Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 26a
Let the Master say, because it is volatile?1 - He states, one thing and yet another.' One thing, because it is volatile; and yet another, as a preventive measure, lest he draw supplies from it.
A certain mother-in-law hated her daughter-in-law. Said she to her, 'Go and adorn yourself with balsam oil.'2 She went and adorned herself. On her return she said to her, 'Go and light the lamp.' She went and lit the lamp: a spark flew out on her and consumed her.
But Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard left of the poorest of the land to be vinedressers [kormim] and husbandmen [yogbim].3 'Kornim:' R. Joseph learnt: This means balsamum gatherers from the En Gedi to Ramah. Yogbim: These are those which catch hilazon4 from the promontory of Tyre as far as Haifa.5
Our Rabbis taught: One must not feed a lamp with unclean tebel6 on weekdays, and all the more so on the Sabbath. Similarly, one must not light [a lamp] with white naphtha on weekdays, and all the more so on the Sabbath. As for white naphtha, that is well, [the reason being] because it is volatile. But what is the reason of unclean tebel?-Scripture saith, And I, behold, I have given thee the charge of mine heave-offerings [terumothai]:7 the Writ refers to two terumoth, clean and unclean terumah:8 just as you enjoy nought of clean terumah save from its separation and onwards,9 So also unclean terumah, you may enjoy nought thereof save from its separation and onwards.10
[To turn to] the main text: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: One may not kindle [the Sabbath lamp] with balsam. And thus did R. Simeon b. Eleazar say: Balsam [zari] is merely the sap of resinous trees. R. Ishmael said: All that proceeds from trees, one may not light. R. Ishmael b. Berokah said: One may light only with the produce of fruit.11 R. Tarfon said: One may light [the Sabbath lamp] with nought but olive oil. Thereupon R. Johanan b. Nuri rose to his feet and exclaimed, What shall the Babylonians do, who have only sesame oil? And what shall the Medeans do, who have only nut oil? And what shall the Alexandrians do, who have only radish oil? And what shall the people of Cappadocia12 do, who have neither the one nor the other, save naphtha? But you have nought else but that concerning which the Sages said, One may not kindle [therewith].13 And one may kindle with fish oil and 'itran.14 R. Simeon Shezuri15 said: One may kindle with oil of gourds and with naphtha. Symmachos said: All that which comes from flesh, we may not kindle therewith, except fish oil. But Symmachos is identical with the earlier Tanna?16 -They differ in respect to R. Beruna's dictum in Rab's name,17 but it is not clearly defined.18
It was taught, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Whatever comes forth from trees is not subject to the law of three by three fingerbreadths,19 and one may cover [a booth] therewith,20 except flax.21 Abaye observed,
(1) Explosive and dangerous.
(2) Anointing with oil is and was a common practice in the hot eastern countries; Krauss, T.A. I, 229 and 233.
(3) Jer. LII, 16.
(4) Purple-fish, used for dyeing tekeleth, a peculiar kind of blue.
(5) יוגבים is derived from גוב 'to split', with reference to the splitting of the mollusc in order to extract the dye; v. infra 76a.
(6) V. Glos.
(7) Num. XVIII, 8.
(8) V. supra 25a.
(9) Clean terumah is used for human consumption, and before it is actually separated it is forbidden, even to the priest, i.e., he may not enjoy the produce in which it is contained.
(10) Unclean terumah can be used only as fuel, and the analogy shows that this is permitted only when it is actually separated, but not while it is yet tebel.
(11) Excluding fish and mineral oil, and oil tapped direct from the tree.
(12) A district of Asia Minor.
(13) You cannot add to the list of forbidden oils enumerated on 20b.
(14) A sort of resin.
(15) Of Shezor, supposed to be Sheghor, near Kefar Anan in Galilee, v. Neub., Geogr., p. 278.
(16) Sc. R. Johanan b. Nuri.
(17) V. supra 11a. One holds that tallow, being flesh, may not be used at all, even if mixed with oil, thus rejecting the view expressed there, and the other maintains that the mixture is permitted.
(18) Who accepts R. Beruna's dictum and who rejects it.
(19) A piece of cloth three fingerbreadths square (or more) is liable to become unclean. R. Simeon b. Eleazar excepts the produce of trees, e.g., cotton cloth.
(20) The booth (sukkah), in which one must dwell during the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev. XXIII, 42), must be covered with a material that is not liable to defilement (Suk. 12.b); hence the produce of trees is fit for this purpose.
(21) Even if not made up into a garment and as yet merely spun (v. infra 27b). Though not liable to defilement by reptiles it is subject to the uncleanness of leprosy.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 26b
R. Simeon b. Eleazar and the Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael1 said the same thing. R. Simeon b. Eleazar, as stated. The Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael: what is that? For the School of R. Ishmael taught: Since garments are mentioned in the Torah unspecified, while the Writ specified wool and flax in the case of one of them: [then] just as there, wool and flax [are specified], so all [garments] are of wool and flax.2 Raba said: They differ in respect to three [handbreadths] by three in other clothes [not wool or linen]: R. Simeon b. Eleazar accepts [their liability to defilement],3 whilst the Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael rejects it.4
Now all at least agree that an area of three [fingerbreadths] of wool or linen is subject to the defilement of leprosy. How do we know it? Because it was taught, A garment:5 I know it only of a [complete] garment; whence do I learn it of [cloth] three [fingerbreadths] square? From the verse, and the garment.6 Yet say that it is to include three [handbreadths] square?7 -Does that not follow a minori: if a warp and a woof become unclean,8 is there a question of three [handbreadths] square?9 If so, if it is three [fingerbreadths] square, let it also be deduced a minori?10 - Rather, [this is the reply]: three [handbreadths] square, which is of use11 both to the wealthy and to the poor, can be deduced a minori12 three [fingerbreadths] square, which is of use to the poor only, but not to the rich,13 cannot be learnt a minori: hence it is only because Scripture wrote it; but had Scripture not written it, we could not deduce it a minori.
Yet say [that its purpose is] to include three [handbreadths] square of other materials?14 -Scripture saith, a woollen garment, or a linen garment:15 only a woollen or a linen garment, but not anything else. Yet say, when it is excluded it is from [the defilement of] three [fingerbreadths] square, but three [handbreadths] square can become unclean?-Two limitations are written: 'a woollen garment or a linen garment',16 [hence] one is to exclude [them] from [the defilement of] three [fingerbreadths] square, and the other to exclude them from [the defilement of] three [handbreadths] square.
Now, according to Raba, who said, They differ in respect of three [handbreadths] by three in other cloths, R. Simeon b. Eleazar accepting [their liability to defilement], whilst the Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael rejects it,-how does he [R. Simeon b. Eleazar] know [the defilement of] three [handbreadths] square of other materials?
(1) No particular Tanna is meant, but the collective view of that School.
(2) E.g., the uncleanness of garments caused by the carcases of forbidden animals (Lev. II, 25) or reptiles (v. 32): there the garments are unspecified. On the other hand, with respect to leprosy in garments wool and flax are specified: The garment also that the plague of leprosy is in, whether it be a woollen garment, or a linen garment.-Lev. XIII, 47.
(3) In his statement he employs the word shalosh, feminine, which must refer to fingerbreadths (ezba'oth, fem.). Hence they are not subject to the stricter law that even when only three fingerbreadths square they shall be liable to defilement. Whence it follows that they are subject to the next standard of liability, viz., three handbreadths (sheloshah, masc. agreeing with tefahim, handbreadths); v. infra.
(4) For he simply rules that wherever 'garments' is stated it means wool or flax.
(5) Lev. XIII, 47: referring to leprosy.
(6) We-habeged, E.V. The garment also, 'And' is regarded as an extension.
(7) But not the smaller standard.-Shalosh refers to ezba'oth, fingerbreadths; sheloshah to tefahim, handbreadths; v. n. 1.
(8) Lev. ibid.
(9) No extension is needed for that.
(10) Since cloth containing a warp and a woof can be less.
(11) Lit., 'fit'.
(12) For it is then nearer to an actual garment.
(13) A rich man would not trouble to save it for some possible service-hence it is further removed from 'garment'.
(14) Lit., 'garments'.
(15) Lev. XIII, 48; these are also specified in v. 47.
(16) V. P. 115, n. 13.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 27a
- He deduces it from, or raiment.1 For it was taught:2 'raiment': I only know [it] of raiment,3 how do I know [it of] three [handbreadths] square of other materials?4 Therefore it is stated, 'or raiment.' And Abaye? how does he employ this or raiment!-He utilizes it to include three [fingerbreadths] square of wool or linen, that it becomes unclean through creeping things.5 And Raba?6 -The Merciful One revealed this in reference to leprosy,7 and the same holds good of reptiles. And Abaye?8 - It [the analogy] may be refuted: as for leprosy, [the reason is] because the warp and the woof [of wool or linen] become defiled n their case.9 And the other?10 -Should you think that leprosy is stricter, let the Divine Law write [it]11 with reference to reptiles,12 and leprosy would be learnt from them. And the other?-Leprosy could not be derived from reptiles, because it may be refuted: as for reptiles, [the reason is] because they defile by the size of a lentil.13 Abaye said: This Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael rebuts another Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael. For the School of R. Ishmael taught: 'A garment': I know it only of a woollen or a linen garment: whence do I know to include camel hair14 , rabbit wool, goat hair,15 silk, kallak,16 and seritim?16 From the verse, or raiment'. Raba said: When does this Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael reject [the defilement of] other materials? [Only in respect of] three [fingerbreadths] square; but [if it is] three [handbreadths] square, be accepts it. But it was Raba who said that in respect of three [handbreadths] by three in other clothes, R. Simeon b. Eleazar accepts [their liability to defilement], while the Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael rejects it?-Raba retracted from that [view]. Alternatively, this latter [statement] was made by R. Papa.17
R. Papa said: 'So all [are of wool or flax],18 is to include kil'ayim.19 But of kil'ayim it is explicitly stated, Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff, wool and linen together?20 -I might argue, That is only in the manner of wearing,21 but to place it over oneself22 any two materials [mingled] are forbidden. Now, does that not follow a fortiori': if of wearing, though the whole body derives benefit from kil'ayim,23 you say, wool and linen alone [are forbidden] but nothing else; how much more so wrapping oneself! Hence this [dictum] of R. Papa is a fiction.24 R. Nahman b. Isaac said: 'So all etc.'
(1) Lev. XI, 32, q.v. 'Or'-(Heb. או is an extension.
(2) This phrase always introduces a Baraitha, which contains the teaching of a Tanna. Since it is controverted by Abaye (v. text), Rashi deletes 'for it was taught', for it is axiomatic that an amora (Abaye was such) cannot disagree with a Tanna, and assumes that it is a continuation of Raba's statement. Tosaf. defends it, and the style too is that of a Baraitha.
(3) Sc. that a garment is subject to defilement.
(4) Not wool or linen.
(5) 'Or raiment' is in a passage referring to these.
(6) How does he know that?
(7) V. supra 26b.
(8) Does he not admit this?
(9) I.e., the thread itself, whether warp or woof, is liable to defilement. But Scripture does not state this in reference to reptiles, and so the deduction of three fingerbreadths square may not apply to it either.
(10) Raba: how does he dispose of this refutation?
(11) The extension of 'and the garment' supra 26b.
(12) Instead of leprosy.
(13) A piece the size of a lentil is sufficient to defile, whereas the smallest leprous eruption to defile is the size of a bean, which is larger than a lentil.
(14) Lit., 'wool of camels'.
(15) I.e., stuffs made of these.
(16) V. supra p. 86, n. 6.
(17) Raba's successor; of many dicta it was not known whether they were his or Raba's; Tosaf. infra b. s.v. רב פפא.
(18) In the first citation of the Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael, supra 26b.
(19) V. Glos. I.e., only a mixture of wool or flax is forbidden, but no other. Accordingly it does not relate to defilement at all, and does not contradict the other teaching of the School of R. Ishmael. - Rashi reads at the beginning of this passage, For R. Papa said, since this dictum of R. Papa explains why in his opinion the two are not contradictory.
(20) Deut. XXII, 11.
(21) Then a mixture of wool and linen alone is forbidden.
(22) E.g., as a covering or wrap.
(23) When one wears a garment it comes into closer contact with the separate limbs of the body, affording them protection and warmth, than when he merely covers or wraps himself in a robe.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 27b
is to include fringes.1 [But] of fringes it is explicitly stated, 'Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff, wool and linen together'; and then it is written, Thou shalt make thee fringes?2 , I might argue, it is as Raba. For Raba opposed [two verses]: it is written, [and that they put upon the fringe of] each border,3 [which indicates] of the same kind of [material as the] border; but it is also written, '[Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff,] wool and linen together'?4 How is this [to be reconciled]? Wool and linen fulfil [the precept]5 both in their own kind and not in their own kind;6 other kinds [of materials] discharge [the obligation] in their own kind, but not in a different kind. [Thus,] you might argue, it is as Raba:7 therefore we are informed [otherwise].8
R. Aha son of Raba asked R. Ashi: According to the Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael, why is uncleanness different that we include other garments? Because 'or raiment' is written! Then here too9 let us say that other garments are included from [the verse] wherewith thou coverest thyself?10 - That comes to include a blind person's garment. For it was taught: That ye may look upon it:11 this excludes a night garment. You say, this excludes a night garment; yet perhaps it is not so, but rather it excludes a blind man's garment? When it is said, 'wherewith thou coverest thyself', lo! a blind man's garment is stated. How then do I interpret12 that ye may look upon it'? As excluding a night garment. And what [reason] do you see to include a blind man's [garment], and to exclude a night garment? I include a blind man's garment, which can be seen by others,13 while I exclude night garments, which are not seen by others. Yet say [rather] that it14 is to include other garments?15 It is logical that when one treats of wool and linen he includes [a particular garment of] wool and linen; but when one treats of wool and linen, shall he include other garments?16
Abaye said: R. Simeon b. Eleazar and Symmachos said the same thing. R. Simeon b. Eleazar, as stated.17 Symmachos, for it was taught: Symmachos said: If one covers it [the booth] with spun [flax], it is unfit, because it may be defiled by leprosy. With whom [does that agree]? With this Tanna. For we learnt: The warp and the woof are defiled by leprosy immediately:18 this is R. Meir's ruling. But R. Judah maintained: The warp, when it is removed;19 the wool, immediately; and bundles of [wet] flax,20 after bleaching.21
MISHNAH. WHATEVER COMES FORTH FROM A TREE ['EZ] YOU MAY NOT LIGHT [THE SABBATH LAMP] THEREWITH,22 SAVE FLAX; AND WHATEVER COMES FORTH FROM A TREE CANNOT BE DEFILED WITH THE UNCLEANNESS OF TENTS,23 EXCEPT LINEN.24
GEMARA. How do we know that flax is designated tree ['ez]?Said Mar Zutra, Because Scripture saith, But she had brought them up to the roof, and hid them with the stalks ['ez] of the flax.25
AND WHATEVER COMES FORTH FROM A TREE CANNOT BE DEFILED WITH THE UNCLEANNESS OF TENTS, EXCEPT LINEN. How do we know it?-Said R. Eleazar, The meaning of tent [ohel] is learnt
(1) Num. XV, 38; i.e., only wool and linen garments are liable thereto.
(2) And the juxtaposition shows that they are required only in garments of wool or linen. It may be observed that the Talmud regards the deduction from this juxtaposition as an explicit statement, and not merely as something derived by exegesis.
(3) Num. ibid. 'Border' is superfluous, since the first half of the verse reads, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments. Hence it is thus interpreted.
(4) Since this is immediately followed by the precept of fringes, we translate: though a mixture of wool and linen are forbidden, yet 'thou shalt make thee fringes', i.e., wool fringes are permitted in a linen garment and vice versa, which contradicts the implication of the other verse.
(5) Lit., 'acquit' (the garment of its obligation).
(6) Whatever the material, wool or linen fringes may be inserted.
(7) That the juxtaposition illumines the nature of the fringes, but does not teach that the garment itself must be of wool or linen. For in fact, according to Raba, there is an obligation whatever the material.
(8) V. Yeb., Sonc. ed., p. 15 notes.
(9) In reference to fringes.
(10) Ibid. This too is superfluous and indicates extension.
(11) Sc. the fringed garment. - Num. XV, 39.
(12) Lit., 'fulfil'.
(13) Lit., 'which is subject to looking in respect to others'.
(14) Sc. 'wherewith thou coverest thyself'.
(15) Not of wool or linen.
(16) Surely not.
(17) Supra, 26a bottom, and note a.l.
(18) After spinning, though given no further treatment.
(19) From the kettle in which it is boiled. Maim. Neg. XI, 8 appears to read: when it has been boiled.
(20) Jast. Rashi: unspun flax; Tosaf.: spun flax.
(21) Thus Symmachos, who rules that it is liable to leprous defilement immediately it is spun (this being the reason that it may not be used as a covering of the booth, v. p. 114, n. 8.), agrees with R. Meir.
(22) Using it as a wick.
(23) If a tent or awning of such material overshadows a dead body, it does not become unclean, just as the roof of a house which contains a dead body is not unclean, though all utensils under the same roof or covering are defiled.
(24) If the tent is of linen, that itself is defiled.
(25) Josh. II, 6.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 28a
from the Tabernacle. Here it is written, This is the law when a man dieth in a tent [ohel];1 and there it is written, and he spread the tent [ohel] over the Tabernacle:2 just as there [the covering] of linen is designated tent, so here too, [a covering] of linen is designated tent.3 If so, just as there it was twisted and the thread was doubled sixfold,4 so here too it must be twisted and its thread doubled sixfold?5 - The repetition of tent6 is an extension.7 If the repetition of tent is an extension, then everything else8 too should be included? - If so, what avails the gezerah shawah?9 Yet [perhaps] say, just as there [the Tabernacle was of] boards, so here too [a tent of] boards [is meant]?-Scripture saith, And thou shalt make boards for the tabernacle:10 the tabernacle11 is called tabernacle, but the boards are not designated tabernacle. If so, [when it is stated,] and thou shalt make a covering12 for the tent [ohel],13 is the covering indeed not designated tent [ohel]? But when R. Eleazar propounded: Can the skin of an unclean animal14 be defiled by overshadowing15 the dead?-[What doubt was there] seeing that the skin of a clean animal cannot be defiled,16 is there a question of the skin of an unclean animal7 - There it is different, because Scripture restored it,17 as it is written, they shall bear the curtains of the tabernacle, and the tent of meeting, its covering and the covering of sealskin that is above it:18 thus the upper [covering]19 is assimilated to the lower:20 just as the lower is designated tent,21 so is the upper designated tent.
[To revert to] the main text: 'R. Eleazar propounded: Can the skin22 of an unclean animal be defiled with the defilement of tents?'23 What is his problem?24 -Said R. Adda b. Ahabah: His question relates to the tahash which was in the days of Moses,25 -was it unclean or clean? R. Joseph observed, What question is this to him? We learnt it! For the sacred work none but the skin of a clean animal was declared fit.
R. Abba objected: R. Judah said: There were two coverings, one of dyed rams' skins, and one of tahash skins. R. Nehemiah said: There was one covering26 and it was like a squirrel['s].27 But the squirrel is unclean!-This is its meaning: like a squirrel['s], which has many colours, yet not [actually] the squirrel, for that is unclean, whilst here a clean [animal is meant]. Said R. Joseph: That being so, that is why we translate it sasgawna [meaning] that it rejoices in many colours.28
Raba said: That the skin of an unclean animal is defiled by overshadowing29 the dead [is inferred] from the following. For it was taught: [Scripture could state] skin; [by stating or in] skin30 it extends [the law to] the skin of an unclean animal and to one which was smitten [with leprosy] in the priests hand.31 If one cuts off [pieces] of all these32 and makes one [piece] out of them, how do we know [it]?33 From the verse, 'or in any thing [meleketh] made of skin'.34 But this [Raba's statement] can be refuted: as for leprosy, [the reason35 is] because the warp and the wool is defiled in their case?36 Rather it is learnt from leprosy. For it was taught: Skin:37 I know it only of the skin of a clean animal; how do I know it of the skin of an unclean animal? Therefore it is stated, or skin.38 But this may be refuted: as for reptiles, [the reason is] they defile by the size of a lentil.39 Let leprosy prove it.40 And thus the argument revolves: the characteristic of one is not that of the other, and vice versa: the feature common to both is that skin is unclean in their case, and the skin of an unclean animal was assimilated to that of a clean animal: so also do I adduce the tent of the dead, that skin is unclean in its case,41 and the skin of an unclean animal is assimilated to that of a clean animal.
Raba of Barnesh42 observed to R. Ashi: But this can be refuted: as for the feature common to both, it is that they defile others in less than the size of an olive:43 will you say [the same] of the dead, which defiles only by the size of an olive? Rather, said Raba of Barnesh,
(1) Num. XIX, 14.
(2) Ex. XL,19.
(3) The only covering of vegetable growth of the Tabernacle was linen.
(4) Deduced in Yoma 71b.
(5) Otherwise it should not be defiled.
(6) Lit., 'tent, tent': 'tent' is mentioned three times in Num. XIX, 14 in reference to defilement.
(7) Extending the law to a linen tent even if not made in the same way as the covering of the tabernacle.
(8) Any other material.
(9) V. Glos.
(10) Ex. XXVI, 15.
(11) E.g., the ten curtains on the roof curtains thereof, ibid 1.
(12) Of animal skins.
(13) ibid. 14.
(14) I.e., which is not fit for food.
(15) Lit., 'by the uncleanness of tents'.
(16) On the present hypothesis that the covering, which included ramskins (Ex. XXVI, 14; the ram is a clean animal), is not a tent, hence excluded from Num. XIX, 14. (18) For this is less likely to suffer such defilement, as is shown below, where a superfluous word is necessary to include it, and also in the Sifra, Thazria'.
(17) To be included in the term 'tent' (ohel).
(18) Num. IV 25.
(19) The covering of animal skins.
(20) Viz., the eleven curtains of goats' hair, v. Ex. XVI, 7.
(21) The 'tent of meeting' is understood to refer not to the Tabernacle as a whole but to these curtains.
(22) It is so designated in verse 7.
(23) The wording is not exactly as above, but the sense is.
(24) How can he think that it is subject to such defilement, seeing that he learns the definition of 'tent' from the Tabernacle (supra 27b bottom), where the skins of clean animals alone were used?
(25) A.V. badger; R.V. seal, Levy, Worterbuch: marter, others: badges, sea-dog, seal, cf. Lewysohn, Zool. d. Tal. I, 95f. Tahash skins formed one of the coverings of the Tabernacle; verse quoted supra et passim.
(26) Consisting half of rams' skin and half of tahash skins.-I.e., apart from the coverings of linen, etc. and of goats' hair.
(27) Jast., lit.,'hanging on the tree'. It is doubtful, however, whether a squirrel is meant, as the context shows that a striped (or speckled) animal of many colours is referred to.
(28) Sas, it rejoices, be-gawwanim, in colours. R. Joseph was an expert in the Targumim (Aramaic translations of the Bible), and given to quoting them.
(29) Lit., 'by the tent of a dead'.
(30) Lev. XIII, 48.
(31) In Heb. ב is an extension (Rashi). Even if the skin was not leprous when the priest was sent for, but became affected whilst he was examining it (or after), it is unclean. By analogy, the skin of an unclean animal too is defiled by overshadowing the dead.
(32) Materials mentioned in the verse, q.v.
(33) That it is liable to defilement.
(34) Meleketh, melakah, work, suggests a manufactured article, and is therefore applied to a combination Of materials.
(35) Sc. the defilement of the skin of an unclean animal.
(36) Which is not the case with corpse defilement, v. infra 64a.
(37) Ibid. XI, 32. This refers to the materials liable to defilement by reptiles.
(38) Or is an extension. By analogy the same applies to the defilement of the dead.
(39) V. p. 116, n. 14. But the minimum portion of a human corpse is the size of an olive, which is larger than a lentil. Since the defilement of reptiles is stricter in that respect, it may also be stricter in respect of the skin of an unclean animal.
(40) The minimum for leprosy is the size of a bean.
(41) I.e., if it forms a tent,
(42) In Babylon on the canal of the same name, near the town of Mehasia, and some three parasangs from a synagogue named after Daniel; Obermeyer, Landschaft, p. 302.
(43) A bean too is less.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 28b
it is inferred a minori from goats' hair, which is not defiled by leprosy, yet is defiled by overshadowing the dead; then the skin of an unclean animal, which is defiled by leprosy, is surely defiled by overshadowing the dead.
Then when R. Joseph recited, 'For the sacred work none but the skin of a clean animal was considered fit,' for what practical law [did he say it]?1 -In respect of phylacteries.2 Of phylacteries it is explicitly stated, that the law of the Lord may be in thy mouth,3 [meaning] of that which is permitted in thy mouth?4 Rather in respect of their hide.5 But Abaye said, The skin of phylacteries is a law of Moses from Sinai?6 - Rather, it is in respect of tying it with hair and sewing it with its tendons.7 But that is a law of Moses from Sinai. For it was taught: Rectangular phylacteries8 are a law of Moses from Sinal: they must be tied with their hair and sewn with their tendons.9 - Rather it is in respect of their straps.10 But R. Isaac said, Black straps are a law of Moses from Sinai? Granted that black is traditional, is clean traditional?11
What is our conclusion with respect to the tahash which existed in Moses' days? - Said R. Elai in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish, R. Meir used to maintain, The tahash of Moses' day was a separate species, and the Sages could not decide whether it belonged to the genus of wild beasts or to the genus of domestic animals; and it bad one horn in its forehead, and it came to Moses' hand [providentially] just for the occasion,12 and he made the [covering of the] Tabernacle, and then it was hidden. Now, since he says that it had one horn in its forehead, it follows that it was clean. For R. Judah said, The ox which Adam the first [man] sacrificed had one horn in its forehead, for it is said, and it shall please the Lord better than an ox, or a bullock that hath a horn [sic] and hoofs.13 But makrin14 implies two?-Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: Mi-keren15 is written.16 Then let us solve thence that it was a genus of domestic animal?17 - Since there is the keresh,18 which is a species of beast, and it has only one horn, one can say that it [the tahash] is a kind of wild beast.
MISHNAH. A WICK [MADE] OF A CLOTH WHICH WAS TWISTED BUT NOT SINGED,-R. ELIEZER SAID: IT IS UNCLEAN, AND ONE MAY NOT LIGHT [THE SABBATH LAMP] THEREWITH; R. AKIBA MAINTAINED: IT IS CLEAN, AND ONE MAY LIGHT THEREWITH."
GEMARA. As for the matter of uncleanness, it is well, [for] they differ in this: R. Eliezer holds that twisting is of no effect, and it remains in its previous condition;19 while R. Akiba holds that twisting is effective, and it [its previous condition] is indeed annulled. But with reference to lighting, wherein do they differ? - R. Eleazar said in R. Oshaia's name, and R. Adda b. Ahabah said likewise: The reference here is to [a rag] exactly three [fingerbreadths] square;20 and also to a Festival falling on the eve of the Sabbath. Now, all agree with R. Judah, who maintained, One may fire [an oven, etc.,] with [whole] utensils, but not with broken utensils.21 Further, all agree with 'Ulla's dictum, viz.: He who lights must light the greater part [of the wick] which protrudes. R. Eliezer holds that twisting is of no avail, and immediately one kindles it slightly it becomes a broken utensil,22 and when he goes on kindling it,23 he kindles a broken utensil. But R. Akiba holds that twisting is effective, and it does not bear the character of a utensil, and therefore when he kindles, he kindles a mere piece of wood.24 R. Joseph observed: This is what I learnt, exactly three [fingerbreadths] square, but did not know in reference to what law.
Now, since R. Adda b. Ahabah explains it in accordance with R. Judah,25 it follows that he himself holds as R. Judah. Yet did R. Adda b. Ahabah say thus? Surely R. Adda b. Ahabah said:
(1) As a mere historical fact it is of no importance. Hence what is its purpose, seeing that it does not teach that the skin of an unclean animal is not defiled by overshadowing the dead, as one wished to deduce supra a?
(2) That the parchment of these must be made of the skin of a clean animal.
(3) Ex. XIII, 9; the reference is to tefillin (v. Glos.).
(4) Cf. p. 118, n. 2 (on explicitness).
(5) The leather of the capsules in which the parchment is placed. This cannot be deduced from the verse quoted, for 'the law of the Lord' was not written upon them.
(6) The letter shin (ש) is stamped out of the leather itself at the side of the capsule. This is part of the Name Shaddai (שדי) and therefore comes within the meaning of 'the law of the Lord'. - With respect to the meaning of 'a law of Moses from Sinai', some take it literally: this was handed down direct from Moses; others understand it in a more figurative sense: it is traditional, but its exact origin is unknown, and hence ascribed to Moses, who in general is the source of Jewish law. V. Weiss, Dor, I, 71 seq.
(7) The parchment within the phylacteries, on which Biblical passages are written, is rolled up and tied round with animal hair. The receptacles themselves are sewn together with the tendons of animals. Both must be from clean animals.
(8) I.e., the faces of the capsules must be rectangular in shape, the whole forming a cube.
(9) 'Their' meaning of the same animal or species which furnishes the parchment and the leather. Thus they must be all of a clean animal and this is a traditional law.
(10) These must be of the skin of a clean animal.
(11) I.e., is there a tradition that they must be of the skin of a clean animal? Surely not! Hence R. Joseph's teaching is necessary.
(12) Lit., 'garment'.
(13) Ps. LXIX, 32.
(14) E. V. 'that hath horns.'
(15) Than a horn,
(16) I.e., which is normally punctuated מקרן (mi-keren), but here מקרין makrin. On the identification of this ox with that sacrificed by Adam v. A.Z. 8a.
(17) Viz., an ox or bullock.
(18) Jast.: a kind of antelope, unicorn. (10) The reasons are discussed in the Gemara,
(19) A rag, being part of a garment, is liable to become unclean, a wick does not become unclean. R. Eliezer holds that mere twisting without singeing-this was done to facilitate the lighting-does not make it a wick, and therefore it is still subject to uncleanness.
(20) This is the smallest size liable to defilement (supra 26b); in that sense it is regarded as a whole garment (or utensil).
(21) On Festivals. A whole utensil may be handled on Festivals, and therefore it may be taken for burning. But if a utensil is broken on the Festival so that it can now be used as fuel only, it is regarded as a thing newly-created (nolad v. Glos.)-i.e., a new use for it has just been created-and such may not be handled on Festivals.
(22) Since it was the minimum size originally.
(23) Until the greater part is alight.
(24) I.e., this twisted rag is just like a piece of wood,
(25) That nolad (v. n. 3) is forbidden.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 29a
If a Gentile hollows out a kab1 in a log, an Israelite may heat [the oven] therewith on a Festival.2 Yet why? Is it not nolad!-He states [it] according to the views of R. Eliezer and R. Akiba, but does not hold thus himself. Raba said, This is R. Eliezer's reason: Because one must not light [the Sabbath lamp] with an unsinged wick or unsinged rags.3 Then when R. Joseph recited, Exactly three [fingerbreadths] square, In respect of what law [was it]? - In respect of uncleanness. For we learnt, The three [fingerbreadths] square of which they [the Sages] spoke is exclusive of the hem: this is R. Simeon's view. But the Sages say: Exactly three [fingerbreadths] square.4
Rab Judah said in Rab's name: One may fire [an oven, etc.,] with [whole] utensils, but not with broken utensils: this is R. Judah's opinion; but R. Simeon permits it.5 One may fire [it] with dates;6 but if they are eaten, one may not fire [it] with their stones:7 that is R. Judah's opinion; but R. Simeon permits it. One may heat with nuts: if they are eaten, one must not heat with their shells: this is R. Judah's ruling; but R. Simeon permits it.
Now, they are [all] necessary. For if we were told the first, R. Judah rules [thus] in that case, because it was a utensil before but only a fragment of a utensil now, and so it is nolad, hence forbidden; but as for dates, since they were stones originally and are stones now, I might argue that it is well [permitted]. And if we were informed [this] of dates, I might say, [the reason is] because they [the stones] were originally concealed but are now revealed; but as for nutshells, which were uncovered originally and are uncovered still, I might argue that it is well [permitted]. Thus they are necessary.8
Now, this [ruling] of Rab was stated not explicitly but by implication. For Rab ate dates and threw the stones into a pan;9 whereupon R. Hiyya said to him, 'Son of great ancestors!10 A similar act on Festivals is forbidden.' Did he accept [this ruling] from him or not?-Come and hear: For when Rab came to Babylon,11 he ate dates12 and threw the stones to animals. Surely this means Persian [dates]?13 No: this means Syrian [dates], since they are fit [for handling] on account of their flesh.14
R. Samuel b. Bar Hanah said to R. Joseph: According to R. Judah who ruled, One may fire [an oven] with utensils, but not with broken utensils,-immediately one lights with it a little it becomes a broken utensil, and when he stirs [the fuel] he is stirring something that is forbidden?-He acts in accordance with R. Mattenah: For R. Mattenah said in Rab's name: if wood falls from a palm tree into a stove on a Festival, one adds more prepared wood and lights them.15
R. Hamnuna said: The reference here [in our Mishnah] is to [a rag] less than three [handbreadths] square,16 and they taught here some of the leniencies [relating to the law] of rags, both R. Eliezer and R. Akiba following their views. For we learnt: If [material] less than three [handbreadths] square is set aside for stopping a bath, pouring from a pot,17 or cleaning a mill therewith, whether it is of prepared (material] or not,18 it is unclean:19 that is R. Eliezer's view; R. Joshua maintained: Whether it is of prepared [material] or not, it is clean; R. Akiba ruled: If of prepared [material], it is unclean; if of unprepared, it is clean. Now 'Ulla-others state, Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in R. Johanan's name-said: All admit that if it was thrown away on the refuse heap,20 it is universally agreed that it is clean;21
(1) A measure; or, a kind of artificial leg.
(2) Though it is nolad,
(3) These do not burn well. Thus R. Eliezer refers to all Sabbaths.
(4) V. Kelim. XXVIII, 7.
(5) He permits nolad.
(6) Since they may be handled as food, they may be handled as fuel.
(7) This and the following are similar to the first, the stones of dates and the shells of nuts being like fragments of utensils.
(8) Reversing the argument, all cases are necessary for R. Simeon's view.
(9) A kind of coal brazier.-This was done on weekdays.
(10) Supra 3b,
(11) Rab was a Babylonian who went to study in Palestine and then returned.
(12) On Festivals.
(13) These become very ripe, so that the whole of the fruit can be removed from the stones. Since he threw them to animals, he evidently held that they might be handled, and could also have used them for fuel. Hence he must have rejected R. Hiyya's view.
(14) The fruit cannot be entirely separated from the stone.
(15) The timber that falls may not be handled by itself, since it was not destined for this before the Festival. Hence a greater quantity of wood set aside for fuel must be added, and both may be handled together. The same must be done here.
(16) He holds that if it is three handbreadths square, it retains the character of a garment and is liable to defilement on all views.
(17) Using this material as a holder.
(18) The meaning is discussed below.
(19) I.e., liable to uncleanness as a garment (beged), which connotes any material that may be put to a useful purpose.
(20) And then salved for one of these purposes.
(21) Since it is less than three handbreadths square, and was also thrown away as worthless, it is certainly not a 'garment', even when salved.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 29b
if one placed it in a chest, all agree that it is unclean.1 They differ only where he hung it on a frame or placed it behind the door: R. Eliezer holds: Since he did not throw it on the refuse heap, he had his mind upon it; why then does he call it 'unprepared'?2 Because relatively to [placing it in] a chest it is not prepared.3 While R. Joshua maintains: Since he did not place it in a chest, he has indeed accounted it as nought;4 and why then does he call it 'prepared'? Because relatively to [throwing it on] a refuse heap it is prepared. But R. Akiba agrees with R. Eliezer where he hangs it on a clothes frame, and with R. Joshua, where he puts it behind the door. Yet R. Akiba retracted in favour of R. Joshua ['s view]. Whence [is this deduced]?-Said Raba, Since it is stated, A WICK [MADE] OF A CLOTH: why choose to teach A WICK [MADE] OF A CLOTH, teach A WICK OF CLOTH; why a WICK [MADE] OF A CLOTH? [To show] that it is still a cloth.5
MISHNAH. A MAN MAY NOT PIERCE AN EGG SHELL, FILL IT WITH OIl, AND PLACE IT OVER THE MOUTH OF A LAMP, IN ORDER THAT IT SHOULD DRIP, AND EVEN IF IT IS OF POT;6 BUT R. JUDAH PERMITS IT. BUT IF THE POTTER JOINS IT BEFOREHAND, IT IS PERMITTED, BECAUSE IT IS ONE UTENSIL. A MAN MUST NOT FILL A DISH OF OIl, PLACE IT AT THE SIDE OF A LAMP, AND PUT THE WICK END THEREIN IN ORDER THAT IT SHOULD DRAW; BUT R. JUDAH PERMITS IT.
GEMARA. Now, they are [all] necessary. For if we were told about an eggshell; there the Rabbis say [that it is forbidden] because since it is not loathsome7 he will come to take supplies therefrom;8 but as for an earthen [shell], which is loathsome,9 I might argue that they agree with R. Judah.10 While if we were told of an earthen [shell]: [only] there does R. Judah rule thus, but in the other case I might say that he agrees with the Rabbis.11 And if we were told of these two: R. Judah rules [thus] of these because nothing interposes;12 but as for a dish, which interposes,13 I would say that he agrees with the Rabbis. While if we were told of that: [only] there do the Rabbis rule [thus], but in the first two I would say that they agree with R. Judah. Thus they are necessary.
BUT IF THE POTTER JOINS IT BEFOREHAND, IT IS PERMITTED, etc. It was taught: if he joins it with plaster or potter's clay, it is permitted. But we learnt, THE POTTER?14 -What is meant by POTTER? After the manner of a potter.15
It was taught, R. Judah said: We were once spending the Sabbath in the upper chamber of Nithzeh's house in Lydda, when an eggshell was brought, which we filled with oil, perforated, and placed over the mouth of the lamp; and though R. Tarfon and the elders were present, they said nothing to us.16 Said they [the Sages] to him, Thence [you adduce] proof? The house of Nithzeh is different, because they were most heedful.17
Abin of Sepphoris dragged a bench in a stone-paved upper chamber in the presence of R. Isaac b. Eleazar, Said he to him, If I let this pass in silence,18 as his companions kept silent before R. Judah, harm will ensue: a stone-paved chamber is forbidden on account of an ordinary chamber.19 The synagogue overseer20 of Bazrah21 dragged a bench in front of R. Jeremiah Rabbah. Said he to him, in accordance with whom?22 [Presumably] R. Simeon!23 Assume that R. Simeon ruled [thus] in the case of larger ones, since it is impossible otherwise;24 did he say thus of small ones?25 Now, he disagrees with 'Ulla, who said: They differ [only] in respect of small ones, but as for large, all agree that it is permitted.
R. Joseph objected: R. Simeon said, A man may drag a couch, chair, or bench, providing that he does not intend making a rut. Thus both large and small [articles] are taught,26 which is a difficulty on both views.27 -'Ulla reconciles it according to his view, and R. Jeremiah Rabbah reconciles it according to his. 'Ulla reconciles it according to his view: the couch is like the chair.28 While R. Jeremiah Rabbah reconciles it according to his: the chair is like the couch.29
Rabbah objected: Clothes merchants sell in their normal fashion, providing that one does not intend [to gain protection] from the sun in hot weather30 or from the rain when it is raining;31 but the strictly religious32 sling them on a staff behind their back.33 Now here that it is possible to do as the strictly religious, it is the same as small [articles of furniture], yet when one has no intention R. Simeon permits it at the outset? This refutation of R. Jeremiah Rabbah is indeed a refutation.
MISHNAH. IF ONE EXTINGUISHES THE LAMP BECAUSE HE IS AFRAID OF GENTILES, ROBBERS, OR AN EVIL SPIRIT,34 OR FOR THE SAKE OF AN INVALID, THAT HE SHOULD SLEEP, HE IS NOT CULPABLE.35 IF [BECAUSE] HE WOULD SPARE THE LAMP, THE OIL, OR THE WICK, HE IS CULPABLE. R. JOSE EXEMPTS HIM IN ALL CASES, EXCEPT IN RESPECT OF THE WICK, BECAUSE HE MAKES CHARCOAL.36
(1) He showed that he attributed value to it, hence it is a 'garment'.
(2) Since he intends to use it, it is 'prepared', i.e., designated for use.
(3) When he places it in a chest he certainly intends using it; but here he merely ensures that he will have it in case he wants it.
(4) Not assigning any real worth to it.
(5) The suggested reading פתילה של בגד implies that a portion of a beged (cloth) is taken, viz., such as itself is not a cloth (in the sense stated in p. 127, n. 9). The actual reading פתילת הבגד implies that a cloth itself is turned into a wick. Since R. Akiba maintains in the Mishnah that it is not liable to uncleanness, he evidently agrees with R. Judah that it is not 'prepared'.
(6) I.e., even a pot shell may not be used thus.
(7) The oil in the eggshell is clean.
(8) On the Sabbath. This is forbidden on account of extinguishing the light. [Though it is not actually extinguished when he removes some oil, it subsequently goes out sooner than it would otherwise have done.]
(9) The oil in it becomes soiled and unclean.
(10) There is no fear that one may draw supplies from it.
(11) Inverting the reasoning.
(12) Between the lamp and the shell, which is directly over its mouth: hence R. Judah regards it all as one, even when not actually joined.
(13) Between the lamp and the oil.
(14) Which implies that it must be professionally done, whereas 'he joins it' denotes an amateur job by the owner.
(15) I.e., firmly.
(16) To forbid it.
(17) And there was no fear of their drawing off oil.
(18) Lit., 'if I am silent for you'.
(19) Which is earth-paved; dragging there is prohibited because it forms a rut.
(20) Rashi: the man who conducts worshippers (assemblies) in and out of the synagogue and supervises the seating of pupils.
(21) An Idumean town; cf. Isa. XXXIV, 6; LXIII, 1.
(22) Do you act thus.
(23) Supra 22a.
(24) A large bench, table, etc., cannot be lifted but must be dragged.
(25) Here it was a small one.
(26) A couch is large; a chair is small.
(27) For R. Judah forbids both.
(28) I.e., a small couch is meant.
(29) A large, heavy chair is meant.
(30) Lit., 'in the sun'.
(31) The reference is to garments containing the forbidden mixture of wool and linen (v. Deut. XXII, 11) sold to Gentiles. Merchants slung their wares across their shoulders for display, and though some protection is afforded thereby and it is like wearing them, it is permitted.
(32) צנועים 'modest','humble', hence punctilious in carrying out religious duties. V. Buchler, Types p. 60ff].
(33) So that they do not actually lie upon them.
(34) V. MGWJ. 11 (1927)pp. 162-165.
(35) For desecrating the Sabbath.
(36) By extinguishing the light he makes kindling material, i.e., prepares the wick for easier lighting.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 30a
GEMARA. Since the second clause teaches, HE IS CULPABLE, it may be inferred that it is R. Judah.1 Then to what does the first clause refer? if to an invalid dangerously ill, [the Tanna] should have stated, 'it is permitted'?2 While If to an invalid who is not in danger, he should have stated, He is liable to a sin-offering?3 -After all, [it refers] to an invalid dangerously sick, and logically he should teach, it is permitted; but because he wishes to teach 'HE IS CULPABLE' in the second clause, he also teaches 'HE IS NOT CULPABLE' in the first. And as for what R. Oshaia taught: If it is for the sake of a sick person, that he should sleep, he must not extinguish it; but if he extinguishes it, he is not liable, though it is forbidden-that refers to one who is not dangerously ill, and agrees with R. Simeon.4
This question was asked before R. Tanhum of Neway:5 What about extinguishing a burning lamp for a sick man on the Sabbath? - Thereupon he commenced and spake:6 Thou, Solomon, where is thy wisdom and where is thine understanding? It is not enough for thee that thy words contradict the words of thy father David, but that they are self-contradictory! Thy father David said, The dead praise not the Lord;7 whilst thou saidest, Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead8 but yet again thou saidest, for a living dog is better than a dead lion.9 Yet there is no difficulty. As to what David said: 'The dead praise not the Lord', this is what he meant: Let a man always engage in Torah and good deeds before he dies, for as soon as he dies he is restrained from [the practice of] Torah and good deeds, and the Holy One, blessed be He, finds nought to praise in him. And thus R. Johanan said, What is meant by the verse, Among the dead [I am] free?10 Once a man dies, he becomes free of the Torah and good deeds. And as to what Solomon said, 'Wherefore I praised the dead that are already dead' for when Israel sinned in the wilderness, Moses stood before the Holy One, blessed be He, and uttered many prayers and supplications before Him, but he was not answered. Yet when he exclaimed, 'Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants!'11 he was immediately answered. Did not then Solomon well say, wherefore I praised the dead that are already dead'? Another interpretation: In worldly affairs, when a prince of flesh and blood issues a decree, it is doubtful whether it will be obeyed or not; and even if you say that it is obeyed, it is obeyed during his lifetime but not after his death. Whereas Moses our Teacher decreed many decrees and enacted numerous enactments, and they endure for ever and unto all eternity. Did then not Solomon well say, 'Wherefore I praise the dead, etc.' Another interpretation [of] 'wherefore I praise, etc.' is in accordance with Rab Judah's dictum in Rab's name, viz., What is meant by, Shew me a token for good, that they which hate me may see it, and be ashamed?12 David prayed before the Holy One, blessed be He, 'Sovereign of the Universe! Forgive me for that sin!'13 'It is forgiven thee,' replied He. 'Shew me a token in my lifetime,' he entreated. 'In thy lifetime I will not make it known,' He answered, 'but I will make it known in the lifetime of thy son Solomon.' For when Solomon built the Temple, he desired to take the Ark into the Holy of Holies, whereupon the gates clave to each other. Solomon uttered twenty-four prayers,14 yet he was not answered. He opened [his mouth] and exclaimed, 'Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lifted up, ye everlasting doors: And the King of glory shall come in.15 They rushed upon him to swallow him up, crying, 'Who is the king of glory'? 'The Lord, strong and mighty,'16 answered he. Then he repeated, 'Lift up your heads, O ye gates; Yea, lift them up, ye everlasting doors: and the King of glory shall come in. Who is this King of glory? The Lord of hosts, He is the King of glory. Selah';17 yet he was not answered. But as soon as he prayed, 'O Lord God, turn not away the face of thine anointed remember the good deeds of David thy servant,'18 he was immediately answered. In that hour the faces of all David's enemies turned [black] like the bottom of a pot, and all Israel knew that the Holy One, blessed be He, had forgiven him that sin. Did then not Solomon well say, wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead'? And thus it is written, On the eighth day he sent the people away, and they blessed the king, and went into their tents joyful and glad of heart for all the goodness that the Lord had shewed unto David his servant, and to Israel his people.19 'And they went unto their tents' [means] that they found their wives clean; 'joyful', because they had enjoyed the lustre of the Divine Presence; 'and glad of heart', because their wives conceived and each one bore a male child; 'for all the goodness that the Lord had shewed unto David his servant', that He had forgiven him that sin; and to Israel his people', for He had forgiven them the sin of the Day of Atonement.20
And as to what Solomon said, 'for a living dog is better than a dead lion', - that is as Rab Judah said in Rab's name, viz.; what is meant by the verse, Lord, make me to know mine end, and the measure of my days, what it is; let me know how frail I am.21 David said before the Holy One, blessed be He, 'Sovereign of the Universe! Lord, make me to know mine end.' 'It is a decree before Me,' replied He, 'that the end of a mortal22 is not made known.' 'And the measure of my days, what it is'-'it is a decree before Me that a person's span [of life] is not made known.' 'Let me know how frail [hadel] I am.'23 Said He to him. 'Thou wilt die on the Sabbath.' 'Let me die on the first day of the week!'24 'The reign of thy son Solomon shall already have become due, and one reign may not overlap another even by a hairbreadth.' 'Then let me die on the eve of the Sabbath!' Said He, 'For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand':25 better is to Me the one day that thou sittest and engagest in learning than the thousand burnt-offerings which thy son Solomon is destined to sacrifice before Me on the altar.'26
(1) The work of extinguishing is not needed per se but merely to effect something else, e.g., to spare the oil, and it is R. Judah who maintains that such work involves liability.
(2) 'He is exempt' implies that it is actually forbidden.
(3) Since there is no danger of life, it is prohibited like any other work.
(4) That no liability is incurred on account of a labour not required for itself, v. n. 4 and infra 93b.
(5) A district in North Palestine (Jast.). MS.M. reads: Nineweh. V. Ta'an., Sonc. ed., p. 64, n. 5.
(6) This formula generally introduces a popular sermon, which preceded the answering of the question. Such follows here.
(7) Ps. CXV, 17.
(8) Eccl. IV, 2.
(9) Ibid. IX, 4.
(10) Ps. LXXXVIII, 6 (E.V. 5: (Cast off among the dead).
(11) Ex. XXXII, 13.
(12) Ps. LXXXVI, 17.
(13) Sc. of Bathsheba.
(14) Heb. רננות songs. In Solomon's prayer (I Kings VIII, 23-53) expressions of entreaty (רנה song; תפלה, prayer; and תחינה, supplication) occur twenty-four times.
(15) Ps. XXIV, 7.
(16) Ibid. 8,
(17) lbid. 9f.
(18) 11 Chron. VI, 42.
(19) I Kings VIII,66.
(20) Which they had kept as a Feast instead of a Fast. V. vv. 2 and 65: the fourteen days must have included the tenth of the seventh month, which is the Day of Atonement; v. M.K. 9a.
(21) Ps. XXXIX, 5 (E.V. 4).
(22) Lit., 'flesh and blood'.
(23) Translating: Let me know when I will cease (to be), fr. hadal, to cease.
(24) The following day, so that the usual offices for the dead may be performed, some of which are forbidden on the Sabbath.
(25) Ps. LXXXIV, 11 (E.V. 10).
(26) Thus your life is too precious for a single day to be renounced.-Study itself is regarded in Judaism as an act of worship - indeed, the greatest, though only when it leads to piety; cf. Pe'ah I, 1.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 30b
Now, every Sabbath day he would sit and study all day.1 On the day that his soul was to be at rest,2 the Angel of death stood before him but could not prevail against him, because learning did not cease from his mouth. 'What shall I do to him?' said he. Now, there was a garden before his house; so the Angel of death went, ascended and soughed in the trees. He [David] went out to see: as he was ascending the ladder, it broke under him. Thereupon he became silent [from his studies] and his soul had repose. Then Solomon sent to Beth Hamidrash: My father is dead and lying in the sun; and the dogs of my father's house are hungry; what shall I do? They sent back, Cut up a carcase and place it before the dogs; and as for thy father, put a loaf of bread or a child upon him and carry him away.3 Did then not Solomon well say, for a living dog is better than a dead lion?4 And as for the question which I asked before you,5 - a lamp is designated lamp, and the soul of man is called a lamp:6 better it is that the lamp of flesh and blood be extinguished before the lamp of the Holy One, blessed be He.7
Rab Judah son of R. Samuel b. Shilath said in Rab's name: The Sages wished to hide the Book of Ecclesiastes,8 because its words are self-contradictory; yet why did they not hide it? Because its beginning is religious teaching9 and its end is religious teaching. Its beginning is religious teaching, as it is written, What profit hath man of all his labour wherein he laboureth under the sun?10 And the School of R. Jannai commented: Under the sun he has none, but he has it [sc. profit] before the sun.11 The end thereof is religious teaching, as it is written, Let us hear the conclusion of the matter, fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole of man.12 What is meant by, 'for this is the whole of man'?-Said R. Eleazar, The entire world was created only for the sake of this [type of] man. Simeon b. 'Azzai-others state, Simeon b. Zoma-said: The entire world was created only to be a companion to this man.
And how are its words self-contradictory?-It is written, anger is better than play;13 but it is written, I said of laughter, It is to be praised.14 It is written, Then I commended joy;15 but it is written, and of joy [I said] What doeth it?" There is no difficulty: 'anger is better than laughter': the anger which the Holy One, blessed be He, displays to the righteous in this world is better than the laughter which the Holy One, blessed be He, laughs with the wicked in this world.16 'And I said of laughter, it is to be praised': that refers to the laughter which the Holy One, blessed be He, laughs with the righteous in the world to come. 'Then I commended joy': this refers to the joy of a precept.17 'And of joy [I said], what doeth it': this refers to joy [which is] not in connection with a precept.18 This teaches you that the Divine Presence rests [upon] man] neither through gloom,19 nor through sloth, nor through frivolity, nor through levity, nor through talk, nor through idle chatter,20 save through a matter of joy in connection with a precept, as it is said, But now bring me a minstrel. And it came to pass, when the minstrel played, that the hand of the Lord came upon him.21
Rab Judah said: And it is likewise thus for a matter of halachah.22 Raba said: And it is likewise thus for a good dream.23 But that is not so, for R. Giddal said in Rab's name: If any scholar sits before his teacher and his lips do not drip bitterness,24 they shall be burnt, for it is said, his lips are as lilies [shoshanim], dropping liquid myrrh [mor'ober]:25 read not mor'ober, but mar'ober [dropping bitterness]; read not shoshanim but sheshonin [that study]?26 There is no difficulty: the former applies to the teacher; the latter to the disciple. Alternatively, both refer to the teacher, yet there is no difficulty: the one means before he commences; the other, after he commences. Even as Rabbah before he commenced [his discourse] before the scholars used to say something humorous, and the scholars were cheered; after that he sat in awe and began the discourse.
The Book of Proverbs too they desired to hide, because its statements are self-contradictory. Yet why did they not hide it? They said, Did we not examine the Book of Ecclesiastes and find a reconciliation? So here too let us make search. And how are its statements self-contradictory?-It is written, Answer not a fool according to his folly;27 yet it is also written, Answer a fool according to his folly?28 There is no difficulty: the one refers to matters of learning;29 the other to general matters. Even as a certain person came before Rabbi and said to him, 'Your wife is my wife and your children are mine.'30 'Would you like to drink a glass of wine?' asked he. He drank and burst. A certain man came before R. Hiyya and said to him, 'Your mother is my wife and you are my son! Would you like to drink a glass of wine?' asked he. He drank and burst.
R. Hiyya observed: Rabbi's prayer was in-so-far effective that his sons were not made illegitimate.31 For when Rabbi prayed he used to say, May it be Thy will, O Lord our God, to save me this day from the impudent and from impudence.32
'Matters of learning'-what is that?-As R. Gamaliel sat and lectured, Woman is destined to bear every day, for it is said, the woman conceived and beareth simultaneously.33 But a certain disciple scoffed at him, quoting, 'there is no new thing under the sun.'34 Come, and I will show you its equal in this world,35 be replied. He went forth and showed him a fowl. On another occasion R. Gamaliel sat and lectured, Trees are destined to yield fruit every day, for it is said, and it shall bring forth boughs and bear fruit:36 just as the boughs [exist] every day, so shall there be fruit every day. But a certain disciple scoffed at him, saying, but it is written, 'there is no new thing under the sun!' Come, and I will show you its equal in this world, replied he. He went forth and showed him the caper bush.37 On another occasion R. Gamaliel sat and expounded, Palestine is destined to bring forth cakes and wool robes, for it is said, There shall be an handful of corn in the land.38 But a certain disciple scoffed at him, quoting, 'there is no new thing under the sun!' 'Come, and I will show you their equal in this world,' replied he. He went forth and showed him morels and truffles;39 and for silk robes [he showed him] the bark of a young palm-shoot.40
Our Rabbis taught: A man should always be gentle like Hillel, and not impatient like Shammai. It once happened that two men
(1) The angel of death cannot approach one who is studying the Torah; Sot. 21a.
(2) A euphemism for death.
(3) V. infra 156b.
(4) For the sake of the living dogs it was permitted to handle the carcase without further ado, yet the great king David might not be handled this! Or, the answer concerning the dogs was given precedence over that concerning David.
(5) Supra a. This was said in a spirit of humility, instead of 'which you asked before me.'
(6) Prov. XX, 27: the soul of man is the lamp of the Lord.
(7) Where life is endangered, the lamp may certainly be extinguished.
(8) V. supra p. 55, n. 2. Weiss, Dor, 1, p. 212 conjectures that this was at the time of the Synod in the upper chamber of Hanania b. Hezekiah b. Garon (v. p. 54, n. 1), when it was desired to 'hide' Ezekiel too. This activity was occasioned by the spread of books of Hellenistic tendencies, in consequence of which existing material was closely scrutinized as to its fitness.
(9) Lit., 'words of the Torah'.
(10) Eccl. 1, 3.
(11) I.e., one profits if he toils in the Torah, which existed before the sun; Pes. 54a; Ned. 39b.
(12) Ibid. XII, 13.
(13) Ibid. VII, 3.
(14) Ibid. II, 2.
(15) Ibid. VIII, 15. (12) Ibid. II, 2.
(16) The latter is an idiom for prosperity and well being: the sufferings inflicted upon the righteous are preferable to the prosperity conferred upon the wicked.
(17) The celebrations of such, e.g., a marriage.
(18) The Rabbis frowned upon this. But in all probability this does not apply to a simple and harmless gathering, but to attendance at theatres and circuses, at which the Jewish authorities looked askance, perhaps because they originated in idolatry and also because images of royalty were placed there. - Lev. R. XXXIV. The early Christians too were opposed to this, Tertullian (De Spectaculis, X) describing the theatre as a place of sexual immorality,
(19) Judaism does not encourage asceticism; cf. Ned. 10a.
(20) Or, vain pursuits.
(21) II Kings III, 15. Maharsha observes that the verse is quoted merely to show that the Divine Presence does not rest on a man plunged in gloom, Elisha requiring the minstrel to dissipate the gloom occasioned by Jehoram's visit.
(22) Serious study must be preceded by some light-hearted conversation.
(23) If one goes to sleep in good spirits, he has happy dreams.
(24) Caused by his awe and reverence.
(25) Cant. V, 13.
(26) Translating: the lips of those who study drop bitterness.-This shows that one must not study light-heartedly.
(27) Prov. XXVI, 4.
(28) Ibid. 5.
(29) Then he may be answered.
(30) Thus accusing his wife of adultery and his children of illegitimacy,
(31) The man's miraculous death proved his accusation unfounded. [The text is not clear. Var. lec,: that he was not made (accused to be) illegitimate unlike R. Hiyya, who was declared by the man to be his son; only the character of Rabbi's son was impugned but not of Rabbi himself].
(32) Private prayers were added after the Eighteen Benedictions (v. p. 32, n. 3); Elbogen, Der Judische Gottesdienst, p. 75. This prayer has become incorporated in the daily liturgy. Weiss, Dor, II, 192 conjectures, though on insufficient grounds, that it was occasioned by the opposition he met with among the Rabbis.
(33) Jer. XXXI, 7. (E.V. 8: the woman with child and her that travaileth with child ,together).
(34) Eccl. I, 9.
(35) 'This world' is here contrasted with the destined future of change, while generally it is contrasted with the 'world to come'. Whether these two are synonymous it is difficult to say; v. Sanh. p. 601, n. 3. But perhaps the phrase here means, 'the world under present conditions.'
(36) Ezek. XVII, 23.
(37) Jast: of which the various products are eaten successively; v. B.B. 28b.
(38) Ps. LXXII, 16. Rashi: this implies, corn as wide as a handbreadth, i.e., cakes as wide. The Hebrew pissath bar may also be translated pure wool (or, silken) garments'.
(39) Which resemble cakes.
(40) This has a downy, silk-like substance on the inside.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 31a
made a wager with each other, saying, He who goes and makes Hillel angry shall receive four hundred zuz. Said one, 'I will go and incense him.' That day was the Sabbath eve, and Hillel was washing his head. He went, passed by the door of his house, and called out, 'Is Hillel here, is Hillel here?'1 Thereupon he robed and went out to him, saying, 'My son, what do you require?' 'I have a question to ask,' said he. 'Ask, my son,' he prompted. Thereupon he asked: 'Why are the heads of the Babylonians round?2 'My son, you have asked a great question,' replied he: 'because they have no skillful midwives.' He departed, tarried a while, returned, and called out, 'Is Hillel here; is Hillel here?' He robed and went out to him, saying, 'My son, what do you require?' 'I have a question to ask,' said he. 'Ask, my son,' he prompted. Thereupon he asked: 'Why are the eyes of the Palmyreans3 bleared?' 'My son, you have asked a great question, replied he: 'because they live in sandy places.' He departed, tarried a while, returned, and called out, 'Is Hillel here; is Hillel here?' He robed and went out to him, saying, 'My son, what do you require?' 'I have a question to ask,' said he. 'Ask, my son,' he prompted. He asked, 'Why are the feet of the Africans [negroes] wide?' 'My son, you have asked a great question,' said he; 'because they live in watery marshes.'4 'I have many questions to ask,' said he, 'but fear that you may become angry.' Thereupon he robed, sat before him and said, 'Ask all the questions you have to ask,' 'Are you the Hillel who is called the nasi5 of Israel?' 'Yes,' he replied. 'If that is you,' he retorted, may there not be many like you in Israel. ' ' Why, my son?' queried he. 'Because I have lost four hundred zuz through you,' complained he. 'Be careful of your moods,' he answered. 'Hillel is worth it that you should lose four hundred zuz and yet another four hundred zuz through him, yet Hillel shall not lose his temper.'
Our Rabbis taught: A certain heathen once came before Shammai and asked him, 'How many Toroth6 have you?' 'Two,' he replied: 'the Written Torah and the Oral Torah.'7 'I believe you with respect to the Written, but not with respect to the Oral Torah; make me a proselyte on condition that you teach me the Written Torah [only].8 [But] he scolded and repulsed him in anger. When he went before Hillel, he accepted him as a proselyte. On the first day, he taught him, Alef, beth, gimmel, daleth;9 the following day he reversed [them ] to him. 'But yesterday you did not teach them to me thus,' he protested. 'Must you then not rely upon me?10 Then rely upon me with respect to the Oral [Torah] too.'11
On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen came before Shammai and said to him, 'Make me a proselyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.' Thereupon he repulsed him with the builder's cubit which was in his hand.12 When he went before Hillel, he said to him, 'What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbour:13 that is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary thereof; go and learn it.' On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen was passing behind a Beth Hamidrash, when he heard the voice of a teacher14 reciting, And these are the garments which they shall make; a breastplate, and an ephod.15 Said he, 'For whom are these?' 'For the High Priest,' he was told. Then said that heathen to himself, 'I will go and become a proselyte, that I may be appointed a High Priest.' So he went before Shammai and said to him, 'Make me a proselyte on condition that you appoint me a High Priest.' But he repulsed him with the builder's cubit which was in his hand. He then went before Hillel, who made him a proselyte. Said he to him, 'Can any man be made a king but he who knows the arts of government? Do you go and study the arts of government!'16 He went and read. When he came to, and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death,17 he asked him, 'To whom does this verse apply?' 'Even to David King, of Israel,' was the answer. Thereupon that proselyte reasoned within himself a fortiori: if Israel, who are called sons of the Omnipresent,18 and who in His love for them He designated them, Israel is my son, my firstborn,19 yet it is written of them, 'and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death': how much more so a mere proselyte, who comes with his staff and wallet! Then he went before Shammai and said to him. 'Am I then eligible to be a High Priest; is it not written in the Torah, 'and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death?' He went before Hillel and said to him, 'O gentle Hillel; blessings rest on thy head for bringing me under the wings of the Shechinah!'20 Some time later the three met in one place; said they, Shammai's impatience sought to drive us from the world, but Hillel's gentleness brought us under the wings of the Shechinah.21
Resh Lakish said, What is meant by the verse, and there shall be faith in thy times, strength, salvation, wisdom and knowledge?22 'Faith' refers to the Order of Seeds; thy times, the Order of Festivals; strength, the Order of Women; salvation, the Order of Nezikin;23 wisdom, the Order of Sacrifices; and knowledge, to the Order of Purity.24 Yet even so the fear of the Lord is his treasure.25
Raba said, When man is led in for Judgment26 he is asked, Did you deal faithfully [i.e., with integrity], did you fix times for learning, did you engage in procreation, did you hope for salvation, did you engage in the dialectics of wisdom, did you understand one thing from another.27 Yet even so, if 'the fear of the Lord is his treasure,' it is well: if not, [it is] not [well]. This may be compared to a man who instructed his agent, 'Take me up a kor of wheat in the loft,' and he went and did so. 'Did you mix in a kab of humton?'28 he asked him, 'No,' replied he. 'Then it were better that you had not carried it up,' he retorted. The School of R. Ishmael taught: A man may mix a kab of humton in a kor of grain, and have no fear.29
Rabbah b. R. Huna said: Every man who possesses learning without
(1) Insolently, without the courtesy of a title.
(2) Hillel himself was a Babylonian.
(3) V. p. 91, n. 8.
(4) Hence their feet must be wide to enable them to walk there, just as ducks' feet are webbed.
(5) Patriarch, the religious head of the people.
(6) Torah, pl. Toroth, is generally, though incorrectly, translated 'law'. It means rather a system of teaching; v.R.T.Herford, The Pharisees.pp-53ff.
(7) The Written Torah is the Pentateuch; the Oral Torah is the whole body of Rabbinical and traditional teaching thereon. This was originally not committed to writing (for the reasons v. Weiss, Dor, 111, 24b; and Kaplan, Redaction of the Talmud, ch. XIX), and hence designated the Oral Torah. Weiss, op. cit. I, p. 1, n. 1. observes that Hillel was the first man to whom the use of the term תורה שבעל פה 'Oral Law' is found ascribed.
(8) Of teaching him.
(9) The first four letters of the Hebrew alphabet.
(10) As to what the letters are.
(11) There must be a certain reliance upon authority before anything can be learnt at all. Cf. M. Farbridge, Judaism and the Modern Mind, chs. VII and VIII.
(12) Rashi: a cubit to measure off the amount of work done by a builder.
(13) The golden Rule; cf. Lev. XIX, 18: but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.- V. Hertz, Leviticus, pp.22 or 223, and cf. R. T. Herford, Talmud and Apocrypha, p. 148.
(14) Lit.,'a scribe'.
(15) Ex. XXVIII, 4.
(16) The laws appertaining to the functions of a High Priest.
(17) Num. I, 51.
(18) Deut. XIV, 11.
(19) Ex. IV, 22.
(20) V. Glos.
(21) From these stories it would appear that proselytes were eagerly accepted by Hillel; v. Kid., Sonc. ed., p. 313, n. 3.
(22) Isa. XXXIII, 6.
(23) V. n. 9.
(24) These are the six orders into which the Talmud is divided. Faith is applied to Seeds, because it requires faith in the Almighty to sow with the assurance of a crop (J.T.); 'times' as meaning Festivals is self-explanatory; hosen, here translated 'strength', is derived by Rashi from a root meaning to inherit, and thus identified with the Order of Women, because heirs are created through women; Nezikin treats of civil law, knowledge of which saves men (i.e., brings him 'salvation') from encroaching upon his neighbour's rights or allowing his own to be filched away; the last two Orders are very intricate and require deep understanding, and are therefore identified with wisdom and knowledge.
(25) Ibid. Learning without piety is valueless.
(26) In the next world.
(27) That is Raba's interpretation of the verse; he too translates 'hosen' as inheritance, and thus applies it to procreation (v. preceding note), and understands 'knowledge' as the process of inferring the unknown from the known.
(28) last.: a sandy soil containing salty substances and used for the preservation of wheat.
(29) Of dishonesty, when he sells the whole as grain, because that proportion is necessary for its preservation. One kab = one hundred and eightieth of a kor.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 31b
the fear of Heaven is like a treasurer who is entrusted with the inner keys but not with the outer: how is he to enter? R. Jannai proclaimed: Woe to him who has no courtyard yet makes a gate for same!1 Rab Judah said, The Holy One, blessed be He, created His world only that men should fear Him,2 for it is said, and God hath done it, that men should fear before Him.3
R. Simon and R. Eleazar4 were sitting, when R. Jacob b. Aha came walking past. Said one to his companion, 'Let us arise before him, because he is a sin-fearing man.' Said the other, 'Let us arise before him, because he is a man of learning.' 'I tell you that he is a sin-fearing man, and you tell me that he is a man of learning!' retorted he.5 It may be proved that it was R. Eleazar who observed that he was a sin-fearing man. For R. Johanan said in R. Eleazar's name:6 The Holy One, blessed be He, has nought else in His world but7 the fear of Heaven alone, for it is said, And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God requires of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God?8 and it is written, And unto man he said, Behold [hen], the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom, and in Greek one is hen.9 That proves it.10
R. 'Ulla expounded: Why Is it written, Be not much wicked?11 must one not be much wicked, yet he may be a little wicked! But if one has eaten garlic and his breath smells, shall he eat some more garlic that his breath may [continue to] smell?12
Raba son of R. 'Ulla expounded: What is meant by, For there are no pangs [harzuboth] in their death: but their strength is firm [bari] ulam]?13 The Holy One, blessed be He, said, it is not enough for the wicked that they do not tremble and are not grief-stricken before the day of death, but their hearts are as firm as an edifice.14 And that is what Raba said, What is meant by, This their way is their confidence [kesel]?15 The wicked know that their way is to death, but they have fat on their loins [kislam].16 But lest you think that it is their forgetfulness, therefore it is stated, and they approve their end with their own mouths.15
IF HE WOULD SPARE THE LAMP, etc. With whom does R. Jose agree? If with R. Judah,17 then one should be liable for the others too; and if with R. Simeon,18 he should be exempt even for[sparing] the wick?-Said 'Ulla, After all, he agrees with R. Judah; yet R. Jose holds that demolishing in order to rebuild on the same site is destroying, but if it is in order to rebuild elsewhere, it is not destroying.19 Said Rabbah to him, Consider; all forms of labour are derived from the Tabernacle,20 yet there it was taking down in order to rebuild elsewhere?21 It was different there, answered he; for since it is written, At the commandment of the Lord they encamped, [and at the commandment of the Lord they journeyed],22 it was like demolishing in order to rebuild on the same site.
But R. Johanan maintained: After all, he agrees with R. Simeon, yet why is the case of a wick different? As R. Hamnuna-others state, R. Adda b. Ahabah-said: This refers to a wick which needs singeing,23 and in such a case even R. Simeon agrees since he renders an object fit.24 Raba said, This may be inferred too, for it is stated, BECAUSE HE MAKES CHARCOAL, and not, because a charcoal is formed.25 This proves it.
MISHNAH. FOR THREE SINS WOMEN DIE IN CHILDBIRTH: BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT OBSERVANT OF [THE LAWS OF] NIDDAH, HALLAH,26 AND THE KINDLING OF THE [SABBATH] LIGHTS.27
GEMARA. What is the reason of niddah?-Said R. Isaac: She transgressed through the chambers of her womb, therefore she is punished through the chambers of her womb. That is right of niddah, but what can be said of hallah and the kindling of lights? - As a certain Galilean lectured before R. Hisda: The Holy One, blessed be He, said: I put a rebi'ith of blood in you;28 therefore I commanded you concerning blood.29
(1) Learning is a gate whereby one enters the court of piety. Woe to him who prepares the entry without the court itself!
(2) By 'fear' not dread but awe and reverence is to be understood, proceeding out of man's realization of God's essential perfection. This reverence, and the attempt to attain something of that perfection which it inculcates, is man's highest aim in life, and that is probably the meaning of this dictum; cf. Maim. (Guide, III, 52.
(3) Eccl. III, 14.
(4) in the Yalkut, 'Ekeb, 855 the reading is: Rabbi and R. Eleazar b. Simeon.
(5) The former is a greater attribute.
(6) This would be R. Eleazar b. Pedath, R. Johanan's younger contemporary; he is hardly likely to have quoted him. Hence the Yalkut's version given in p. 142, n. 7 is preferable, and the reading is: R. Johanan in the name of R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon.
(7) i.e., cherishes nothing so highly.
(8) Deut. X, 12.
(9) Thus translating: the fear of the Lord is one, unique (in God's affections).
(10) Sc. R. Eleazar's (or, R. Eleazar b. Simeon's) view.
(11) Eccl. VII, 17.
(12) i.e., having sinned a little, do not think that you must go on sinning.
(13) Ps. LXXIII, 4.
(14) Regarding harzuboth as a combination of hared (trembling) and 'azeb (grief-stricken) and translating ulam, a hall, edifice.
(15) Ps. XLIX, 14.
(16) Which close their understanding. The loins (reins) were regarded as the seat of understanding.
(17) That one is liable for work not needed in itself, v. p. 131, n. 4
(18) V. supra 12a.
(19) One is not liable for desecrating the Sabbath when his work is destructive; but if he demolishes a house in order to rebuild, it is regarded as constructive. Now, extinguishing a wick, thereby destroying its light, is the equivalent of demolishing a house; if the purpose is to save the wick to be used again later, it is analogous to demolishing a house to build on the same site, since it is the wick which is extinguished and the wick which is to be relit. But if the purpose is to save the oil or the lamp, it is analogous to demolishing a house in order to rebuild elsewhere, for whereas the wick is extinguished, it is the oil or lamp that is saved for subsequent use.
(20) infra 49b.
(21) The Tabernacle was only taken down when they had to journey onwards, and it was re-erected on their new camping pitch.
(22) Num. IX, 23.
(23) In order to burn clearer.
(24) For its purpose, and thus it is a labour needed for itself, which involves liability.
(25) The text implies that by extinguishing it he intends making charcoal, i.e., to make it more ready for relighting, and thus must apply to a wick which needs singeing.
(26) On the terms v. Glos.
(27) [In time before Sabbath sets in, v. Strashun].
(28) Rebi'ith=one log=one fourth of a kab, and was held to be the smallest quantity of blood within a human being on which life in be supported.
(29) Not to shed it: Gen. IX. 5f.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 32a
I designated you the first;1 wherefore I commanded you concerning the first.2 The soul which I placed in you is called a lamp, wherefore I commanded you concerning the lamp.3 If ye fulfil them, 'tis well; but if not, I will take your souls.
And why particularly in childbirth?-Raba said, When the ox is fallen, sharpen the knife. Abaye said, Let the bondmaid increase her rebellion: it will all be punished by the same rod. R. Hisda said, Leave the drunkard alone: he will fall of himself. Mar 'Ukba said, When the shepherd is lame, and the goats are fleet, at the gate of the fold are words, and in the fold there is the account. R. Papa said, At the gate of the shop there are many brothers and friends; at the gate of loss4 there are neither brothers nor friends.5
And when are men examined?-Said Resh Lakish: When they pass over a bridge.6 A bridge and nothing else?-Say, that which is similar to a bridge. Rab would not cross a bridge where a heathen was sitting; said he, Lest judgment be visited upon him, and I be seized together with him. Samuel would cross a bridge only when a heathen was upon it, saying, Satan has no power over two nations [simultaneously]. R. Jannai examined [the bridge] and then crossed over. R. Jannai [acted] upon his views, for he said, A man should never stand in a place of danger and say that a miracle will be wrought for him, lest it is not. And if a miracle is wrought for him, it is deducted from his merits.7 R. Hanin said, Which verse [teaches this]? I am become diminished8 by reason of all the deeds of kindness and all the truth.9 R. Zera would not go out among the palm-trees on a day of the strong south wind.10
R. Isaac the son of Rab Judah said: Let one always pray for mercy not to fall sick; for the falls sick he is told, Show thy merits [rights] and be quit.11 Said Mar 'Ukba, Which verse [teaches this]? If any man fall mimmenu;12 It is from him [mimmenu] that proof must be brought.13 The School of R. Ishmael taught: 'If any man [hanofel] fall from thence': this man was predestined to fall since the six days of Creation, for lo! he has not [yet] fallen, and the Writ [already] calls him nofel [a faller].14 But reward [zekut] is brought about through a person of merit [zakkai], and punishment [hobah] through a person of- guilt.15
Our Rabbis taught: if one falls sick and his life is in danger,16 he is told, Make confession, for all who are sentenced to death make confession. When a man goes out into the street, let him imagine that he is given in charge of an officer;17 when he has a headache, let him imagine that he is put in irons; when he takes to bed, let him imagine that he ascended the scaffold to be punished. For whoever ascends the scaffold to be punished, if he has great advocates he is saved, but if not he is not saved. And these are man's advocates: repentance and good deeds. And even if nine hundred and ninety-nine argue for his guilt, while one argues in his favour, he is saved, for it is said, If there be with him an angel, an advocate, one among a thousand, To shew unto man what is right for him; Then he is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit, etc.18 R. Eliezer the son of R. Jose the Galilean said: Even if nine hundred and ninety-nine parts of that angel are in his disfavour and one part is in his favour, be is saved, for it is said, 'an advocate, one part in a thousand'.
Our Rabbis taught: For three sins women die in childbirth. R. Eleazar said: women die young.19 R. Aha said, As a punishment for washing their children's napkins20 on the Sabbath. Others say, Because they call the holy ark a chest.
It was taught, R. Ishmael b. Eleazar said: On account of two sins 'amme ha-arez21 die: because they call the holy ark a chest, and because they call a synagogue beth-'am.22
It was taught, R. Jose said: Three death scrutineers were created in woman; others state: Three causes23 of death: niddah, hallah, and the kindling of the [Sabbath] lights. One agrees with R. Eleazar, and the other with the Rabbi's.24
It was taught, R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: The laws of hekdesh, terumoth25 and tithes are indeed essential parts of the law,
(1) Jer. II, 3: Israel was holiness unto the Lord, the first-fruits of his increase.
(2) Sc. the first portion of the dough, which is hallah; Num. XV, 20.
(3) Sc. the Sabbath lights.
(4) Rashi. Levi, Worterbuch s.v. זײנא conjectures that בי זײנא should be read instead of אבב בזיונא: he translates as Rashi: where there is loss. Jast.: at the prison gate, Krauss in T.A. II, p. 699, n. 435 appears to translate: at the toll-gate, and this is a reference to the severity with which tolls were exacted.
(5) These are a series of proverbs, the general tenor of which is that when danger is near, one's faults are remembered and punished. Childbirth is dangerous, and that is when a woman is punished for her transgressions. - Mar 'Ukba's proverb means: the shepherd waits until the goats are by the gate of the fold or pen, and then rebukes and punishes them.
(6) That involves danger, and then they are liable to be punished for their misdeeds,
(7) The miracle is a reward for some of his merits, and so he has now less to his credit.
(8) I.e., I have less merit to my credit.
(9) Gen, XXXII, 10.
(10) Aruch: east wind.
(11) I.e., he must prove by what merit he is entitled to regain his health.
(12) Deut. XXII, 8.
(13) Of merit, that he is entitled to recover from his injuries.
(14) The lit. translation of the verse is: if the faller falls. But before he starts falling he should not be designated the faller.
(15) And this man who builds a house without a parapet is guilty therein, and he is used as the Divine instrument for fulfilling the other man's destiny to fall as a punishment.
(16) Lit., 'inclines to death'.
(17) To be bought to trial.
(18) Job. XXXIII, 23f.
(19) For these three sins. The variants involve but a change of vocalization in the Hebrew text.
(20) Lit., 'excrement'.
(21) Pl. of 'am ha-arez, q.v. Glos,
(22) Lit., 'house of the people'-a contemptuous designation.
(23) Cf. n. 2..
(24) 'Death scrutineers' connotes sins which scrutinize a woman when she is in danger, sc. at childbirth; thus this agrees with the Rabbis, 'Causes' implies avenues to premature death, thus agreeing with R. Eleazar's dictum, 'women die young'-The translation of the first follows Rashi. last.: breaches through which death enters, i.e., sins for which one is visited with death.
(25) V. Glos.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 32b
and they were entrusted to the ignorant.1
It was taught, R. Nathan said: A man's wife dies in punishment for [his unfulfilled] vows, for it is said. If thou, hast not wherewith to pay [thy vows], why should he take away thy bed [i.e., wife]from under thee?2 Rabbi said, For the sin of [unfulfilled] vows one's children die young, for it is said, Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin, neither say thou, before the angel, that it was an error: wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thine hands.3 What is the work of a man's hands? Say, it is a man's sons and daughters.
Our Rabbis taught: Children die as a punishment for [unfulfilled] vows: this is the view of R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon. R. Judah the Nasi said: For the sin of neglect of Torah [study]. As for the view that it is for the sin of vows, it is well, even as we have said. But on the view that it is for the sin of neglect of Torah, what verse [teaches this]? - For it is written, Have I smitten your children for nought? They received no instruction!4 R. Nahman b. Isaac said: The view that it is for the sin of vows is also [deduced] from this: For vain [utterance] have I smitten your children, i.e., on account of vain (neglected] vows.5 Consider: R. Judah the Nasi is identical with Rabbi, whereas Rabbi said that is it for the sin of vows? - He said that after he had heard it from R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon.6
R. Hiyya b. Abba and R. Jose7 differ therein: one maintained: It is for the sin of [neglect of] mezuzah;8 while the other held that it is for the sin of neglect of Torah. On the view that it is for the sin of mezuzah: a verse is interpreted with its precedent, but not with its ante-precedent verse. While on the view that it is for the sin of neglect of Torah: a verse is interpreted with its precedent and its ante-precedent.9 R. Meir and R. Judah differ therein: One maintains, It is for the neglect of mezuzah, while the other holds that it is for the neglect of fringes.10 Now, as for the view that it is for the neglect of mezuzah, it is well, for it is written, 'and thou shalt write them upon the door posts [mezuzoth] of thine house', which is followed by, 'that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children'. But what is the reason of the view that it is for the neglect of fringes?-Said R. Kahana-others state, Shila Mari: because it is written, Also in thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the innocent poor.11 R. Nahman b. Isaac said, The view that it is for the neglect of mezuzah is also [learnt] from this: did I not find them like caves?12 [which means] that they made their entrances like caves.13
Resh Lakish said: He who is observant of fringes will be privileged to be served by two thousand eight hundred slaves, for it is said, Thus saith the Lord of hosts: In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold, out of all the languages of the nations shall even take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you, etc.14
(Mnemonic: Hate, Hallah, Terumah, Robbed, Law, Oath, Shedding, Uncovering, Folly.)15 It was taught, R. Nehemiah said: As a punishment for causeless hate strife multiplies in a man's house, his wife miscarries, and his sons and daughters die young.
R. Eleazar b. R. Judah said: Because of the neglect of hallah there is no blessing in what is stored, a curse is sent upon prices,16 and seed is sown and others consume it, for it is said, I also will do this unto you: I will visit you with terror [behalah], even consumption and fever, that shall consume the eyes, and make the soul to pine away. and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it:17 read not behalah but be-hallah.18 But if they give it, they are blessed, for it is said, ye shall also give unto the priest the first of your dough, to cause a blessing to rest on thine house.19
As a punishment for the neglect of terumoth and tithes the heavens are shut up from pouring down dew and rain, high prices are prevalent, wages are lost, and people pursue a livelihood but cannot attain it,20 for it is written: Drought [ziyyah] and heat [hom] consume the snow waters: So doth the grave those which have sinned.21 How does this imply it?-The School of R. Ishmael taught: On account of the things which I commanded you in summer22 but ye did them not, the snowy waters shall rob you in winter.23 But if they render them, they are blessed, for it is said, Bring ye the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of Hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it ['ad beli day].24 What is meant by 'ad beli day?-Said Rami b. Hama: Until your lips are exhausted25 through saying, 'Enough!' [day].
For the crime of robbery locusts make invasion, famine is prevalent, and people eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, for it is said, Hear this word, ye kine of Bashan, that are in the mountain of Samaria, which oppress the poor, which crush the needy.26 (Said Raba, E.g., these women of Mahoza,27
(1) No supervisors were appointed to ensure that the ignorant observe them. Rashi: haberim (q.v. Glos.) eat the bread of the ignorant and assume that the priestly dues have been rendered. Likewise, they use their movables without fearing that they may have dedicated them as hekdesh and rendered them forbidden for secular use.
(2) Prov. XXII, 27.
(3) Eccl. V, 5.
(4) Jer. II, 30.
(5) The Heb. is la-shaw, which bears this meaning too. Cf.Deut. V, 11: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain (la-shaw).
(6) But the compiler of this Baraitha quoted his former view.
(7) Wilna Gaon emends this to R. Ammi or R. Assi.
(8) V. Glos.
(9) V. Deut. XI, 19-21: And ye shall teach them your children ... and thou shalt write them upon the door posts of thine house (mezuzoth) ... that your days may be multiplied. and the days of your children. One maintains: the promise 'and the days of your children' is made conditional upon the immediately preceding command, and thou shalt write them (sc. mezuzah); the other holds that it refers to the previous verse too, viz., and ye shall teach them your children.
(10) Num. XV, 38.
(11) Jer. II, 34: 'in thy skirts'-i.e., in the neglect of fringes, which are inserted in the skirts of one's garment: 'the innocent poor,' i.e., the children who die guiltlessly.
(12) E.V.: I have not found it at the place of breaking in.
(13) Without mezuzoth.
(14) Zech. VIII, 23, 'Skirt' is regarded as referring to the fringe (cf. n. 2.). There are four fringes, and traditionally there are seventy languages: we thus have 70 X 10 X 4 = 2800.
(15) Catch words of the themes that follow, as an aid to memory.
(16) What is stored - grain, wine, oil, etc. does not keep, with the result that prices rise.
(17) Lev. XXVI, 16.
(18) On account of (the neglect of) hallah.
(19) Ezek. XLIV, 30.
(20) Cf. Ab. V. 8.
(21) Job. XXIV, 19.
(22) Viz., the rendering of terumoth and tithes.
(23) I.e., there will be no rain, etc. Ziyyah (E.V. drought) is thus connected with ziwah (he commanded), and hom (E.V. heat) with summer.
(24) Mal. III, 10.
(25) Yibelu, connected here with beli.
(26) Amos. IV, 1. The proof lies in the sequel, quoted below.
(27) The famous town on the Tigris not far from Ktesifon, where Raba possibly founded the academy (Weiss, Dor, 111, 202) with himself as head, which was recognized as one of the foremost in Babylon; Obermeyer, p. i 66. (i 2.) Thus they rob their husbands; or, demanding food and producing nothing in return, they may force their husbands to robbery,-Women were expected to do a certain amount of labour, e.g., spinning; Keth. 59b, cf. Prov. XXXI, 13, 19. It would appear that Raba was not very popular in Mahoza (cf. Sanh. 99b); such sentiments may be either partially the cause, or Raba's reaction.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 33a
who eat without working). And it is [further] written, I have smitten you with blasting and mildew: the multitude of your gardens and your vineyards and your fig trees and your olive trees hath the palmerworm devoured.1 and it is also written, That which the palmerworm hath left hath the locust eaten; and that which the locust hath left hath the cankerworm eaten; and that which the cankerworm hath left hath the caterpillar eaten;2 and it is written, And one shall snatch on the right hand, and be hungry, and he shall eat on the left hand, and they shall not be satisfied; they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm.3 Read not, the flesh of his own arm [zero'o], but, the flesh of his own seed [zar'o].
As a punishment for delay of judgment,4 perversion of judgment,5 spoiling of judgment,6 and neglect of Torah, sword and spoil increase, pestilence and famine come, people eat and are not satisfied, and eat their bread by weight, for it is written, and I will bring a sword upon you, that shall execute the vengeance of the covenant:7 now 'covenant' means nothing else but Torah, as it is written, But for my covenant of day and night [I had not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth];8 and it is written, When I break your staff of bread, ten women shall bake your bread in one oven, and they shall deliver your bread again by weight;9 and it is written, because, even because they rejected my judgments.10
For the crime of vain oaths, false oaths,11 profanation of the Divine Name,12 and the desecration of the Sabbath, wild beasts multiply, [domestic] animals cease, the population decreases, and the roads become desolate, for it is said, And if by these things [be-eleh] ye will not be reformed unto me;13 read not be-eleh but be-alah;14 and it is written, and I will send the beast of the field among you, etc.15 Now, in respect to false oaths it is written, And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, so that you profane [we-hillalta] the name of thy God;16 and of the profanation of the Name it is written, and that they profane not [ye-hallelu] my holy name;17 and of the profanation of the Sabbath it is written, every one that profaneth it [mehallelehah] shall surely be put to death:18 and [the punishment for] profanation is learnt19 from a false oath.20
Through the crime of bloodshed the Temple was destroyed and the Shechinah departed from Israel, as it is written, So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are; for blood, it polluteth the land ... And thou shalt not defile the land which ye inhabit, in the midst of which I dwell.-21 hence, if ye do defile it, ye will not inhabit it and I will not dwell in its midst.22
As a punishment for incest,23 idolatry, and non-observance of the years of release and jubilee24 exile comes to the world, they [the Jews] are exiled, and others come and dwell in their place, for it is said, for all these abominations have the men of the land done, etc.;25 and it is written, and the land is defiled,- therefore do I visit the in iniquity thereof upon it;26 and it is written, that the land vomit not you out also, when ye defile it.27 Again, with respect to idolatry it is written, and I will cast your carcases [upon the carcases of your idols];28 and it is written, And I will make your cities a waste, and will bring your sanctuaries into desolation etc....29 and you will I scatter among the nations.30 Further, in reference to release and jubilee years it is written, Then shall the land enjoy her sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate, and ye be in your enemies' land, etc.;31 and it is written, As long as it lieth desolate it shall have rest.32
As a punishment for obscenity,33 troubles multiply, cruel decrees are proclaimed afresh, the youth of Israel's enemies34 die, and the fatherless and widows cry out and are not answered; for it is said, Therefore shall the Lord not rejoice over the young men, neither shall he have compassion over their fatherless and their widows: for every one is profane and an evil-doer, and every mouth speaketh folly. For all is his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.35 What is meant by, 'but his hand is stretched out still'?-Said R. Hanan b. Rabbah: All know for what purpose a bride enters the bridal canopy, yet against whomsoever who speaks obscenely [thereof], even if a sentence of seventy years' happiness had been sealed for him,36 it is reversed for evil.
Rabbah b. Shila said in R. Hisda's name: He who puts his mouth to folly,37 Gehenna is made deep for him, as it is said, A deep pit is for the mouth [that speaketh] perversity.38 R. Nahman b. Isaac said, Also [for] one who hears and is silent,39 for it is said, he that is abhorred of the Lord40 shall fall therein.41
R. Oshaia said: He who devotes himself42 to sin, wounds and bruises break out over him, as it is said, Stripes and wounds are for him that devoteth himself to evil.43 Moreover, he is punished by dropsy, for it is said, and strokes reach the innermost parts of the belly.44 R. Nahman b. Isaac said: Dropsy is a sign of sin.
Our Rabbis taught: There are three kinds of dropsy: that [which is a punishment] of sin is thick; that caused by hunger is swollen; and what is caused by magic is thin.45 Samuel the Little46 suffered through it. 'Sovereign of the Universe!' he cried out, who will cast lots?'47 [Thereupon] he recovered. Abaye suffered from it. Said Raba, I know of Nahmani48 that he practises hunger.49 Raba suffered from it. But was it not Raba himself who said, More numerous are those slain by delayed calls of nature50 than the victims51 of starvation?52 -Raba was different, because the scholars compelled him [to practise restraint] at the set times [for lectures].
Our Rabbis taught: There are four signs:-[i] Dropsy is a sign of sin; [ii] jaundice is a sign of causeless hatred; [iii] poverty is a sign of conceit;53 croup54 is a sign of slander.55 Our Rabbis taught: Croup comes to the world
(1) Prov. XXXI, 9.
(2) Joel I, 4.
(3) Isa. IX, 19.
(4) Lit., 'affliction of judgment'-through unnecessary delay in executing judgment.
(5) Intentionally, through bias or partiality.
(6) Giving erroneous verdicts through carelessness and insufficient deliberation; cf. Aboth, I, 2.
(7) Lev. XXVI, 25.
(8) Jer. XXXIII, 25. 'The covenant of day and night' is understood to refer to the Torah, which should be studied day and night; v. Ned. 32.
(9) Ibid. XXVI, 26.
(10) Ibid. 43.
(11) Rashi: the first is swearing what is obviously untrue; the second is an ordinary false oath which can deceive. Cf. Aboth, Sonc. ed., p. 47, n. 11.
(12) Any unworthy action which reflects discredit upon Judaism since Judaism is blamed for it'-is regarded as profanation of the Divine Name. Cf. Aboth, V, 9, and IV, 4.
(13) Ibid. 23.
(14) the consonants are the same. The verse then reads: and if ye will not be reformed unto me in the matter of (false) oaths.
(15) Lev. XXVI, 22.
(16) Ibid. XIX, 12.
(17) Ibid. XXII, 2.
(18) Ex. XXXI, 14.
(19) Lit., 'and profanation, profanation is learnt'. I.e., the statement made in respect to one profanation holds good for the others too.
(20) just as this is punished by the sending of wild beasts, etc. (Lev. XXVI, 22), so are the others.
(21) Num. XXXV, 33f.
(22) It may be remarked that the destruction of the Temple is regarded here as synonymous with exile from the country.
(23) Which includes adultery.
(24) V. Lev. XXV, 1ff.
(25) Ibid. XVIII, 27; 'abominations' refers to incest, of which the whole passage treats.
(26) ibid. 25.
(27) Ibid. 28.
(28) Ibid. XXVI, 30.
(29) Ibid. 31.
(30) Ibid. 33.
(31) Lev. XXVI, 34.
(32) Ibid. 35.
(33) Lit., 'folly of the mouth'.
(34) A euphemism for the youth of Israel. It was held inauspicious even merely to express a possible mishap, on the score of 'open not thy mouth to Satan'.
(35) Isa. IX, 16.
(36) This derives from the idea that there is a book of Life, in which man's destiny is recorded; cf. Ned., Sonc. ed., p. 62, n. 7.
(37) Speaks lewdly.
(38) Prov. XXII, 14. Lit., 'strange (things)'.-Gehenna, as an equivalent of hell, takes its name from the place where children were once sacrificed to Moloch, viz., ge ben hinnom, the valley of the son of Hinnom, to the south of Jerusalem. (Josh. XV, 8; II Kings XXIII, 10; Jer. II, 23; VII, 31-32; XIX, 6).
(39) Does not protest.
(40) Viz., who hears it without protesting.
(41) Prov.XXII, 14.
(42) Either: makes himself empty from all other purposes; or, polishes himself up, i.e., prepares himself.
(43) Ibid. XX, 30.
(45) Jewish magic is mentioned in Deut. XVIII, 10-11, in a passage forbidding its practice. But its potency was generally recognized. V. J.E. Arts, 'Magic', and 'Demonology'.
(46) A Tanna, contemporary of R. Gamaliel I.
(47) To see from what cause I am suffering-I will be accused of sin.
(48) A nickname of Abaye, who was brought up in the house of Rabbah b. Nahmani.
(49) This may indicate that Abaye was an ascetic. Judaism generally was opposed to asceticism (cf. Ned. 10a: he who deprives himself of what he may legitimately enjoy is called a sinner); nevertheless, in times of stress or for particular reasons Rabbis resorted to fasting (B.M. 85a), and private fasts were practised from early times: Judith VIII, 6; 1 Macc. III, 47.
(52) Now, Raba evidently disapproved of Abaye's fasting; also, he himself warned against trifling with nature's calls. How then did he come to dropsy - sin being ruled out?-Presumably its symptoms precluded the assumption that he was a victim of witchcraft.
(53) In Kid. 49b it is explained that this refers to poverty of knowledge, which results when one is too conceited to learn from others.
(54) אסכרה, or perhaps 'Diphtheria'.
(55) Each is the punishment for the other.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 33b
on account of [neglect of] tithes.1 R. Eleazar b. R. Jose said: On account of slander. Said Raba-others maintain, R. Joshua b. Levi-what verse [teaches this]? But the king shall rejoice in God: Everyone that sweareth by him shall glory; For the mouth of them that speak lies shall be stopped [yissaker].2 The scholars propounded: Does R. Eleazar son of R. Jose say, [Only] on account of slander, or perhaps on account of slander too? - Come and hear: For when our Rabbis entered the 'vineyard' in Yabneh,3 R. Judah, R. Eleazar son of R. Jose and R. Simeon were present, and this question was raised before them: why does this affliction commence in the bowels and end in the throat? Thereupon R. Judah son of R. Ila'i, the first speaker on all occasions4 answered and said: Though the kidneys counsel, the heart gives understanding,5 and the tongue gives form,6 yet the mouth completes it. R. Eleazar son of R. Jose answered: Because they eat unclean food therewith. 'Unclean food!' can you think so?7 Rather [say] because they eat unfit food.8 R. Simeon answered and said, As a punishment for the neglect of study.9 Said they to him. Let women prove it!10 -That is because they restrain their husbands [from study]. Let Gentiles prove it!11 -That is because they restrain Israel. Let children prove it! - That is because they make their fathers to neglect [study].12 Then let school-children prove it!-There it is as R. Gorion. For R. Gorion-others state, R. Joseph son of R. Shemaiah-said: When there are righteous men in the generation, the righteous are seized [by death] for the [sins of the] generation; when there are no righteous in a generation, school-children are seized for the generation.13 R. Isaac b. Ze'iri others state, R. Simeon b. Neizra-said: Which verse [teaches this]? If thou know not, O thou, fairest among women, Go thy way forth by the footsteps of the flock, etc.,14 and we interpret this as [referring to] the goats which are taken in pledge for the [debts of the] shepherds. Thus this proves that he said on account of slander too. This proves it.
Now, why is he [R. Judah son of R. Ila'i] called the first speaker on all occasions?-For R. Judah, R. Jose, and R. Simeon were sitting, and Judah, a son of proselytes, was sitting near them. R. Judah commenced [the discussion] by observing, 'How fine are the works of this people!15 They have made streets, they have built bridges, they have erected baths.' R. Jose was silent. R. Simeon b. Yohai answered and said, 'All that they made they made for themselves; they built market-places, to set harlots in them; baths, to rejuvenate themselves; bridges, to levy tolls for them.' Now, Judah the son of proselytes went and related their talk,16 which reached17 the government. They decreed: Judah, who exalted [us], shall be exalted,18 Jose, who was silent, shall be exiled to Sepphoris;19 Simeon, who censured, let him be executed.
He and his son went and hid themselves in the Beth Hamidrash,[and] his wife brought him bread and a mug of water and they dined.20 [But] when the decree became more severe be said to his son, Women are of unstable temperament: she21 may be put to the torture and expose us.'22 So they went and hid in a cave. A miracle occurred and a carob-tree and a water well were created for them. They would strip their garments and sit up to their necks in sand. The whole day they studied; when it was time for prayers they robed, covered themselves, prayed, and then put off their garments again, so that they should not wear out. Thus they dwelt twelve years in the cave.23 Then Elijah came and stood at the entrance to the cave and exclaimed, Who will inform the son of Yohai that the emperor is dead and his decree annulled?24 So they emerged. Seeing a man ploughing and sowing, they exclaimed, 'They forsake life eternal and engage in life temporal!' Whatever they cast their eyes upon was immediately burnt up. Thereupon a Heavenly Echo came forth and cried out, 'Have ye emerged to destroy My world: Return to your cave!'25 So they returned and dwelt there twelve months, saying, 'The punishment26 of the wicked in Gehenna is [limited to] twelve months.'27 A Heavenly Echo then came forth and said, 'Go forth from your cave!' Thus.'; they issued: wherever R. Eleazar wounded,28 R. Simeon healed. Said he to him, 'My son! You and I are sufficient for the world.'29 On the eve of the Sabbath before sunset they saw an old man holding two bundles of myrtle and running at twilight. What are these for?' they asked him. 'They are in honour of the Sabbath,' he replied.30 'But one should suffice you'?-One is for 'Remember-' and one for 'Observe.'31 Said he to his son, 'See how precious are the commandments to Israel.' Thereat their minds were tranquilized. R. Phinchas b. Ya'ir his son-in-law heard [thereof] and went out to meet him. He took him into the baths and massaged32 his flesh. Seeing the clefts in his body33 he wept and the tears streamed from his eyes. 'Woe to me that I see you in such a state!' he cried out. 'Happy are you that you see me thus,' he retorted, 'for if you did not see me in such a state you would not find me thus [learned].34 For originally, when R. Simeon b. Yohai raised a difficulty, R. Phinehas b. Ya'ir would give him thirteen answers, whereas subsequently when R. Phinehas b. Ya'ir raised a difficulty, R. Simeon b. Yohai would give him twenty-four answers.
Since a miracle has occurred, said he, let me go and amend something, for it is written, and Jacob came whole35 [to the city of Shechem],36 which Rab interpreted. Bodily whole [sound], financially whole, and whole in his learning. And he was gracious to the city.,37 Rab said: He instituted coinage for them.38 Samuel said: He instituted markets for them; R. Johanan said: He instituted baths for them. Is there ought that requires amending? he39 asked. There is a place of doubtful uncleanness,40 he was informed,
(1) Rashi: one who eats untithed food (tebel) is liable to death by a divine visitation, which takes the form of croup. Having sinned through his throat (eating), he is punished through his throat.
(2) Ps. LXIII, 12. Yissaker is connected here with askera, croup.
(3) The famous town north west of Jerusalem, the seat of the Sanhedrin and R. Johanan b. Zakkai's academy after the destruction of the Temple. Sittings were held in a 'vineyard', i.e., members sat in rows similar to vines in a vineyard.
(4) The reason is given below, p. 56.
(5) 'Counsel' and 'understanding' were ascribed to these two organs respectively. Rashi in Ber. 61a s.v. והלב quotes: Ps. XVI, 7: Yea, my kidney (E.V. reins) admonish me in the night seasons, and Isa. VI, 10: and he understands with his heart.
(6) To the words. Lit., 'cuts'.
(7) That does not merit so heavy a punishment, particularly as only terumah and sacred food are forbidden when defiled.
(8) I.e., untithed.
(9) Which is likewise performed with the mouth.
(10) Who are not bidden to study (Kid. 29b), and yet suffer from croup. (cf. Sot. III, 4).
(11) Who are not bidden to study the Torah, and are yet subject to it.
(12) By childish demands on their time;-a harsh doctrine, but it is abandoned.
(13) This is not to be confused with the doctrine of vicarious atonement, which is rejected by Judaism.
(14) Cant. I, 8. The Midrash and the Targum interpret the whole of this poem as a dialogue between God and Israel, This verse is explained: If you do not understand how to keep God's commandments, go and learn them for the sake of the flocks, sc. your children, who otherwise may die on your account.
(15) The Romans.
(16) Rashi: to his parents, without evil intent.
(17) Lit., 'and they were heard by'.
(18) With the privilege of being the first to speak on all occasions.
(19) In Upper Galilee.
(20) Lit., 'they wrapped (bread)'; a term derived from the custom of eating bread with a relish wrapped in it.
(21) His wife.
(22) The context shows that he was not censuring women for constitutional instability, but feared their weakness.
(23) Notwithstanding its miraculous elements this story is substantially true. R. Simeon b. Yohai was persecuted very much by the Roman authorities; this explains his anti-Gentile (i.e., Roman) utterances, which are not illustrative of the Talmud as a whole.
(24) Elijah the Prophet was believed to appear frequently to men; cf, supra 13b.
(25) This story is a protest against super piety and an assertion that practical work is necessary for the world. Their return to the cave is thus depicted as a punishment, not a meritorious deed.
(26) Lit., 'judgment'.
(27) On 'Gehenna' v. p. 153, n. 8. Judaism rejects on the whole the idea of eternal punishment, for punishment is regenerative, not vindictive, and therefore must terminate; v. M. Joseph, Judaism as Creed and Life, p. 145.
(28) With a glance of his eyes.
(29) Not to be taken literally.
(30) Their fragrance is to beautify the Sabbath and lend cheer to it.-Contrary to the opinion of many, the Sabbath, in spite of its prohibitions, is and has been 'a day of delight' and spiritual nourishment to millions of observant Jews, not a day of gloom; v. Shechter, Studies in Judaism, p. 296.
(31) Ex. XX, 8. Remember the Sabbath day; Deut. V, 12: Observe the Sabbath day.
(32) Lit., 'dressed'.
(33) Caused by the sand,
(34) He felt that all his sufferings were compensated for by the knowledge he had gained. R. Simeon b. Yohai was one of the few Rabbis who devoted himself entirely to learning, 'his study being his profession' (supra 11a) not interrupting it even for prayer.
(35) E. V. 'in peace'.
(36) Gen. XXXIII, 18.
(37) Ibid.; Wa-yihan is thus derived from hanan, to be gracious. E.V.: and he encamped before the city.
(38) In place of barter.
(39) R. Simeon b. Yohai.
(40) A grave or human bones having been lost there.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 34a
and priests have the trouble of going round it. Said he: Does any man know that there was a presumption of cleanness here?1 A certain old man replied, Here [R. Johanan] b. Zakkai cut down lupines of terumah. So he did likewise. Wherever it (the ground] was hard he declared it clean, while wherever it was loose he, marked it out. Said a certain old man. The son of Yohai has purified a cemetery! Said he, Had you not been with us, even if you have been with us but did not vote,2 you might have said well. But now that you were with us and voted with us,3 It will be said, [Even] whores paint one another; how much more so scholars!4 He cast his eye upon him, and he died. Then he went out into the street and saw Judah, the son of proselytes: 'That man is still in the world!' he exclaimed. He cast his eyes upon him and he became5 a heap of bones.
MISHNAH. ON THE EVE OF THE SABBATH JUST BEFORE NIGHT6 A MAN MUST SAY THREE THINGS IN HIS HOUSE: HAVE YE RENDERED TITHES?7 HAVE YE PREPARED THE 'ERUB?8 KINDLE THE [SABBATH] LAMP. WHEN IT IS DOUBTFUL, WHETHER IT IS NIGHT9 OR NOT,10 THAT WHICH IS CERTAINLY [UNTITHED] MAY NOT BE TITHED, UTENSILS MAY NOT BE IMMERSED,11 AND THE LIGHTS MAY NOT BE KINDLED. BUT DEM'AI12 MAY BE TITHED,13 AN 'ERUB MAY BE PREPARED, AND HOT FOOD MAY BE STORED AWAY.14
GEMARA. Whence do we know it?-Said R. Joshua b. Levi, Scripture saith, And thou, shalt know that thy tent is in peace; and thou shalt visit thy habitation, and shalt not err.15
Rabbah son of R. Huna said: Although the Rabbis said, a man MUST SAY THREE THINGS, etc., yet they must be said with sweet reasonableness, so that they may be accepted from him. R. Ashi observed: I had not heard this [statement] of Rabbah son of b. R. Huna, but understood16 it by logic.
This is self contradictory. You say, ON THE EVE OF THE SABBATH JUST BEFORE NIGHT A MAN MUST SAY THREE THINGS IN HIS HOUSE: only just before night, but not when it is doubtful whether it is night or not;17 then you teach, WHEN IT IS DOUBTFUL, WHETHER IT IS NIGHT OR NOT ... AN 'ERUB MAY BE PREPARED? (Mnemonic: Self, Pruning, Bird, Cord, Silk.)18 - Said R. Abba in the name of R. Hiyya b. Ashi in Rab's name: There is no difficulty: the one refers to 'erub of boundaries; the other to the 'erub of courtyards.19 Now Raba said: If two men said to one person, 'Go forth and place an 'erub for us', and he placed an 'erub for one while it is yet day, and for the other he made the 'erub at twilight, and the 'erub of him for whom he placed it by day was eaten at twilight, and the 'erub of him for whom he placed it at twilight was eaten after nightfall, both acquire [their] 'erub.20 What will you: if twilight is day, the second should acquire, but not the first; while if twilight is night, the first should acquire, but not the second?-Twilight is doubtful,21 and a doubt in respect to a Rabbinical law is judged leniently.22
Raba said: Why was it said, One must not store [food] after nightfall [even] in a substance that does not add heat?23 For fear lest he make it boil.24 Said Abaye to him: if so, let us forbid it at twilight too?-The average pot is at the boil, he replied.25 Raba also said:
(1) Before the doubt arose, was there a time when this place was assumed to be clean, so that it enjoyed the status of cleanness? (11) I.e., he planted them while terumah and cut them down after they had grown. (12) As unclean. In the Pesikta and 1. Shab. VII it is stated that a miracle happened and the dead floated upwards (v. Rashi). (13) Derisively.
(2) Lit., 'you were not counted'. - R. Simeon b. Yohai had acted in accordance with the decision of the majority of the Rabbis.
(3) In favour of this.
(4) Surely they should pay regard to each other's honour.
(5) Lit., 'he made him'.
(6) Lit., with darkness (setting in),
(7) Of the food we are to eat on the Sabbath,
(8) V. Glos. The 'erub referred to is for courtyards; v. p. 18, n. 7.
(9) Lit., 'dark'.
(10) I.e., at twilight.
(11) Made fit for use by means of tebillah (immersion) in a ritual bath (mikweh). Both these acts render objects fit for use, which is forbidden at twilight.
(12) V. Glos.
(13) Because the probability is that tithes have already been rendered, and thus this tithing does not really make it fit.
(14) To retain its heat.
(15) Job V. 24, She'eltoth 63 explains: if an 'erub has not been prepared, so that the carrying of utensils is forbidden, or if the lights have not been kindled, or the tithes rendered, so that the food may not be eaten, the resultant inconvenience and lack of cheer are inimical to the peace of the household.
(16) Lit., 'adduced'. V. Marginal Gloss.
(17) Which implies that there is no purpose in his saying it then, since an 'erub may not be prepared then.
(18) These indicate statements made in the Tractate by R. Abba in the name of R. Hiyya on Rab's authority. Doubt arose as to the authorship of some of these, and so this mnemonic was given. 'Self' indicates the present passage, 'This is self contradictory'. For the others v. infra 73b (pruning); 107a (bird), 113a (cord) and 124b (silk). - Maharsha,
(19) V. p. 18, n. 7. The limitation of boundaries was held to be either Biblical or partaking of the nature of a Scriptural law; therefore the 'erub, whereby that limitation is extended, really makes the territory beyond these boundaries accessible on the Sabbath, and consequently its preparation is forbidden at twilight, when the Sabbath may have commenced, although where it was prepared at twilight, it is effective. But the prohibition of carrying between houses and courtyards was merely a measure of stringency; hence the 'erub permits only what might have been permitted in any case, and so it may be prepared at twilight.
(20) 'Acquire their 'erub' means that the 'erub confers upon on them the rights for which it is set. Now, an 'erub must be prepared by day and be still in existence when the Sabbath commences, otherwise it is invalid. Now, in respect of the first, whose 'erub was placed by day and eaten at twilight, twilight is regarded as night, i.e., the commencement of the Sabbath, when the 'erub was still in existence. Whilst in respect of the second twilight is regarded as day, so that it was placed the day. - Rashi: the reference is to the 'erub of boundaries which, though it may not be set at the outset at twilight, is nevertheless effective. Tosaf.: the 'erub of courtyards is meant.
(21) Whether it is day or night.
(22) The law of 'erub is Rabbinical, as stated above.
(23) The Mishnah states that storing away food is permitted at twilight, whence it follows that it is forbidden after nightfall. And the reference must be to a substance which does not add heat, for if it does, food may not be stored in it even by day (infra 47b).
(24) When he comes to put it away, he may find it cold and heat up it first, which is the equivalent of cooking on the Sabbath.
(25) At twilight, because it has only just been removed from the fire.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 34b
Why was it said that one must not put away [food] in a substance which adds heat, even by day? For fear lest he put it away in hot ashes containing a burning coal. Said Abaye to him, Then let him put it away!1 -[That is forbidden] for fear lest he rake the coals.2
Our Rabbis taught: As to twilight [period] it is doubtful whether it is partly day and partly night, or the whole of it [belongs to the] day, or the whole of it night: [therefore] it is cast upon the stringencies of both days.3 And what is twilight? From sunset as long as the face of the east has a reddish glow: when the lower [horizon] is pale4 but not the upper, it is twilight; [but] when the upper [horizon] is pale and the same as the lower, it is night: this is the opinion of R. Judah. R. Nehemiah said: For as long as it takes a man to walk half a mil5 from sunset. R. Jose said: Twilight is as the twilight of an eye, one entering and the other departing,6 and it is impossible to determine it. The Master said: 'One applies to it the stringencies of both days.' In respect of what [point of] law?-Said R. Huna son of R. Joshua, In respect of uncleanness. Even as we learnt: if he saw [discharges] on two days at twilight, he is doubtful in respect of uncleanness and sacrifice: if he sees [a discharge] one day at twilight, he is doubtful in respect of uncleanness.7
This is self-contradictory. You say, 'What is twilight? From sunset as long as the face of the east has a reddish glow.' Hence, if the lower horizon is pale but not the upper, it is night.8 Then it is taught, 'When the lower [horizon] is pale but not the upper, it is twilight'?-Rabbah answered in the name of Rab Judah in Samuel's name: Combine [them] and learn: What is twilight? From sunset as long as the face of the east has a reddish glow, And if the lower [horizon] is pale but not the upper, that too is twilight. But when the upper horizon is pale and the same as the lower, it is night. While R. Joseph answered in the name of Rab Judah in Samuel's name, This is what he teaches: From sunset as long as the face of the east has a reddish glow, it is day; if the lower [horizon] is pale but not the upper, it is twilight; when the upper is pale and the same as the lower, it is night.
Now, they follow their views. For it was stated: How long is the period of twilight?-Rabbah said in the name of Rab Judah in Samuel's name. Three parts of a mil.9 What is meant by, 'three parts of a mil'? Shall we say, three half mils? Then let him say, 'A mil and a half'? While if it is three thirds of a mil, let him say, 'One mil'? Hence it must mean three quarters of a mil. While R. Joseph said in the name of Rab Judah in Rab's name: Two parts of a mil. What is 'two parts of a mil'? Shall we say, two halves: let him say, 'One mil'? while if it means two quarters of a mil; let him say, 'half a mil'. Hence
(1) Even in such, since it is yet day.
(2) In the evening.
(3) This is explained infra.
(4) I.e., dark, no longer red.
(5) = Two thousand cubits =112,037'316 cm, i.e., about three fourths of an English mile; v. J.E. XII, 487,
(6) Night enters and day departs in the twinkling of an eye.
(7) If a zab (q.v. Glos.) has two discharges on one day or on two consecutive days, or one discharge spread over parts of two days, e.g., the end of one and the beginning of the next, which likewise counts as two discharges, he becomes unclean for seven days, as a zab. If he has three discharges (taking into account that one discharge spread over two days ranks as two), he incurs a sacrifice in addition. Now, if he has discharges for a short period at twilight on Sunday and Monday there are the following possibilities: - (i) The twilight of both were either day or night, so that he had two discharges on two consecutive days, viz., Sunday and Monday or Monday and Tuesday, the night belonging to the following day, which render him unclean, but not liable to a sacrifice; (ii) the first twilight period was day, while the second was night, so that his two discharges were on Sunday and Tuesday, and he is not unclean for seven days, because the discharges were not on consecutive days; and (iii) the first twilight period was day (Sunday) and the second embraced the end of one day (Monday) and the beginning of the night (Tuesday), so that he had three discharges on three consecutive days, and therefore incurs a sacrifice.-On account of these doubts he is unclean for seven days and must bring a sacrifice, which, however, may not be eaten. Similarly, if he has one discharge at twilight, it is doubtful whether it counts as one or two.
(8) For 'the face of the east' includes the lower horizon.
(9) As long as it takes to walk this.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 35a
it must mean two thirds of a mil. What is the difference between them?-One half of a sixth.1
Now, it is the reverse in respect of a bee-hive.2 For Rabbah said: A bee-hive of two kors capacity3 may be moved; of three kors capacity, may not be moved. But R. Joseph said: Three kors capacity also is permitted; four kors is forbidden.4
Abaye said: I asked it of Mar5 at the time of action,6 and he did not permit one [to move] even a two-kors size. With whom [does that agree]?-With the following Tanna. For we learnt: A receptacle of stubble, or of staves, and the cistern of an Alexandrian boat, though they have rims and contain forty se'ahs in liquid measure which is two kors in dry measure,7 are clean.8 Abaye observed: This proves that the heap [in dry measures] is a third. Abaye saw Raba gazing at the West.9 Said he to him, But it was taught, 'As long as the face of the east has a reddish glow?' Do you think that the face of the east is meant literally? he replied. [It means] the face which casts a red glow upon the east,10 and your token is a window.11
'R. Nehemiah said: For as long as it takes a man to walk half a mil from sunset.' R. Hanina said: One who wishes to know R. Nehemiah's period should leave the sun on the top of the Carmel,12 descend, dip in the sea, and reascend, and this is R. Nehemiah's period. R. Hiyya said: One who wishes to see Miriam's well should ascend to the top of the Carmel and gaze, when he will observe a kind of sieve in the sea, and that is Miriam's well. Rab said: A moveable well is clean,13 and that is Miriam's well.14
Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: At twilight, as defined by R. Judah, unclean priests may perform tebillah.15 According to whom? Shall we say, according to R. Judah [himself]? but it is doubtful!16 But if it means twilight, as defined by R. Judah, according to R. Jose; [why state] priests may perform tebillah then-it is obvious!17 -I might think that twilight, as defined by R. Jose, is a continuation of R. Judah's; [therefore] we are told that R. Judah's twilight ends and then R. Jose's commences.
Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: The halachah is as R. Judah in respect to the Sabbath, and the halachah is as R. Jose in respect to terumah. Now, as for the halachah being as R. Judah in respect to the Sabbath, it is well: this is in the direction of stringency.18 But in respect of terumah, what is it? Shall we say, for tebillah?19 it is doubtful!20
(1) Rabbah's period is one twelfth of a mil longer than R. Joseph's; above too Rabbah gives a longer period than R. Joseph. - In the East night comes more quickly than in the West.
(2) Rashi. Jast.: a loose wicker-work used for making bee-hives, etc.
(3) One kor = thirty se'ahs = 395,533'2 cu.cent; J.E. XII, 489 (Table).
(4) A utensil may be moved on the Sabbath. Rabbah maintains that if it is more than two kors in capacity it ceases to be a utensil, while R. Joseph holds that it is a utensil up to three kors. Thus R. Joseph's standard here is larger than Rabbah's, while in respect to twilight it is smaller.
(5) The Master-i.e., Rabbah.
(6) When I actually wished to move it.
(7) Two kors - sixty se'ahs. A utensil held more in dry measure, because it could be heaped up.
(8) These are too large to rank as utensils, and only utensils are liable to uncleanness; V. 'Er., Sonc. ed., 14b notes.
(9) To see whether the reddish glow was still discernible.
(10) By reflection hence the west.
(11) Through which light enters and irradiates the opposite wall.
(12) I.e., when the sun is going down and its dying rays illumine the top of the mountain.
(13) Its waters cannot become unclean and it is fit for ritual purification (tebillah).
(14) According to the Rabbis the well miraculously followed Israel for Miriam's sake; Ta'an. 9a.
(15) V. Glos. Its purpose was to cleanse them and permit them to eat sacred food. Sunset had to follow the tebillah before they might do so, but Rab Judah holds that twilight, as defined by R. Judah, is day, and therefore sunset does follow it.
(16) Whether it is day or night. It may be night already, in which case the tebillah is not followed by sunset.
(17) R. Judah's twilight period is certainly earlier than that of R. Jose which is but the twinkling of an eye.
(18) All those things which are forbidden Friday at twilight are forbidden at the earlier time stated by R. Judah.
(19) That priests may perform tebillah during twilight as defined by R. Judah, because the halachah is as R. Jose that it is still day then.
(20) Since he rules that the halachah is as R. Judah in respect to the Sabbath, he must regard R. Judah's view as possibly correct.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 35b
- Rather it is in respect of the eating of terumah, viz., the priests may not eat terumah until twilight, as defined by R. Jose, ends.1
Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: When [only] one star [is visible], it is day; when two [appear], it is twilight; three, it is night. It was taught likewise: When one star [is visible], it is day; when two [appear], it is twilight; three, it is night. R. Jose b. Abin2 said: Not the large stars, which are visible by day, nor the small ones, which are visible only at night, but the medium sized.
R. Jose son of R. Zebida said: If one performs work at two twilights,3 he incurs a sin-offering, whatever view you take.4
Raba said to his attendant: You, who are not clear in the Rabbinical standards, light the lamp when the sun is at the top of the palm trees.5 How is it on a cloudy day? - In town, observe the fowls; in the field, observe the ravens or arone.6
Our Rabbis taught: Six blasts were blown on the eve of the Sabbath. The first, for people to cease work in the fields; the second, for the city and shops to cease [work]; the third, for the lights to be kindled: that is R. Nathan's view. R. Judah the Nasi said: The third is for the tefillin to be removed.7 Then there was an interval for as long as it takes to bake a small fish, or to put a loaf in the oven,8 and then a teki'ah, teru'ah, and a teki'ah were blown,9 and one commenced the Sabbath. Said R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, What shall we do to the Babylonians who blow a teki'ah and a teru'ah, and commence the Sabbath in the midst of the teru'ah?10 (They blow a teki'ah and a teru'ah [only]: but then there are five?-Rather they blow a teki'ah, repeat the teki'ah, and then blow a teru'ah and commence the Sabbath in the midst of the teru'ah.) - They retain their fathers' practice.11
Rab Judah recited to R. Isaac, his son: The second is for the kindling of the lights. As which [Tanna]? Neither as R. Nathan nor as R. Judah the Nasi!-Rather [read] 'the third is for the kindling of the lights'. As which [Tanna]? - As R. Nathan.
The School of R. Ishmael taught: Six blasts were blown on the eve of the Sabbath. When the first was begun, those who stood in the fields ceased to hoe, plough, or do any work in the fields, and those who were near [to town] were not permitted to enter [it] until the more distant ones arrived, so that they should all enter simultaneously.12 But the shops were still open and the shutters were lying.13 When the second blast began, the shutters were removed and the shops closed. Yet hot [water] and pots still stood on the range. When the third blast was begun, what was to be removed14 was removed, and what was to be stored away15 was stored away, and the lamp was lit.16 Then there was an interval for as long as it takes to bake a small fish or to place a loaf in the oven; then a teki'ah, teru'ah and a teki'ah were sounded, and one commenced the Sabbath. R. Jose b. R. Hanina said: I have heard that if one comes to light after the six blasts he may do so, since the Sages gave the hazzan of the community17 time to carry his shofar18 home.19 Said they to him, If so, your rule depends on [variable] standards.20 Rather the hazzan of the community had a hidden place on the top of his roof, where he placed his shofar, because neither a shofar nor a trumpet may be handled [on the Sabbath].21 But it was taught: A shofar may be handled, but not a trumpet?22 -Said R. Joseph: There is no difficulty: The one refers to an individual['s]; the other to a community['s]. Said Abaye to him, And in the case of an individual's, what is it fit for?-It is possible to give a child a drink therewith?
(1) Only then is it evening for certain, but not at the end of R. Judah's period.
(2) So the text as amended by Bah.
(3) Of Friday and Saturday. It means either during the whole of both twilights or at exactly the same point in each (Tosaf. 34b s.v. ספק).
(4) Whether twilight is day or night, he has worked on the Sabbath.
(5) I.e., by day.
(6) Fowls and ravens retire to roost at night: hence the lamp should be lit before. Arone is a plant whose leaves turn eastward by day and westward by night (Rashi). MS.M. reads: in marsh-land observe arone (Jast.: name of certain plants growing in marshes which close their leaves at nightfall).
(7) In Talmudic times they were worn all day; but they are not worn on the Sabbath.
(8) The word literally means to cause it to cleave, because the loaf was pressed to the side of the oven.
(9) Teki'ah is a long blast; teru'ah, a series of very short blasts, all counted as one. These three were blown in rapid succession.
(10) I.e., hard on the heels of (or, immediately they hear) the teru'ah.
(11) This was a very ancient custom; v. Neh. XIII, 19 and Halevi, Doroth, I, 3, pp. 336f.
(12) To protect the more distant ones from the suspicion of continuing their work after the first blast.
(13) The shutters were placed on trestles during the day to serve as stalls.
(14) For the evening meal.
(15) For the next day.
(16) Lit., 'and the lighter lit'.
(17) V. p. 41, n. 7.
(18) The ram's horn, on which these blasts were produced.
(19) The shofar was blown on the top of a high roof, and R. Jose b. Hanina assumed that the hazzan then took it home.
(20) The commencement of the Sabbath will depend on the distance of that roof from his house.
(21) A shofar was curved, whereas a trumpet was straight.
(22) The shofar, being curved, could be used for taking up a drink of water; this being permitted, its handling too (even without that use) is permitted.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 36a
Then in the case of a community['s] too, it is fit for giving a drink to a poor child?1 Moreover, as to what was taught: 'Just as a shofar may be moved, so may a trumpet be moved': with whom does that agree?-Rather [reply thus]; there is no difficulty: one agrees with R. Judah, one with R. Simeon, and one with R. Nehemiah;2 and what indeed is meant by 'shofar', a trumpet,3 in accordance with R. Hisda. For R. Hisda said: The following three things reversed their designations after the destruction of the Temple: [i] trumpet [changed to] shofar, and shofar to trumpet. What is the practical bearing thereof? in respect of the shofar [blown] on New Year.4 [ii] 'Arabah [willow] [changed to] zafzafah and zafzafah to 'Arabah. What is the practical bearing thereof?-In respect of the lulab5 [iii] Pathora6 [changed to] pathorta7 and pathorta to Pathora. What is the practical bearing thereof?-In respect of buying and selling.8 Abaye observed: We too can state: Hoblila [changed to] be kasse and be kasse to hoblila.9 What is the practical bearing thereof? In respect of a needle which is found in the thickness of the beth hakosoth,10 which if [found] on one side, it [the animal] is fit [for food]; ]if through both sides,11 it [the animal] is terefah.12 R. Ashi said, We too will state: Babylon [changed to] Borsif and Borsif to Babylon.13
(1) The community has to look after him, and therefore the community's shofar may be used for this purpose.
(2) (i) R. Judah holds that a shofar may be moved, since it can be put to a permitted use, but not a trumpet. This can be used only in a way that is forbidden on the Sabbath, sc. drawing a blast, and is therefore mukzeh (q.v. Glos.), the handling of which R. Judah prohibits on the Sabbath, (ii) R. Simeon holds that mukzeh may be handled, hence both may be moved. (iii) R. Nehemiah holds that a utensil may be handled only for its normal use: hence both are forbidden:
(3) In the first Baraitha, once it is stated that a shofar may not be moved, though it can be put to a permitted use, a trumpet need not be mentioned. Hence it is stated that the language changed in the course of time, 'shofar' and 'trumpet' reversing their meaning. Thus the first Baraitha first states that a trumpet may not be handled, and then adds that the same applies even to a shofar.
(4) V. Lev. XXIII, 24; Num. XXIX, 1. This must be blown on what is popularly called a trumpet, which is really a shofar (ram's horn).
(5) The palm-branch; V. Lev. XXIII, 40. For the willow (Heb. 'arabah), what is now called zafzafah must be taken.
(6) A small money-changer's table, counter.
(7) A large table.
(8) If one orders a pathora it now means a large table.
(9) Hoblila is the second stomach in ruminants; be kasse the first. But nowadays the terms have reversed their meanings.
(10) I.e., the be kasse.
(11) I.e., penetrating both sides of the wall.
(12) Unfit for food. Abaye states that this law applies only to what is now called hoblila.
(13) The town Babylon is on the Euphrates, and Borsipha is on an arm of the Euphrates. V. Obermeyer, P. 314 and map.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 36b
What is the practical difference? - In respect of women's bills of divorce.1
MISHNAH. IF A [DOUBLE]2 STOVE IS HEATED WITH STUBBLE OR RAKINGS, A POT MAY BE PLACED THEREON;3 WITH PEAT OR WOOD, ONE MAY NOT PLACE [A POT THERE] UNTIL, HE SWEEPS IT4 OR COVERS IT WITH ASHES.5 BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN: HOT WATER, BUT NOT A DISH;6 BUT BETH HILLEL RULE; BOTH HOT WATER AND A DISH. BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN: ONE MAY REMOVE [IT], BUT NOT PUT [IT] BACK; BUT BETH HILLEL RULE: ONE MAY PUT [IT] BACK TOO.
GEMARA. The scholars propounded: Does this, ONE MAY NOT PLACE, mean one must not put [it] back,7 yet it is permitted to keep [it there],8 even if it [the stove] is neither swept nor covered with ashes: and who is the authority thereof? Hananiah. For it was taught, Hananiah said: 'Whatever is as the food of the son of Derusai9 may be kept on the stove, even if it is neither swept nor covered with ashes'?10 Or perhaps we learnt about keeping [it there], and that is [permitted] only if it is swept or covered with ashes, but not otherwise: how much more so with respect to putting it back!-Come and hear! For two clauses are taught in our Mishnah: BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN: HOT WATER, BUT NOT A DISH; BUT BETH HILLEL RULE: BOTH HOT WATER AND A DISH. BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN: ONE MAY REMOVE [IT], BUT NOT PUT[IT] BACK; BUT BETH HILLEL, RULE: ONE MAY PUT [IT] BACK TOO. Now, if you say that we learnt about keeping [it there], it is well, for this is what he [the Tanna] teaches: IF A STOVE IS HEATED WITH STUBBLE OR RAKINGS, a pot may be kept thereon; WITH PEAT OR WOOD, one may not keep [a pot] there UNTIL, HE SWEEPS IT OR COVERS IT WITH ASHES. And what may be kept there? BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN: HOT WATER, BUT NOT A DISH; BUT BETH HILLEL. RULE: BOTH HOT WATER AND A DISH. And just as they differ in respect to keeping it there, so do they differ in respect to putting it back, where BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN: ONE MAY REMOVE [IT], BUT NOT PUT [IT] BACK; BUT BETH HILLEL- RULE: ONE MAY PUT [ IT] BACK TOO. But if you say that we learnt about putting it back, then this is what he teaches: IF A STOVE IS HEATED WITH STUBBLE OR RAKINGS, A POT MAY BE PUT BACK THEREON; WITH PEAT OR WOOD, one must not put it back UNTIL, HE SWEEPS IT OR COVERS IT WITH ASHES. And what may be put back? BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN: HOT WATER, BUT NOT A DISH; BUT BETH HILLEL, RULE: BOTH HOT WATER AND A DISH. BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN: ONE MAY REMOVE [IT], BUT NOT PUT [IT] BACK;11 BUT BETH HILLEL, RULE: ONE MAY PUT [IT] BACK TOO. Then what is the purpose of this addition?12 -
(1) The name of the towns in which the husband and wife are residing must be written in divorces. With respect to Babylon and Borsipha, the names as after the change must be written.
(2) A stove which held two pots.
(3) On the eve of the Sabbath, the reference being to a cooked dish.
(4) Clear of burning pieces.
(5) Otherwise it adds heat, which is forbidden; v. supra 34a.
(6) Only the former may be placed there after it is swept; but not the latter, because he may wish it to boil more, forget himself, and rake the coals or logs.
(7) After the commencement of the Sabbath.
(8) From the eve of the Sabbath.
(9) A third cooked.
(10) V. supra 20a, q.v. notes.
(11) Presumably referring to a dish, since Beth Shammai permit the replacing of hot water.
(12) It has already been stated in the previous clause, 'BUT NOT A DISH'.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 37a
After all, I can tell you that we learnt about replacing it, but the text is defective, and this is what he [the Tanna] teaches: IF A STOVE IS HEATED WITH STUBBLE OR RAKINGS, A POT may be placed thereon; WITH PEAT OR WOOD, one must not replace it UNTIL HE SWEEPS IT OR COVERS IT WITH ASHES; but as for keeping it there, that is permitted even if it is neither swept nor covered with ashes. Yet what may be kept there? BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN; HOT WATER, BUT NOT A DISH; WHILE BETH HILLEL RULE: BOTH HOT WATER AND A DISH. And as to this replacing, of which I tell you,1 it is not an agreed ruling, but [the subject of] a controversy between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel. For BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN: WE MAY REMOVE [IT], BUT NOT REPLACE [IT]; BUT BETH HILLEL RULE: WE MAY REPLACE [IT] TOO. Come and hear: For R. Helbo said in the name of R. Hama b. Goria in Rab's name: We learnt this only of the top [of the stove]; but within it is forbidden. Now, if you say that we learnt about replacing it, it is well: hence there is a difference between the inside and the top.2 But if you say that we learnt about keeping it there, what does it matter whether it is within or on top?-Do you think that R. Helbo refers to the first clause? He refers to the last: BUT BETH HILLEL RULE: WE MAY REPLACE [IT] TOO, Whereon R. Helbo said in the name of R. Hama b. Goria in Rab's name: We learnt this only of the top; but within it is forbidden.
Come and hear: If two stoves that are joined, one being swept or covered with ashes, whilst the other is not, we may keep [aught] upon the one that is swept or covered with ashes3 but not upon the one that is not swept or covered with ashes. And what may be kept there? Beth Shammai maintain: Nothing at all; while Beth Hillel rule: Hot water, but not a dish. If one removes it, all agree that he must not replace it: that is R. Meir's view. R. Judah said: Beth Shammai maintain: Hot water, but not a dish; while Beth Hillel rule: Both hot water and a dish. Beth Shammai maintain: We may remove, but not replace it; while Beth Hillel rule: We may replace it too. Now, if you say that we learnt about keeping [it] there, it is well; with whom does our Mishnah agree? R. Judah. But if you say that we learnt about replacing, who is the authority of our Mishnah? neither R. Judah nor R. Meir! [For] if R. Meir, there is a difficulty on Beth Shammai's view in one respect,4 and on Hillel's in two?5 If R. Judah, [the case of a stove that is] swept or covered with ashes is difficult!6 -After all, I can tell you that we learnt about replacing it, but our Tanna agrees with R. Judah in one respect and disagrees with him in another. He agrees with R. Judah in one respect, viz., in respect to hot water, and a dish, and removing and replacing [them]. But he disagrees with him in another. For whereas our Tanna holds that keeping them [there is permitted] even if it is neither swept nor covered with ashes, R. Judah maintains that even keeping [them there] is [permitted] only if it is swept or covered with ashes, but not otherwise.
The scholars propounded: May one lean [a pot] against it?7 on the inside and top thereof it is forbidden, but leaning against it may be permitted; or perhaps, there is no difference?-Come and hear: If two stoves are joined, one being swept and covered with ashes, whilst the other is neither swept nor covered with ashes: we may keep [aught] upon the one that is swept or covered with ashes, but not upon the one that is not swept or covered with ashes, though the heat reaches it from the other.8 Perhaps there it is different, because since it is elevated, the air affects it.9 Come and hear: For R. Safra said in R. Hiyya's name: If it [the stove] was covered with ashes, yet blazed up again, one may lean [a pot] against it, keep [a pot) upon it, remove [it] thence and replace [it]. This proves that even leaning is [permitted] only when it is covered with ashes, but not otherwise. Yet according to your reasoning, when he states, 'one may remove [it] thence,'[does this imply] only if covered with ashes, but not otherwise?10 But [you must answer,] removing is mentioned on account of replacing; so here too, leaning is stated on account of keeping.11 How compare! There, since removing and replacing refer to the same place, removing is stated on account of replacing; but here, the leaning is in one place whereas the keeping is in another! What is our decision thereon?-Come and hear: If a stove is heated with peat or wood, one may lean [a pot] against it, but must not keep [it there] unless it is swept or covered with ashes. If the coals have died down,12 or thoroughly beaten flax is placed upon it, it is as though covered with ashes.13
R. Isaac b. Nahmani said in R. Oshaia's name: If he covered it with ashes yet it blazed up again, one may keep upon it hot water that has [previously] been heated as much as is required, or a dish which has been boiled all it needs.
(1) That it is permissible provided the stove is swept.
(2) It is intelligible that a pot may not be replaced within the oven, even after it is swept or covered with ashes, since the heat there is naturally greater than on top (Ri in Tosaf).
(3) Though heat reaches it from the second stove.
(4) In our Mishnah they permit hot water to be kept there even if it is not swept or covered with ashes, whilst here they permit nothing.
(5) In the Mishnah they permit hot water and a dish to be kept there even if it is unswept, etc., whilst here it is stated that if it is swept hot water only may be kept there, and nothing at all if it is unswept. Again, in the Mishnah they state that it may be replaced if it is swept, whereas here it is taught that all agree that it may not be replaced.
(6) Here it is stated that nothing at all may be kept there, while in the Mishnah either hot water alone or a dish too may be kept there according to Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel respectively.
(7) Sc. a stove that is unswept etc.
(8) Our problem is similar, and this shows that it is permitted.
(9) The pot stands on the stove and is surrounded by air, which cools it, and therefore the heat from the other stove is disregarded. But leaning against an unswept stove, without air interposing, may be forbidden.
(10) Surely not!
(11) Yet covering with ashes may not be required for leaning.
(12) Not being entirely extinguished, but burning dully and feebly.
(13) Thus for leaning it need not be swept, etc.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 37b
Then this proves that when it shrinks1 and is improved thereby, it is permitted?2 -[No.] There it is different, because he covered it with ashes. If so, why state it?-It is necessary [to state it, because] it blazed up again. You might argue, since it blazed up again, it reverts to its original state;3 hence he informs us [that it is not so].4
Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: If he covered it with ashes, yet it blazed up again; one may keep upon it hot water, if that has been heated all it needs, or a dish which has been boiled all it needs, even if they are coals of broom.5 Then this proves that when it shrinks and is improved thereby it is permitted?-[No.] Here it is different, because he covered it with ashes. If so, why state it? It is necessary [to state it where] it blazed up again. Then it is identical with the first [dictum]?-It is necessary [to state it] of coals of broom.
R. Shesheth said in R. Johanan's name: If a stove is fired with peat or wood, hot water insufficiently heated, and a dish insufficiently cooked, may be kept upon it. But if he [the owner] moved [them], he must not replace [them] before he sweeps or covers [it] with ashes. Thus he holds that we learnt our Mishnah with respect to replacing, but keeping is permitted even if it is not swept or covered with ashes.6 Said Raba: We learnt both: We learnt with respect to keeping: 'Bread may not be set in an oven before nightfall, nor a cake set upon coals, unless its surface can form a crust while it is yet day'.7 Hence if its surface formed a crust, it is permitted.8 With respect to replacing we also learnt: BETH HILLEL RULE: WE MAY REPLACE TOO. Now Beth Hillel permit it only when it is swept or covered with ashes, but not if it is neither swept nor covered with ashes.9 -R. Shesheth indeed informs us of the deduction of the Mishnah.10
R. Samuel b. Judah said in R. Johanan's name: If a stove is fired with peat or wood, one may keep upon it a dish sufficiently cooked or hot water which is sufficiently heated, even if it [the dish] shrinks and is improved thereby. Said one of the Rabbis to R. Samuel b. Judah. But Rab and Samuel both maintain: If it shrinks and is improved thereby it is forbidden?11 -He answered him: Do I then not know that R. Joseph said in Rab Judah's name in Samuel's name: If it shrinks and is improved thereby it is forbidden? I tell it to you12 according to R. Johanan. R. 'Ukba of Mesene13 said to R. Ashi: You, who are near to Rab and Samuel, do act as Rab and Samuel; but we will act according to R. Johanan.14 Abaye asked R. Joseph, What about keeping [a pot on the stove]?15 - He answered him, It is indeed kept for Rab Judah, and he eats thereof! Put Rab Judah aside, said he, for since he is in danger,16 it may be done for him even on the Sabbath. What about keeping it for me and you? - in Sura,17 he replied, they do keep it. For R. Nahman b. Isaac is most particular,18 and yet they keep it for him and he eats.
R. Ashi said: I was standing before R. Huna, when he ate a fish pie which they bad kept [on the stove] for him. And I do not know whether it is because he holds that if it shrinks and is improved thereby it is permitted, or because since it contains flour paste it deteriorates in shrinking. R. Nahman said: If it shrinks and is improved thereby, it is forbidden;19 if it shrinks and deteriorates, it is permitted. This is the general rule of the matter: whatever contains flour paste, shrinks and deteriorates, except a stew of turnips, which though containing flour paste shrinks and improves. Yet that is only if it contains meat; but if it contains no meat, it shrinks and deteriorates. And even if it contains meat, we say thus only if it is not intended for guests; but if it is intended for guests, it deteriorates in the shrinking.20 Pap of dates, daysa,21 and a dish of dates shrink and deteriorate. R. Hiyya b. Abba was asked:
(1) Through cooking.
(2) Rashi: the reference must be to a dish which improves the longer it is kept on the stove, for if it deteriorates, it may obviously be kept there, as we certainly need not fear that the owner may rake up the coals, and the dictum is superfluous. Ri: the reference is presumably to the average dish, which improves with shrinking.
(3) And the dish may not be kept there.
(4) For by covering it with ashes he showed that he did not desire any further shrinkage.
(5) Rothem is a species of broom growing in the desert (Jast.), which retains its heat longer than other coals and is slower to go out.
(6) V. supra 37a.
(7) V. supra 19b.
(8) To keep it there, though the oven is not swept, etc.
(9) What need then of R. Johanan's dictum?
(10) This is the answer: R. Shesheth informs us that the Mishnah refers to replacing (v. Tosaf. a.l.). Though Raba takes that for granted, the matter was in doubt (supra 36b).
(11) To keep it on the stove.
(12) That it is permitted.
(13) In Babylon: it is the island formed by the Euphrates, the Tigris, and the Royal Canal.
(14) Though they too were much nearer to the academies of Rab and Samuel than to R. Johanan's, the communities of Mesene preferred the authority of Palestine; v. Obermeyer, p. 204.
(15) If the stove is unswept.
(16) He suffered from bulimy, and had to eat hot food.
(17) A town on the Euphrates, where Rab founded his famous academy.
(18) Rashi. Or perhaps, a master of practice (Jast,), i.e., thoroughly versed in correct practice.
(19) To keep it on the stove.
(20) When intended for personal consumption it is cut up into small pieces before being placed in the pot, and so the fat pervades the whole and prevents deterioration. But when intended for guests it is cut up in large chunks; since the fat cannot pervade the whole the shrinking causes it to deteriorate.
(21) A dish of pounded grain.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 38a
What1 if one forgot a pot on the stove and [thus] cooked it on the Sabbath? He was silent and said nothing to them [his questioners]. On the morrow he went out and lectured to them: If one cooks [food] on the Sabbath unwittingly, he may eat [it]; if deliberately, he may not eat [it];2 and there is no difference. What is meant by, 'and there is no difference'?-Rabbah and R. Joseph both explain it permissively: only he who cooked it, thus performing an action, may not eat if it was deliberate; but this one3 who did no action may eat even if it was deliberate. R. Nahman b. Isaac explained it restrictively: only one who cooks may eat if it was done unwittingly, because he will not [thereby] come to dissemble;4 but this one, who may come to dissemble,5 may not even eat if it was unwitting.
An objection is raised: if one forgot a pot on the stove and [thus] cooked it on the Sabbath: unwittingly, he may eat [thereof]; if deliberately, he may not eat. When is that said? In the case of hot water insufficiently heated or a dish insufficiently cooked; but as for hot water sufficiently heated or a dish sufficiently cooked, whether unwitting or deliberate, he may eat [thereof]: thus said R. Meir. R. Judah said: Hot water sufficiently heated is permitted, because it boils away6 and is thus harmed;7 a dish sufficiently cooked is forbidden, because it shrinks and is thereby improved, and whatever shrinks and is thereby improved, e.g., cabbage, beans, and mincemeat, is forbidden; but whatever shrinks and thereby deteriorates, is permitted. At all events, a dish insufficiently cooked is mentioned.8 As for R. Nahman b. Isaac, it is well, there is no difficulty: here9 it is before [the enactment of] the preventive measure;10 there11 it is after the preventive measure.12 But [on the view of] Rabbah and R. Joseph who explain it permissively, if before the preventive measure,13 'deliberate' is a difficulty;14 if after the preventive measure, even unwitting' too is a difficulty.15 That is [indeed] a difficulty.
What was the preventive measure?-For R. Judah b. Samuel said in the name of R. Abba in the name of R. Kahana in Rab's name: At first it was ruled: One who cooks [food] on the Sabbath unwittingly, he may eat [thereof], if deliberately, he may not eat; and the same applies to one who forgets.16 But when those who intentionally left [it there] grew numerous, and they pleaded, We had forgotten [it on the stove], they [the Sages] retraced their steps and penalized him who forgot.
Now, R. Meir is self-contradictory, and R. Judah is [likewise] self-contradictory?17 -R. Meir is not self-contradictory: the one means at the outset; the other, if done.18 R. Judah too is not self-contradictory: there it means that it [the stove] was swept or covered with ashes;19 here, that it was not swept or covered with ashes.
The scholars propounded: What if one transgressed and deliberately left it? Did the Rabbis penalize him or not?-Come and hear: For Samuel b. Nathan said in R. Hanina's name: When R. Jose went to Sepphoris, he found hot water which had been left on the stove, and did not forbid it to them; [he also found] shrunken eggs,20 and forbade them to them. Surely it means for that Sabbath?21 -No: for the following Sabbath.22 Now, this implies that shrunken eggs go on shrinking and are thereby improved?-Yes. For R. Hama b. Hanina said: My Master and I were once guests in a certain place, and eggs shrunk to the size of crab-apples were brought before us, and we ate many of them.
BETH HILLEL RULE: ONE MAY REPLACE [IT] TOO. R. Shesheth said: On the view of him who maintains
(1) On the view that it is forbidden to keep food on an unswept stove.
(2) This is a Mishnah. 'And there is no difference' is R. Hiyya b. Abba's addition in answer to the question.
(3) Sc. who left the pot on the stove. 'If one cooks' means by placing it on the stove.
(4) I.e., cook deliberately and pretend that it was unwitting. Since cooking is Biblically forbidden, one is not suspected of evading the prohibition.
(5) If it may be eaten when it is inadvertently left on the stove and cooked, he may leave it there deliberately and pretend forgetfulness, for the prohibition of leaving a pot on the stove is only Rabbinical.
(6) Lit., 'shrinks'.
(7) By the loss. Hence there is no fear of raking up the coals to make it boil more.-'Sufficiently heated' means to boiling point.
(8) And a distinction is drawn between inadvertence and a deliberate act. This contradicts both views supra.
(9) In the Baraitha quoted.
(10) Stated infra.
(11) R. Nahman's interpretation of R. Hiyya b. Abba's ruling.
(12) The prohibition stated by R. Nahman is only a preventive measure of the Rabbis, and the Baraitha states the law prior thereto.
(13) I.e., if R. Hiyya b. Abba's ruling was stated before the preventive measure was enacted.
(14) The Baraitha states that it is forbidden, whilst he ruled that it is permitted.
(15) Because the Baraitha which states that it is permitted in that case was taught before the preventive measure.
(16) A dish on the stove, and it is cooked.
(17) V. supra 37a. There R. Meir forbids a dish, even if sufficiently cooked, whilst here he permits it. On the other hand, R. Judah permits there a dish if sufficiently cooked, whilst here he forbids it. - The views they both give there of Beth Hillel's ruling must be regarded as their own too, since the halachah is always as Beth Hillel.
(18) On 37a the question is what may be done at the outset; there R. Meir rules that one must not leave a dish on the stove, even if it was sufficiently cooked before the Sabbath. But here he rules that if it was so left it is permitted.
(19) Then the dish is permitted.
(20) Eggs boiled or roasted down to a small size.
(21) He forbade them to eat the eggs on that Sabbath. This answers the question.
(22) He told them not to leave the eggs on the stove for the future.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 38b
that one may replace it, [it is permitted] even on the Sabbath.1 And R. Oshaia too holds that ONE MAY REPLACE IT TOO means even on the Sabbath. For R. Oshaia said: We were once standing before R. Hiyya Rabbah, and we brought up a kettle of hot water for him from the lower to the upper storey, mixed the cup for him,2 and then replaced it, and he said not a word to us. R. Zerika said in the name of R. Abba in R. Taddai's name: We learnt this only if they3 are still in his hand: but if he set them down on the ground, it is forbidden.4 R. Ammi observed: R. Taddai who acted [thus] acted for himself [only].5 But thus did R. Hiyya say in R. Johanan's name: Even if he set them down on the ground, it is permitted. R. Dimi and R. Samuel b. Judah differ therein, and both [state their views] in R. Eleazar's name: One says: If they are still in his hand, it is permitted; on the ground, it is forbidden. While the other maintains: Even If he placed them on the ground, it is still permitted. Hezekiah6 observed in Abaye's name: As to what you say that if it is still in his hand it is permitted, - that was said only where it was his [original] intention to replace them; but if it was not his intention to replace them, it is forbidden. Hence it follows that [if they are] on the ground, even if it was his intention to replace them, it is forbidden. Others state: Hezekiah observed in Abaye's name: As to what you say that if they are on the ground it is forbidden, that was said only if it was not his [original] intention to replace them; but if it was his intention to replace them, it is permitted. Hence it follows that [if they are] in his hand, even if it was not his intention to replace them, it is permitted.
R. Jeremiah propounded: What if he hung them on a staff or placed them on a couch?7 R. Ashi propounded: What if he emptied them from one kettle to another? The questions stand over.
MISHNAH. IF AN OVEN WAS HEATED WITH STUBBLE OR RAKINGS, ONE MUST NOT PLACE [A POT, ETC.,] EITHER INSIDE OR ON TOP.8 IF A KUPPAH9 WAS HEATED WITH STUBBLE OR RAKINGS, IT IS LIKE A DOUBLE STOVE;10 WITH PEAT OR TIMBER, IT IS LIKE AN OVEN,
GEMARA. IF AN OVEN WAS HEATED: R. Joseph thought to explain INSIDE AND ON TOP literally, but as for leaning [a pot against it], that is well. Abaye objected to him: IF A KUPPAH WAS HEATED WITH STUBBLE OR RAKINGS, IT IS LIKE A DOUBLE STOVE; WITH PEAT OR TIMBER, IT IS LIKE AN OVEN, and is forbidden. Hence if it were like a [double] stove, it would be permitted. To what is the reference: Shall we say, on its top? Then under what circumstance? Shall we say that it is not swept or covered with ashes? Is the top of a stove permitted when it is not swept or covered with ashes? Hence it must surely mean to lean against it; yet it is taught, IT IS LIKE AN OVEN, and forbidden? - Said R. Adda b. Ahabah: Here the reference is to a kuppah that is swept or covered with ashes, and an oven that is swept or covered with ashes: IT IS LIKE AN OVEN, in that though it is swept or covered with ashes, the top is forbidden; for if it were like a [double] stove, if swept or covered with ashes, it would be well.11
It was taught in accordance with Abaye: If an oven is heated with stubble or rakings, one may not lean [a pot, etc.,] against it, and [placing on] the top goes without saying,12 and in the inside goes without saying; and it goes without saying [when it is heated] with peat or wood. If a kuppah is heated with stubble or rakings, one may lean [a pot] against it, but not place [it] on top;13 [but if it is heated] with peat or wood, one must not lean [a pot] against it.
R. Aha son of Raba asked R. Ashi: How is this kuppah regarded? If like a [double] stove, even with peat or wood too?14 If like an oven, neither with stubble or rakings?15 He answered: Its heat is greater than a [double] stove's but less than an oven's.16 What is a kuppah and what is a [double] stove [kirah]?-Said R. Jose b. Hanina: A kuppah has room for placing one pot; a [double] stove [kirah] has room for placing two pots. Abaye - others state, R. Jeremiah - said: We learnt likewise: If a [double] stove [kirah] is divided along its length, it is clean; along its breadth, it is unclean; [if] a kuppah [is divided], whether along its length or along its breadth, it is clean.17
MISHNAH. ONE MUST NOT PLACE AN EGG AT THE SIDE OF A BOILER FOR IT TO BE ROASTED,18 AND ONE MUST NOT BREAK IT INTO A [HOT] CLOTH;19 BUT R. JOSE PERMITS IT. AND ONE MAY NOT PUT IT AWAY IN [HOT] SAND OR ROAD DUST FOR IT TO BE ROASTED. IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT THE PEOPLE OF TIBERIAS DID THUS: THEY CONDUCTED A PIPE OF COLD WATER THROUGH AN ARM OF THE HOT SPRINGS.20 SAID THE SAGES TO THEM: IF ON THE SABBATH,21 IT IS LIKE HOT WATER HEATED ON THE SABBATH, AND IS FORBIDDEN BOTH FOR WASHING AND FOR DRINKING; IF ON A FESTIVAL, IT IS LIKE WATER HEATED ON A FESTIVAL, WHICH IS FORBIDDEN FOR WASHING BUT PERMITTED FOR DRINKING.
GEMARA. The scholars propounded: What if one does roast22 it?-Said R. Joseph: If one roasts it, he is liable to a sin-offering. Mar son of Rabina said, We learnt likewise:
(1) Rashi: not only Friday evening, but on the morrow too.
(2) Wine was not drunk neat but diluted.
(3) The pot or hot water.
(4) To replace them on the stove.
(5) Being stricter than necessary.
(6) Var. lec.: Rab Hezekiah.
(7) That is intermediate between retaining them in his hand and placing them on the ground.
(8) The oven (tannur) had a broad base and narrowed at the top. It thereby retained more heat than a stove (kirah); hence the prohibition even if it is beated with stubble or rakings only.
(9) Jast.: a small stove or brazier.
(10) I.e., the ordinary stove which held two pots; v. 38b.
(11) I.e., permitted.
(12) That it is forbidden.
(13) Wilna Gaon emends: and may place (it) on top.
(14) It should be permitted, if it is swept or covered with ashes.
(15) Should it be permitted.
(16) Hence it occupies an intermediate position.
(17) When the kirah is divided along its length it cannot be used at all, hence it ceases to be a utensil and is clean (cf p. 163, n. 9); but when divided along its breadth, each portion can be used for one pot, and it is therefore subject to uncleanness. Since a kuppah has room for only one pot, whichever way it is divided it ceases to be a utensil and is clean.
(18) Lit., 'that it should be rolled'.
(19) To be roasted thus (Rashi). Others: he must not cause it to crack by wrapping it in a hot cloth and rolling it; v. Tosaf. Yom. Tob. a.l.
(20) Tiberias possesses thermal springs. This was done before the Sabbath.
(21) I.e., the water which is drawn from the pipe on the Sabbath.
(22) Lit., 'roll'.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 39a
That which came into hot water before the Sabbath1 may be steeped in hot water on the Sabbath;2 but whatever did not come into hot water before the Sabbath, may be rinsed with hot water on the Sabbath,3 except old salted [pickled] fish and the colias of the Spaniards,4 because their rinsing completes their preparation.5 This proves it.
AND HE MUST NOT BREAK IT INTO A [HOT] CLOTH. Now, as to what we learnt: 'A dish may be placed in a pit, in order that it should be guarded, and wholesome water into noisome water,6 for it to be cooled, or cold water in the sun, for it to be heated'7 shall we say that that agrees with R. Jose, but not with the Rabbis? Said R. Nahman: In the sun, all agree that it is permitted;8 in a fire-heated object,9 all agree that it is forbidden.10 Where do they differ? Concerning a sun-heated object.11 One Master holds that we forbid a sun-heated object on account of a fire-heated object; whilst the other Master holds that we do not forbid it.
AND ONE MAY NOT PUT IT AWAY IN [HOT] SAND. Now, let R. Jose differ here too? - Rabbah said: It is a preventive measure, lest one come to hide it in hot ashes.12 R. Jose said: Because he may move earth [sand] from its place.13 Wherein do they differ?-In respect of crushed earth.14
An objection is raised: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: An egg may be rolled [roasted] on a hot roof15 but not on boiling lime.16 As for the view that it is forbidden lest he hide it in hot ashes, it is well: there is nought to fear (here].17 But on the view that it is because he may move earth from its place, let us forbid it?-The average roof has no earth.
Come and hear: IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT THE PEOPLE OF TIBERIAS DID THUS: THEY CONDUCTED A PIPE OF COLD WATER THROUGH AN ARM OF THE HOT SPRINGS etc. On the view that it is forbidden lest he hide it in hot ashes, it is well: hence this is similar to hiding.18 But on the view that it is because he may move earth from its place, what can be said?19 -Do you think that the incident of Tiberias refers to the second clause?20 It refers to he first clause: ONE MUST NOT BREAK IT INTO A [HOT] CLOTH; BUT R. JOSE PERMITS IT; and the Rabbis argued thus with R. Jose: but in the incident of the people of Tiberias, it was a sun-heated object,21 yet the Rabbis forbade it? That was a product of fire, he retorted, because they22 pass over the entrance to Gehenna.23 R. Hisda said:
(1) I.e., anything which was boiled before the Sabbath.
(2) To soften it. It is not regarded as preparing the food in any way, since it was already prepared before the Sabbath.
(3) But not steeped.
(4) Jast.: A species of tunny fish.
(5) The phrase implies that it is 'work' in the full sense of the term, involving the doer in a sin-offering. The same applies to an egg placed at the side of a boiler and roasted.
(6) A vessel of hot water may be placed in a pool of stagnant cold water.
(7) V. infra 146b.
(8) Because it is unusual to cook thus, and there is no fear that it will lead to cooking by fire.
(9) Sc. a cloth.
(10) Because it can be confused with the fire itself, and if that is permitted, people will roast directly on the fire.
(11) A cloth heated by the sun.
(12) Which is definitely forbidden as cooking; hence R. Jose admits the interdict here.
(13) He may have insufficient sand, and scoop out more, which itself is forbidden; therefore R. Jose agrees. - The Mishnah treats of sand scooped out before the Sabbath, and even then it is forbidden.
(14) In a large quantity. R. Joseph's reason does not operate, hence it will be permitted; but Rabbah's reason still holds good.
(15) Heated by the sun.
(16) Heated by the fire.
(17) In the case of a hot roof, since the egg is not hidden in anything.
(18) The cold water is kept in the pot.
(19) That does not apply here; why did they forbid it?
(20) The prohibition of putting an egg in hot sand, etc.
(21) He thought that the thermal springs were hot through the sun,
(22) The springs.
(23) And are heated by the fires of hell! On Gehenna v. p. 153, n. 8. [Maim. Mishnah Commentary Nega'im IX, 1: It is said that the springs (of Tiberias) are hot because they pass a sulphur source.]
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 39b
On account of the incident of what the people of Tiberias did and the Rabbis forbade them, [the practice of] putting away [aught] in anything that adds heat, even by day,1 has no sanction.2 'Ulla said: The halachah agrees with the inhabitants of Tiberias.3 Said R. Nahman to him, The Tiberians have broken their pipe long ago!4
IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT THE PEOPLE OF TIBERIAS DID THIS: [etc.] which washing [is meant]? Shall we say, of the whole body; is only hot water heated on the Sabbath forbidden, whereas hot water heated on the eve of the Sabbath is permitted? Surely it was taught: As to hot water which was heated on the eve of the Sabbath, on the morrow [Sabbath day] one may wash his face, hands, and feet in it, but not his whole body. Hence [it must refer to] his face, hands, and feet. Then consider the second clause: IF ON A FESTIVAL, IT IS LIKE WATER HEATED ON A FESTIVAL, WHICH IS FORBIDDEN FOR WASHING BUT PERMITTED FOR DRINKING. Shall we say that we learnt an anonymous [Mishnah] in accordance with Beth Shammai? For we learnt, Beth Shammai maintain: A man must not heat water for [washing his] feet, unless it is fit for drinking; but Beth Hillel permit it!5 -Said R. Ika b. Hanina: The reference is to the sousing6 of the whole body, and it agrees with the the following Tanna. For it was taught: A man must not souse the whole of his body, whether with hot or with cold water:7 this is R. Meir's view; but R. Simeon permits it. R. Judah said: It is forbidden with hot water, but permitted with cold. R. Hisda said: They differ only in respect to a vessel;8 but if [the water is] in the earth,9 all agree that it is permitted. But the case of the people of Tiberias was in respect to the earth,10 yet the Rabbis forbade them?-Rather if stated, it was thus stated: They differ only in respect to earth [-heated water]; but as for a vessel, all agree that it is prohibited.
Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: The halachah is as R. Judah. Said R. Joseph to him, Did you hear this explicitly, or [learn it] by deduction? What is the deduction? For R. Tanhum said in the name of R. Johanan in the name of R. Jannai in Rabbi's name: Wherever you find two disputing and a third compromising, the halachah is as the words of the compromiser, except in the case of the leniencies relating to rags,11 Where though R. Eliezer is stringent and R. Joshua is lenient and R. Akiba makes a compromise, the halachah is not as the words of the compromiser. Firstly, because R. Akiba was a disciple;12 moreover, R. Akiba indeed
(1) I.e., before the Sabbath.
(2) Lit , 'has ceased'.
(3) Their action is permitted.
(4) They themselves retracted. Thus all agree now that it is forbidden.
(5) The reference is to Festivals.-Thus our Mishnah would appear to agree with Beth Shammai, whereas it is a principle throughout the Talmud that Beth Hillel's view is always halachah, and no anonymous Mishnah is taught according to the former.
(6) Not washing-sousing is more lenient.
(7) On the Sabbath. 'Hot water' means even if it was heated before the Sabbath.
(8) I.e., if the water is in a vessel. Obviously it was heated by fire, and one seeing it may think that it was heated on the Sabbath. Hence it was forbidden.
(9) E.g., a spring.
(10) The water was heated by being passed through a natural hot-water spring.
(11) V. supra 29a.
(12) His principal teacher was R. Eliezer, but he studied under R. Joshua too (Ab. R.N.; Ned. 50a).-From Raba (fourth century) and onwards the halachah is always as the later view, hence, generally speaking as the disciple; but before that it was always as the teacher. V. Asheri: 'Er. I, 4.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 40a
retracted in favour of R. Joshua.1 Yet what if it is by deduction?-Perhaps that2 is only in the Mishnah, but not in a Baraitha? - I heard it explicitly, said he to him.
It was stated: if hot water is heated on the eve of the Sabbath, - Rab said: On the morrow one may wash his whole body in it, limb by limb; while Samuel ruled: They [the Sages] permitted one to wash his face, hands, and feet only.
An objection is raised: If hot water is heated on the eve of the Sabbath, on the morrow one may wash his face, hands, and feet therein, but not his whole body. This refutes Rab?-Rab can answer you: Not his whole body at once, but limb by limb. But he [the Tanna] states, his face, hands, and feet?-[It means] similar to the face, hands, and feet.3 Come and hear: It was permitted to wash only one's face, hands, and feet [on the Sabbath] in water heated on the eve of the Sabbath? - Here too [it means] similar to the face, hands, and feet.
It was taught in accordance with Samuel: If hot water is heated on the eve of the Sabbath, on the morrow [the Sabbath day] one may wash his face, hands, and feet therein, but not his whole body limb by limb; and with water heated on a Festival it goes without saying.4 Rabbah recited this ruling of Rab in the following version: If hot water is heated on the eve of the Sabbath,-Rab said, On the morrow one may wash his whole body in it,5 but must omit one limb. He raised against him all the [above] objections. He is [indeed] refuted.6
R. Joseph asked Abaye, Did Rabbah act in accordance with Rabis ruling? I do not know, he replied. What question is this: it is obvious that he did not act, for he was refuted? He did not hear them.7 But if he had not heard them he certainly acted [thus]! For Abaye said: In all matters the Master [sc. Rabbah] acted in accordance with Rab, except in these three where he did as Samuel: [viz.,] one may light from lamp to lamp, one can detach [the fringes] from one garment for [insertion in] another, and the halachah is as R. Simeon in respect to dragging.8 -He followed Rab's restrictions, but not his leniencies.
Our Rabbis taught: If the holes of a bath-house are plugged9 on the eve of the Sabbath, one may bathe therein immediately after the conclusion of the Sabbath; if on the eve of a Festival, one may enter on the morrow,10 sweat, and go out and have a souse bath11 in the outer chamber.12 Rab Judah said: it once happened at the baths of Bene Berak13 that the holes were plugged on the eve of a Festival: on the morrow R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah and R. Akiba entered, sweated therein, went out, and had a souse bath in the outer chamber, but the warm water was covered over with boards.14 When the matter came before the Sages, they said: Even if the warm water is not covered with boards.15 But when transgressors grew in number, they began forbidding it.16 One may stroll through the baths of large cities and need have no fear.17
What is [this reference to] transgressors? For R. Simeon b. Pazzi said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi on the authority of Bar Kappara: At first people used to wash in pit water heated on the eve of the Sabbath; then bath attendants began to heat the water on the Sabbath, maintaining that it was done on the eve of the Sabbath. So [the use of] hot water was forbidden, but sweating was permitted. Yet still they used to bathe in hot water and maintain, We were perspiring. So sweating was forbidden, yet the thermal springs of Tiberias were permitted. Yet they bathed in water heated by fire and maintained, We bathed in the thermal springs of Tiberias. So they forbade the hot springs of Tiberias but permitted cold water. But when they saw that this [series of restriction] could not stand,18 they permitted the hot springs of Tiberias, whilst sweating remained in status quo.19
Raba said: He who violates [even) a Rabbinical enactment, may be stigmatized a transgressor.20 According to whom?
(1) Supra 29b.
(2) Sc. Johanan's rule on compromise.
(3) I.e., limb by limb.
(4) One may certainly not wash his whole body therein on the Festival.
(5) This, in view of the reservation that follows, must mean simultaneously (Rashi).
(6) As the answer given previously that it means similar to the face, etc., does not apply to his version in which he permits the wholy body simultaneously, v. n. 2.
(7) Rabbah did not know of these refutations. Or possibly, he did not accept them; cf. Kaplan, Redaction of the Talmud, p. 138.
(8) V. supra 22a, q.v. notes.
(9) So that its steam should not be lost.
(10) I.e., the Festival day.
(11) Of cold water or water warmed on Sabbath eve, v. supra 39b.
(12) But not in the inner chamber where people wash, lest it be said that he washed his whole body. which is forbidden.
(13) Near Jaffa, the seat of R. Akiba's academy: v. Josh. XIX, 45.
(14) I.e., and they had no fear that the water in which they soused might have been heated by the heat of the baths. (Rashi). [Aliter: they took a souse in cold water, and the hot water in the bath house was covered to prevent the shower-bath water getting warm, v. Tosaf. a.l.]
(15) It is permitted.
(16) A steam bath on Sabbath.
(17) He may stroll through, not to sweat, and need not fear that he will be suspected of an unlawful purpose.
(18) They could not be enforced, being regarded as too onerous for the masses.
(19) Forbidden. - It is not clear whether these subterfuges were resorted to because the Rabbis might punish non-observance, or because public opinion condemned the open desecration of the Sabbath, even in respect of Rabbinical enactments.
(20) Without fear of proceedings for libel.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 40b
According to this Tanna.1 'One may stroll through the baths of large cities, and need have no fear.' Raba said: Only in large cities, but not in villages. What is the reason? Since they are small, their heat is great.2
Our Rabbis taught: A man may warm himself at a big fire, go out, and have a souse in cold water; providing that he does not have a souse in cold water [first] and then warm himself at the fire, because he warms the water upon him.
Our Rabbis taught: A man may heat a cloth on the Sabbath to place it on his stomach, but must not bring a hot water bottle3 and place it on his stomach on the Sabbath;4 and this is forbidden even on weekdays, because of its danger.5
Our Rabbis taught: A man may bring a jug of water and stand it in front of a fire; not for it to become warm, but for its coldness to be tempered. R. Judah said: A woman may bring a cruse of oil and place it in front of the fire; not for it to boil, but to become lukewarm. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: A woman may smear her hand with oil, warm it at a fire, and massage her infant son without fear.6
The scholars propounded: What is the first Tanna's view on oil? - Rabbah and R. Joseph both interpret it permissively; R. Nahman b. Isaac interprets it restrictively. Rabbah and R. Joseph both interpret it permissively: Oil, even if the hand shrinks from it,7 is permitted, the first Tanna holding that oil is not subject to [the prohibition of] cooking. Then R. Judah comes to say that oil is subject to cooking, but making it lukewarm is not cooking [boiling] it; whereupon R. Simeon b. Gamaliel comes to say that oil is subject to cooking, and making it lukewarm is tantamount to cooking in its case. R. Nahman b. Isaac interprets it restrictively: oil, even if the hand does not shrink from it, is forbidden, the first Tanna holding that oil is subject to [the prohibition of] cooking, and making it lukewarm is cooking it; then R. Judah comes to say that oil is subject to cooking, but making it lukewarm is not boiling it; whereupon R. Simeon b. Gamaliel comes to say: oil is subject to boiling, and making it lukewarm is tantamount to boiling it.8 Then R. Simeon b. Gamaliel is identical with the first Tanna? - They differ in respect to a back-handed manner.9
Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: Both in the case of oil and water, if the hand shrinks from it,10 it is forbidden;11 if the hand does not shrink from it, it is permitted. And how is 'the hand shrinking from it' defined?-Said Rahaba: if an infant's belly is scalded [by it].
R. Isaac b. Abdimi said: I once followed Rabbi into the baths, and wished to place a cruse of oil for him in the bath.12 Whereupon be said to me, Take [some water] in a second vessel13 and put [the cruse of oil in it]. Three things are inferred from this: [i] Oil is subject to [the prohibition of] boiling; [ii] a second vessel cannot boil; [iii] making it lukewarm is boiling it.14 But how might he [Rabbi] act thus? Did not Rabbah b. Bar Hanah say in R. Johanan's name: One may meditate [on the words of the Torah] everywhere, except at the baths or a privy?15 And should you answer, He said it to him in secular language,16 -surely Abaye said: Secular matters may be uttered in the Holy language, whereas sacred matters must not be uttered in secular language. - Restraining one from transgression is different. The proof is: Rab Judah said 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;17 [then he wished] to oil the ground for him, but he said to him, One may not oil. This proves that restraining one from transgression is different; so here too, restraining one from transgression is different.
Rabina said: This proves that if one cooks in the hot waters of Tiberias on the Sabbath, he is liable. For the incident of Rabbi happened after the decree,18 yet he said to him, Take [some water] in a second vessel and put [the cruse of oil in it].19 But that is not so? For R. Hisda said: If one cooks in the hot springs of Tiberias on the Sabbath, he is exempt? - By 'liable' he too meant flagellation for disobedience.20
R. Zera said: I saw R. Abbahu swimming in a bath, but I do not know whether he lifted [his feet] or not.21 Is it not obvious that he did not 'lift' [his feet]? For it was taught: One must not swim in a pool full of water, even if it stands in a courtyard.22 There is no difficulty: in the one case
(1) Who refers to the above as transgressors for evading Rabbinical enactments,
(2) And even a stroll through them causes sweating.
(3) Kumkumos is a kind of kettle; obviously something in the nature of an open hot water bottle is meant here.
(4) Rashi: in case it spills, and so he will have bathed on the Sabbath.
(5) Of scalding. - Needless self-endangering of life is forbidden.
(6) Of desecrating the Sabbath.
(7) I.e., even if it becomes so hot that one involuntarily withdraws his hand when he touches it.-In respect to Sabbath prohibitions, as also in respect to certain laws concerning the mixing of forbidden with permitted commodities, this is recognized as the last stage before boiling.
(8) Since a higher temperature is not required. Hence he permits it only when the oil is smeared on one's hand, which is an unusual way of heating it, but it may not be put in front of the fire in a cruse.
(9) An idiom for doing anything in an unusual way. R. Simeon permits it, while the first Tanna forbids it.
(10) I.e., the hand put in it is spontaneously withdrawn.
(11) They may not be placed in front of a fire to reach temperature.
(12) This was in the hot springs of Tiberias, which was finally permitted; supra a.-He wished to warm the oil before use.
(13) A vessel into which a boiling mass has been poured, opposed to כלי ראשון, a first vessel, containing the mass direct from the fire. The water was drawn direct from the spring into the bath (it was a bath naturally constructed in the ground), which is regarded as a first vessel. It is a Talmudic principle that a first vessel, if the mass in it is still seething, can cook or boil something placed in it, but a second vessel, even if very hot, cannot do this. He therefore told him to pour water out of the bath into a second vessel, and then place the oil in it, to avoid boiling.
(14) For he did not intend more than this, and yet Rabbi forbade him to place it in the bath itself. In the second vessel it would not even become lukewarm, but merely have its coldness tempered.
(15) Hence Rabbi should not have thought of the religious aspect of the act in the bath.
(16) Probably: in a phraseology not usually associated with learning. This might indicate that the language of learning as incorporated in the Mishnah was an artificial one; scholars, however, are opposed to that view; v. Segal, Mishnaic Hebrew Grammar, Introduction; S. D. Luzatto in 'Orient. Lit.' 1846, col. 829; 1847, cols. 1 et seq.
(17) Lest the water form ruts, which is forbidden.
(18) Forbidding sweating in ordinary (artificially heated) baths. Hence this must have happened in the natural thermal baths of Tiberias.
(19) But he forbade him to put it directly in the first vessel (v. p. 188, n. 6.), which proves that boiling even in naturally hot water involves liability.
(20) Punishment decreed by the Rabbis, as opposed to stripes, ordained by Biblical law.
(21) I.e., he did not know whether he was actually swimming or merely bathing.
(22) Where there is no fear of splashing water for a distance of four cubits in public ground.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 41a
it [the pool] has no embankments; in the other case it has.1
R. Zera also said: I saw R. Abbahu put his hand near his buttocks,2 but do not know whether he touched them or not. It is obvious that he did not touch them, for it was taught, R. Eliezer said: He who holds his membrum and passes water is as though he brought a flood upon the world?3 - Said Abaye: It was accounted as [analogous to] a marauding band. For we learnt: If a marauding band enters a town4 in peace-time, open barrels [of wine] are forbidden,5 closed barrels are permitted; in war time, both are permitted, because they have no time to make nesek.6 Thus we see, since they are afraid,7 they do not make nesek; so here too, since he is in fear, he will not come to meditate [impure thoughts]. And what fear is there here?-The fear of the river.
But that is not so? For R. Abba said in the name of R. Huna in Rab's name: He who puts his hand near his buttocks is as though he denied the covenant of Abraham?8 There is no difficulty: the one means when he descends [into the river];9 the other refers to when he ascends.10 Just as Raba used to bend over; R. Zera would stand upright. The scholars of the college of R. Ashi, when they descended, they stood upright, [but] when they ascended they bent over.
R. Zera was evading Rab Judah. For he [R. Zera] desired to emigrate11 to Palestine, whereas Rab Judah said, He who emigrates from Babylon to Palestine violates a positive command, for it is said, They shall be carried to Babylon, and there they shall be.12 Said he, I will go, hear a teaching from him, return and emigrate. He went and found him standing at the baths and saying to his attendant, Bring me natron,13 bring me a comb,14 open your mouths and expel the heat,15 and drink of the water of the baths. Said he, Had I come to hear nought but this, it would suffice me. As for 'bring me natron, bring me a comb,' it is well: he informs us that secular matters may be said in the Holy Tongue. 'Open your mouths and expel the heat' too is as Samuel. For Samuel said: Heat expels heat.16 But 'drink the water of the baths' - what is the virtue of that?-For it was taught: If one eats without drinking, his eating is blood,17 and that is the beginning of stomach trouble. If one eats without walking four cubits [after it], his food rots,18 and that is the beginning of a foul smell.19 One who has a call of nature yet eats is like an oven which is heated up on top of its ashes,20 and that is the beginning of perspiration odour. If one bathes in hot water and drinks none, he is like an oven heated without but not within. If one bathes in hot water and does not have a cold shower bath, he is like iron put into fire but not into cold water.21 If one bathes without anointing,22 he is like water [poured] over a barrel.23
MISHNAH. IF A MILIARUM IS CLEARED [OF ITS] COALS,24 ONE MAY DRINK FROM IT ON THE SABBATH. BUT AS TO AN ANTIKI,25 EVEN IF ITS COALS HAVE BEEN CLEARED ONE MAY NOT DRINK FROM IT.26
GEMARA. What is meant by 'IF A MILIARUM IS CLEARED OF ITS] COALS'?-A Tanna taught: the water is within and the coals are without.27 Antiki: Rabbah said: [It means a vessel suspended] between fire places [heated bricks]; R. Nahman b. Isaac said: [It means a vessel suspended] within a cauldron-like vessel.28 He who defines it [as a vessel suspended] within a cauldron-like vessel, all the more so a vessel between fire places;29 whereas he who defines it as [a vessel] between fire places, - but not one within a cauldron-like vessel.30 It was taught in accordance with R. Nahman: From an antiki, even when cleared of coals and covered with ashes, one may not drink, because its copper heats it.31
MISHNAH. IF A BOILER IS REMOVED, ONE MAY NOT POUR COLD WATER THEREIN TO HEAT IT, BUT ONE MAY POUR IT [WATER] THEREIN [THE BOILER] OR INTO A GOBLET IN ORDER TO TEMPER IT.32
GEMARA. What does this mean? - Said R. Adda b. Mattenah, This is its meaning: in the case of a boiler from which the hot water is removed, one must not pour into it a little [cold] water in order to heat it, but he may pour in a large quantity of [cold] water to temper it.
(1) Rashi: in the former case it is like a river; hence forbidden (the prohibition in Bez. 36b refers to a river); in the latter case it is like a large utensil, hence permitted.
(2) When bathing in the river; this was a gesture of decency.
(3) Because lust is inflamed.
(4) And they may have touched or moved open barrels of wine, thus rendering them forbidden.
(5) V. preceding note.
(6) Lit., 'make a libation'. That is the reason of the interdict mentioned in n. 4, because the heathen is suspected of having dedicated the wine to his deity,
(7) To put their minds to such things.
(8) As though he were ashamed of being circumcised.
(9) As his face is towards the river, a gesture of decency is not needed.
(10) His face is towards the people, and so he can cover his circumcision in modesty.
(11) Lit., 'ascend'.
(12) Jer. XXVII, 22. - Weiss, Dor, III, p. 188, maintains that R. Zera's desire to emigrate was occasioned by dissatisfaction with Rab Judah's method of study; it his is vigorously combatted by Halevi, Doroth, II pp. 421 et seq. The sequel of this story, as also of the similar one in Ber. 24b, shows that he prized Rab Judah's teaching very highly indeed; Rab Judah's prohibition of emigration was merely a reflex of his great love for Babylon, though his love for Palestine too was extraordinarily great: v. Ber. 43a.
(13) For cleansing.
(14) These were said in pure Hebrew.
(15) Rashi: let the heat of the baths enter and the heat of perspiration be driven out.
(16) V. n. 4.
(17) I.e., harmful.
(18) Is not properly digested.
(19) Issuing from the mouth.
(20) New fuel being added without the ashes of the old being cleared out.
(21) To temper it.
(22) Anointing with oil is and was practised in hot countries; T.A. I, 229 and 233.
(23) Which is poured all over the barrel, but does not enter it.
(24) Lit., 'a cauldron that is swept out' - before the Sabbath.
(25) The Gemara discusses what this is.
(26) The antiki retains its heat more effectively than the miliarum and therefore adds heat on Sabbath to the water it contains, which makes it forbidden.
(27) This explains מוליארם (miliarum). It is a large vessel on the outside of which a receptacle for coals is attached. Thus it would be something like the old-type Russian samowar.
(28) The vacant space beneath being filled with coals. - Jast.
(29) The ruling of the Mishnah will certainly apply to the latter too.
(30) The ruling of the Mishnah will not apply to the latter, which in his opinion is the same as a miliarium.
(31) Thus it adds heat, which is forbidden.
(32) This is discussed in the Gemara.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 41b
But does he not harden it?1 -This agrees with R. Simeon, who ruled: That which is unintentional is permitted.2 Abaye demurred to this: Is it then stated, A BOILER from which the water IS REMOVED: Surely it is stated, IF A BOILER IS REMOVED? Rather said Abaye, this is the meaning: If a boiler is removed [from the fire] and it contains hot water, one must not pour therein a little water to heat it [the added water], but he may pour a large quantity of [cold] water therein to temper it.3 But if the water is removed from a boiler, no water at all may be poured therein, because that hardens it; this agreeing with R. Judah, who maintains: [Even] that which is un-intentional is forbidden.
Rab said: They taught [that it is permitted] only to temper [the water]; but if it is to harden [the metal], it is forbidden. Whereas Samuel ruled: Even if to harden it, it is still permitted. If the primary purpose is to harden it, can it be permitted!4 Rather if stated, it was thus stated: Rab said: They taught this only where there is [merely] a sufficient quantity to temper it; but if there is enough to harden it, it is forbidden.5 Whereas Samuel maintained: Even if there is a sufficient quantity to harden it,
(1) Sc. The metal of the boiler, by pouring cold water into it while it is hot. This itself is forbidden on the Sabbath.
(2) Supra 22a, 29b.
(3) I.e., reduce its heat.
(4) Surely not.
(5) Rashi; Rab explains the Mishnah as R. Adda b. Mattenah, viz., that the water was removed from the boiler. Thereon Rab observes: though a large quantity of water may be poured into it, it must nevertheless be insufficient to harden it, but merely enough to temper the water, i.e., it must not be completely filled with cold water, for that hardens the metal. Ri maintains that if the hot water is first emptied, even a small quantity of cold water poured into it immediately afterwards will harden it. Hence he interprets it thus: Rab explains the Mishnah as Abaye, as meaning that the boiler was removed with its hot water. Nevertheless, it must not be filled up with cold water, for that hardens it, as before.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 42a
it is permitted.1
Shall we say that Samuel agrees with R. Simeon?2 But surely Samuel said: One may extinguish a lump of fiery metal in the street, that it should not harm the public,3 but not a burning piece4 of wood.5 A Now if you think that he agrees with R. Simeon, even that of wood too [should be permitted]?6 -In respect to what is unintentional he holds with R. Simeon; but in the matter of work which is not needed per se, he agrees with R. Judah.7 Rabina said: As a corollary, a thorn in public ground may be carried away in stages of less than four cubits;8 whilst in a karmelith9 even a great distance too [is permitted).
BUT ONE MAY POUR, etc. Our Rabbis taught: A man may pour hot water into cold, but not cold water into hot; this is the view of Beth Shammai;10 while Beth Hillel maintain: Both hot into cold and cold into hot are permitted. This applies only to a cup,11 but in the case of a bath, hot into cold [is permitted], but not cold into hot.12 But R. Simeon b. Menassia forbids it.13 R. Nahman said: The halachah is as R. Simeon b. Menassia.
R. Joseph thought to rule: A basin is as a bath. Said Abaye to him, R. Hiyya taught: A basin is not as a bath. Now, on the original supposition that it is as a bath, while R. Nahman ruled, The halachah is as R. Simeon, can there be no washing in hot water on the Sabbath?14 -Do you think that R. Simeon refers to the second clause? He refers to the first clause: 'While Beth Hillel maintain: Both hot into cold and cold into hot are permitted';15 but R. Simeon b. Menassia forbids even cold into hot. Shall we say that R. Simeon b. Menassia rules as Beth Shammai?16 -He says thus: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel did not differ in this matter.17
R. Huna son of R. Joshua said: I saw that Raba was not particular about vessels,18 since R. Hiyya taught: A person may pour a jug of water into a basin of water, hot into cold or cold into hot.19 Said R. Huna to R. Ashi: Perhaps it is different there, because the vessel intervenes?20 -It is stated that he pours it, was his answer.21 [Thus:] A person may pour a jug of water into a basin of water, both hot into cold and cold into hot.
MISHNAH. IF A STEW POT OR A BOILING POT22 IS REMOVED SEETHING; [FROM THE FIRE],23 ONE MUST NOT PUT SPICES THEREIN,24
(1) Since that is not his intention.
(2) That whatever is unintentional is permitted.
(3) Metal does not really burn, but throws off fiery sparks when red-hot. The prohibition of extinguishing does not apply in this case by Biblical law at all, save by Rabbinical law; hence where general damage may ensue the Rabbis waived their prohibition.
(4) Lit., 'coal'.
(5) For that is Biblically forbidden.
(6) For R. Simeon rules that if work is not needed per se (v. p, 510, n. 3) it imposes no liability, and every case of extinguishing, except the extinguishing of a wick to make it easier for subsequent relighting (v. supra 29b bottom), falls within this category. Hence it is only Rabbinically forbidden, and therefore the same as metal.
(7) That it is interdicted.
(8) The least distance which is Biblically forbidden is four cubits in a single passage, without an interval. A thorn too may cause harm to the public; hence the Rabbinical interdict is waived.
(9) V. Glos. and supra 6a.
(10) Rashi: they hold that the lower prevails against the upper. Hence in the former case the hot water is tempered by the cold, which is permitted; but in the latter the cold is heated by the hot, which is forbidden. R. Tam: 'hot water into cold' implies that the cold water exceeds the hot, and therefore cools it, hence it is permitted. 'Cold water into hot' implies that there is more hot water, which heats the cold; consequently, it is forbidden. According to this interpretation this is independent of the question whether the lower prevails against the upper or the reverse, which refers to equal quantities; cf. ערוך השלחן Yoreh De'ah XCI, 12.
(11) The water being required for drinking, one does not wish it to become very hot. Moreover, a cup is a 'second vessel' (v. supra p. 188, n. 6), I.e., the water is not actually heated therein, and the contents of a second vessel cannot cause anything that comes into contact therewith to boil.
(12) The water is needed for washing, and must be very hot. Therefore if the latter case is permitted, we fear that one will come intentionally to heat water in a forbidden manner. The reference is to a bath which is a 'second vessel', and yet it is forbidden for this reason.
(13) Even hot into cold.
(14) Rashi: even if heated on the eve of the Sabbath, cold water must be added to temper its heat, which according to R. Simeon b. Menassia is forbidden.
(15) The reference being to a cup, not a bath, as stated.
(16) Surely not, for it is axiomatic that the halachah is always as Beth Hillel.
(17) Both agreeing that it is forbidden.
(18) Pouring hot water into cold and vice versa. Asheri omits 'about vessels.'
(19) Tosaf. suggests that this may be the identical Baraitha cited above, but that there it was quoted in brief.
(20) He assumed that the water is poured on to the inner side of the basin first, which somewhat cools it.
(21) I.e., directly into the water.
(22) The first means a tightly covered pot.
(23) At twilight on Friday.
(24) After nightfall. The pot is a 'first vessel' (v. p. 188, n. 6) and its contents, as long as they are seething, cause any other commodity put therein to boil likewise.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 42b
BUT ONE MAY PUT [SPICES] INTO A DISH OR A TUREEN.1 R. JUDAH SAID: HE MAY PUT [SPICES] INTO ANYTHING EXCEPT WHAT CONTAINS VINEGAR OR BRINE.2
GEMARA. The scholars propounded: Does R. Judah refer to the first clause, and [he rules] in the direction of leniency;3 or perhaps he refers to the second clause, [inclining] to stringency?4 - Come and hear: R. Judah said: One may put [spices] into all stew pots and into all boiling pots that are seething, except aught that contains vinegar or brine.5
R. Joseph thought to rule that salt is like spices, [viz.,] that it boils in a 'first vessel' but not in a second vessel'. Said Abaye to him, R. Hiyya taught: Salt is not like spices, for it boils even in a second vessel'. Now, he differs from R. Nahman, who said: Salt requires as much boiling as ox flesh. Others state, R. Joseph thought to rule: Salt is like spices, [viz.,] that it boils in a 'first vessel' but not in a 'second vessel'. Said Abaye to him, R. Hiyya taught: Salt is not like spices, for it does not boil even in a 'first vessel'. And this is identical with R. Nahmanis dictum: Salt requires as much boiling as ox flesh.6
MISHNAH. ONE MAY NOT PLACE A VESSEL UNDER A LAMP TO CATCH THE OIL.7 BUT IF IT IS PI,ACED THERE BEFORE SUNSET,8 IT IS PERMITTED. YET ONE MAY NOT BENEFIT FROM IT,9 BECAUSE IT IS NOT OF MUKAN.10
GEMARA. R. Hisda said: Though they [the Sages] ruled, A vessel may not be placed under a fowl to receive its eggs,11 yet a vessel may be overturned upon it [the egg] that it should not be broken. Said Rabbah, What is R. Hisda's reason? - He holds that it is usual for a fowl to lay her eggs in a dung heap, but not on sloping ground; now, they [the Sages] permitted12 in a common [case of] saving,13 but in an uncommon [case of] saving they did not permit.14 Abaye raised an objection: Now, did they [the Sages] not permit in an uncommon [case of] saving? Surely it was taught: If a person's barrel of tebel15 burst on the top of his roof, he may bring a vessel and place it beneath it.16 -The reference is to new jars, which frequently burst.
He raised an objection: A vessel may be placed under a lamp to catch the sparks?-Sparks too are common.
(1) Containing a hot stew. The dish or tureen is a 'second vessel', which cannot make the spices boil.
(2) Being sharp, they cause the spices to boil.
(3) I.e., the first Tanna, having stated that spices may not be put into a 'first vessel', R. Judah permits it, save where it contains vinegar or brine.
(4) The first Tanna permits spices to be put into a 'second vessel', no matter what its contents, whereas R. Judah makes an exception.
(5) Thus he refers to a 'first vessel'.
(6) Hence it does not boil unless actually on the fire.
(7) On the Sabbath. Rashi offers two reasons: (i) The oil, having been set apart for fuel, is mukzeh, i.e., it must not be used in any other manner, nor may it be handled, and this Tanna holds that a utensil can be moved only for the sake of an object which may itself be handled. (ii) At present the vessel may be handled for a number of purposes. Once oil drops into it, it may not be moved, because the oil is mukzeh, and in the opinion of this Tanna one may not cause a vessel to become immovable, for it is as though he joins it to the lamp on the Sabbath.
(8) Lit.,'while it is yet day.'
(9) I.e., use the oil which drops therein.
(11) When she lays them on sloping ground; the vessel is to prevent them from rolling down the incline and breaking.
(12) To move a vessel for the sake of an object that may not be handled, as the egg in question.
(13) Viz., to save the eggs from being trampled upon while they lay on the dung heap. People walked over dung
(manure) heaps; cf. B.K. 30a.
(14) Viz., to save them from rolling down the slope.
(15) V. Glos. The reference is to oil or wine.
(16) Though tebel itself may not be handled, while such a case of saving is uncommon, as it is rare for a barrel to burst. The same assumption is made in the other attempted refutations, that the savings permitted are in an uncommon case.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 43a
He raised an objection: A dish may be overturned above a lamp, that the beams should not catch [fire]? This refers to houses with low ceilings, for it is a common thing for them to catch fire. [He raised a further objection:] And likewise, if a beam is broken, it may be supported by a bench or bed staves?1 -This refers to new planks, for it is a common thing for them to split. [Another objection:] A utensil may be placed under a leak [in the roof] on the Sabbath?-This refers to new houses, where leaking is common.
R. Joseph said: This is R. Hisda's reason, [viz.,] because he deprives the vessel of its readiness [for use].2 Abaye objected to him: if a barrel [of tebel] is broken, another vessel may be brought and placed under it?3 -Tebel is ready [for use] in respect to the Sabbath, replied he, for if he transgresses and prepares it,4 it is prepared. [Another objection:] A vessel may be placed under a lamp to catch the sparks?-Said R. Huna son of R. Joshua: Sparks are intangible.5 [Another objection:] And likewise, if a beam is broken, it may be supported by a bench or bed-staves?6 That means that it is loose,7 So that, if he desires, he can remove it. [Another objection:] A vessel may be placed under drippings on the Sabbath?8 -The reference is to drippings that are fit [for use]. [Another objection:] A basket may be overturned before fledglings, for them to ascend or descend?9 -He holds that it [the basket] may [still] be moved. But it was taught, It may not be moved?-That is [only] while they [the fledglings] are yet upon it. But it was taught, Though they are not still upon it, it is forbidden?-Said R. Abbahu: That means that they were upon it throughout the period of twilight; since It was forbidden to handle10 at twilight, it remains so forbidden for the whole day.11
R. Isaac said: just as a vessel may not be placed under a fowl to receive her eggs, so may a vessel not be overturned upon it [the egg] that it should not be broken. He holds that a vessel may be handled only for the sake of that which itself may be handled on the Sabbath.12 All the foregoing objections were raised;13 and he answered, It means that its place is required.14 Come and hear: An egg laid on the Sabbath or an egg laid on a Festival may not be moved, neither for covering a vessel15 nor for supporting the legs of a bed therewith;16 but a vessel may be turned over it, that it [the egg] should not be broken? - Here too it means that its place is required.
Come and hear: Mats may be spread over stones on the Sabbath?17 -The reference is to smoothly rounded stones, which are fit [for use] in a privy.
Come and hear: Mats may be spread on the Sabbath upon bricks which were left over from a building?-That is because they are fit for reclining [thereon].
Come and hear: One may spread mats over bee-hives on the Sabbath: in the sun on account of the sun and in the rain on account of the rain, providing he has no intention of capturing [the bees]?18 -The circumstances are that they contain honey. Said R. 'Ukba of Mesene19 to R. Ashi: That is correct of summer,
(1) I.e., the longsides of bedsteads.
(2) V. p. 196, n. 5.
(3) Tebel may not be made fit for food on the Sabbath by rendering its dues. Hence neither it nor the vessel which receives it may be handled. Thus that too loses its general fitness, and yet it is permitted.
(4) On the Sabbath, by separating the tithes.
(5) Consequently the vessel into which they fall may be handled.
(6) Though it is then impossible to remove them for general use.
(7) The bench, etc., is not planted there firmly.
(8) He assumed that the drippings consisted of dirty water, unfit for use, as a result of which one may not handle the vessel which receives them.
(9) Into or from the hen-coop.
(10) I.e., mukzeh q.v. Glos.
(11) This is a principle often met with. But if the basket is placed there after nightfall, so that it was fit for handling at twilight, it may be moved when the birds are not upon it.
(12) Which excludes an egg laid on the Sabbath.
(13) In every case there the article itself for which the utensil is taken may not be handled.
(14) A utensil may be moved when its place is required, and when so moved it may be utilized for the purposes enumerated above,
(15) E.g., the neck of a bottle.
(16) The egg did not actually support the bed, but was placed near it for magical purposes; v. A. Marmorstein, MGWJ. 72. 1928, pp. 391-395.
(17) Stones, being unfit for use, may not be handled.
(18) Though the hives themselves may not be handled.
(19) The region to the south of Babylon bounded by the Tigris, the Euphrates and the Royal Canal, and differentiated from Babylon proper in respect to marriage; v. Kid. 71b, Obermeyer, pp. 90 seqq.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 43b
when there is honey; but what can be said of winter, when it does not contain honey?1 -It is in respect of two loaves.2 -But they are mukzeh?3 -It means that he designated them.4 Then what if he did not designate them? It is forbidden! If so, instead of teaching, 'providing be has no intention of capturing [the bees],' let a distinction be drawn and taught in that itself: [thus:] when is that said? When he designated them; but if he did not designate them, it is forbidden?-He [the Tanna] teaches us this: even if he designated them, yet there is the proviso that he must not intend to capture [the bees]. With whom does this agree?5 If R. Simeon, surely he rejects [the prohibition of] mukzeh! If R. Judah, then what matters if one does not intend [to capture the bees],-[surely he holds that] an unintentional act is forbidden?6 -In truth this agrees with R. Judah; and what is meant by, 'providing he has no intention of capturing [the bees]?' That he must not arrange it like a net, namely, he must leave an opening7 so that they [the bees] should not be automatically caught.
R. Ashi said:8 Is it then taught, 'in summer' and 'in winter'? Surely, it is stated, 'in the sun because of the sun and in the rain because of the rain.' [That means,] in the days of Nisan and Tishri,9 when there is sun, rain, and honey.
R. Shesheth said to them [his disciples], 'Go forth and tell R. Isaac, R. Huna has already stated your ruling in Babylon. For R. Huna said: A screen may be made for the dead for the sake of the living, but not for the sake of the dead. What does this mean? As R. Samuel b. Judah said, and Shila Mari recited likewise: If a dead man is lying in the sun, two men come and sit down at his side. If they feel hot underneath,10 each brings a couch and sits upon it.11 If they feel hot above, they can bring a hanging and spread it above them: then each sets up his couch, slips away and departs, and thus the screen [for the dead] is found to have been made automatically.12
It was stated: If a corpse is lying in the sun, - Rab Judah maintained in Samuel's name: It may be changed over from bier to bier.13 R. Hanina said on Rab's authority: A loaf or a child is placed upon it,14 and it is moved away. Now, if a loaf or a child is available, all agree that that is permitted. When do they differ?-When they are not available: one Master holds, Sidelong moving is designated moving;15 while the other Master holds, Sidelong moving is not designated moving.
Shall we say that this is dependent on Tannaim? A corpse may not be rescued from a conflagration.16 R. Judah b. Lakish said: I have heard that a corpse may be rescued from a fire. What are the circumstances? if a loaf or a child is available, what is the reason of the first Tanna? If it is not,17 what is the reason of R. Judah b. Lakish? Hence they surely differ in respect to sidelong moving, one Master holding that such is designated moving, while the other Master holds that it is not? - No. All agree that sidelong moving is designated moving, but this is the reason of R. Judah b. Lakish: since a man is agitated over his dead,
(1) The questioner assumes 'in the sun' and 'in the rain' to mean 'in the days of the sun' and 'in the days of rain' respectively, i.e., in summer and in winter.
(2) Of honey, left in the honeycomb for the bees themselves.
(3) V. Glos. Having been set apart for the bees, they may not be handled.
(4) For food, before the Sabbath.
(5) Assuming that the reference 'is to one who designated the two loaves, who is the author of this Baraitha?
(6) Since the covering blocks the bees' exit, he does in fact capture them, not- withstanding his lack of intention.
(7) Lit., 'space'
(8) In reply to the objection from the last cited Baraitha.
(9) The first and seventh months of the Jewish year, corresponding roughly to mid-March-April and mid-September-October.
(10) The sun having heated the pavement.
(11) The prohibitions of carrying from domain to domain (v. supra 2a, 6a) must of course not be violated.
(12) Thus the awning is not made for the dead, but for the sake of the living. This is a legal fiction.
(13) Until it reaches the shade.
(14) Cf. supra 30b; infra 142b.
(15) Moving indirectly, by changing over from bier to bier, is nevertheless moving, and forbidden.
(16) On the Sabbath, because it must not be handled.
(17) And consequently the point at issue is whether the dead may be rescued directly.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 44a
if you do not permit [it] to him, he will come to extinguish [the fire].1 R. Judah b. Shila said in the name of R. Assi in R. Johanan's name: The halachah is as R. Judah b. Lakish in the matter of the corpse.
YET ONE MAY NOT BENEFIT FROM IT, BECAUSE IT IS NOT OF MUKAN. Our Rabbis taught: The residue of oil in the lamp or in the dish is forbidden; but R. Simeon permits [it]. MISHNAH. A NEW LAMP2 MAY BE HANDLED, BUT NOT AN OLD ONE.3 R. SIMEON MAINTAINED: ALL LAMPS MAY BE HANDLED, EXCEPT A LAMP [ACTUALLY] BURNING ON THE SABBATH.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: A new lamp4 may be moved, but not an old one: this is R. Judah's opinion. R. Meir ruled: All lamps may be moved, except a lamp which was lit on the Sabbath;5 R. Simeon said: Except a lamp burning on the Sabbath; if it is extinguished, it may be moved; but a cup, dish or glass lantern6 may not be stirred from its place. R. Eliezer son of R. Simeon said: One may take supplies from an extinguished lamp or from dripping oil, even while the lamp is burning.
Abaye observed: R. Eliezer son of R. Simeon agrees with his father on one [point] and disagrees with him on another. He agrees with his father on one [point] in reflecting [the prohibition of] mukzeh. Yet he disagrees with him on another: for whereas his father holds, Only if it is extinguished [is it permitted], but not otherwise; he holds, Even if it is not extinguished. 'But a cup, dish, or glass lantern may not be stirred from its place'. Wherein do these differ? - Said 'Ulla: This last clause follows R. Judah. Mar Zutra demurred to this: If so, why 'but'? - Rather, said Mar Zutra: In truth, it follows R. Simeon; yet R. Simeon permits [handling] only in the case of a small lamp, because one's mind is set upon it;7 but not [in the case of] these, which are large. But it was taught: The residue of oil in a lamp or in a dish is forbidden; while R. Simeon permits [it]?-There the dish is similar to the lamp:8 here the dish is similar to the cup.9
R. Zera said: A shaft10 in which [a lamp] was lit on [that] Sabbath,11 in the view of him who permits [an earthen lamp],12 this is prohibited;13 in the view of him who forbids [an earthen lamp],14 this is permitted.15 Shall we say that R. Judah accepts [the prohibition of] mukzeh on account of repulsiveness, but rejects [that of] mukzeh on account of an interdict? But it was taught, R. Judah said: All metal lamps may be handled, except a lamp which was lit on the Sabbath?16 But if stated, it was thus stated: R. Zera said: A shaft on which a lamp was lit17 on the Sabbath, all agree that it is forbidden [to handle it]; if a lamp was not lit therein, all agree that it is permitted.
Rab Judah said in Rab's name: If a bed is designated for money, it may not be moved.18 R. Nahman b. Isaac objected: A NEW LAMP MAY BE HANDLED, BUT NOT AN OLD ONE.
(1) Yet he may not permit it when the corpse is lying in the sun.
(2) I.e., one which has never been used.
(3) Once used it is mukzeh (q. v. Glos.) on account of its repulsiveness, which this Tanna holds is forbidden.
(4) The reference is to an earthenware lamp.
(5) Var. lec.: on that Sabbath.
(6) The three used as lamps. For the various types of lamps and their descriptions v. T.A. I, 68 seq.
(7) Thinking, the oil will not last long, and when it goes out I will use the lamp.
(8) I.e., small.
(10) פמוט: 'a shaft with a receptacle for a lamp, a plain candlestick', Jast. Rashi: a metal candlestick.
(11) Jast. reads: a shaft on which a lamp was lit etc. V. also) T.A. I, p. 70 and n. 234.
(12) R. Meir.
(13) Because it burnt on that Sabbath. This is known as mukzeh on account of an interdict, I.e., the lamp was employed on that Sabbath for burning, and one may not light a lamp on the Sabbath itself.
(14) R. Judah: the reference is to an old lamp, which is mukzeh on account of repulsiveness.
(15) Because R. Judah rejects the prohibition of mukzeh on account of an interdict.-Being of metal, the lamp is not regarded as repulsive, even when it has been used.
(16) Var. lec.: on that Sabbath.
(17) V. P. 202, n. 7. Here this is the reading of cur. edd.
(18) Mere designation renders it forbidden, even if money was not actually placed there.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 44b
Now if a lamp, though made for that purpose, may be handled if it was not lit, how much more so a bed, which was not made for that purpose! Rather if stated, it was thus stated: Rab Judah said in Rab's name: In the case of a bed which was designated for money, if money was placed upon it,1 it may not be handled; if money was not placed upon it, it may be handled. But if it was not designated for money, then if money is lying upon it [now], it may not be handled; if money is not lying upon it, it may be handled, provided that there was none upon it at twilight.2
R. Eleazar objected: As for its wheel-work, if detachable, it has no connection therewith, is not measured with it, does not protect together with it in [the matter of] a covering above the dead, and it may not be rolled on the Sabbath if there is money upon it.3 Hence if there is no money upon it [now] it is permitted, though it was there at twilight?-That is according to R. Simeon, who rejects [the law of] mukzeh,4 whereas Rab agrees with R. Judah.
(1) Even on weekdays, and it was removed before the Sabbath. Yet it has thereby been set apart and employed for something (sc. money) that may not be handled on the Sabbath, and therefore may not be handled itself either.
(2) Before the commencement of the Sabbath. For if there was money upon it at twilight, it could not be handled then, and being interdicted then it remains so for the whole Sabbath.
(3) Kel. XVIII, 2. The reference is to the wheel-work of a carriage. It has no connection with the body of the carriage: if either the wheel-work or the carriage comes into contact with an unclean object, the other remains unaffected. Now, a utensil can become unclean only if its capacity is less than forty se'ahs, which Beth Hillel defines as referring to its displacement. Thus, not only is the hollow of the vessel reckoned, but also its sides, etc. Consequently, if the wheel-work were not detachable, its own volume too would be measured in conjunction with the body itself, but being detachable, it is not. Again, if any object or a human being is stationed directly above a corpse, e.g., it is suspended above a grave, even without touching it, it becomes unclean; but if an object of forty se'ahs capacity, e.g., a large box or the body of a carriage, intervenes, it is saved from uncleanliness. Now, if the body of this carriage, which is of forty se'ahs capacity, is piled up with articles, some of which protrude and overflow its sides, while the detachable wheel-work too is higher than the body, and thus the wheel-work interposes between these articles and the grave, it does not save them from uncleanness. For the body itself does not intervene, while the wheel-work has not a capacity of forty se'ahs, and it is not counted as part of the whole. The object which becomes unclean is technically called a tent or covering (ohel) of the dead. With respect to the last clause Ri explains: if it is not detachable it may be rolled even if money is lying upon it, because the wheel-work is then only part of the carriage, whilst there is no money upon the body thereof, which is the chief portion.
(4) Nevertheless, since money may not be handled for any purpose whatsoever, he admits that the wheel may not be rolled when there is actually money upon it now.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 45a
Logic too avers that Rab agrees with R. Judah. For Rab said: A lamp may be placed on a palm tree for the Sabbath,1 but not on a Festival.2 Now, it is well if you admit that Rab holds as R. Judah: hence he draws a distinction between the Sabbath and Festivals.3 But if you say that he holds as R. Simeon, what is the difference between the Sabbath and Festivals?4
But does Rab hold as R. Judah? Surely Rab was asked: Is it permitted to move the Hanukkah lamp5 on account of the Guebres on the Sabbath?6 and he answered them, It is well.7 -A time of emergency is different. For R. Kahana and R. Ashi asked Rab: Is that the law? whereat he answered them, R. Simeon is sufficient to be relied upon in an emergency.
Resh Lakish asked R. Johanan: What of wheat sown in the earth or eggs under a fowl?8 When does R. Simeon reflect [the prohibition of] mukzeh? Where one has not rejected it [an object] with his [own] hands; but where one rejects it with his own hands,9 he accepts [the interdict of] mukzeh: or perhaps there is no difference? - He answered him: R. Simeon accepts mukzeh only in respect of the oil in the [Sabbath] lamp while it is burning: since it was set apart for its precept,10 and set apart on account of its prohibition.11 But does he not [accept it where] it [only] was set apart for its precept?12 Surely it was taught: If one roofs it [the booth] in accordance with its requirements, beautifies it with hangings and sheets, and suspends therein nuts, peaches, almonds, pomegranates, grape clusters, garlands of ears of corn, wines, oil, and flours, he may not use them until the conclusion of the last Festival day of the Feast; yet if he stipulates concerning them, it is all according to his stipulation.13 And how do you know that this is R. Simeon's view? Because R. Hiyya b. Joseph recited before R. Johanan: Wood must not be taken from a hut on a Festival,14 save from what is near it;15 but R. Simeon permits it.16 Yet both agree in respect to the sukkah of the Festival17 that it is forbidden on the Festival;18 yet if he [the owner) stipulated concerning it, it all depends on his stipulation!19 - We mean, similar to the oil in the lamp: since it was set apart for its precept, it was set apart for its interdict.20 It was stated likewise: R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: R. Simeon rejects mukzeh save in a case similar to the oil in the lamp while it is burning: since it was set apart for its precept, it was set apart for its interdict.
Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: In R. Simeon's view mukzeh applies only to drying figs and grapes.21 But [does it apply] to nothing else? Surely it was taught: If one was eating figs, left [some] over, and took them up to the roof to make dried figs; or grapes, and left [some] over and took them up to the roof to make raisins: he may not eat [of them] unless he designates them.22 And you must say the same of peaches, quinces, and other kinds of fruit.23 Which Tanna is this? Shall we say, R. Judah: seeing that he maintains [the prohibition of] mukzeh even where one does not reject it with his own hands, how much more so where he does reject it with his own hands!24 Hence it must surely be R. Simeon?25 -After all, it is R. Judah, yet the case of eating is necessary: I might argue, since he was engaged in eating, no designation is required; hence we are informed that since he took them up to the roof, he withdrew his thoughts thence.
R. Simeon b. Rabbi asked Rabbi:
(1) I.e., before the Sabbath, that it should burn during the Sabbath. There is no fear that he will take and use it if it goes out, thereby technically making use of what is attached to the soil. For since it was mukzeh at twilight it may not be used for the whole of the Sabbath.
(2) For then one may remove it from the tree, replace it, and so on, thus making use of the tree itself, which is prohibited.
(3) He will not remove it from the tree on the Sabbath, because of the interdict of mukzeh, which in this respect does not operate on Festivals.
(4) None at all. Hence he must hold as R. Judah.
(5) After it has been extinguished.
(6) The Parsees, being fire worshippers, forbade the Jews to have fire in their houses during their (the Parsees') festivities. Consequently the Hanukkah lamp, which was lit near the street (supra 21b), would have to be hidden on the approach of a Parsee.
(7) This does not agree with R. Judah.
(8) May they be removed on the Sabbath for use, before the wheat has taken root or the egg become addled?
(9) As here. When one sows wheat in the soil or places an egg under a fowl, he rejects it for the time being.
(10) I.e., for the Sabbath lamp.
(11) Sc. the prohibition of extinguishing a light on the Sabbath renders this oil inaccessible while the lamp is burning. The text follows an old Tosaf. (v. Marginal gloss). Curr. edd.: since it was set apart for its precept, it was set apart (i.e., rendered mukzeh and forbidden) for its interdict. But the general context shows that the amended version is preferable.
(12) Viz., that that alone suffices to render it forbidden.
(13) V. supra 22a for notes. Thus we see that mere setting apart for the fulfilment of a precept casts an interdict.
(14) The reference is not to a sukkah (q.v. Glos.) but to an ordinary booth or hut. Even if it collapses during a Festival, one must not take the timber for use, because had it not collapsed it might not be pulled down on the Festival, and this renders it mukzeh.
(15) Or, supporting it. If a bundle of wood was laid against the wall of the hut, in a measure serving as a support, it may be used on the Festival, because that must have been the owner's intention before the Festival, and so it is not mukzeh. Again, its removal will not cause the hut to collapse.
(16) Because he rejects the prohibition of mukzeh,
(17) 'The Festival' without a determinant always means Tabernacles.
(18) if the sukkah collapses, its wood must not be used during the whole seven days of the Festival, as it had been set aside for the precept.
(19) Thus we see that the previous Baraitha does agree with R. Simeon!
(20) I.e., the former alone imposes the interdict.
(21) When they are spread out to dry they cease to be fit for food until fully dried. Hence they are certainly rejected as food, and so even R. Simeon admits the prohibition.
(22) He may not eat them on a Festival, because he has rendered them mukzeh, unless he designates them as food before the Festival, thereby annulling their character of mukzeh.
(23) Though they are fit during the process of drying.
(24) Hence it is unnecessary to state it where he puts fruit aside for drying. Even if he merely stores it is forbidden, according to R. Judah.
(25) Proving that he admits mukzeh in other cases too,
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 45b
What of unripe dates1 according to R. Simeon? Said he to him: R. Simeon holds that mukzeh applies only to drying figs and raisins.
But does not Rabbi accept mukzeh?2 Surely we learnt: Pasture animals may not be watered and killed,3 but home animals may be watered and killed. And it was taught: These are pasture animals: those that go out on Passover and re-enter [the town limits] at the rainfall;4 home animals: those that go out and graze beyond the tehum and re-enter and spend the night within the tehum.5 Rabbi said: Both of these are home animals; but the following are pasture animals: those that graze in the meadow6 and do not enter the town limits7 either in summer or in winter.8 -If you wish I can answer: these too are like drying figs and raisins. Alternatively, he9 answered according to R. Simeon's view, which he himself does not accept. Another alternative: he10 speaks according to the view of the Rabbis. As for me, I do not accept mukzeh at all;11 but even on your view, you must at least agree with me that if they go out on Passover and return at the rainfall they are home animals? But the Rabbis answered him: No! they are pasture animals.12
Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: They13 ruled: The halachah is as R. Simeon. But did R. Johanan say thus? Surely a certain old man of Kirwaya-others say, of Sirvaya-asked R. Johanan: May a fowl-nest be handled on the Sabbath? He answered him: Is it made for aught but fowls?14 - Here the circumstances are that it contains a dead bird.15 That is well according to Mar b. Amemar in Raba's name, who said: R. Simeon admits that if living creatures die, they are forbidden;16 but on the view of Mar son of R. Joseph in Raba's name, who maintained: R. Simeon differed even in respect of living creatures that died, [ruling] that they are permitted, what can be said? - The reference here is to one [sc. a hen coop] that contains an egg.17 But R. Nahman said: He who accepts [the prohibition of] mukzeh accepts [that of] nolad; he who rejects mukzeh, rejects nolad?-That is when it contains the egg of a fledgling.18
When R. Isaac son of R. Joseph came,19 he said in the name of R. Johanan The halachah is as R. Judah: while R. Joshua b. Levi said: The halachah is as R. Simeon. R. Joseph observed: Hence Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name, They said, The halachah is as R. Simeon: they said, but he himself [R. Johanan] did not rule thus. Said Abaye to R. Joseph: And do you yourself not hold that R. Johanan [rules] as R. Judah?20 Surely R. Abba and R. Assi visited R. Abba of Haifa,21 when a candelabrum fell on R. Assi's robe, but he did not remove it. What is the reason? Surely because R. Assi was R. Johanan's disciple, and R. Johanan held as R. Judah, who maintained [the prohibition of] mukzeh?-You speak of a candelabrum? he replied. A candelabrum is different, for R. Aha b. Hanina said in R. Assi's name: Resh Lakish gave a practical ruling in Zidon: A candelabrum which can be lifted with one hand may be moved; that which requires two hands may not be moved. But R. Johanan said: In the matter of a lamp we accept no other view but R. Simeon's; but as for a candelabrum, whether it can be lifted by one hand or by two, it may not be moved.22 And what is the reason?23 -Rabbah and R. Joseph both say: Because one appoints a place for it. Said Abaye to R. Joseph, But what of a bridal couch24 for which [too] one appoints a place, yet Samuel said on R. Hiyya's authority: A bridal couch
(1) Lit., 'burst dates', I.e., unripe dates that fell off from the tree and were placed in the sun to ripen (Jast.). Others: dates that are split and placed in the sun to ripen. Whilst they are ripening and drying they suffer discoloration and are unfit, yet not so unfit as drying figs and raisins.
(2) It is now assumed that Rabbi was asked about R. Simeon's view because it is his own too.
(3) On Festivals. The animals were first watered, to make it easier to flay them.
(4) Which takes place in Marheshwan: thus they spend about eight months in the commons beyond the town limits.
(5) V. Glos.
(6) Outside the town limits.
(7) Lit., 'inhabited territory'.
(8) Pasture animals may not be slaughtered on Festivals because they are mukzeh, i.e., their owner has altogether put them out of mind.-Animals were frequently watered before slaughter, in order to facilitate the flaying of their skin.
(9) Rabbi, in his reply to his son Simeon.
(10) Rabbi, in the last cited Baraitha.
(11) So that pasture animals, however defined, are permitted.
(12) On this passage see Bezah, Sonc. ed., p. 202f notes.
(13) The scholars of the Academy.
(14) I.e., it is mukzeh, and forbidden. Thus he does not rule as R. Simeon.
(15) Hence it may not be handled, even according to R. Simeon.
(16) They may not even be cut up for dogs. That is if they were in good health at twilight, so that one's thoughts were completely turned away from it. If the animal was dying at twilight and perished after nightfall, R. Simeon maintains that it can be cut up for dogs, because the owner must have thought of it.
(17) Laid that day. It is then nolad (newly created), which R. Simeon admits is forbidden.
(18) I.e., upon which the fowl is brooding. This is quite unfit and the nest may not be handled on all views.
(19) From Palestine to Babylon. He was a Palestinean amora, the disciple of R. Abbahu and R. Johanan, and transmitted teachings in the latter's name; he travelled to Babylon (Hul. 101a) and acted as an intermediary between the two countries on religious questions.
(20) Even before you heard it from R. Isaac.
(21) A harbour of the Mediterranean sea on the coast of Palestine.
(22) Hence, but for the dictum of R. Isaac, R. Joseph would not have known R. Johanan's view. But now he knows that in all cases R. Johanan ruled as R. Judah, that mukzeh is forbidden, save in the matter of an old lamp, which he holds may be handled, agreeing there with R, Simeon.
(23) That a candelabrum which requires both hands for lifting may not be moved.
(24) Without an overhead awning. V. also T.A. III, 42f, 122.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 46a
may be set up and dismantled on the Sabbath?1 Rather, said Abaye: [it refers to a candelabrum] of [movable] joints.2 If So, what is the reason of R. Simeon b. Lakish, who permits it? What is meant by joints'? Similar to joints, viz., it has grooves.3 Hence, [if it is of real] joints, whether large or small it may not be handled; also, a large one which has grooves is forbidden on account of a large jointed one;4 where do they differ? in respect to a small grooved one: one Master holds, We forbid it as a preventive measure;5 while the other Master holds, We do not forbid it thus.6
But did R. Johanan rule thus?7 Surely R. Johanan said: The halachah is [always] as an anonymous Mishnah,8 and we learnt: As for its wheel-work, if detachable, it has no connection therewith, is not measured with it, and does not protect together with it in [the matter of] a covering over the dead, and it may not be rolled on the Sabbath if there is money upon it.9 Hence if there is no money upon it, it is permitted, though it was upon it at twilight?10 - Said. R. Zera: Interpret our Mishnah as meaning11 that there was no money upon it during the whole of twilight, so as not to overthrow12 R. Johanan's words.
R. Joshua b. Levi said: Rabbi once went to Diospera13 and gave a practical ruling in respect to a candelabrum as R. Simeon's view in respect to a lamp.14 - The scholars asked: Did he give a practical ruling in respect to a candelabrum as R. Simeon's view in respect to a lamp, i.e., permissively; or perhaps he gave a restrictive ruling in respect to a candelabrum, and as R. Simeon in respect to a lamp, i.e., permissively?15 The question stands over.
R. Malkia visited R. Simlai's home and moved a lamp,16 to which R. Simlai took exception. R. Jose of Galilee visited the town of R. Jose son of R. Hanina; he moved a lamp, to which R. Jose son of R. Hanina took exception. When R. Abbahu visited R. Joshua b. Levi's town he would move a lamp: when he visited R. Johanan's town he would not move a lamp. What will you: if he holds as R. Judah, let him act accordingly; while if he holds as R. Simeon, let him act accordingly?- In truth, he agreed with R. Simeon, but did not act [thus] out of respect to R. Johanan. R. Judah said: An oil lamp may be handled;17 a naphtha lamp may not be handled.18 Rabbah and R. Joseph both maintain: A naphtha [lamp] too may be handled.19
R. Awia visited Raba's home. Now, his boots were muddied with clay, [yet] he sat down on a bed before Raba. [Thereupon] Raba was annoyed and wished to vex him. Said he to him: What is the reason that Rabbah and R. Joseph both maintain that a naphtha lamp too may be handled? - Because it is fit for covering a utensil, replied he. If so, all chips of the yard may be handled, since they are fit to cover a utensil?-The one [a naphtha lamp] bears the character of a utensil; the others do not bear the character of a utensil. Was it not taught:
(1) The ordinary bed had an overhead awning. Hence when it was set up or dismantled, technically speaking it constituted the erecting or the taking down of a tent, which is forbidden. But that prohibition does not hold good here, since there is no overhead awning.
(2) it may not be handled lest it fall to pieces and be put together again, which is tantamount to making a utensil.
(3) It is all fastened in one piece, but by means of grooves it looks like being moveably jointed.
(4) Since a large one is generally jointed, even if it is only an imitation, it is still forbidden, lest they be confused with each other.
(5) Likewise lest it be confused with a jointed candelabrum.
(6) Since a small one is not generally jointed.
(7) That the halachah is as R. Judah.
(8) If a Mishnah bears no name it represents the final decision of Rabbi and his colleagues.
(9) V. p. 203, n. 6.
(10) Which renders it mukzeh.
(11) Lit., 'let our Mishnah be.' I.e., the Mishnah, Kel. XVIII, 2.
(13) Probably Diosopolis = Lydda (Jast.),
(14) Menorah is a branched candlestick; ner a single lamp.
(15) The exact version of R. Joshua's statement is in doubt.
(16) That had gone out.
(17) Because it is not repulsive.
(18) Even R. Simeon agrees, because of its unpleasant odour it cannot be used for anything save its purpose.
(19) Its unpleasant odour does not make it repulsive, whilst at the same time it is fit for covering a utensil.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 46b
Bracelets, ear-rings and [finger]rings are like all utensils which may be handled in a yard.1 And 'Ulla said: What is the reason? Since they bear the character of a utensil. So here too, since it bears the character of a utensil [it may be handled]. R. Nahman b. Isaac observed: Praised be the All Merciful, that Raba did not put R. Awia to shame.
Abaye pointed out a contradiction to Rabbah: It was taught: The residue of the oil in the lamp or in the dish is forbidden; but R. Simeon permits [it]. Thus we see that R. Simeon rejects mukzeh. But the following opposes it: R. Simeon said: Wherever the blemish was not perceptible from the eve of the Festival, it is not mukan!2 -How compare! There, a man sits and hopes, When will his lamp go out!3 But here, does a man sit and hope, When will it receive a blemish?4 [For] he argues: Who can say that it will receive a blemish? And even if you say that it will, who can say that it will be a permanent blemish?5 And even if you say that it will be a permanent blemish, who can say that a scholar will oblige him?6
Rami b. Hama objected: Vows can be annulled on the Sabbath,7 and one may apply8 for absolution from vows where such is necessary for the Sabbath. Yet why: let us argue, who can say that her husband will oblige her?9 -There it is as R. Phinehas in Raba's name. For R. Phinehas said in Raba's name: Whoever vows does so conditional upon her husband's consent.10
Come and hear: One may apply for absolution from vows on the Sabbath where it is necessary for the Sabbath. Yet why? let us argue, Who can say that a Sage will oblige him?-There, if a Sage will not oblige, three laymen suffice; but here,11 who can say that a Sage will oblige him?12
Abaye raised a difficulty before R. Joseph: Did then R. Simeon rule, If it [the lamp] is extinguished, it may be handled: thus, only if it is extinguished, but not if it is not extinguished What is the reason? [Presumably] lest through his handling it, it goes out?13 But we know R. Simeon to rule that whatever is unintentional is permitted. For it was taught, R. Simeon said: One may drag a bed, seat, or bench, providing that he does not intend to make a rut! - Wherever there is a Scriptural interdict if it is intentional,14 R. Simeon forbids it by Rabbinical law even if unintentional; but wherever there is [only] a Rabbinical interdict even if it is intentional,15 R. Simeon permits it at the outset if unintentional.
Raba objected: Clothes' merchants may sell in their normal fashion, providing that one does not intend [to gain protection] from the sun in hot weather or from the rain when it is raining; but the strictly religious sling them on a staff behind their back.16 Now here, though it is Scripturally intentional, yet if unintentional R. Simeon permits it at the outset?-Rather said Raba,
(1) Though a woman may not wear them in the street; v. infra 59b and M.K. 12b.
(2) V. Bez. 27a. A firstling may not be slaughtered and consumed unless it has a blemish: R. Simeon said that it may not be slaughtered on a Festival unless its blemish was already known on the eve thereof. Otherwise the animal was not mukan, i.e., prepared for the Festival, Thus he accepts the interdict of mukzeh.
(3) To save the oil. Hence R. Simeon holds that it is not really mukzeh.
(4) Surely not! In fact, he does hope, but without expecting it, whereas one does expect a lamp to go out.
(5) For a temporary blemish does not permit the animal to be slaughtered.
(6) A scholar had to examine the blemish and declare it permanent. Could he be sure that he would obtain a scholar for this on the Festival?
(7) A husband can annul his wife's vows, or a father his daughter's.
(8) To a scholar.
(9) When a woman forswears benefit from anything, she thrusts it away from herself, and it becomes like mukzeh. Even if her husband annuls her vow, she could not have anticipated it, and so it should remain mukzeh.
(10) Hence she relies that her husband will annul it as soon as he is cognizant of it and the object was never mukzeh.
(11) In the case of the blemish of a firstling.
(12) Absolution can be granted by a Sage or three laymen; but only a Sage can declare a blemish permanent, unless it is obvious, e.g., when a limb is missing.
(13) By lifting it up he may create a draught.
(14) Extinguishing a light is Scripturally forbidden.
(15) E.g., indirectly making a rut by dragging a heavy article over the floor.
(16) V. supra 29b.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 47a
leave the lamp, oil, and wicks alone,1 because they become a base for a forbidden thing.2
R. Zera said in R. Assi's name in R. Johananis name in R. Hanina's name in the name of R. Rommanus: Rabbi permitted me to handle a pan with its ashes.3 Said R. Zera to R. Assi: Did R. Johanan say thus? But we learnt: A man may take up his son while he is holding a stone, or a basket containing a stone. Whereon Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: The reference is to a basket filled with fruit. Thus, only because it contains fruit; but if it does not contain fruit, it is not so?4 'He was astonied for a while,'5 then answered, Here too it means that it [the pan] contains [also] some grains [of spice]. Abaye objected: Did grains have any value in Rabbi's house?6 And should you answer, They were fit for the poor,-surely it was taught: 'The garments of the poor for the poor, and the garments of the wealthy for the wealthy'.7 But those of the poor are not [deemed fit] for the purpose of the wealthy?8 But said Abaye, it is analogous to a chamber pot.9 Raba observed: There are two refutations to this. Firstly, a chamber pot is repulsive, while this is not repulsive.10 And secondly, a chamber pot is uncovered, whereas this is covered!11 Rather, said Raba, when we were at R. Nahmanis we would handle a brazier on account of its ashes,12 even if broken pieces of wood were lying upon it.13
An objection is raised: And both14 agree that if it [a lamp] contains fragments of a wick, it may not be handled.15 Said Abaye: They learnt this of Galilee.16
Levi b. Samuel met R. Abba and R. Huna b. Hiyya standing at the door of R. Huna's college. Said he to them: Is it permissible to re-assemble a weaver's frame on the Sabbath?17 -It is well, answered they. Then he went before Rab Judah, who said: Surely Rab and Samuel both rule: If one re-assembles a weaver's frame on the Sabbath, he as liable to a sin-offering.18
An objection is raised: If one puts back the branch of a candelabrum on the Sabbath, he is liable to a sin-offering; as for the joint of a whitewasher's pole,19 it must not be re-inserted, yet if one does re-insert it, he is exempt, but it is forbidden.20 R. Simai said: For a circular horn, one is liable; for a straight horn, one is exempt!21 -They22 ruled as this Tanna. For it was taught: The sockets of a bed,23 the legs of a bed, and the archer's tablets,24 may not be re-inserted, yet if one does re-insert [them], he is not liable [to a sin-offering],
(1) They cannot be compared with others.
(2) Sc. the flame. Whilst the lamp is alight everything may be regarded as subsidiary to the flame: R. Simeon admits that such mukzeh is forbidden.
(3) Used for fumigating. This is the meaning as first supposed. Ashes are mukzeh, and it is assumed that he was permitted to move the ashes on account of the pan, which is a utensil.
(4) And the pan is analogous.
(5) Dan. IV, 16.
(6) Surely not! Hence the pan with the ashes may not be handled on their account.
(7) The reference is to the minimum size of material which is liable to defilement as a 'garment'. The smallest size which has any value to a wealthy person is three handbreadths square; if it is less, he throws it away. A poor man, however, endeavours to find a use for it even if it is only three fingerbreadths square, and that accordingly is his minimum (cf. supra 26b seq.). These are the minima for the wealthy and the poor respectively which are technically called garments.
(8) They do not rank as 'garments' when in a wealthy man's possession. The same principle applies here.
(9) Which may be carried away with the excrements, and similarly the pan and ashes.
(10) Hence the former must be removed.
(11) Their shovels or coal pans were covered with a lid or top.
(12) I.e., when the ashes were needed for covering anything. These ashes were counted upon for this from before the Sabbath, and hence the whole might be handled. So here too, R. Romanus states that Rabbi permitted him to handle a fumigating pan on account of the ashes.
(13) The latter might not be handled, and therefore the utensil which contained it likewise, save that it also contained ashes.
(14) R. Judah and R. Simeon.
(15) The same applies to pieces of wood on a brazier. For the lamp also contains oil, just as the brazier contains ashes too.
(16) Owing to the abundance of oil in Galilee the residue of oil in the lamp would be of no value to its owner, and therefore the lamp with the fragments of wick may not be handled on account of its oil (Tosaf. and R. Nissim Gaon).
(17) The frame or loom consisted of jointed parts, which fitted into each other.
(18) If done in ignorance.
(19) The handle of the painter's brush was jointed, to allow of different lengths according to requirements.
(20) A candelabrum is not taken to pieces frequently, and therefore when one inserts its branches he finishes its manufacture; hence he is liable to a sin-offering, it being a general rule that this is incurred for the completion of any utensil. But a painter's brush is continually taken to pieces; therefore the insertion of one of its parts is only temporary and does not complete it.
(21) These are musical instruments into which reeds were inserted to give various notes; v. T.A. III, 96. The putting together of the former was skilled work; hence liability is incurred. But the latter was assembled amateurishly, being frequently taken to pieces; hence no liability is incurred.-The difficulty is presented by the branch of a candelabrum, whose principle is the same as a weaver's frame.
(22) R. Abba and R. Huna b. Hiyya.
(23) Into which the legs of a bed fitted. to prevent them from being rotted by the damp earth.
(24) Rashi: a small wooden plaque inserted in the bow upon which the arrow presses before it is released. Jast. translates: 'the boards on which the straw rests', but does not make it clear what fitting or joining is required there.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 47b
but it is forbidden; nor must they be [tightly] fixed in, and if one does so, he is liable to a sin offering. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: if it is loose, it is permitted.1 At R. Hama's home there was a folding bed, which they used to put up on Festivals. Said one of the Rabbis to Raba: What is your view, that it is building from the side:2 granted that there is no Scriptural prohibition, yet it is Rabbinically forbidden?Said he to him, I agree with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who ruled: If it is loose, it is permitted.
MISHNAH. A VESSEL, MAY BE PLACED UNDER A LAMP TO CATCH THE SPARKS, BUT ONE MUST NOT POUR WATER THEREIN, BECAUSE HE EXTINGUISHES [THEM].
GEMARA. But he deprives the vessel of its readiness?3 - Said R. Huna the son of R. Joshua: Sparks are intangible.4
BUT ONE MUST NOT POUR WATER THEREIN, BECAUSE HE EXTINGUISHES [THEM]. Shall we say that we learnt anonymously as R. Jose, who maintained: That which is a cause of extinguishing is forbidden?5 Now, is that logical: granted that R. Jose ruled thus for the Sabbath: did he rule thus for the eve of the Sabbath? And should you say, Here also it refers to the eve of the Sabbath, - surely it was taught: A vessel may be placed under a lamp on the Sabbath to catch the sparks, and on the eve of the Sabbath goes without saying; but one must not pour water therein on the eve of the Sabbath, because he extinguishes [them], and the Sabbath goes without saying?-Rather, said R. Ashi, you may say that it agrees even with the Rabbis: here it is different, because one brings the extinguisher near.6
MISHNAH. WHEREIN MAY WE STORE [FOOD], AND WHEREIN MAY WE NOT STORE [IT]?7 WE MAY NOT STORE [IT] IN PEAT,8 FOLIAGE,9 SALT, LIME, OR SAND, WHETHER MOIST OR DRY; NOR IN STRAW, GRAPE-SKINS, SOFT FLOCKING10 OR HERBAGE, WHEN THEY ARE MOIST; BUT WE MAY STORE [FOOD] IN THEM WHEN THEY ARE DRY.
GEMARA. The scholars propounded: Did we learn, peat of olives, whereas peat of poppy seed is well; or perhaps we learnt peat of poppy seed, and how much more so of olives?-Come and hear: For R. Zera said on the authority of one of the disciples of the School of R. Jannai: A basket in which one put away [food]11 may not be placed on peat of olives. This proves that we learnt peat of olives!-[No.] After all I may tell you that in respect of storing [peat] of poppy seed too is forbidden; [but] as for
(1) I.e., if it is so constructed that it need be only loosely joined, it is permitted even at the very outset. R. Abba and R. Huna b. Hiyya likewise refer to branches that sit lightly in their sockets.
(2) The technical term for work not done in a professional and usual way.-I.e., do you think that because it is loosely fitted it does not constitute building?
(3) V. p. 196, n. 5.
(4) V. p. 198, n. 2.
(5) Even if one does not directly extinguish; v. infra 120a.
(6) By pouring water into the vessel, And therefore as a preventive measure it is forbidden, also on the eve of sabbath. But in the case below, q.v., it is indirect extinguishing, because the heat must first cause the jars to burst before the water is released.
(7) When a pot is removed from the fire on the eve of the Sabbath, it may be stored in anything that preserves heat, but not in something that adds heat (supra 34b).
(8) I.e., a pressed, hard mass. The Gemara discusses which mass is meant.
(9) Zebel is foliage piled up for forming manure.
(10) E.g., rags, wool, etc.
(11) For the Sabbath, to preserve its heat.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 48a
causing heat to ascend,1 [peat] of olives causes heat to ascend, but not [peat] of poppy seed.
Rabbah and R. Zera visited the Resh Galutha,2 and saw a slave place a pitcher of water on the mouth of a kettle.3 Thereupon Rabbah rebuked him. Said R. Zera to him: Wherein does it differ from a boiler [placed] upon a boiler?4 -There he [merely] preserves [the heat]5 , he replied, whereas here he creates it.6 Then he saw him spread a turban over the mouth of a cask and place a cup7 upon it. Thereupon Rabbah rebuked him. Said R. Zera to him: Why? You will soon see,8 said he. Subsequently he saw him [the servant] wringing it out.9 Wherein does this differ from [covering a cask with] a rag?10 he asked him. There one is not particular about it;11 here he is particular about it.12
[NOR WITH] STRAW. R. Adda b. Mattenah asked Abaye: Is it permissible to handle flocking in which one stored [food]?13 Said he to him: Because he lacks a bundle of straw, does he arise and renounce a bundle of soft flocking?14 - Shall we say that the following supports him: We may store [food] in wool clip, hatchelled wool, strips of purple [wool],15 and flocking, but they may not be handled?-As for that, it is no proof: this may be its meaning: if one did not store [food] in them, they may not be handled. If so, why state it?16 -You might say, They are fit for reclining:17 hence we are told [otherwise].
R. Hisda permitted stuffing to be replaced in a pillow on the Sabbath. R. Hanan b. Hisda objected to R. Hisda: The neck [of a shirt] may be undone on the Sabbath,18 but may not be opened;19 nor may flocking be put into a pillow or a bolster on a Festival, and on the Sabbath it goes without saying?-There is no difficulty: one refers to new ones, the other to old ones.20 It was taught likewise: Flocking may not be put into a pillow or a bolster on the Festival, and on the Sabbath it need not be stated; if it falls out, it may be replaced [even] on the Sabbath, while on Festivals it goes without saying.
Rab Judah said in Rab's name: One who opens the neck [of a shirt] on the Sabbath incurs a sin-offering.21 R. Kahana objected:
(1) As here, the food is stored in a substance which does not add heat, but heat may mount up from the peat and penetrate the basket.
(2) Head of the Exile, Exilarch, official title of the head of Babylonian and Persian Jewry, whose authority was recognized and sustained by the State. V. J.E. V, p. 228, s.v. Exilarch.
(3) The pitcher contained cold water, and the kettle was hot.
(4) Which is permissible; 51b.
(5) For the upper boiler too is filled with hot water.
(6) The kettle below heats the cold water in the pitcher.
(7) Natla is a ladle or a small vessel for taking liquid out of a large vessel.
(8) Lit., 'you see now'.
(9) This is forbidden on the Sabbath.
(10) Which is permitted, and we do not fear that the owner will wring it dry. And though the servant did so here, yet on what grounds did Rabbah rebuke him at the outset?
(11) He does not mind if the rag remains wet.
(12) Hence he is likely to wring it.
(13) Normally they may not be handled; the question is whether this use converts it into a 'utensil' which may be handled on the Sabbath.
(14) Where possible straw is used, because it is cheaper. When one must use rags, he does not on that account renounce them, i.e., declare that they have no value in his eyes save for that purpose, but they remain independent, as it were, just as before they were so used: hence they may not be handled.
(15) ארגמן is translated purple in E.V. (Ex. XXV, 4). But this was an extremely costly dye, and its proposed use here for storing food shows that such is not meant. It is rather a scarlet red dye, more brilliant than purple but not so enduring; v. T.A. I, 146f.
(16) In their present state they cannot be used, hence they certainly do not rank as 'utensils'.
(17) So that they are utensils.
(18) When it is returned by the launderer, who generally tied the neck up.
(19) The first time after it is sewn. This opening makes it fit for wear and thus finishes its work.
(20) A pillow etc., must not be stuffed for the first time, as that is part of its manufacture; but if the stuffing falls out, it may be replaced.
(21) V. n. 1.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 48b
What is the difference between this and the bung of a barrel?1 -Said Raba to him: The one is an integral part thereof, whereas the other is not.
R. Jeremiah pointed out a contradiction to R. Zera. We learnt: The fuller's loosely stitched bundle,2 or a bunch of keys, or a garment stitched together with kil'ayim thread3 are counted as connected in respect of uncleanness,4 until one begins to undo them. This proves that they are [regarded as] joined even not at the time of work.5 But the following is opposed thereto: If a stick is improvised to serve as a handle for an axe, it is counted as connected in respect of uncleanness at the time of work. [Thus,] only at the time of work, but not otherwise? - There, he replied, a man is wont to throw it [the handle] among the timber when it is not being used. Here, a man prefers [that pieces remain together]6 even not at the time of work, so that if they are soiled he can rewash them.7
In Sura the following discussion was recited in R. Hisda's name. in Pumbeditha it was recited in R. Kahana's name-others state, in Raba's name. Who is the Tanna responsible for the statement of the Rabbis: Whatever is joined to an article is counted as the article itself?-Said Rab Judah in Rab's name, It is R. Meir. For we learnt: The receptacles on a stove for the oil-flask, spicepot, and the lamp are defiled through contact, but not through air space: this is R. Meir's opinion. But R. Simeon declares them clean.8 Now, as for R. Simeon, it is well: he holds that they are not as the stove. But according to R. Meir, - if they are as the stove, let them be defiled even through air space; if they are not as the stove, let them not be defiled even through contact?In truth, they are not as the stove, but the Rabbis decreed [uncleanness] in their case. If they decreed it, let them be defiled even through air space too?-The Rabbis made a distinction, so that people might not come to burn terumah and holy food on account of them.9
Our Rabbis taught: A shears of separate blades10 and the cutter of a [carpenter's] plane are [counted as] connected in respect of uncleanness,11 but not in respect of sprinkling.12 What will you: if they are both [counted as] connected, [they are so] even in respect of sprinkling too; if [they do] not [count as] connected, [they are not so] even in respect of defilement?-Said Raba: By Scriptural law, when in use they are [counted as] connected in respect of both defilement and sprinkling, when not in use, they are [counted as] connected in respect of neither defilement nor sprinkling,
(1) Which according to the Rabbis infra 146a, may be pierced on the Sabbath.
(2) Of linen; they used to sew articles of washing loosely together, to prevent loss.
(3) V. Glos.
(4) If one part becomes unclean, the others are likewise, though they are sure to be untied at a later stage.
(5) E.g., the fuller's bundle need be sewn together only at the actual washing, yet the single pieces are regarded as one even afterwards, so long as one has not commenced to untie them.
(6) That the pieces remain together until required.
(7) Without having to search for the pieces.
(8) Separate receptacles for a flask of oil, spices, and a lamp were attached to earthen stoves. These stoves are defiled in two ways: (i) when an unclean object actually touches them on the inside; (ii) if an unclean object is suspended within their cavity, i.e., their air space. R. Meir holds that in the first case the attached receptacles too are defiled, as part of the stove, but not in the second; while R. Simeon maintains that they remain clean in both cases.
(9) If these receptacles, having been defiled through the stove, came into contact with terumah and holy food, they are unclean in their turn, but only by Rabbinical law, whereas they must be unclean by Scriptural law before they may be burnt. Hence the Rabbis limited their defilement, that it might be fully understood that it is merely Rabbinical.
(10) Lit., 'joints'
(11) If one part becomes unclean the other is too.
(12) If a utensil is defiled through a corpse, it needs sprinkling of water mixed with the ashes of the red heifer to render it clean (v. Num. XIX). If the mixture is sprinkled on one part but not on the other the latter is not cleansed.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 49a
But the Rabbis imposed a preventive measure in respect of defilement, when they are not in use,1 on account of defilement when they are in use;2 and in respect of sprinkling, when they are in use,3 on account of when they are not in use.
WHEN THEY ARE MOIST. The Scholars propounded: Naturally moist, or artificially moist?4 - Come and hear: [WE MAY NOT STORE . . .] IN STRAW, (GRAPE-SKINS, FLOCKING OR HERBAGE WHEN THEY ARE MOIST. Now, if you say [that it means] artificially moistened, it is well; but if you say, naturally moist, how can flocking be naturally moist?-[It is possible] in the case of wool plucked from between the flanks.5 And as to what R. Oshaia taught: We may store [food] in a dry cloth6 and in dry produce, but not in a damp cloth or moist produce,-how is naturally damp cloth possible?-In the case of- wool plucked from between the flanks.
MISHNAH. WE MAY STORE [FOOD] IN, GARMENTS, PRODUCE,7 DOVES' WINGS, CARPENTERS' SAWDUST8 AND THOROUGHLY BEATEN HATCHELLED FLAX. R. JUDAH FORBIDS [STORING] IN FINE, BUT PERMITS [IT] IN COARSE [BEATEN FLAX].
GEMARA. R. Jannai said: Tefillin9 demand a pure body, like Elisha, the man of 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.10 And why is he called the man of wings'? Because the wicked Roman government once proclaimed a decree against Israel that whoever donned tefillin should have his brains pierced through;11 yet Elisha put them on and went out into the streets. [When] a quaestor saw him, he fled before him, whereupon he 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 lo! they were the wings of a dove. Therefore he is called 'Elisha the man of the wings'. And why 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:12 just as a dove is protected by its wings, so is Israel protected by the precepts.13
IN CARPENTERS' SAWDUST, etc. The scholars propounded: Does R. Judah refer to carpenters' sawdust or to hatchelled flax?Come and hear: R. Judah said: Fine hatchelled flax is like foliage.14 This proves that he refers to hatchelled flax. This proves it.
MISHNAH. WE MAY STORE [FOOD] IN FRESH HIDES, AND THEY MAY BE HANDLED;15 IN WOOL SHEARINGS, BUT THEY MAY NOT BE HANDLED.16 WHAT THEN IS DONE? THE LID [OF THE POT] IS LIFTED, AND THEY [THE SHEARINGS] FALL OFF OF THEIR OWN ACCORD. R. ELEAZAR B. AZARIAH SAID: THE BASKET17 IS LIFTED ON ONE SIDE AND [THE FOOD] IS REMOVED, LEST ONE LIFT [THE LID OF THE POT] AND BE UNABLE TO REPLACE IT.18 BUT THE SAGES SAY: ONE MAY TAKE AND REPLACE [IT].19
GEMARA. R. Jonathan b. Akinai and R. Jonathan b. Eleazar were sitting, and R. Hanina b. Hama sat with them and it was asked: Did we learn, FRESH HIDES belonging to a private individual, but those of an artisan, since he is particular about them20 may not be handled; or perhaps, we learnt about those of an artisan, and all the more so those of a private individual?-Said R. Jonathan b. Eleazar to them: It stands to reason that we learnt about those belonging to a private individual, but as for those of an artisan, he is particular about them. Thereupon R. Hanina b. Hama observed to them: Thus did R. Ishmael b. R. Jose say:
(1) That both limbs should count as one.
(2) To prevent laxity in the latter case,
(3) That they should not count as one.
(4) Lit., 'through themselves or through something else'. The former throws out more heat.
(5) Of a living animal: this contains its own moisture.
(6) Lit., 'raiment'.
(7) E.g., corn or pulse.
(8) Or, shavings.
(9) V. Glos.
(10) Phylacteries used to be worn all day.
(11) V. infra 130a.
(12) Ps. LXVIII, 14.
(13) In Gen. R. XXXIX, 8 the point of comparison is stated thus: all birds fly with both wings, and when exhausted they rest on a crag or rock; but the dove, when tired, rests on one wing and flies with the other. So Israel, when driven from one country, finds refuge and rest in another; v. also note a.l. in Sonc. ed.
(14) Which may not be used; supra 47b.
(15) Whether food was put away in them or not. They are fit for reclining upon, and therefore rank as utensils, which may be handled.
(16) Because they are mukzeh, being set aside to be woven and spun.
(17) Containing the pot and the shearings,
(18) If the pot is bodily lifted out, the shearings may all collapse, and since they must not be handled, they cannot be parted in order to replace the pot.
(19) This is discussed in the Gemara.
(20) He has to sell, and is therefore particular not to spoil them. This may render them mukzeh.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 49b
My father was a hide worker, and he would say: Fetch hides and that we may sit on them.1 An objection is raised: Boards belonging to a householder may be handled; those of an artisan may not be handled;2 but if one intended to place bread upon them for guests, in both cases they may be handled? - Boards are different, for one is [certainly] particular about them.
Come and hear: Hides, whether tanned or not, may be.handled on the Sabbath, 'tanned' being specified only in respect to uncleanness.3 Now surely, no distinction is drawn whether they belong to a householder or an artisan? - No: [It means those] of a householder. But what of those of an artisan? They may not be handled? If so, when it is taught, "'tanned" being specified only in respect to uncleanness,' let a distinction be drawn and taught in that itself: [viz.,] when is that said? [Only] of those belonging to a householder, but not concerning those of an artisan?-The whole deals with those of a householder.4
This is dependent on Tannaim: Hides of a private individual may be handled, but those of an artisan may not: R. Jose maintained: Either the one or the other may be handled.
Again they5 sat and pondered: Regarding what we learnt, The principal categories of labour6 are forty less one,-to what do they correspond?7 -Said R. Hanina b. Hama to them: To the forms of labour in the Tabernacle.8 R. Jonathan son of R. Eleazar said to them, Thus did R. Simeon b. R. Jose b. Lakonia say: They correspond to [the words] 'work' [melakah], 'his work' [melakto], and 'the work of' [meleketh], which are [written] thirty-nine times in the Torah.9 R. Joseph asked: Is 'and he went into the house to do his work'10 included in this number, or not?-Said Abaye to him, Then let a Scroll of the Torah be brought and we will count! Did not Rabbah b. Bar Hanah say in R. Johanan's name: They did not stir thence until they brought a Scroll of the Torah and counted them?11 The reason that I am doubtful, replied he, is because it is written, for the work12 they had was sufficient:13 is that of the number, while this14 is [to be interpreted] in accordance with the view that he entered to perform his business;15 or perhaps and he went into the house to do his work' is of the number, while this 'for the work they had was sufficient' is meant thus: their business was completed?16 The question stands over.
It was taught as the opinion that it corresponds to the forms of labour in the Tabernacle. For it was taught: Liability is incurred only for work of which the same was performed in the Tabernacle. They sowed, hence ye must not sow; they reaped, hence ye must not reap;17 they lifted up the boards from the ground to the waggon,18 hence ye must not carry in from a public to a private domain; they lowered the boards from the waggon to the ground, hence ye must not carry out from a private to a public domain; they transported [boards, etc.,] from waggon to waggon, hence ye must not carry from one private to another private domain. 'From one private to another private domain'- what [wrong] is done? Abaye and Raba both explained - others say, R. Adda b. Ahabah: It means from one private to another private domain via public ground.
IN WOOL. SHEARINGS, BUT THEY MAY NOT BE HANDLED. Raba said: They learnt this only where one had not stored [food] in them; but if one had stored food in them [on that Sabbath], they may be handled. A certain student of one day's standing19 refuted Raba: WE MAY STORE [FOOD] ... IN WOOL. SHEARINGS, BUT THEY MAY NOT BE HANDLED. WHAT THEN IS DONE?
(1) This shows that he was not particular.
(2) This shows that an artisan is particular.
(3) Tanned hides are subject to the laws of defilement; untanned hides are not.
(4) In whose case no distinction can be drawn between tanned and untanned skins save in respect of defilement.
(5) The Rabbis maintained above.
(6) Forbidden on the Sabbath; for aboth, lit., 'fathers', v. supra 2b.
(7) On what basis are they selected?
(8) Every form of labour necessary in the Tabernacle was regarded as a principal category of work forbidden on the Sabbath. This is learnt from the juxtaposition of the commands concerning the Sabbath and the erection of the Tabernacle, Ex. XXXV, 1-3;4 seq.
(9) Lit., 'forty times minus one'.
(10) Gen. XXXIX, 11
(11) Rashi conjectures that the reference may be to the waw (ו) of gahown (גחון); v. Kid, 30a.
(12) E.V. 'stuff'.
(13) Ex. XXXVI, 7.
(14) 'And he went into the house to do his work',
(15) A euphemism for adultery; v. Sot. 36b. In that case melakto (his work) does not connote actual work, and is not included.
(16) They had brought all the materials required. On this supposition the verse is translated as in the E.V.
(17) Certain vegetables had to be sown and reaped to provide dyes for the hangings.
(18) The ground was a public domain, while the waggon was a private domain.
(19) I.e., who had come to the college for the first time that day. V. Hag. 5b.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 50a
THE LID [OF THE POT] IS LIFTED, AND THEY [THE SHEARINGS] FALL. OFF OF THEIR OWN ACCORD.1 Rather if stated, it was thus stated: Raba said: They learnt this only when one had not designated them for storing, but if he had, they may be handled. It was stated likewise: When Rabin came,2 he said in the name of R. Jacob in the name of R. Assi b. Saul in Rab's name: They learnt this only where one had not designated them for [constant]3 storing; but if he had designated them for [constant) storing, they may be handled. Rabina said: They [the Sages of the Mishnah] learnt in reference to the [merchant's] shelves.4 it was taught likewise: Wool shearings of the shelves may not be handled; but if a private individual prepared them for use, they may be handled.
Rabbah b. Bar Hanah recited before Rab: If one cuts down dried branches of a palm tree for fuel and then changes his mind, [intending them] for a seat, he must tie [them] together;5 R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: He need not tie them together. He recited it and he stated it: The halachah is as R. Simeon b. Gamaliel.
It was stated: Rab said: He must tie [them] together; Samuel maintained: He must intend [to sit upon them]: while R. Assi ruled: If he sits upon them,6 though he had neither tied nor intended them [for sitting, it is well].7 As for Rab, it is well: he rules as the first Tanna: and Samuel too [is not refuted, for he] rules as R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. But according to whom does R. Assi rule?-He rules as the following Tanna. For it was taught: One may go out [into the street] with a wool tuft or a flake of Wool,8 if he had dipped them [in oil]9 and tied them with a cord. If he did not dip them [in oil] and tie them with a cord, he may not go out with them; yet if he had gone out with them for one moment10 before nightfall,11 even if he had not dipped or tied them with a cord, he may go out with them [on the Sabbath].12
R. Ashi said, We too have learnt [so]: One must not move straw [lying] upon a bed with his hand, yet he may move it with his body;13 but if it is fodder for animals, or a pillow or a sheet was upon it before nightfall,14 he may move it with his hand.15
And which Tanna disagrees with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel?R. Hanina b. Akiba. For when R. Dimi came,16 he said in the name of Ze'iri in R. Hanina's name: R. Hanina b. Akiba once went to a certain place and found dried branches of a palm tree cut down, and he said to his disciples, 'Go out and declare your intention,17 so that we may be able to sit upon them tomorrow'. And I do not know whether it was a house of feasting or a house of mourning.18 Since he says, '[I do not know] whether it was a house of feasting or a house of mourning', [it implies] only there, because they are occupied;19 but elsewhere it must be tied together; but if not, it is not [permitted].
Rab Judah said: A man may bring a sack full of earth [into the house] and use it for his general needs.20 Mar Zutra lectured in the name of Mar Zutra Rabbah: Providing that he allotted a certain corner to it.21 Said the students before R. Papa: With whom [does this agree]: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel? For if with the Rabbis, - an act is required!22 -R. Papa answered: You may even say, with the Rabbis. The Rabbis ruled that an act is required only where an act is possible,23 but not where it is impossible.24
Shall we say that this is disputed by Tannaim? Utensils may be cleaned25 with anything,26 save silver vessels with white earth.27 This [implies] that natron28 and sand are permitted. But surely it was taught, Natron and sand are forbidden? Surely they differ in this: one Master holds that an act is required,29 while the other Master holds that no act is required? No. All agree that no act is required, yet there is no difficulty: one is according to R. Judah, who maintains, What is unintentional is forbidden; the other is according to R. Simeon, who rules, What is unintentional is permitted.30
How have you explained the view that it is permitted? As agreeing with R. Simeon! Then consider the last clause: But one must not cleanse his hair with them.31 Rather if R. Simeon, surely he permits it? For we learnt:
(1) This proves that even when food was stored in the shearings on that day, they may not be handled.
(2) V. p. 12, n. 9.
(3) So Rashi.
(4) Wool shearings stored in the merchant's shelves are certainly not designated for storing, and even if thus employed they will eventually be replaced in the shelves. Hence they may not be handled even if used for storing. But Raba referred to ordinary shorn wool: when one employs them for such a purpose, it is as though he designated them for storing, and therefore they may be handled. Thus Rabina justifies the first version of Raba's statement.
(5) Before the Sabbath, thus indicating their purpose, Otherwise they are regarded as fuel and may not be handled on the Sabbath, a change of mind without corresponding action being of no account. - 'Intended' means that this was verbally stated, and not mental.
(6) Before the Sabbath.
(7) He may handle and use them as a seat on the Sabbath.
(8) Both used as a dressing for a wound. Tosaf. translates a wig.
(9) So Rashi. He thereby shows that his purpose is to prevent his garments from chafing the wound. Rashal deletes 'in oil', and translates: if he had dyed them, thus rendering them an adornment. Otherwise, on both translations, they are a burden and may not be taken out into the street.
(10) Lit., 'one hour'.
(11) Lit., 'while yet daytime'-i.e., before the Sabbath.
(12) The principle is the same as in R. Assi's ruling.
(13) Generally speaking, straw is meant for fuel or brickmaking, and is therefore mukzeh. Therefore if straw is lying on a bed, not having been designated for a mattress, one must not move it with his hand to straighten it and make the bed more comfortable, but be may do so with his body, because that is an unusual manner (v. p. 201, n. 1 and p. 115, n. 7).
(14) Lit., 'by day'-i.e., if one had lain upon it before the Sabbath, though he had neither put aside the straw nor declared his intention to use it as a mattress.
(15) Here too the principle is the same as in R. Assi's ruling.
(16) V. P. 12, n. 9,
(17) To sit upon them on the Sabbath.
(18) This is Ze'iri's comment.
(19) Lit., 'troubled'. For that reason mere intention was sufficient.
(20) On the Sabbath or Festivals. This must be done before the Sabbath or Festivals.
(21) Which renders it prepared (mukan) for these purposes.
(22) The equivalent of tying the branches.
(23) Lit., 'for something that can be the subject of an act'.
(24) Nothing can be done to the earth to show that it is meant for a particular purpose.
(25) Lit., 'rubbed'.
(26) On the Sabbath.
(27) A kind of chalk. Rashi: אלום i.e., the tartar deposited in wine vessels; Aruch: pulverized resin, These do more than cleanse, but actually smooth the silver, which is forbidden work.
(28) V. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 330, n. 5.
(29) To show its purpose, and since such is impossible, they are forbidden, but not because there is anything objectionable in them per se.
(30) Supra,22a, 29b. Natron and sand sometimes smooth the silver too, in addition to cleansing it, but that smoothing is unintentional. But white chalk always smooths: hence all rule it out.
(31) Because it pulls hair out.
Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 50b
A nazirite may cleanse [his hair]1 and part it,2 but he must not comb it.3 Rather both are according to R. Judah, yet two Tannaim differ as to R. Judah's view: one Tanna holds that in R. Judah's view they [natron and sand] smooth,4 while the other Tanna holds that in R. Judah's view they do not smooth. How have you explained them? As agreeing with R. Judah! Then consider the second clause: 'But the face, hands, and feet are permitted';5 but surely it removes the hair?-If you wish, I can answer that it refers to a child; alternatively, to a woman, another alternative, to a eunuch [by nature].6
Rab Judah said: Powdered brick is permitted.7 R. Joseph said: Poppy pomace [scented] with jasmine is permitted.8 Raba said: Crushed pepper is permitted. R. Shesheth said: Barda is permitted. What is barda?-Said R. Joseph: [A compound consisting of] a third aloes, a third myrtle, and a third violets. R. Nehemiah b. Joseph said: Providing that there is not a greater quantity of aloes, it is well.9
R. Shesheth was asked: Is it permissible to bruise olives on the Sabbath?10 He answered them: Who permitted it then on weekdays? (He holds [that it is forbidden] on account of the destruction of food).11 Shall we say that he disagrees with Samuel; for Samuel said: One may do whatever he desires with bread?-I will tell you: A loaf [crumbled] is not repulsive, but these are.
Amemar, Mar Zutra, and R. Ashi were sitting, when barda was brought before them.12 Amemar and R. Ashi washed [their hands therewith]; Mar Zutra did not. Said they to him, Do you not accept R. Shesheth's ruling that barda is permitted? R. Mordecai answered them: Exclude the Master [Mar Zutra], who does not hold it [permitted] even on weekdays. His view is as what was taught: One may scrape off the dirt scabs and wound scabs that are on his flesh because of the pain;13 [but] if in order to beautify himself, it is forbidden.14 And whose view do they adopt? - As what was taught: One must wash his face, hands, and feet daily in his Maker's honour, for it is said, The Lord hath made every thing for his own purpose.15
R. ELEAZAR B. AZARIAH SAID: THE BASKET IS TILTED ON ONE SIDE AND [THE FOOD] IS REMOVED, LEST ONE LIFT [THE LID OF THE POT], etc. R. Abba said in R. Hiyya b. Ashi's name: All agree that if the cavity becomes disordered,16 we may not replace [the pot].17 We learnt: BUT THE SAGES SAY: ONE MAY TAKE AND REPLACE [IT]. What are the circumstances? If the cavity is not disordered, the Rabbis [surely] say well?18 Hence it must mean even if the cavity becomes disordered!-No. In truth, it means that the cavity was not disordered, but here they differ as to whether we fear. One Master holds: We fear lest the cavity become disordered;19 while the other Master holds: We do not fear.
R. Hana said: With respect to selikustha,20 if one put it in, drew it out, and put it in again,21 it is permitted;22 if not, it is forbidden.
Samuel said: As regards the knife between the rows of bricks,23 - if one inserted it, withdrew it, and reinserted it,24 it is permitted; if not, it is forbidden. Mar Zutra-others state R. Ashi-said: Yet it is well [to insert a knife] between the branches of a reed hedge.25 R. Mordecai said to Raba, R. Kattina raised an objection: if one stores turnips or radishes under a vine, provided some of their leaves are uncovered, he need have no fear
(1) By rubbing it (hafaf denotes to rub) with sand or natron.
(2) With his fingers (Jast.). Rashi: he may beat out his hair.
(3) With a comb. A nazirite may not cut his hair (v. Num, VI, 5); a comb is certain to pull some hair out (v. T.A. II, 197 and note a.l.), and therefore it is forbidden as cutting. Now the first clause permits sand or natron: it can only agree with R. Simeon, who holds that what is unintentional is permitted, and it must be assumed therefore that sand or natron is not bound to pull out the hair. But that being so, R. Simeon will permit it on the Sabbath too.
(4) Lit., 'scrape'.
(5) This follows the prohibition of cleansing the hair with natron or sand.
(6) None of these three have hair on the face or body.
(7) For cleaning the face, even to one who has a beard.
(8) To be used as lotion.
(9) He permits even more than a third of aloes, but there must not be more of aloes than of the other ingredients combined, because aloes act as a depilatory.
(10) May olives be bruised on a stone, which improves their taste? (Rashi) Ri: May one rub his face with olives, using them as a detergent?
(11) He regarded it as wanton waste.
(12) On Sabbath.
(13) Which their presence causes him.
(14) Rashi: on account of, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment (Deut. XXII, 5), which he interprets as a general injunction against aping femininity. Self adornment for its own sake is a woman's prerogative!
(15) Prov. XVI, 4.
(16) Its walls collapsing.
(17) Because we thereby move the shearings.
(18) There can be no reason for prohibiting its return.
(19) If one is permitted to remove the pot without tilting the basket on one side, we fear that he might replace it even if the walls of the cavity happened to collapse.
(20) A fragrant plant used after meals in place of burnt spices (Jast.). it was removed from its pot earth, its fragrance inhaled, and then put back.
(21) Before the Sabbath, thus loosening the earth around it.
(22) To remove it from the pot and replace it on the Sabbath.
(23) Where it was inserted for safety (Rashi).
(24) Cf. n. 3.
(25) The branches spreading from a common stem (Jast.). We do not fear that in removing it he may scrape off the peel of the reeds, which is forbidden.