animal,21 but in the case of an ordinary animal it is permitted.22 R. Johanan too said, The halachah is as R. Simeon. Yet did R. Johanan say thus: Surely R. Johanan ruled, The halachah is as an anonymous Mishnah. and we learnt:
(1) Which is thy constellation.
(2) Which is an unpropitious combination for begetting children.
(3) E.V. 'righteousness'.
(4) Sc. for the sake of Abraham: Isa. XLI. 2.
(5) Or, meadow.
(6) V. supra p. 644, n. 11.
(7) prayer can counteract his fate as determined by the planets (Rashi).
(8) To escape your fate.
(9) Lit., 'throw into the basket'.
(10) E.v. righteousness. From the Jewish point of view the two are identical: One merely performs his duty (i.e., righteousness) in giving charity.
(11) Prov. X, 2.
(12) Lit., 'Chaldeans'.
(13) Lit., 'the evil inclination'.
(14) The tree did not belong to him. - This story shows that head-covering was not de rigeur, though regarded as conducive to piety. - From these stories we see that belief in planetary influence was not entirely rejected, but that these Rabbis held that it might be counteracted by good deeds.
(15) Though normally they are for human consumption.
(16) V. Glos.
(17) V. p. 110, n. 1. '='Ulla; R = Rab; L = Levi; SH = SHemuel (Samuel); H = Johanan; Z = Ze'iri.
(18) V. supra 19b.
(19) I,e., when a doubt arose whether an animal was terefah (v. Glos.).
(20) Who permits mukzeh.
(21) I.e., one sanctified for a sacrifice. When it dies all benefit thereof is forbidden and it may not even be thrown to the dogs. Hence it is mukzeh on Festivals, with which this deals.
(22) It can be thrown to the dogs. and is therefore not mukzeh.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 157a
One may not chop up wood from planks,1 nor from a plank that is broken on a Festival?2 R. Johanan recited that as [the ruling of] R. Jose b. Judah.3 Come and hear: One may commence with a heap of straw [for fuel supplies] but not with the timber stored in the shed?4 - The reference there is to cedar and ashuhe5 planks, for in the case of mukzeh on account of monetary loss even R Simeon agrees.6
Come and hear: Pasture animals may not be watered and killed, but home animals may be watered and killed?7 - R. Johanan found another [opposing] anonymous [Mishnah]: Beth Shammai say: One may remove bones and nutshells from the table; but Beth Hillel rule: One must take away the whole board and shake it. Whereon R. Nahman said: As for us, we have no other [view] but that Beth Shammai agree with R. Judah, and Beth Hillel with R. Simeon.8
R. Aha and Rabina differ therein: One maintains: In all [discussions on] the Sabbath the halachah is as R. Simeon, save in mukzeh on account of repulsiveness: and what is that? An old lamp.9 While the other maintains: In respect of mukzeh on account of repulsiveness too the halachah is as R. Simeon, the exception being mukzeh on account of an interdict, and what is that? A lamp wherein a light had been lit on that self-same Sabbath.10 But in the case of mukzeh on account of monetary loss even R. Simeon agrees, for we learnt: All utensils may be handled on the Sabbath, except a large saw and the pin of a plough.11
MISHNAH. VOWS CAN BE ANNULLED BY A HUSBAND ON THE SABBATH, AND ABSOLUTION MAY BE GRANTED12 FOR VOWS WHEN THESE ARE NECESSARY FOR THE SABBATH. A SKYLIGHT MAY BE CLOSED UP,13 AND A RAG MAY BE MEASURED,14 AND A MIKWEH MAY BE MEASURED.15 AND IT ONCE HAPPENED IN THE DAYS OF R. ZADOK'S FATHER AND THE DAYS OF ABBA SAUL THE SON OF BOTNITH THAT THEY CLOSED UP THE WINDOW WITH A PITCHER AND TIED AN [EARTHENWARE] POT TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THERE WAS THE OPENING OF A HANDBREADTH OR NOT IN THE BARREL.16 AND FROM THEIR WORDS WE LEARN THAT WE MAY CLOSE [A SKYLIGHT] AND MEASURE AND TIE ON THE SABBATH.
GEMARA. The scholars asked: Is annulment [permitted] whether it is required [for the Sabbath] or not, whereas absolution [may be granted] only when it is necessary, but not otherwise, and for that reason they are divided from each other;17 or perhaps annulment too [is permitted] only when it is necessary [for the Sabbath] but not otherwise; the reason that they are divided being that annulment does not require a Beth din, whereas absolution requires a Beth din?18 - Come and hear: For Zuti, of the School of R. Papa, recited: Vows may be annulled on the Sabbath when they are required for the Sabbath: thus, only when required for the Sabbath, but not otherwise.
Another version: The scholars asked: Does WHEN THESE ARE NECESSARY relate to both, but not when they are unnecessary. which proves that [for] the annulment of vows a period of twenty-four hours is given; or perhaps WHEN THESE ARE NECESSARY is stated in reference to absolution only, but the annulment of vows [is permitted] even when it is unnecessary, which proves that [for] the annulment of vows the whole day [only] is given?19 - Come and hear: For Zuti of the School of R. Papa recited: Vows may be annulled on the Sabbath when they are required for the Sabbath - Only 'when required for the Sabbath', but not otherwise, which proves that [for] the annulment of vows a period of twenty-four hours is given. Said R. Ashi, But we learnt: [The period allowed for] annulment of vows is the whole day: this may result in greater stringency or greater leniency.20 E.g., if she vows on Sabbath eve [Friday night], he can annul on the Sabbath eve and the Sabbath day; if she vows just before nightfall, he can annul only until the night, for if darkness falls and he has not annulled it, he can no longer do so? - It is dependent on Tannaim: [The period for] the annulling of vows is all day; R. Jose son of R. Judah and R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon maintain: Twenty-four hours.
AND ABSOLUTION MAY BE GRANTED FOR VOWS, etc. The scholars asked: Is that only if one had no time [before the Sabbath to seek absolution], or perhaps it holds good even if one had time? - Come and hear: For the Rabbis gave a hearing to R. Zutra b. R. Zera and absolved him of his vow, though he did have time.
THEY CLOSED UP THE WINDOW WITH A PITCHER AND TIED A POT WITH A REED ROPE. Rab Judah said in Rab's name: There was a small passage between two houses and an unclean object lay there,
(1) Arranged in piles for building.
(2) Because they are mukzeh, v. Bez. 31a.
(3) But not as an anonymous Mishnah.
(4) It is stored there for winter use and is mukzeh, Bez. 29b. This Mishnah is anonymous and agrees with R. Judah.'
(5) A genus of weak (female) cedar. Aliter: cypress.
(6) Cf. p. 610, n. 12.
(7) V. supra 45b. This prohibits mukzeh.
(8) V. supra 143a, p. 724, n. 5. Beth Hillel's view is the same as an anonymous Mishnah, because it is always halachah.
(9) V. supra 44a.
(10) V. p. 202, n. 9.
(11) These are delicate tools that require careful handling and are not used for any purpose but their own, v. supra 123b.
(12) Lit., 'may be sought'; sc, from a Sage or court of three laymen.
(13) Cf. supra 125b.
(14) Whether it is large enough to be defiled; v. supra 26b. E.g., if it came into contact with a sherez (q.v. Glos.) and then touched food.
(15) To see whether it has the minimum size for validity, i.e., one cubit square by three in breadth or its cubic equivalent.
(16) This is discussed infra.
(17) In the Mishnah, instead of stating. Vows may be annulled and absolution granted. etc.
(18) A husband annuls his wife's vows and a father his daughter's, while a Sage or Beth din of three laymen can grant absolution to all.
(19) A husband or a father can annul vows only on the day he hears them (Num. XXX, 5,8, q.v.); and the question is whether 'day' means a calendar day, i.e., until the evening only, no matter when the vow is made, or full twenty-four hours? Now, where he hears of her vow first on Sabbath day, if annulment is permitted on the Sabbath only when it is necessary, it follows that full twenty-four hours are allowed so that he can annul after the termination of the Sabbath; for otherwise we deprive him of the right to annul at all.
(20) By fixing a calender day, i.e., a night and a day, the period may be shorter or longer, as the case may be.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 157b
and a split barrel[-shaped defective roofing] rested over them, - then they closed the window with a pitcher and tied a fire pot with a reed rope to ascertain whether the barrel[-shaped roofing] had an opening of a handbreadth or not.1 AND FROM THEIR WORDS WE LEARN THAT WE MAY STOP UP [A SKYLIGHT] AND MEASURE AND TIE ON THE SABBATH. 'Ulla visited the home of the Resh Galutha and saw Rabbah b. R. Huna Sitting in a bath-tub of water and measuring it. Said he to him: Say that the Rabbis spoke thus of measuring in connection with a precept;2 did they rule [thus] when it is not in connection with a precept? - I was merely occupying myself, he replied.3
(1) The 'unclean object' was a corpse, which lay in the passage beneath the roofing under its split. Before the person died the window was closed up with the pitcher, for fear that the split was less than a handbreadth in width, in which case the corpse would be lying under a covering which contained no opening through which the uncleanness could pass out, and so it would spread to the rooms on its side through the window opening into the passage. Hence it was closed with an earthen pitcher, the back of which faced the passage; it then bars the progress of defilement. In order to know whether the split was a handbreadth in width they tied a fire-shard of that width with a reed, to see whether it could enter the split (Rashi). Tosaf, explains it differently.
(2) Sc. the measuring of a mikweh.
(3) But had no intention of actually measuring.