# snc

lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k38a_1:" On the view that it is forbidden to keep food on an unswept stove."
,k38a_2:" This is a Mishnah. 'And there is no difference' is R. Hiyya b. Abba's addition in answer to the question."
,k38a_3:" Sc. who left the pot on the stove. 'If one cooks' means by placing it on the stove."
,k38a_4:" I.e., cook deliberately and pretend that it was unwitting. Since cooking is Biblically forbidden, one is not suspected of evading the prohibition."
,k38a_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."
,k38a_6:" Lit., 'shrinks'."
,k38a_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."
,k38a_8:" And a distinction is drawn between inadvertence and a deliberate act. This contradicts both views <i>supra</i>."
,k38a_9:" In the Baraitha quoted."
,k38a_10:" Stated <i>infra</i>."
,k38a_11:" R. Nahman's interpretation of R. Hiyya b. Abba's ruling."
,k38a_12:" The prohibition stated by R. Nahman is only a preventive measure of the Rabbis, and the Baraitha states the law prior thereto."
,k38a_13:" I.e., if R. Hiyya b. Abba's ruling was stated before the preventive measure was enacted."
,k38a_14:" The Baraitha states that it is forbidden, whilst he ruled that it is permitted."
,k38a_15:" Because the Baraitha which states that it is permitted in that case was taught before the preventive measure."
,k38a_16:" A dish on the stove, and it is cooked."
,k38a_17:" V. <i>supra</i> 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. &mdash; The views they both give there of Beth Hillel's ruling must be regarded as their own too, since the <i>halachah</i> is always as Beth Hillel."
,k38a_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."
,k38a_19:" Then the dish is permitted."
,k38a_20:" Eggs boiled or roasted down to a small size."
,k38a_21:" He forbade them to eat the eggs on that Sabbath. This answers the question."
,k38a_22:" He told them not to leave the eggs on the stove for the future. "
}

txt:
<p>
What<a id="k38a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; 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];<a id="k38a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and there is no difference. What is meant by, 'and there is no difference'? &mdash; 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 one<a id="k38a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; 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;<a id="k38a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; but this one, who may come to dissemble,<a id="k38a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; may not even eat if it was unwitting.
</p><p>
	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 away<a id="k38a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and is thus harmed;<a id="k38a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.<a id="k38a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; As for R. Nahman b. Isaac, it is well, there is no difficulty: here<a id="k38a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; it is before [the enactment of] the preventive measure;<a id="k38a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; there<a id="k38a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; it is after the preventive measure.<a id="k38a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; But [on the view of] Rabbah and R. Joseph who explain it permissively, if before the preventive measure,<a id="k38a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; 'deliberate' is a difficulty;<a id="k38a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; if after the preventive measure, even unwitting' too is a difficulty.<a id="k38a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; That is [indeed] a difficulty.
</p><p>
	What was the preventive measure? &mdash; 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.<a id="k38a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.
</p><p>
	Now, R. Meir is self-contradictory, and R. Judah is [likewise] self-contradictory?<a id="k38a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; R. Meir is not self-contradictory: the one means at the outset; the other, if done.<a id="k38a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Judah too is not self-contradictory: there it means that it [the stove] was swept or covered with ashes;<a id="k38a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; here, that it was not swept or covered with ashes.
</p><p>
	The scholars propounded: What if one transgressed and deliberately left it? Did the Rabbis penalize him or not? &mdash; 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,<a id="k38a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; and forbade them to them. Surely it means for that Sabbath?<a id="k38a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; No: for the following Sabbath.<a id="k38a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Now, this implies that shrunken eggs go on shrinking and are thereby improved? &mdash; 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.
</p><p>
	BETH HILLEL RULE: ONE MAY REPLACE [IT] TOO. R. Shesheth said: On the view of him who maintains
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k38b_1:" Rashi: not only Friday evening, but on the morrow too."
,k38b_2:" Wine was not drunk neat but diluted."
,k38b_3:" The pot or hot water."
,k38b_4:" To replace them on the stove."
,k38b_5:" Being stricter than necessary."
,k38b_6:" <i>Var. lec</i>.: Rab Hezekiah."
,k38b_7:" That is intermediate between retaining them in his hand and placing them on the ground."
,k38b_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."
,k38b_9:" Jast.: a small stove or brazier."
,k38b_10:" I.e., the ordinary stove which held two pots; v. 38b."
,k38b_11:" I.e., permitted."
,k38b_12:" That it is forbidden."
,k38b_13:" Wilna Gaon emends: and may place (it) on top."
,k38b_14:" It should be permitted, if it is swept or covered with ashes."
,k38b_15:" Should it be permitted."
,k38b_16:" Hence it occupies an intermediate position."
,k38b_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."
,k38b_18:" Lit., 'that it should be rolled'."
,k38b_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."
,k38b_20:" Tiberias possesses thermal springs. This was done before the Sabbath."
,k38b_21:" I.e., the water which is drawn from the pipe on the Sabbath."
,k38b_22:" Lit., 'roll'. "
}

txt:
<p>
that one may replace it, [it is permitted] even on the Sabbath.<a id="k38b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; 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,<a id="k38b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; 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 they<a id="k38b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; are still in his hand: but if he set them down on the ground, it is forbidden.<a id="k38b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ammi observed: R. Taddai who acted [thus] acted for himself [only].<a id="k38b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; But thus did R. Hiyya say in R. Johanan's name: Even if he set them down on the ground, it is permitted. 
</p><p>
	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. Hezekiah<a id="k38b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; observed in Abaye's name: As to what you say that if it is still in his hand it is permitted, &mdash; 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.
</p><p>
	R. Jeremiah propounded: What if he hung them on a staff or placed them on a couch?<a id="k38b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ashi propounded: What if he emptied them from one kettle to another? The questions stand over.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF AN OVEN WAS HEATED WITH STUBBLE OR RAKINGS, ONE MUST NOT PLACE [A POT, ETC.,] EITHER INSIDE OR ON TOP.<a id="k38b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; IF A KUPPAH<a id="k38b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; WAS HEATED WITH STUBBLE OR RAKINGS, IT IS LIKE A DOUBLE STOVE;<a id="k38b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; WITH PEAT OR TIMBER, IT IS LIKE AN OVEN,
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. 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? &mdash; 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.<a id="k38b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	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,<a id="k38b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; 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;<a id="k38b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; [but if it is heated] with peat or wood, one must not lean [a pot] against it.
</p><p>
	R. Aha son of Raba asked R. Ashi: How is this kuppah regarded? If like a [double] stove, even with peat or wood too?<a id="k38b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; If like an oven, neither with stubble or rakings?<a id="k38b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; He answered: Its heat is greater than a [double] stove's but less than an oven's.<a id="k38b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	What is a kuppah and what is a [double] stove [kirah]? &mdash; Said R. Jose b. Hanina: A kuppah has room for placing one pot; a [double] stove [kirah] has room for placing two pots. Abaye &mdash; others state, R. Jeremiah &mdash; 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.<a id="k38b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. ONE MUST NOT PLACE AN EGG AT THE SIDE OF A BOILER FOR IT TO BE ROASTED,<a id="k38b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; AND ONE MUST NOT BREAK IT INTO A [HOT] CLOTH;<a id="k38b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.<a id="k38b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; SAID THE SAGES TO THEM: IF ON THE SABBATH,<a id="k38b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. The scholars propounded: What if one does roast<a id="k38b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; it? &mdash; Said R. Joseph: If one roasts it, he is liable to a sin-offering. Mar son of Rabina said, We learnt likewise:
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k39a_1:" I.e., anything which was boiled before the Sabbath."
,k39a_2:" To soften it. It is not regarded as preparing the food in any way, since it was already prepared before the Sabbath."
,k39a_3:" But not steeped."
,k39a_4:" Jast.: A species of tunny fish."
,k39a_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."
,k39a_6:" A vessel of hot water may be placed in a pool of stagnant cold water."
,k39a_7:" V. <i>infra</i> 146b."
,k39a_8:" Because it is unusual to cook thus, and there is no fear that it will lead to cooking by fire."
,k39a_9:" Sc. a cloth."
,k39a_10:" Because it can be confused with the fire itself, and if that is permitted, people will roast directly on the fire."
,k39a_11:" A cloth heated by the sun."
,k39a_12:" Which is definitely forbidden as cooking; hence R. Jose admits the interdict here."
,k39a_13:" He may have insufficient sand, and scoop out more, which itself is forbidden; therefore R. Jose agrees. &mdash; The Mishnah treats of sand scooped out before the Sabbath, and even then it is forbidden."
,k39a_14:" In a large quantity. R. Joseph's reason does not operate, hence it will be permitted; but Rabbah's reason still holds good."
,k39a_15:" Heated by the sun."
,k39a_16:" Heated by the fire."
,k39a_17:" In the case of a hot roof, since the egg is not hidden in anything."
,k39a_18:" The cold water is kept in the pot."
,k39a_19:" That does not apply here; why did they forbid it?"
,k39a_20:" The prohibition of putting an egg in hot sand, etc."
,k39a_21:" He thought that the thermal springs were hot through the sun,"
,k39a_22:" The springs."
,k39a_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.] "
}

txt:
<p>
That which came into hot water before the Sabbath<a id="k39a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; may be steeped in hot water on the Sabbath;<a id="k39a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; but whatever did not come into hot water before the Sabbath, may be rinsed with hot water on the Sabbath,<a id="k39a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; except old salted [pickled] fish and the colias of the Spaniards,<a id="k39a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; because their rinsing completes their preparation.<a id="k39a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; This proves it.
</p><p>
	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,<a id="k39a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; for it to be cooled, or cold water in the sun, for it to be heated'<a id="k39a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; 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;<a id="k39a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; in a fire-heated object,<a id="k39a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; all agree that it is forbidden.<a id="k39a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Where do they differ? Concerning a sun-heated object.<a id="k39a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.
</p><p>
	AND ONE MAY NOT PUT IT AWAY IN [HOT] SAND. Now, let R. Jose differ here too? &mdash; Rabbah said: It is a preventive measure, lest one come to hide it in hot ashes.<a id="k39a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jose said: Because he may move earth [sand] from its place.<a id="k39a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Wherein do they differ? &mdash; In respect of crushed earth.<a id="k39a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	An objection is raised: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: An egg may be rolled [roasted] on a hot roof<a id="k39a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; but not on boiling lime.<a id="k39a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; As for the view that it is forbidden lest he hide it in hot ashes, it is well: there is nought to fear (here].<a id="k39a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; But on the view that it is because he may move earth from its place, let us forbid it? &mdash; The average roof has no earth.
</p><p>
	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.<a id="k39a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; But on the view that it is because he may move earth from its place, what can be said?<a id="k39a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Do you think that the incident of Tiberias refers to the second clause?<a id="k39a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; 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,<a id="k39a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; yet the Rabbis forbade it? That was a product of fire, he retorted, because they<a id="k39a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; pass over the entrance to Gehenna.<a id="k39a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hisda said:
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k39b_1:" I.e., before the Sabbath."
,k39b_2:" Lit., 'has ceased'."
,k39b_3:" Their action is permitted."
,k39b_4:" They themselves retracted. Thus all agree now that it is forbidden."
,k39b_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 <i>halachah</i>, and no anonymous Mishnah is taught according to the former."
,k39b_6:" Not washing-sousing is more lenient."
,k39b_7:" On the Sabbath. 'Hot water' means even if it was heated before the Sabbath."
,k39b_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."
,k39b_9:" E.g., a spring."
,k39b_10:" The water was heated by being passed through a natural hot-water spring."
,k39b_11:" V. <i>supra</i> 29a."
,k39b_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 <i>halachah</i> 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. "
}

txt:
<p>
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,<a id="k39b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; has no sanction.<a id="k39b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Ulla said: The <i>halachah</i> agrees with the inhabitants of Tiberias.<a id="k39b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Nahman to him, The Tiberians have broken their pipe long ago!<a id="k39b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	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!<a id="k39b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Said R. Ika b. Hanina: The reference is to the sousing<a id="k39b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; 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:<a id="k39b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; this is R. Meir's view; but R. Simeon permits it. R. Judah said: It is forbidden with hot water, but permitted with cold. 
</p><p>
	R. Hisda said: They differ only in respect to a vessel;<a id="k39b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; but if [the water is] in the earth,<a id="k39b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; all agree that it is permitted. But the case of the people of Tiberias was in respect to the earth,<a id="k39b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; yet the Rabbis forbade them? &mdash; 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.
</p><p>
	Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: The <i>halachah</i> 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 <i>halachah</i> is as the words of the compromiser, except in the case of the leniencies relating to rags,<a id="k39b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Where though R. Eliezer is stringent and R. Joshua is lenient and R. Akiba makes a compromise, the <i>halachah</i> is not as the words of the compromiser. Firstly, because R. Akiba was a disciple;<a id="k39b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; moreover, R. Akiba indeed
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k40a_1:" <i>Supra</i> 29b."
,k40a_2:" Sc. Johanan's rule on compromise."
,k40a_3:" I.e., limb by limb."
,k40a_4:" One may certainly not wash his whole body therein on the Festival."
,k40a_5:" This, in view of the reservation that follows, must mean simultaneously (Rashi)."
,k40a_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."
,k40a_7:" Rabbah did not know of these refutations. Or possibly, he did not accept them; cf. Kaplan, Redaction of the Talmud, p. 138."
,k40a_8:" V. <i>supra</i> 22a, q.v. notes."
,k40a_9:" So that its steam should not be lost."
,k40a_10:" I.e., the Festival day."
,k40a_11:" Of cold water or water warmed on Sabbath eve, v. <i>supra</i> 39b."
,k40a_12:" But not in the inner chamber where people wash, lest it be said that he washed his whole body. which is forbidden."
,k40a_13:" Near Jaffa, the seat of R. Akiba's academy: v. Josh. XIX, 45."
,k40a_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.]"
,k40a_15:" It is permitted."
,k40a_16:" A steam bath on Sabbath."
,k40a_17:" He may stroll through, not to sweat, and need not fear that he will be suspected of an unlawful purpose."
,k40a_18:" They could not be enforced, being regarded as too onerous for the masses."
,k40a_19:" Forbidden. &mdash; 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."
,k40a_20:" Without fear of proceedings for libel. "
}

txt:
<p>
retracted in favour of R. Joshua.<a id="k40a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Yet what if it is by deduction? &mdash; Perhaps that<a id="k40a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; is only in the Mishnah, but not in a Baraitha? &mdash; I heard it explicitly, said he to him.
</p><p>
	It was stated: if hot water is heated on the eve of the Sabbath, &mdash; 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.
</p><p>
	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? &mdash; Rab can answer you: Not his whole body at once, but limb by limb. But he [the Tanna] states, his face, hands, and feet? &mdash; [It means] similar to the face, hands, and feet.<a id="k40a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; 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? &mdash; Here too [it means] similar to the face, hands, and feet.
</p><p>
	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.<a id="k40a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbah recited this ruling of Rab in the following version: If hot water is heated on the eve of the Sabbath, &mdash; Rab said, On the morrow one may wash his whole body in it,<a id="k40a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; but must omit one limb. He raised against him all the [above] objections. He is [indeed] refuted.<a id="k40a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	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.<a id="k40a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; 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 <i>halachah</i> is as R. Simeon in respect to dragging.<a id="k40a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; He followed Rab's restrictions, but not his leniencies.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: If the holes of a bath-house are plugged<a id="k40a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; 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,<a id="k40a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; sweat, and go out and have a souse bath<a id="k40a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; in the outer chamber.<a id="k40a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab Judah said: it once happened at the baths of Bene Berak<a id="k40a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.<a id="k40a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; When the matter came before the Sages, they said: Even if the warm water is not covered with boards.<a id="k40a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; But when transgressors grew in number, they began forbidding it.<a id="k40a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; One may stroll through the baths of large cities and need have no fear.<a id="k40a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	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,<a id="k40a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; they permitted the hot springs of Tiberias, whilst sweating remained in status quo.<a id="k40a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba said: He who violates [even) a Rabbinical enactment, may be stigmatized a transgressor.<a id="k40a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; According to whom?
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k40b_1:" Who refers to the above as transgressors for evading Rabbinical enactments,"
,k40b_2:" And even a stroll through them causes sweating."
,k40b_3:" Kumkumos is a kind of kettle; obviously something in the nature of an open hot water bottle is meant here."
,k40b_4:" Rashi: in case it spills, and so he will have bathed on the Sabbath."
,k40b_5:" Of scalding. &mdash; Needless self-endangering of life is forbidden."
,k40b_6:" Of desecrating the Sabbath."
,k40b_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."
,k40b_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."
,k40b_9:" An idiom for doing anything in an unusual way. R. Simeon permits it, while the first Tanna forbids it."
,k40b_10:" I.e., the hand put in it is spontaneously withdrawn."
,k40b_11:" They may not be placed in front of a fire to reach temperature."
,k40b_12:" This was in the hot springs of Tiberias, which was finally permitted; <i>supra a</i>. &mdash; He wished to warm the oil before use."
,k40b_13:" A vessel into which a boiling mass has been poured, opposed to [H], 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."
,k40b_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."
,k40b_15:" Hence Rabbi should not have thought of the religious aspect of the act in the bath."
,k40b_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 <i>et seq</i>."
,k40b_17:" Lest the water form ruts, which is forbidden."
,k40b_18:" Forbidding sweating in ordinary (artificially heated) baths. Hence this must have happened in the natural thermal baths of Tiberias."
,k40b_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."
,k40b_20:" Punishment decreed by the Rabbis, as opposed to stripes, ordained by Biblical law."
,k40b_21:" I.e., he did not know whether he was actually swimming or merely bathing."
,k40b_22:" Where there is no fear of splashing water for a distance of four cubits in public ground. "
}

txt:
<p>
According to this Tanna.<a id="k40b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; '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.<a id="k40b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	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.
</p><p>
	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 bottle<a id="k40b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and place it on his stomach on the Sabbath;<a id="k40b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and this is forbidden even on weekdays, because of its danger.<a id="k40b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	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.<a id="k40b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The scholars propounded: What is the first Tanna's view on oil? &mdash; 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,<a id="k40b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.<a id="k40b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Then R. Simeon b. Gamaliel is identical with the first Tanna? &mdash; They differ in respect to a back-handed manner.<a id="k40b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: Both in the case of oil and water, if the hand shrinks from it,<a id="k40b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; it is forbidden;<a id="k40b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; if the hand does not shrink from it, it is permitted. And how is 'the hand shrinking from it' defined? &mdash; Said Rahaba: if an infant's belly is scalded [by it].
</p><p>
	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.<a id="k40b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Whereupon be said to me, Take [some water] in a second vessel<a id="k40b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.<a id="k40b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; 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?<a id="k40b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; And should you answer, He said it to him in secular language,<a id="k40b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; surely Abaye said: Secular matters may be uttered in the Holy language, whereas sacred matters must not be uttered in secular language. &mdash; 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;<a id="k40b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; [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.
</p><p>
	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,<a id="k40b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; yet he said to him, Take [some water] in a second vessel and put [the cruse of oil in it].<a id="k40b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; But that is not so? For R. Hisda said: If one cooks in the hot springs of Tiberias on the Sabbath, he is exempt? &mdash; By 'liable' he too meant flagellation for disobedience.<a id="k40b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Zera said: I saw R. Abbahu swimming in a bath, but I do not know whether he lifted [his feet] or not.<a id="k40b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.<a id="k40b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; There is no difficulty: in the one case
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k41a_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."
,k41a_2:" When bathing in the river; this was a gesture of decency."
,k41a_3:" Because lust is inflamed."
,k41a_4:" And they may have touched or moved open barrels of wine, thus rendering them forbidden."
,k41a_5:" V. preceding note."
,k41a_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,"
,k41a_7:" To put their minds to such things."
,k41a_8:" As though he were ashamed of being circumcised."
,k41a_9:" As his face is towards the river, a gesture of decency is not needed."
,k41a_10:" His face is towards the people, and so he can cover his circumcision in modesty."
,k41a_11:" Lit., 'ascend'."
,k41a_12:" Jer. XXVII, 22. &mdash; 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 <i>et seq</i>. 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."
,k41a_13:" For cleansing."
,k41a_14:" These were said in pure Hebrew."
,k41a_15:" Rashi: let the heat of the baths enter and the heat of perspiration be driven out."
,k41a_16:" V. n. 4."
,k41a_17:" I.e., harmful."
,k41a_18:" Is not properly digested."
,k41a_19:" Issuing from the mouth."
,k41a_20:" New fuel being added without the ashes of the old being cleared out."
,k41a_21:" To temper it."
,k41a_22:" Anointing with oil is and was practised in hot countries; T.A. I, 229 and 233."
,k41a_23:" Which is poured all over the barrel, but does not enter it."
,k41a_24:" Lit., 'a cauldron that is swept out' &mdash; before the Sabbath."
,k41a_25:" The Gemara discusses what this is."
,k41a_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."
,k41a_27:" This explains [H] (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."
,k41a_28:" The vacant space beneath being filled with coals. &mdash; Jast."
,k41a_29:" The ruling of the Mishnah will certainly apply to the latter too."
,k41a_30:" The ruling of the Mishnah will not apply to the latter, which in his opinion is the same as a miliarium."
,k41a_31:" Thus it adds heat, which is forbidden."
,k41a_32:" This is discussed in the Gemara. "
}

txt:
<p>
it [the pool] has no embankments; in the other case it has.<a id="k41a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Zera also said: I saw R. Abbahu put his hand near his buttocks,<a id="k41a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; 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?<a id="k41a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said Abaye: It was accounted as [analogous to] a marauding band. For we learnt: If a marauding band enters a town<a id="k41a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; in peace-time, open barrels [of wine] are forbidden,<a id="k41a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; closed barrels are permitted; in war time, both are permitted, because they have no time to make nesek.<a id="k41a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Thus we see, since they are afraid,<a id="k41a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; 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? &mdash; The fear of the river.
</p><p>
	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?<a id="k41a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; There is no difficulty: the one means when he descends [into the river];<a id="k41a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; the other refers to when he ascends.<a id="k41a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.
</p><p>
	R. Zera was evading Rab Judah. For he [R. Zera] desired to emigrate<a id="k41a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.<a id="k41a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; 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,<a id="k41a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; bring me a comb,<a id="k41a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; open your mouths and expel the heat,<a id="k41a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.<a id="k41a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; But 'drink the water of the baths' &mdash; what is the virtue of that? &mdash; For it was taught: If one eats without drinking, his eating is blood,<a id="k41a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and that is the beginning of stomach trouble. If one eats without walking four cubits [after it], his food rots,<a id="k41a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and that is the beginning of a foul smell.<a id="k41a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; One who has a call of nature yet eats is like an oven which is heated up on top of its ashes,<a id="k41a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.<a id="k41a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; If one bathes without anointing,<a id="k41a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; he is like water [poured] over a barrel.<a id="k41a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MILIARUM IS CLEARED [OF ITS] COALS,<a id="k41a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; ONE MAY DRINK FROM IT ON THE SABBATH. BUT AS TO AN ANTIKI,<a id="k41a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; EVEN IF ITS COALS HAVE BEEN CLEARED ONE MAY NOT DRINK FROM IT.<a id="k41a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What is meant by 'IF A MILIARUM IS CLEARED OF ITS] COALS'? &mdash; A Tanna taught: the water is within and the coals are without.<a id="k41a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.<a id="k41a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; He who defines it [as a vessel suspended] within a cauldron-like vessel, all the more so a vessel between fire places;<a id="k41a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas he who defines it as [a vessel] between fire places, &mdash; but not one within a cauldron-like vessel.<a id="k41a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.<a id="k41a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. 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.<a id="k41a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What does this mean? &mdash; 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.
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k41b_1:" Sc. The metal of the boiler, by pouring cold water into it while it is hot. This itself is forbidden on the Sabbath."
,k41b_2:" <i>Supra</i> 22a, 29b."
,k41b_3:" I.e., reduce its heat."
,k41b_4:" Surely not."
,k41b_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. "
}

txt:
<p>
But does he not harden it?<a id="k41b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; This agrees with R. Simeon, who ruled: That which is unintentional is permitted.<a id="k41b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.<a id="k41b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.
</p><p>
	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!<a id="k41b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.<a id="k41b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Whereas Samuel maintained: Even if there is a sufficient quantity to harden it,
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k42a_1:" Since that is not his intention."
,k42a_2:" That whatever is unintentional is permitted."
,k42a_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."
,k42a_4:" Lit., 'coal'."
,k42a_5:" For that is Biblically forbidden."
,k42a_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. <i>supra</i> 29b bottom), falls within this category. Hence it is only Rabbinically forbidden, and therefore the same as metal."
,k42a_7:" That it is interdicted."
,k42a_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."
,k42a_9:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> and <i>supra</i> 6a."
,k42a_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. <i>Tam</i>: '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. [H] Yoreh De'ah XCI, 12."
,k42a_11:" The water being required for drinking, one does not wish it to become very hot. Moreover, a cup is a 'second vessel' (v. <i>supra</i> 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."
,k42a_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."
,k42a_13:" Even hot into cold."
,k42a_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."
,k42a_15:" The reference being to a cup, not a bath, as stated."
,k42a_16:" Surely not, for it is axiomatic that the <i>halachah</i> is always as Beth Hillel."
,k42a_17:" Both agreeing that it is forbidden."
,k42a_18:" Pouring hot water into cold and vice versa. Asheri omits 'about vessels.'"
,k42a_19:" Tosaf. suggests that this may be the identical Baraitha cited above, but that there it was quoted in brief."
,k42a_20:" He assumed that the water is poured on to the inner side of the basin first, which somewhat cools it."
,k42a_21:" I.e., directly into the water."
,k42a_22:" The first means a tightly covered pot."
,k42a_23:" At twilight on Friday."
,k42a_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. "
}

txt:
<p>
it is permitted.<a id="k42a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Shall we say that Samuel agrees with R. Simeon?<a id="k42a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; But surely Samuel said: One may extinguish a lump of fiery metal in the street, that it should not harm the public,<a id="k42a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; but not a burning piece<a id="k42a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; of wood.<a id="k42a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; A Now if you think that he agrees with R. Simeon, even that of wood too [should be permitted]?<a id="k42a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; 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.<a id="k42a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabina said: As a corollary, a thorn in public ground may be carried away in stages of less than four cubits;<a id="k42a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; whilst in a <i>karmelith</i><a id="k42a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; even a great distance too [is permitted).
</p><p>
	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;<a id="k42a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; while Beth Hillel maintain: Both hot into cold and cold into hot are permitted. This applies only to a cup,<a id="k42a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; but in the case of a bath, hot into cold [is permitted], but not cold into hot.<a id="k42a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; But R. Simeon b. Menassia forbids it.<a id="k42a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman said: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Simeon b. Menassia.
</p><p>
	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 <i>halachah</i> is as R. Simeon, can there be no washing in hot water on the Sabbath?<a id="k42a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; 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';<a id="k42a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; but R. Simeon b. Menassia forbids even cold into hot. Shall we say that R. Simeon b. Menassia rules as Beth Shammai?<a id="k42a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; He says thus: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel did not differ in this matter.<a id="k42a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Huna son of R. Joshua said: I saw that Raba was not particular about vessels,<a id="k42a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; since R. Hiyya taught: A person may pour a jug of water into a basin of water, hot into cold or cold into hot.<a id="k42a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Huna to R. Ashi: Perhaps it is different there, because the vessel intervenes?<a id="k42a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; It is stated that he pours it, was his answer.<a id="k42a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; [Thus:] A person may pour a jug of water into a basin of water, both hot into cold and cold into hot.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A STEW POT OR A BOILING POT<a id="k42a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; IS REMOVED SEETHING; [FROM THE FIRE],<a id="k42a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; ONE MUST NOT PUT SPICES THEREIN,<a id="k42a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k42b_1:" Containing a hot stew. The dish or tureen is a 'second vessel', which cannot make the spices boil."
,k42b_2:" Being sharp, they cause the spices to boil."
,k42b_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."
,k42b_4:" The first Tanna permits spices to be put into a 'second vessel', no matter what its contents, whereas R. Judah makes an exception."
,k42b_5:" Thus he refers to a 'first vessel'."
,k42b_6:" Hence it does not boil unless actually on the fire."
,k42b_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."
,k42b_8:" Lit.,'while it is yet day.'"
,k42b_9:" I.e., use the oil which drops therein."
,k42b_10:" V.<a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k42b_11:" When she lays them on sloping ground; the vessel is to prevent them from rolling down the incline and breaking."
,k42b_12:" To move a vessel for the sake of an object that may not be handled, as the egg in question."
,k42b_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."
,k42b_14:" Viz., to save them from rolling down the slope."
,k42b_15:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> The reference is to oil or wine."
,k42b_16:" Though <i>tebel</i> 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. "
}

txt:
<p>
BUT ONE MAY PUT [SPICES] INTO A DISH OR A TUREEN.<a id="k42b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; R. JUDAH SAID: HE MAY PUT [SPICES] INTO ANYTHING EXCEPT WHAT CONTAINS VINEGAR OR BRINE.<a id="k42b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. The scholars propounded: Does R. Judah refer to the first clause, and [he rules] in the direction of leniency;<a id="k42b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; or perhaps he refers to the second clause, [inclining] to stringency?<a id="k42b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; 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.<a id="k42b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	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.<a id="k42b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. ONE MAY NOT PLACE A VESSEL UNDER A LAMP TO CATCH THE OIL.<a id="k42b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT IF IT IS PLACED THERE BEFORE SUNSET,<a id="k42b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; IT IS PERMITTED. YET ONE MAY NOT BENEFIT FROM IT,<a id="k42b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; BECAUSE IT IS NOT OF MUKAN.<a id="k42b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Hisda said: Though they [the Sages] ruled, A vessel may not be placed under a fowl to receive its eggs,<a id="k42b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; yet a vessel may be overturned upon it [the egg] that it should not be broken. Said Rabbah, What is R. Hisda's reason? &mdash; 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] permitted<a id="k42b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; in a common [case of] saving,<a id="k42b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; but in an uncommon [case of] saving they did not permit.<a id="k42b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; 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 <i>tebel</i><a id="k42b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; burst on the top of his roof, he may bring a vessel and place it beneath it.<a id="k42b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; The reference is to new jars, which frequently burst.
</p><p>
	He raised an objection: A vessel may be placed under a lamp to catch the sparks? &mdash; Sparks too are common.
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k43a_1:" I.e., the longsides of bedsteads."
,k43a_2:" V. p. 196, n. 5."
,k43a_3:" <i>Tebel</i> 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."
,k43a_4:" On the Sabbath, by separating the tithes."
,k43a_5:" Consequently the vessel into which they fall may be handled."
,k43a_6:" Though it is then impossible to remove them for general use."
,k43a_7:" The bench, etc., is not planted there firmly."
,k43a_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."
,k43a_9:" Into or from the hen-coop."
,k43a_10:" I.e., mukzeh q.v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k43a_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."
,k43a_12:" Which excludes an egg laid on the Sabbath."
,k43a_13:" In every case there the article itself for which the utensil is taken may not be handled."
,k43a_14:" A utensil may be moved when its place is required, and when so moved it may be utilized for the purposes enumerated above,"
,k43a_15:" E.g., the neck of a bottle."
,k43a_16:" The egg did not actually support the bed, but was placed near it for magical purposes; v. A. Marmorstein, <I>MGWJ</I>. 72. 1928, pp. 391-395."
,k43a_17:" Stones, being unfit for use, may not be handled."
,k43a_18:" Though the hives themselves may not be handled."
,k43a_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. "
}

txt:
<p>
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?<a id="k43a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; 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? &mdash; This refers to new houses, where leaking is common.
</p><p>
	R. Joseph said: This is R. Hisda's reason, [viz.,] because he deprives the vessel of its readiness [for use].<a id="k43a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye objected to him: if a barrel [of <i>tebel</i>] is broken, another vessel may be brought and placed under it?<a id="k43a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; <I>Tebel</I> is ready [for use] in respect to the Sabbath, replied he, for if he transgresses and prepares it,<a id="k43a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; it is prepared. [Another objection:] A vessel may be placed under a lamp to catch the sparks? &mdash; Said R. Huna son of R. Joshua: Sparks are intangible.<a id="k43a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [Another objection:] And likewise, if a beam is broken, it may be supported by a bench or bed-staves?<a id="k43a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; That means that it is loose,<a id="k43a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; So that, if he desires, he can remove it. [Another objection:] A vessel may be placed under drippings on the Sabbath?<a id="k43a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; 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?<a id="k43a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; He holds that it [the basket] may [still] be moved. But it was taught, It may not be moved? &mdash; 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? &mdash; Said R. Abbahu: That means that they were upon it throughout the period of twilight; since It was forbidden to handle<a id="k43a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; at twilight, it remains so forbidden for the whole day.<a id="k43a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	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.<a id="k43a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; All the foregoing objections were raised;<a id="k43a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and he answered, It means that its place is required.<a id="k43a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Come and hear: An egg laid on the Sabbath or an egg laid on a Festival may not be moved, neither for covering a vessel<a id="k43a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; nor for supporting the legs of a bed therewith;<a id="k43a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; but a vessel may be turned over it, that it [the egg] should not be broken? &mdash; Here too it means that its place is required.
</p><p>
	Come and hear: Mats may be spread over stones on the Sabbath?<a id="k43a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; The reference is to smoothly rounded stones, which are fit [for use] in a privy.
</p><p>
	Come and hear: Mats may be spread on the Sabbath upon bricks which were left over from a building? &mdash; That is because they are fit for reclining [thereon].
</p><p>
	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]?<a id="k43a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; The circumstances are that they contain honey. Said R. 'Ukba of Mesene<a id="k43a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; to R. Ashi: That is correct of summer,
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k43b_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."
,k43b_2:" Of honey, left in the honeycomb for the bees themselves."
,k43b_3:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> Having been set apart for the bees, they may not be handled."
,k43b_4:" For food, before the Sabbath."
,k43b_5:" Assuming that the reference 'is to one who designated the two loaves, who is the author of this Baraitha?"
,k43b_6:" Since the covering blocks the bees' exit, he does in fact capture them, not- withstanding his lack of intention."
,k43b_7:" Lit., 'space'"
,k43b_8:" In reply to the objection from the last cited Baraitha."
,k43b_9:" The first and seventh months of the Jewish year, corresponding roughly to mid-March-April and mid-September-October."
,k43b_10:" The sun having heated the pavement."
,k43b_11:" The prohibitions of carrying from domain to domain (v. <i>supra</i> 2a, 6a) must of course not be violated."
,k43b_12:" Thus the awning is not made for the dead, but for the sake of the living. This is a legal fiction."
,k43b_13:" Until it reaches the shade."
,k43b_14:" Cf. <i>supra</i> 30b; <i>infra</i> 142b."
,k43b_15:" Moving indirectly, by changing over from bier to bier, is nevertheless moving, and forbidden."
,k43b_16:" On the Sabbath, because it must not be handled."
,k43b_17:" And consequently the point at issue is whether the dead may be rescued directly. "
}

txt:
<p>
when there is honey; but what can be said of winter, when it does not contain honey?<a id="k43b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; It is in respect of two loaves.<a id="k43b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; But they are mukzeh?<a id="k43b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; It means that he designated them.<a id="k43b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; 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? &mdash; 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?<a id="k43b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; 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], &mdash; [surely he holds that] an unintentional act is forbidden?<a id="k43b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; 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 opening<a id="k43b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; so that they [the bees] should not be automatically caught.
</p><p>
	R. Ashi said:<a id="k43b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; 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,<a id="k43b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; when there is sun, rain, and honey.
</p><p>
	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,<a id="k43b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; each brings a couch and sits upon it.<a id="k43b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.<a id="k43b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was stated: If a corpse is lying in the sun, &mdash; Rab Judah maintained in Samuel's name: It may be changed over from bier to bier.<a id="k43b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hanina said on Rab's authority: A loaf or a child is placed upon it,<a id="k43b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is moved away. Now, if a loaf or a child is available, all agree that that is permitted. When do they differ? &mdash; When they are not available: one Master holds, Sidelong moving is designated moving;<a id="k43b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; while the other Master holds, Sidelong moving is not designated moving.
</p><p>
	Shall we say that this is dependent on Tannaim? A corpse may not be rescued from a conflagration.<a id="k43b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; 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,<a id="k43b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; 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? &mdash; 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,
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k44a_1:" Yet he may not permit it when the corpse is lying in the sun."
,k44a_2:" I.e., one which has never been used."
,k44a_3:" Once used it is mukzeh (q. v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) on account of its repulsiveness, which this Tanna holds is forbidden."
,k44a_4:" The reference is to an earthenware lamp."
,k44a_5:" <i>Var. lec</i>.: on that Sabbath."
,k44a_6:" The three used as lamps. For the various types of lamps and their descriptions v. T.A. I, 68 seq."
,k44a_7:" Thinking, the oil will not last long, and when it goes out I will use the lamp."
,k44a_8:" I.e., small."
,k44a_9:" Large."
,k44a_10:" [H]: 'a shaft with a receptacle for a lamp, a plain candlestick', Jast. Rashi: a metal candlestick."
,k44a_11:" Jast. reads: a shaft on which a lamp was lit etc. V. also) T.A. I, p. 70 and n. 234."
,k44a_12:" R. Meir."
,k44a_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."
,k44a_14:" R. Judah: the reference is to an old lamp, which is mukzeh on account of repulsiveness."
,k44a_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."
,k44a_16:" <i>Var. lec</i>.: on that Sabbath."
,k44a_17:" V. P. 202, n. 7. Here this is the reading of cur. edd."
,k44a_18:" Mere designation renders it forbidden, even if money was not actually placed there. "
}

txt:
<p>
if you do not permit [it] to him, he will come to extinguish [the fire].<a id="k44a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Judah b. Shila said in the name of R. Assi in R. Johanan's name: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Judah b. Lakish in the matter of the corpse.
</p><p>
	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].
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A NEW LAMP<a id="k44a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; MAY BE HANDLED, BUT NOT AN OLD ONE.<a id="k44a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; R. SIMEON MAINTAINED: ALL LAMPS MAY BE HANDLED, EXCEPT A LAMP [ACTUALLY] BURNING ON THE SABBATH.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Our Rabbis taught: A new lamp<a id="k44a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; 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;<a id="k44a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon said: Except a lamp burning on the Sabbath; if it is extinguished, it may be moved; but a cup, dish or glass lantern<a id="k44a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.
</p><p>
	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? &mdash; Said 'Ulla: This last clause follows R. Judah. Mar Zutra demurred to this: If so, why 'but'? &mdash; 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;<a id="k44a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; 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]? &mdash; There the dish is similar to the lamp:<a id="k44a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; here the dish is similar to the cup.<a id="k44a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Zera said: A shaft<a id="k44a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; in which [a lamp] was lit on [that] Sabbath,<a id="k44a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; in the view of him who permits [an earthen lamp],<a id="k44a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; this is prohibited;<a id="k44a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; in the view of him who forbids [an earthen lamp],<a id="k44a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; this is permitted.<a id="k44a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	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?<a id="k44a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; But if stated, it was thus stated: R. Zera said: A shaft on which a lamp was lit<a id="k44a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in Rab's name: If a bed is designated for money, it may not be moved.<a id="k44a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman b. Isaac objected: A NEW LAMP MAY BE HANDLED, BUT NOT AN OLD ONE.
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k44b_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."
,k44b_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."
,k44b_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."
,k44b_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. "
}

txt:
<p>
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,<a id="k44b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.<a id="k44b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	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.<a id="k44b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence if there is no money upon it [now] it is permitted, though it was there at twilight? &mdash; That is according to R. Simeon, who rejects [the law of] mukzeh,<a id="k44b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas Rab agrees with R. Judah.
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k45a_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."
,k45a_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."
,k45a_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."
,k45a_4:" None at all. Hence he must hold as R. Judah."
,k45a_5:" After it has been extinguished."
,k45a_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 (<i>supra</i> 21b), would have to be hidden on the approach of a Parsee."
,k45a_7:" This does not agree with R. Judah."
,k45a_8:" May they be removed on the Sabbath for use, before the wheat has taken root or the egg become addled?"
,k45a_9:" As here. When one sows wheat in the soil or places an egg under a fowl, he rejects it for the time being."
,k45a_10:" I.e., for the Sabbath lamp."
,k45a_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."
,k45a_12:" Viz., that that alone suffices to render it forbidden."
,k45a_13:" V. <i>supra</i> 22a for notes. Thus we see that mere setting apart for the fulfilment of a precept casts an interdict."
,k45a_14:" The reference is not to a <i>sukkah</i> (q.v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) 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."
,k45a_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."
,k45a_16:" Because he rejects the prohibition of mukzeh,"
,k45a_17:" 'The Festival' without a determinant always means Tabernacles."
,k45a_18:" if the <i>sukkah</i> collapses, its wood must not be used during the whole seven days of the Festival, as it had been set aside for the precept."
,k45a_19:" Thus we see that the previous Baraitha does agree with R. Simeon!"
,k45a_20:" I.e., the former alone imposes the interdict."
,k45a_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."
,k45a_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."
,k45a_23:" Though they are fit during the process of drying."
,k45a_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."
,k45a_25:" Proving that he admits mukzeh in other cases too, "
}

txt:
<p>
Logic too avers that Rab agrees with R. Judah. For Rab said: A lamp may be placed on a palm tree for the Sabbath,<a id="k45a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; but not on a Festival.<a id="k45a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, it is well if you admit that Rab holds as R. Judah: hence he draws a distinction between the Sabbath and Festivals.<a id="k45a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; But if you say that he holds as R. Simeon, what is the difference between the Sabbath and Festivals?<a id="k45a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But does Rab hold as R. Judah? Surely Rab was asked: Is it permitted to move the Hanukkah lamp<a id="k45a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; on account of the Guebres on the Sabbath?<a id="k45a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and he answered them, It is well.<a id="k45a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; 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.
</p><p>
	Resh Lakish asked R. Johanan: What of wheat sown in the earth or eggs under a fowl?<a id="k45a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; 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,<a id="k45a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; he accepts [the interdict of] mukzeh: or perhaps there is no difference? &mdash; 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,<a id="k45a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and set apart on account of its prohibition.<a id="k45a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; But does he not [accept it where] it [only] was set apart for its precept?<a id="k45a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.<a id="k45a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; 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,<a id="k45a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; save from what is near it;<a id="k45a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; but R. Simeon permits it.<a id="k45a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Yet both agree in respect to the <i>sukkah</i> of the Festival<a id="k45a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; that it is forbidden on the Festival;<a id="k45a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; yet if he [the owner) stipulated concerning it, it all depends on his stipulation!<a id="k45a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; We mean, similar to the oil in the lamp: since it was set apart for its precept, it was set apart for its interdict.<a id="k45a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: In R. Simeon's view mukzeh applies only to drying figs and grapes.<a id="k45a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.<a id="k45a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; And you must say the same of peaches, quinces, and other kinds of fruit.<a id="k45a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; 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!<a id="k45a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence it must surely be R. Simeon?<a id="k45a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; 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.
</p><p>
	R. Simeon b. Rabbi asked Rabbi:
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k45b_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."
,k45b_2:" It is now assumed that Rabbi was asked about R. Simeon's view because it is his own too."
,k45b_3:" On Festivals. The animals were first watered, to make it easier to flay them."
,k45b_4:" Which takes place in Marheshwan: thus they spend about eight months in the commons beyond the town limits."
,k45b_5:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k45b_6:" Outside the town limits."
,k45b_7:" Lit., 'inhabited territory'."
,k45b_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."
,k45b_9:" Rabbi, in his reply to his son Simeon."
,k45b_10:" Rabbi, in the last cited Baraitha."
,k45b_11:" So that pasture animals, however defined, are permitted."
,k45b_12:" On this passage see Bezah, Sonc. ed., p. 202f notes."
,k45b_13:" The scholars of the Academy."
,k45b_14:" I.e., it is mukzeh, and forbidden. Thus he does not rule as R. Simeon."
,k45b_15:" Hence it may not be handled, even according to R. Simeon."
,k45b_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."
,k45b_17:" Laid that day. It is then nolad (newly created), which R. Simeon admits is forbidden."
,k45b_18:" I.e., upon which the fowl is brooding. This is quite unfit and the nest may not be handled on all views."
,k45b_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."
,k45b_20:" Even before you heard it from R. Isaac."
,k45b_21:" A harbour of the Mediterranean sea on the coast of Palestine."
,k45b_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."
,k45b_23:" That a candelabrum which requires both hands for lifting may not be moved."
,k45b_24:" Without an overhead awning. V. also T.A. III, 42f, ¤ 122. "
}<

txt:
<p>
What of unripe dates<a id="k45b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; according to R. Simeon? Said he to him: R. Simeon holds that mukzeh applies only to drying figs and raisins.
</p><p>
	But does not Rabbi accept mukzeh?<a id="k45b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely we learnt: Pasture animals may not be watered and killed,<a id="k45b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; 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;<a id="k45b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; home animals: those that go out and graze beyond the tehum and re-enter and spend the night within the tehum.<a id="k45b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbi said: Both of these are home animals; but the following are pasture animals: those that graze in the meadow<a id="k45b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and do not enter the town limits<a id="k45b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; either in summer or in winter.<a id="k45b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; If you wish I can answer: these too are like drying figs and raisins. Alternatively, he<a id="k45b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; answered according to R. Simeon's view, which he himself does not accept. Another alternative: he<a id="k45b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; speaks according to the view of the Rabbis. As for me, I do not accept mukzeh at all;<a id="k45b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.<a id="k45b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: They<a id="k45b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; ruled: The <i>halachah</i> 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?<a id="k45b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Here the circumstances are that it contains a dead bird.<a id="k45b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; 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;<a id="k45b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; 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? &mdash; The reference here is to one [sc. a hen coop] that contains an egg.<a id="k45b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; But R. Nahman said: He who accepts [the prohibition of] mukzeh accepts [that of] nolad; he who rejects mukzeh, rejects nolad? &mdash; That is when it contains the egg of a fledgling.<a id="k45b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	When R. Isaac son of R. Joseph came,<a id="k45b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; he said in the name of R. Johanan The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Judah: while R. Joshua b. Levi said: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Simeon. R. Joseph observed: Hence Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name, They said, The <i>halachah</i> 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?<a id="k45b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely R. Abba and R. Assi visited R. Abba of Haifa,<a id="k45b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; 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? &mdash; 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.<a id="k45b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; And what is the reason?<a id="k45b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Rabbah and R. Joseph both say: Because one appoints a place for it. Said Abaye to R. Joseph, But what of a bridal couch<a id="k45b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; for which [too] one appoints a place, yet Samuel said on R. Hiyya's authority: A bridal couch
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k46a_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."
,k46a_2:" it may not be handled lest it fall to pieces and be put together again, which is tantamount to making a utensil."
,k46a_3:" It is all fastened in one piece, but by means of grooves it looks like being moveably jointed."
,k46a_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."
,k46a_5:" Likewise lest it be confused with a jointed candelabrum."
,k46a_6:" Since a small one is not generally jointed."
,k46a_7:" That the <i>halachah</i> is as R. Judah."
,k46a_8:" If a Mishnah bears no name it represents the final decision of Rabbi and his colleagues."
,k46a_9:" V. p. 203, n. 6."
,k46a_10:" Which renders it mukzeh."
,k46a_11:" Lit., 'let our Mishnah be.' I.e., the Mishnah, Kel. XVIII, 2."
,k46a_12:" Lit.,'break'."
,k46a_13:" Probably Diosopolis = Lydda (Jast.),"
,k46a_14:" Menorah is a branched candlestick; ner a single lamp."
,k46a_15:" The exact version of R. Joshua's statement is in doubt."
,k46a_16:" That had gone out."
,k46a_17:" Because it is not repulsive."
,k46a_18:" Even R. Simeon agrees, because of its unpleasant odour it cannot be used for anything save its purpose."
,k46a_19:" Its unpleasant odour does not make it repulsive, whilst at the same time it is fit for covering a utensil. "
}

txt:
<p>
may be set up and dismantled on the Sabbath?<a id="k46a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather, said Abaye: [it refers to a candelabrum] of [movable] joints.<a id="k46a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.<a id="k46a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; 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;<a id="k46a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; where do they differ? in respect to a small grooved one: one Master holds, We forbid it as a preventive measure;<a id="k46a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; while the other Master holds, We do not forbid it thus.<a id="k46a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But did R. Johanan rule thus?<a id="k46a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely R. Johanan said: The <i>halachah</i> is [always] as an anonymous Mishnah,<a id="k46a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.<a id="k46a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence if there is no money upon it, it is permitted, though it was upon it at twilight?<a id="k46a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said. R. Zera: Interpret our Mishnah as meaning<a id="k46a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; that there was no money upon it during the whole of twilight, so as not to overthrow<a id="k46a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan's words.
</p><p>
	R. Joshua b. Levi said: Rabbi once went to Diospera<a id="k46a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and gave a practical ruling in respect to a candelabrum as R. Simeon's view in respect to a lamp.<a id="k46a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; 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?<a id="k46a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; The question stands over.
</p><p>
	R. Malkia visited R. Simlai's home and moved a lamp,<a id="k46a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; 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? &mdash;  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;<a id="k46a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; a naphtha lamp may not be handled.<a id="k46a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbah and R. Joseph both maintain: A naphtha [lamp] too may be handled.<a id="k46a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	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? &mdash; 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? &mdash; 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:
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k46b_1:" Though a woman may not wear them in the street; v. <i>infra</i> 59b and M.K. 12b."
,k46b_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."
,k46b_3:" To save the oil. Hence R. Simeon holds that it is not really mukzeh."
,k46b_4:" Surely not! In fact, he does hope, but without expecting it, whereas one does expect a lamp to go out."
,k46b_5:" For a temporary blemish does not permit the animal to be slaughtered."
,k46b_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?"
,k46b_7:" A husband can annul his wife's vows, or a father his daughter's."
,k46b_8:" To a scholar."
,k46b_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."
,k46b_10:" Hence she relies that her husband will annul it as soon as he is cognizant of it and the object was never mukzeh."
,k46b_11:" In the case of the blemish of a firstling."
,k46b_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."
,k46b_13:" By lifting it up he may create a draught."
,k46b_14:" Extinguishing a light is Scripturally forbidden."
,k46b_15:" E.g., indirectly making a rut by dragging a heavy article over the floor."
,k46b_16:" V. <i>supra</i> 29b. "
}

txt:
<p>
Bracelets, ear-rings and [finger]rings are like all utensils which may be handled in a yard.<a id="k46b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.
</p><p>
	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!<a id="k46b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; How compare! There, a man sits and hopes, When will his lamp go out!<a id="k46b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; But here, does a man sit and hope, When will it receive a blemish?<a id="k46b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [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?<a id="k46b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; And even if you say that it will be a permanent blemish, who can say that a scholar will oblige him?<a id="k46b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rami b. Hama objected: Vows can be annulled on the Sabbath,<a id="k46b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and one may apply<a id="k46b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; 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?<a id="k46b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; 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.<a id="k46b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	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? &mdash; There, if a Sage will not oblige, three laymen suffice; but here,<a id="k46b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; who can say that a Sage will oblige him?<a id="k46b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	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?<a id="k46b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; 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! &mdash; Wherever there is a Scriptural interdict if it is intentional,<a id="k46b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon forbids it by Rabbinical law even if unintentional; but wherever there is [only] a Rabbinical interdict even if it is intentional,<a id="k46b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon permits it at the outset if unintentional.
</p><p>
	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.<a id="k46b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Now here, though it is Scripturally intentional, yet if unintentional R. Simeon permits it at the outset? &mdash; Rather said Raba,
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k48a_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."
,k48a_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."
,k48a_3:" The pitcher contained cold water, and the kettle was hot."
,k48a_4:" Which is permissible; 51b."
,k48a_5:" For the upper boiler too is filled with hot water."
,k48a_6:" The kettle below heats the cold water in the pitcher."
,k48a_7:" Natla is a ladle or a small vessel for taking liquid out of a large vessel."
,k48a_8:" Lit., 'you see now'."
,k48a_9:" This is forbidden on the Sabbath."
,k48a_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?"
,k48a_11:" He does not mind if the rag remains wet."
,k48a_12:" Hence he is likely to wring it."
,k48a_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."
,k48a_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."
,k48a_15:" [H] 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."
,k48a_16:" In their present state they cannot be used, hence they certainly do not rank as 'utensils'."
,k48a_17:" So that they are utensils."
,k48a_18:" When it is returned by the launderer, who generally tied the neck up."
,k48a_19:" The first time after it is sewn. This opening makes it fit for wear and thus finishes its work."
,k48a_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."
,k48a_21:" V. n. 1. "
}

txt:
<p>
causing heat to ascend,<a id="k48a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [peat] of olives causes heat to ascend, but not [peat] of poppy seed.
</p><p>
	Rabbah and R. Zera visited the Resh Galutha,<a id="k48a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and saw a slave place a pitcher of water on the mouth of a kettle.<a id="k48a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Thereupon Rabbah rebuked him. Said R. Zera to him: Wherein does it differ from a boiler [placed] upon a boiler?<a id="k48a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; There he [merely] preserves [the heat],<a id="k48a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; he replied, whereas here he creates it.<a id="k48a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Then he saw him spread a turban over the mouth of a cask and place a cup<a id="k48a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; upon it. Thereupon Rabbah rebuked him. Said R. Zera to him: Why? You will soon see,<a id="k48a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; said he. Subsequently he saw him [the servant] wringing it out.<a id="k48a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Wherein does this differ from [covering a cask with] a rag?<a id="k48a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; he asked him. There one is not particular about it;<a id="k48a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; here he is particular about it.<a id="k48a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[NOR WITH] STRAW. R. Adda b. Mattenah asked Abaye: Is it permissible to handle flocking in which one stored [food]?<a id="k48a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Said he to him: Because he lacks a bundle of straw, does he arise and renounce a bundle of soft flocking?<a id="k48a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash;  Shall we say that the following supports him: We may store [food] in wool clip, hatchelled wool, strips of purple [wool],<a id="k48a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and flocking, but they may not be handled? &mdash; 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?<a id="k48a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; You might say, They are fit for reclining:<a id="k48a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; hence we are told [otherwise].
</p><p>
	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,<a id="k48a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; but may not be opened;<a id="k48a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; nor may flocking be put into a pillow or a bolster on a Festival, and on the Sabbath it goes without saying? &mdash; There is no difficulty: one refers to new ones, the other to old ones.<a id="k48a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in Rab's name: One who opens the neck [of a shirt] on the Sabbath incurs a sin-offering.<a id="k48a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Kahana objected:
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k48b_1:" Which according to the Rabbis <i>infra</i> 146a, may be pierced on the Sabbath."
,k48b_2:" Of linen; they used to sew articles of washing loosely together, to prevent loss."
,k48b_3:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k48b_4:" If one part becomes unclean, the others are likewise, though they are sure to be untied at a later stage."
,k48b_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."
,k48b_6:" That the pieces remain together until required."
,k48b_7:" Without having to search for the pieces."
,k48b_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."
,k48b_9:" If these receptacles, having been defiled through the stove, came into contact with <i>terumah</i> 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."
,k48b_10:" Lit., 'joints'"
,k48b_11:" If one part becomes unclean the other is too."
,k48b_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. "
}

txt:
<p>
What is the difference between this and the bung of a barrel?<a id="k48b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Said Raba to him: The one is an integral part thereof, whereas the other is not.
</p><p>
	R. Jeremiah pointed out a contradiction to R. Zera. We learnt: The fuller's loosely stitched bundle,<a id="k48b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; or a bunch of keys, or a garment stitched together with kil'ayim thread<a id="k48b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; are counted as connected in respect of uncleanness,<a id="k48b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; until one begins to undo them. This proves that they are [regarded as] joined even not at the time of work.<a id="k48b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; 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? &mdash; 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]<a id="k48b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; even not at the time of work, so that if they are soiled he can rewash them.<a id="k48b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	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? &mdash; 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.<a id="k48b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, as for R. Simeon, it is well: he holds that they are not as the stove. But according to R. Meir, &mdash; 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? &mdash; The Rabbis made a distinction, so that people might not come to burn <i>terumah</i> and holy food on account of them.<a id="k48b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: A shears of separate blades<a id="k48b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and the cutter of a [carpenter's] plane are [counted as] connected in respect of uncleanness,<a id="k48b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; but not in respect of sprinkling.<a id="k48b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; 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? &mdash; 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,
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k49a_1:" That both limbs should count as one."
,k49a_2:" To prevent laxity in the latter case,"
,k49a_3:" That they should not count as one."
,k49a_4:" Lit., 'through themselves or through something else'. The former throws out more heat."
,k49a_5:" Of a living animal: this contains its own moisture."
,k49a_6:" Lit., 'raiment'."
,k49a_7:" E.g., corn or pulse."
,k49a_8:" Or, shavings."
,k49a_9:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k49a_10:" Phylacteries used to be worn all day."
,k49a_11:" V. <i>infra</i> 130a."
,k49a_12:" Ps. LXVIII, 14."
,k49a_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."
,k49a_14:" Which may not be used; <i>supra</i> 47b."
,k49a_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."
,k49a_16:" Because they are mukzeh, being set aside to be woven and spun."
,k49a_17:" Containing the pot and the shearings,"
,k49a_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."
,k49a_19:" This is discussed in the Gemara."
,k49a_20:" He has to sell, and is therefore particular not to spoil them. This may render them mukzeh. "
}

txt:
<p>
But the Rabbis imposed a preventive measure in respect of defilement, when they are not in use,<a id="k49a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; on account of defilement when they are in use;<a id="k49a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and in respect of sprinkling, when they are in use,<a id="k49a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; on account of when they are not in use.
</p><p>
	WHEN THEY ARE MOIST. The Scholars propounded: Naturally moist, or artificially moist?<a id="k49a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Come and hear: [WE MAY NOT STORE&nbsp;&hellip;] 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? &mdash; [It is possible] in the case of wool plucked from between the flanks.<a id="k49a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; And as to what R. Oshaia taught: We may store [food] in a dry cloth<a id="k49a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and in dry produce, but not in a damp cloth or moist produce, &mdash; how is naturally damp cloth possible? &mdash; In the case of- wool plucked from between the flanks.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. WE MAY STORE [FOOD] IN, GARMENTS, PRODUCE,<a id="k49a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; DOVES' WINGS, CARPENTERS' SAWDUST<a id="k49a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THOROUGHLY BEATEN HATCHELLED FLAX. R. JUDAH FORBIDS [STORING] IN FINE, BUT PERMITS [IT] IN COARSE [BEATEN FLAX].
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Jannai said: Tefillin<a id="k49a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; demand a pure body, like Elisha, the man of wings. What does this mean? &mdash; Abaye said: That one must not pass wind while wearing them; Raba said: That one must not sleep in them.<a id="k49a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; 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;<a id="k49a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; 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:<a id="k49a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; just as a dove is protected by its wings, so is Israel protected by the precepts.<a id="k49a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	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.<a id="k49a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; This proves that he refers to hatchelled flax. This proves it.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. WE MAY STORE [FOOD] IN FRESH HIDES, AND THEY MAY BE HANDLED;<a id="k49a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; IN WOOL SHEARINGS, BUT THEY MAY NOT BE HANDLED.<a id="k49a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; 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 BASKET<a id="k49a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; IS LIFTED ON ONE SIDE AND [THE FOOD] IS REMOVED, LEST ONE LIFT [THE LID OF THE POT] AND BE UNABLE TO REPLACE IT.<a id="k49a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT THE SAGES SAY: ONE MAY TAKE AND REPLACE [IT].<a id="k49a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. 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 them<a id="k49a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; may not be handled; or perhaps, we learnt about those of an artisan, and all the more so those of a private individual? &mdash; 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:
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k49b_1:" This shows that he was not particular."
,k49b_2:" This shows that an artisan is particular."
,k49b_3:" Tanned hides are subject to the laws of defilement; untanned hides are not."
,k49b_4:" In whose case no distinction can be drawn between tanned and untanned skins save in respect of defilement."
,k49b_5:" The Rabbis maintained above."
,k49b_6:" Forbidden on the Sabbath; for aboth, lit., 'fathers', v. <i>supra</i> 2b."
,k49b_7:" On what basis are they selected?"
,k49b_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."
,k49b_9:" Lit., 'forty times minus one'."
,k49b_10:" Gen. XXXIX, 11"
,k49b_11:" Rashi conjectures that the reference may be to the <i>waw</i> (u) of gahown (iujd); v. Kid, 30a."
,k49b_12:" E.V. 'stuff'."
,k49b_13:" Ex. XXXVI, 7."
,k49b_14:" 'And he went into the house to do his work',"
,k49b_15:" A euphemism for adultery; v. Sot. 36b. In that case melakto (his work) does not connote actual work, and is not included."
,k49b_16:" They had brought all the materials required. On this supposition the verse is translated as in the E.V."
,k49b_17:" Certain vegetables had to be sown and reaped to provide dyes for the hangings."
,k49b_18:" The ground was a public domain, while the waggon was a private domain."
,k49b_19:" I.e., who had come to the college for the first time that day. V. Hag. 5b. "
}

txt:
<p>
My father was a hide worker, and he would say: Fetch hides and that we may sit on them.<a id="k49b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	An objection is raised: Boards belonging to a householder may be handled; those of an artisan may not be handled;<a id="k49b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; but if one intended to place bread upon them for guests, in both cases they may be handled? &mdash; Boards are different, for one is [certainly] particular about them.
</p><p>
	Come and hear: Hides, whether tanned or not, may be.handled on the Sabbath, 'tanned' being specified only in respect to uncleanness.<a id="k49b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Now surely, no distinction is drawn whether they belong to a householder or an artisan? &mdash; 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? &mdash; The whole deals with those of a householder.<a id="k49b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	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.
</p><p>
	Again they<a id="k49b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; sat and pondered: Regarding what we learnt, The principal categories of labour<a id="k49b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; are forty less one, &mdash; to what do they correspond?<a id="k49b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Said R. Hanina b. Hama to them: To the forms of labour in the Tabernacle.<a id="k49b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.<a id="k49b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph asked: Is 'and he went into the house to do his work'<a id="k49b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; included in this number, or not? &mdash; 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?<a id="k49b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; The reason that I am doubtful, replied he, is because it is written, for the work<a id="k49b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; they had was sufficient:<a id="k49b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; is that of the number, while this<a id="k49b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; is [to be interpreted] in accordance with the view that he entered to perform his business;<a id="k49b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; 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?<a id="k49b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; The question stands over.
</p><p>
	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;<a id="k49b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; they lifted up the boards from the ground  to the waggon,<a id="k49b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; 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 &mdash; others say, R. Adda b. Ahabah: It means from one private to another private domain via public ground.
</p><p>
	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 standing<a id="k49b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; refuted Raba: WE MAY STORE [FOOD] [H] IN WOOL SHEARINGS, BUT THEY MAY NOT BE HANDLED. WHAT THEN IS DONE?
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k50a_1:" This proves that even when food was stored in the shearings on that day, they may not be handled."
,k50a_2:" V. p. 12, n. 9."
,k50a_3:" So Rashi."
,k50a_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."
,k50a_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. &mdash; 'Intended' means that this was verbally stated, and not mental."
,k50a_6:" Before the Sabbath."
,k50a_7:" He may handle and use them as a seat on the Sabbath."
,k50a_8:" Both used as a dressing for a wound. Tosaf. translates a wig."
,k50a_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."
,k50a_10:" Lit., 'one hour'."
,k50a_11:" Lit., 'while yet daytime'-i.e., before the Sabbath."
,k50a_12:" The principle is the same as in R. Assi's ruling."
,k50a_13:" Generally speaking, straw is meant for fuel or brickmaking, and is therefore <i>mukzeh</i>. 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 he may do so with his body, because that is an unusual manner (v. p. 201, n. 1 and p. 115, n. 7)."
,k50a_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."
,k50a_15:" Here too the principle is the same as in R. Assi's ruling."
,k50a_16:" V. P. 12, n. 9,"
,k50a_17:" To sit upon them on the Sabbath."
,k50a_18:" This is Ze'iri's comment."
,k50a_19:" Lit., 'troubled'. For that reason mere intention was sufficient."
,k50a_20:" On the Sabbath or Festivals. This must be done before the Sabbath or Festivals."
,k50a_21:" Which renders it prepared (mukan) for these purposes."
,k50a_22:" The equivalent of tying the branches."
,k50a_23:" Lit., 'for something that can be the subject of an act'."
,k50a_24:" Nothing can be done to the earth to show that it is meant for a particular purpose."
,k50a_25:" Lit., 'rubbed'."
,k50a_26:" On the Sabbath."
,k50a_27:" A kind of chalk. Rashi: [H] 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."
,k50a_28:" V. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 330, n. 5."
,k50a_29:" To show its purpose, and since such is impossible, they are forbidden, but not because there is anything objectionable in them per se."
,k50a_30:" <i>Supra</i>, 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."
,k50a_31:" Because it pulls hair out. "
}

txt:
<p>
THE LID [OF THE POT] IS LIFTED, AND THEY [THE SHEARINGS] FALL OFF OF THEIR OWN ACCORD.<a id="k50a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; 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,<a id="k50a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; 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]<a id="k50a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.<a id="k50a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.
</p><p>
	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;<a id="k50a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: He need not tie them together. He recited it and he stated it: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Simeon b. Gamaliel.
</p><p>
	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,<a id="k50a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; though he had neither tied nor intended them [for sitting, it is well].<a id="k50a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; 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? &mdash; 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,<a id="k50a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; if he had dipped them [in oil]<a id="k50a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; 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 moment<a id="k50a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; before nightfall,<a id="k50a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; even if he had not dipped or tied them with a cord, he may go out with them [on the Sabbath].<a id="k50a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	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;<a id="k50a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; but if it is fodder for animals, or a pillow or a sheet was upon it before nightfall,<a id="k50a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; he may move it with his hand.<a id="k50a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And which Tanna disagrees with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel? R. Hanina b. Akiba. For when R. Dimi came,<a id="k50a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; 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,<a id="k50a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.<a id="k50a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; 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;<a id="k50a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; but elsewhere it must be tied together; but if not, it is not [permitted].
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said: A man may bring a sack full of earth [into the house] and use it for his general needs.<a id="k50a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Mar Zutra lectured in the name of Mar Zutra Rabbah: Providing that he allotted a certain corner to it.<a id="k50a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Said the students before R. Papa: With whom [does this agree]: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel? For if with the Rabbis, &mdash; an act is required!<a id="k50a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; R. Papa answered: You may even say, with the Rabbis. The Rabbis ruled that an act is required only where an act is possible,<a id="k50a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; but not where it is impossible.<a id="k50a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Shall we say that this is disputed by Tannaim? Utensils may be cleaned<a id="k50a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; with anything,<a id="k50a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; save silver vessels with white earth.<a id="k50a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; This [implies] that natron<a id="k50a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; 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,<a id="k50a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.<a id="k50a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.<a id="k50a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather if R. Simeon, surely he permits it? For we learnt:
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k50b_1:" By rubbing it (hafaf denotes to rub) with sand or natron."
,k50b_2:" With his fingers (Jast.). Rashi: he may beat out his hair."
,k50b_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."
,k50b_4:" Lit., 'scrape'."
,k50b_5:" This follows the prohibition of cleansing the hair with natron or sand."
,k50b_6:" None of these three have hair on the face or body."
,k50b_7:" For cleaning the face, even to one who has a beard."
,k50b_8:" To be used as lotion."
,k50b_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."
,k50b_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?"
,k50b_11:" He regarded it as wanton waste."
,k50b_12:" On Sabbath."
,k50b_13:" Which their presence causes him."
,k50b_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!"
,k50b_15:" Prov. XVI, 4."
,k50b_16:" Its walls collapsing."
,k50b_17:" Because we thereby move the shearings."
,k50b_18:" There can be no reason for prohibiting its return."
,k50b_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."
,k50b_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."
,k50b_21:" Before the Sabbath, thus loosening the earth around it."
,k50b_22:" To remove it from the pot and replace it on the Sabbath."
,k50b_23:" Where it was inserted for safety (Rashi)."
,k50b_24:" Cf. n. 3."
,k50b_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. "
}

txt:
<p>
A nazirite may cleanse [his hair]<a id="k50b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and part it,<a id="k50b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; but he must not comb it.<a id="k50b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; 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,<a id="k50b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; 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';<a id="k50b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; but surely it removes the hair? &mdash; If you wish, I can answer that it refers to a child; alternatively, to a woman, another alternative, to a eunuch [by nature].<a id="k50b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said: Powdered brick is permitted.<a id="k50b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph said: Poppy pomace [scented] with jasmine is permitted.<a id="k50b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: Crushed pepper is permitted. R. Shesheth said: Barda is permitted. What is barda? &mdash; 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.<a id="k50b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Shesheth was asked: Is it permissible to bruise olives on the Sabbath?<a id="k50b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; He answered them: Who permitted it then on weekdays? (He holds [that it is forbidden] on account of the destruction of food).<a id="k50b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Shall we say that he disagrees with Samuel; for Samuel said: One may do whatever he desires with bread? &mdash; I will tell you: A loaf [crumbled] is not repulsive, but these are.
</p><p>
	Amemar, Mar Zutra, and R. Ashi were sitting, when barda was brought before them.<a id="k50b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; 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;<a id="k50b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; [but] if in order to beautify himself, it is forbidden.<a id="k50b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; And whose view do they adopt? &mdash; 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.<a id="k50b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	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,<a id="k50b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; we may not replace [the pot].<a id="k50b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; 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?<a id="k50b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; 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;<a id="k50b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; while the other Master holds: We do not fear.
</p><p>
	R. Hana said: With respect to selikustha,<a id="k50b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; if one put it in, drew it out, and put it in again,<a id="k50b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; it is permitted;<a id="k50b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; if not, it is forbidden.
</p><p>
	Samuel said: As regards the knife between the rows of bricks,<a id="k50b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; if one inserted it, withdrew it, and reinserted it,<a id="k50b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; 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.<a id="k50b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; 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
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k52a_1:" Hence even if it is an extra guard it is permitted."
,k52a_2:" Which is fastened to the grooves. But otherwise it is forbidden, because It can easily slip off the head, which is very narrow, and its owner may carry it in the street."
,k52a_3:" Making a circle of the beard and inserting the bit through it."
,k52a_4:" On account of the beard."
,k52a_5:" Hence we may assume that it is safe there, and is permitted."
,k52a_6:" V. <i>infra</i> 54b."
,k52a_7:" Hence he holds that an extra guard is permitted, and this includes the strap between a cow's horns."
,k52a_8:" v. <i>supra</i> 51b."
,k52a_9:" That being forbidden because it is an extra guard. Since Samuel quotes it with evident approval, it is his view too."
,k52a_10:" Because these two statements of Samuel are contradictory."
,k52a_11:" Other edd. omit the bracketed passage, and substitute: What is our decision on the matter? &mdash; It was stated:"
,k52a_12:" Or, the reins."
,k52a_13:" For its purpose; v. Num. XIX, 2 Seq."
,k52a_14:" Num. XIX, 2. A burden is a yoke."
,k52a_15:" The cord or reins are then required as an ordinary, not an additional, guard."
,k52a_16:" According to both answers, what would be an extra guard elsewhere is only an ordinary one here."
,k52a_17:" Even that is permitted."
,k52a_18:" I.e., either that it must be wound round it loosely, so that one can insert his hand between the animal's neck and the chain and grasp it; or that a portion of the cord must be left free, whereby the animal may be led."
,k52a_19:" Lit., 'bit'."
,k52a_20:" V. p. 12, n. 9."
,k52a_21:" V. <i>supra</i> 51b."
,k52a_22:" I.e., it is liable to uncleanness. "
}

txt:
<p>
his mind may be appeased. Said he: An ass of evil habits, such as this one, may it go forth wearing a halter on the Sabbath? &mdash; Thus did your father say in Samuel's name, he answered him, The <i>halachah</i> is as Hananiah.<a id="k52a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The School of Manasseh taught: If grooves are made between a goat's horns, it may be led out with a bit on the Sabbath.<a id="k52a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph asked: What if one fastened it through its beard:<a id="k52a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; since It is painful [to the goat] to tug at it,<a id="k52a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; it will not come to do so;<a id="k52a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; or perhaps it may chance to loosen and fall, and he will come to carry it four cubits in the street? The question stands over.
</p><p>
	We learnt elsewhere: Nor with the strap between its horns.<a id="k52a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jeremiah b. Abba said: Rab and Samuel differ therein: One maintains: Whether as an ornament or as a guard, it is forbidden; while the other rules: As an ornament it is forbidden; as a guard it is permitted. R. Joseph observed: It may be proved that it was Samuel who maintained: As an ornament it is forbidden; as a guard it is permitted. For R. Huna b. Hiyya said in Samuel's name: The <i>halachah</i> is as Hananiah.<a id="k52a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Abaye to him, On the contrary, It may be proved that it was Samuel who maintained: Whether as an ornament or as a guard it is forbidden. For Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: They transposed them [in their questions] before Rabbi: What about one animal going forth with [the accoutrement] of the other? Said R. Ishmael b. R. Jose before him, Thus did my father rule: Four animals may go out with a bit: A horse, mule, camel and ass. What does it exclude?<a id="k52a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely it excludes a camel [from being led out] with a nose-ring?<a id="k52a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Delete the latter on account of the former.<a id="k52a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; And what [reason] do you see to delete the latter on account of the former? Delete the former on account of the latter! &mdash; Because we find that it was Samuel who ruled: As an ornament it is forbidden; as a guard it is permitted. [For it was stated:]<a id="k52a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in Rab's name: Whether as an ornament or as a guard it is forbidden; while R. Hiyya b. Abin said in Samuel's name: As an ornament it is forbidden; as a guard it is permitted.
</p><p>
	An objection is raised: If it [the red heifer] was tied up in a loft by a cord,<a id="k52a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; it is fit.<a id="k52a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Now if you say that it is a burden, surely Scripture saith, Upon which never came yoke?<a id="k52a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Abaye answered: This is when it is led from one town to another.<a id="k52a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: The red heifer is different, because its value is high. Rabina said: This refers to an intractable [animal].<a id="k52a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A HORSE WITH ITS CHAIN, etc. What is GO OUT and what is LED? &mdash; R. Huna said: [It means,] They may either go out [with the chain] wound round them,<a id="k52a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; or led [by the chain]; while Samuel maintained: [It means,] They may go out led [by the chain], but they may not go out [with the chain] wound round them. In a Baraitha it was taught: They may go out [with the chain] wound round then, [ready] to be led.<a id="k52a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Joseph said: I saw the calves of R. Huna's house go forth with their cords<a id="k52a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; wound about them, on the Sabbath. When R. Dimi came,<a id="k52a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; he related in R. Hanina's name: The mules of Rabbi's house went forth with their reins on the Sabbath. The scholars propounded: 'Wound about them', or 'led'? &mdash;  Come and hear: When R. Samuel b. Judah came, he related in R. Hanina's name: The mules of Rabbi's house went forth on the Sabbath with their reins wound about them. Said the Rabbis before R. Assi, This [dictum] of R. Samuel b. Judah is unnecessary, [because] it may be deduced from R. Dimi's [statement]. For should you think that R. Dimi meant 'led', it would follow from Rab Judah's [statement] in Samuel's name. For Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: They [the scholars] transposed them [in their questions] before Rabbi: What about one animal going forth with [the accoutrement] of the other? Said R. Ishmael son of R. Jose before him, Thus did my father rule: Four animals may go out with a bit: a horse, mule, camel, and ass!<a id="k52a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said R. Assi to them, This [R. Samuel b. Judah's statement] is necessary. For if it were derived from Rab Judah's [dictum], I could argue: He [R. Ishmael Son of R. Jose] stated it before him, but he did not accept it. Hence R. Dimi's statement informs us [that he did]. And if there were R. Dimi's [alone], I could argue: It means 'led', but not merely 'wound round'; hence R. Samuel b. Judah's [statement] informs us [otherwise].
</p><p>
	AND, [WATER OF LUSTRATION] MAY BE SPRINKLED UPON THEM, AND THEY MAY BE IMMERSED IN THEIR PLACE. Are we to say that they can contract uncleanness? But we learnt: A man's ring is unclean,<a id="k52a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; but the rings of animals and utensils and all other rings
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k52b_1:" Because they do not rank either as utensils or ornaments, v. Kel. XIII."
,k52b_2:" And they had become unclean as human ornaments. But when they are animals' ornaments they cannot become unclean, though they retain the defilement contracted before."
,k52b_3:" The appurtenance mentioned in our Mishnah."
,k52b_4:" With which it is beaten."
,k52b_5:" Flat wooden implements are not susceptible to defilement."
,k52b_6:" Nothing must come between the object that is immersed and the water; but here the neck of the animal intervenes."
,k52b_7:" Sc. the rings, halters, etc., were beaten thin, so that they fit loosely about the animal and leave room for the water to touch it on all sides."
,k52b_8:" Utensils become unclean only from when they are quite finished for use; if they still require smoothing, scraping, etc., they are not liable to uncleanness, unless their owner declares his intention to use them as they are. On the other hand, having done so, it is not enough that he subsequently declares that he will not use them, in order to relieve them from their susceptibility to defilement, unless he actually begins smoothing them. Or, if the utensils are unclean, it is insufficient for their owner to state that he will not use them any more, so that they should lose the status of utensils and become clean, but must render them unfit for use by an act, e.g., break or make a hole in them."
,k52b_9:" To annul the status of a utensil. Hence he can agree with R. Isaac in the explanation of the Mishnah."
,k52b_10:" In this connection."
,k52b_11:" Loosely joined and fitting roomily round the animal's neck, so that the water can enter."
,k52b_12:" In respect to what is that drawn?"
,k52b_13:" Where a distinction is made between a signet ring and an ordinary one; v. <i>infra</i> 59a."
,k52b_14:" Lit., 'this and this are one'."
,k52b_15:" V. <i>supra</i> 52b."
,k52b_16:" R. Eleazar."
,k52b_17:" Probably a species of cedar-tree."
,k52b_18:" Only a metal ring becomes unclean, the matter being determined by the ring itself, not the signet. This shows that a distinction is drawn also in connection with uncleanness between finger ring and finger ring."
,k52b_19:" For carrying a needle with an eye in it from public or private ground or vice versa one is liable to a sin-offering but not if it has no eye."
,k52b_20:" I.e., providing it is recognizable as a needle &mdash; only then is it unclean. Others: providing that the mark of the rust is perceptible when one sews with it &mdash; that is regarded as hindering the sewing and makes it clean."
,k52b_21:" Like any other utensil."
,k52b_22:" This shows that there is a distinction in connection with defilement between needle and needle also."
,k52b_23:" I.e., if it is unfinished and a hole is still to be punched therein, it is not liable to defilement. But if it is thus finished off without an eye, e.g., as a kind of bodkin, it is a utensil and liable to uncleanness, no distinction being drawn in connection with defilement between needle and needle. In connection with Sabbath, however, even the former may be handled, for one may decide to use it in its unfinished state, e.g., as a toothpick or for removing splinters from the flesh, and so it ranks as a utensil."
,k52b_24:" The cushion is to protect it from the cold."
,k52b_25:" To cease giving milk."
,k52b_26:" A pouch is sometimes loosely tied round the udder to prevent the milk from dripping; hence it may fall off and therefore R. Judah forbids it (v. 53a). But in the second case it is tied very tightly. "
}

txt:
<p>
are clean!<a id="k52b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said R. Isaac: It [our Mishnah] refers to such as pass from [being] men's ornaments to [become] animals' ornaments;<a id="k52b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; while R. Joseph said: [They<a id="k52b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; become unclean] because a man leads the animal by them. [For] was it not taught: An animal's staff<a id="k52b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; of metal<a id="k52b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; is susceptible to uncleanness.' What is the reason? Since a man beats [the animal] with it. So here too; [they are unclean,] because a man leads [the animals] by them.
</p><p>
	AND THEY MAY BE IMMERSED IN THEIR PLACE. But there is an intervention?<a id="k52b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said R. Ammi: It means that he beat them out.<a id="k52b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Shall we say that R. Ammi holds as R. Joseph? For if as R. Isaac, who maintained that it refers to such as pass from [being] men's ornaments to [become] animals' ornaments; since he beat them out, he has performed an act, and their uncleanness vanishes. For we learnt: All utensils enter upon their uncleanness by intention, but are relieved from their uncleanness only by a change-effecting act!<a id="k52b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He holds as R. Judah, who maintained, An act to adapt [an object] is not [considered] an act.<a id="k52b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; For it was taught: R. Judah said: A change-effecting act was not mentioned<a id="k52b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; where it adapts [the object], save where it spoils it. In a Baraitha it was taught: It [our Mishnah] refers to [chains] with movable links.<a id="k52b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A certain disciple from Upper Galilee asked R. Eleazar: I have heard that a distinction is drawn between one ring and another?<a id="k52b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Perhaps you heard it only in reference to the Sabbath;<a id="k52b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; for if in connection with uncleanness, they are all alike.<a id="k52b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, in connection with uncleanness, are they all alike? Surely we learnt: A man's ring is unclean, but the rings of animals and utensils and all other rings are clean.<a id="k52b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He<a id="k52b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; too was referring to men's [rings]. And are all men's [rings] alike? Surely it was taught: A ring made to gird one's loins therewith or to fasten [the clothes about] the shoulders is clean, and only a finger [ring] was declared to be unclean! &mdash; He too was referring to finger rings. And are all finger rings alike? Surely we learnt: If the ring is of metal and its signet is of coral,<a id="k52b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; It Is unclean; if it is of coral while the signet is of metal, it is clean.<a id="k52b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He too referred to [rings] wholly of metal.
</p><p>
	He asked him further: I have heard that we distinguish between one needle and another? Perhaps you heard it only in respect to the Sabbath,<a id="k52b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; for if in the matter of uncleanness, they are all alike. Now, in the matter of uncleanness, are they all alike? Surely we learnt: If the eyehole or the point of a needle is removed, it is clean! &mdash; He referred to a whole [needle]. And are all whole [needles] alike? Surely we learnt: If a needle gathers rust and it hinders the sewing, it is clean; if not, it is unclean. And the School of R. Jannai said: Providing that its mark is perceptible.<a id="k52b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; He referred to a bright [needle]. But are all bright [needles] alike? Surely it was taught; A needle, whether containing an eyehole or not, may be handled on the Sabbath;<a id="k52b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; while a needle with an eyehole was specified only in respect to uncleanness.<a id="k52b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely Abaye interpreted it according to Raba as referring to unfinished utensils!<a id="k52b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. AN ASS MAY GO OUT WITH ITS CUSHION IF IT IS TIED TO IT.<a id="k52b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; RAMS MAY GO OUT COUPLED [LEBUBIN]. EWES MAY GO OUT [WITH THEIR POSTERIORS] EXPOSED [SHEHUZOTH], TIED [KEBULOTH], AND COVERED [KEBUNOTH]; GOATS MAY GO OUT [WITH THEIR UDDERS] TIED UP. R. JOSE FORBIDS IN ALL THESE CASES, SAVE EWES THAT ARE COVERED. R. JUDAH SAID: GOATS MAY GO OUT [WITH THEIR UDDERS] TIED IN ORDER TO DRY UP,<a id="k52b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT NOT TO SAVE THEIR MILK.<a id="k52b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k53a_1:" V. <i>infra</i> 54b."
,k53a_2:" Sc. the present Mishnah."
,k53a_3:" The saddle too affords some warmth."
,k53a_4:" The band with which the saddle is fastened around the ass's belly. Rashi: lest it appear that he intends placing a burden upon it."
,k53a_5:" Which is generally placed there to prevent the saddle and burden from slipping forward or backward"
,k53a_6:" Not to be led out with it, but to warm it."
,k53a_7:" Thinking that his silence meant that no answer was necessary, the difference being too obvious."
,k53a_8:" Surely not!"
,k53a_9:" Suffering from cold."
,k53a_10:" The animal of course must be fed, but the fodder can be placed on the ground, and it is a mere luxury to hang the nose-bag around its neck."
,k53a_11:" An affectionate and reverential name for Rab &mdash; 'father'. Others maintain that his name was Abba Arika, while Rab was a title &mdash; the teacher par excellence &mdash; the equivalent of Rabbi as the title of R. Judah ha-nasi."
,k53a_12:" V. Kid., Sonc. ed., p. 189 n. 11."
,k53a_13:" Whereas Rab forbade it."
,k53a_14:" And the owner may carry it in the street; <i>supra</i>."
,k53a_15:" Sc. the cushion."
,k53a_16:" Sc. the removing of the saddle."
,k53a_17:" When it becomes overheated through its burden. But in any case an ass cools very rapidly."
,k53a_18:" Tammuz is the fourth month of the Jewish year, generally corresponding to mid June-July."
,k53a_19:" Rashi: it was suspended between its eyes to ward off the evil eye; cf. Sanh., Sonc. ed., _ p. 623, n. 2. Animals too were regarded as subject thereto."
,k53a_20:" Suspended as an ornament."
,k53a_21:" V. <i>Supra</i> 11b."
,k53a_22:" Either to catch the milk that may ooze out, or to protect the udders from thorns, etc."
,k53a_23:" It was muzzled until it came to its own fields, so that it should not browse in other peoples' land."
,k53a_24:" I.e., three animals had been healed thereby. Generally speaking, Judaism is opposed to superstitious practices (v. Sanh. 65b, 66a; M. Joseph, Judaism as Creed and Life, pp. 79-81; 384); nevertheless, the Rabbis were children of their time and recognized the efficacy of such practices and took steps to regulate them."
,k53a_25:" This is now assumed to refer to an amulet; a human being may wear a proven amulet; <i>infra</i> 61a."
,k53a_26:" Not having been removed yet."
,k53a_27:" With cotton, wool, etc., to prevent if from ringing, which is forbidden on the Sabbath."
,k53a_28:" But not in the street, v. <i>infra</i> 54b."
,k53a_29:" Though they can stretch their necks and eat from the ground. This contradicts Samuel."
,k53a_30:" It is difficult for very young foals to eat from the ground. "
}

txt:
<p><P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>
Samuel said: Providing it was tied thereto since the eve of the Sabbath. R. Nahman observed, Our Mishnah too proves it, as it states: An ass may not go out with its cushion if it is not tied thereto.<a id="k53a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; How is this meant? Shall we say that it is not tied thereto at all, &mdash; then it is obvious, lest it fall off and he come to carry it? Hence It must mean that it was not tied to it since the eve of the Sabbath, whence it follows that the first clause<a id="k53a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; means that it was tied thereto since the eve of the Sabbath. This proves it.
</p><p>
	It was taught likewise: An ass may go out with its cushion when it was tied thereto on the eve of the Sabbath, but not with its saddle, even if tied thereto on the eve of the Sabbath. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: With its saddle too, if it was tied to it since the eve of the Sabbath,<a id="k53a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; providing, however, that he does not tie its band thereto,<a id="k53a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and providing that he does not pass the strap under its tail.<a id="k53a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Assi b. Nathan asked R. Hiyya b. R. Ashi: May the cushion be placed on an ass on the Sabbath?<a id="k53a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; It is permitted, replied he. Said he to him, Yet wherein does this differ from a saddle? He remained silent. Thereupon he refuted him:<a id="k53a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; One must not move by hand the saddle upon an ass, but must lead it [the ass] up and down in the courtyard until it [the saddle] falls off of its own accord. Seeing that you say that it must not [even] be moved, can there be a question about placing it [on the ass]?<a id="k53a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said R. Zera to him, Leave him alone: he agrees with his teacher. For R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in Rab's name: A fodder-bag may be hung around [the neck of] an animal on the Sabbath, and how much more so [may] a cushion [be placed on its back): for if it is permitted there for [the animal's] pleasures how much more so here, that it is [to save the animal] suffering!<a id="k53a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Samuel said: A cushion is permitted, a fodder-bag is forbidden.<a id="k53a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hiyya b. Joseph went and related Rab's ruling before Samuel. Said he: If Abba<a id="k53a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; said thus, he knows nothing at all in matters pertaining to the Sabbath.
</p><p>
	When R. Zera went up [to Palestine], he found R. Benjamin b. Jephet sitting and saying in R. Johanan's name: A cushion may be placed on an ass on the Sabbath. Said he to him, 'Well spoken! and thus did Arioch teach it in Babylon too.' Now, who is Arioch? Samuel!<a id="k53a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; But Rab too ruled thus? &mdash; Rather he had heard him conclude: Yet a fodder-bag may not be hung [around the animal's neck] on the Sabbath. Thereupon he exclaimed, 'Well spoken! And thus did Arioch teach it in Babylon.'<a id="k53a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	At all events, it is generally agreed that a cushion is permitted: wherein does it differ from a saddle? &mdash; There it is different, as it may possibly fall off of its own accord.<a id="k53a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Papa said: The former<a id="k53a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; is to warm it [the ass]; the latter<a id="k53a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; is in order to cool it.<a id="k53a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Where it needs warming it suffers; but where it needs cooling it does not. And thus people say: An ass feels cold even in the summer solstice.<a id="k53a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	An objection is raised: A horse must not be led out with a fox's tail,<a id="k53a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; nor with a crimson strap between its eyes.<a id="k53a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; A <i>zab</i> must not go out with his pouch,<a id="k53a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; nor goats with the pouch attached to their udders,<a id="k53a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; nor a cow with a muzzle on its mouth,<a id="k53a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; nor may foals [be led out] into the streets with fodder-bags around their mouths; nor an animal with shoes on its feet, nor with an amulet, though it is proven;<a id="k53a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; and this is a greater stringency in the case of an animal than in that of a human being.<a id="k53a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; But he may go out with a bandage on a wound or with splints on a fracture; and [an animal may be led out] with the after-birth hanging down;<a id="k53a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; and the bell at the neck must be stopped up,<a id="k53a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; and it may then amble about with it in the courtyard.<a id="k53a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; At all events it is stated, nor may foals [be led out] into the street with fodder-bags around their mouths': thus only into the street is it forbidden, but in a courtyard it is well [permitted]. Now, does this not refer to large [foals], its purpose being [the animals' greater] pleasure?<a id="k53a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No: it refers to small ones, the purpose being [to obviate] suffering.<a id="k53a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; This may be proved too, because it is taught
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k53b_1:" The purpose of which is not pleasure but the avoidance of sickness."
,k53b_2:" The planetary influence was regarded as in the nature of a protecting angel; v. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 629, n. 10."
,k53b_3:" For a man too may go out only with an amulet proven for humans."
,k53b_4:" With which an animal may not be led out, though that is permitted for men."
,k53b_5:" Lit., 'is finished'."
,k53b_6:" To mollify the slight rawness which remains; that rawness, however, does not really cause suffering."
,k53b_7:" On the Sabbath. This proves that in the case of an animal, even to obviate its sufferings. it is forbidden."
,k53b_8:" This is forbidden on the Sabbath, save where life is in danger. If cooling in water is permitted. it will be thought that crushing ingredients is likewise permitted."
,k53b_9:" Not for medical purposes."
,k53b_10:" It is not customary to take an animal for cooling save for medical purposes."
,k53b_11:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k53b_12:" V. <i>infra</i> 151a."
,k53b_13:" Lit., 'was swallowed up'."
,k53b_14:" When an animal is entrusted to a cowherd, its tehum is that of the cowherd, i.e., it may go only where the cowherd may go. Here the owner's tehum stretched beyond that of the cowherd; hence he may call the animal that strayed beyond its own tehum, for even if he forgets himself and goes for it, he is still within his own boundaries. Nevertheless he may not actually go for it, because when one (a man or a beast) goes beyond his tehum, he becomes tied to that spot and may only move within a radius of four cubits from it; hence the owner must not actually lead the animal away, but may only call it. (One can extend his tehum by placing some food at any spot within the two thousand cubits, whereupon he may then walk a further two thousand cubits from that spot. Here the owner had extended his tehum, but not the cowherd)."
,k53b_15:" I.e., whether any other form of healing is forbidden as a preventive measure, lest one come to crush ingredients too."
,k53b_16:" Which made it constipated."
,k53b_17:" v. marginal gloss cur. edd. R. Oshaia."
,k53b_18:" The first Tanna forbids it as a preventive against the crushing of ingredients, while R. Josiah declares this preventive measure unnecessary."
,k53b_19:" And there is no fear of its falling off, so that the owner may carry it."
,k53b_20:" Aliter: have you removed Tannaim from the world, v. Rashi."
,k53b_21:" Thus this is disputed in our Mishnah, and so possibly in the Baraithas too."
,k53b_22:" Rashi: to preserve the milk in its pouch. Ri: both are to protect the udders from being scratched by thorns, but in the one case it is desired that the goats shall go dry; then it is permitted, since it is tied very tightly; but in the other it is desired that the goats shall remain milkers; then it is forbidden, because it is lightly tied."
,k53b_23:" The capital of Syria."
,k53b_24:" Lit., 'the beginning'; i.e., nature."
,k53b_25:" In Ber. 20a Abaye himself regards miracles wrought for people as testifying to their greatness and merit. Rashi observes that his lowliness lay in the fact that a means of earning money was not opened to him."
,k53b_26:" So Rashi."
,k53b_27:" It is natural for a woman to cover herself, particularly when it is in her own interest."
,k53b_28:" Heb. libabtini (E.V. Thou hast ravished my heart)."
,k53b_29:" Cant. IV, 9."
,k53b_30:" Heb. leb, which 'Ulla takes to be the root of lebubin."
,k53b_31:" Thus he translates: RAMS MAY GO OUT with their hides over their hearts. Wolves usually seize beasts at the heart (Rashi)."
,k53b_32:" Which rouses its ire, <i>Var. lec</i>.: ke-budin, like bears, i.e., proudly and fiercely. V. D.S."
,k53b_33:" Heb. she'ohazin, lit., 'we catch up' "
}

txt:
<p>
analogous to an amulet.<a id="k53b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; This proves it.
</p><p>
	The Master said: 'Nor with an amulet, though it is proven'. But we learnt: 'Nor with an amulet that is not proven'; hence if it is proven, it is permitted? &mdash; That means proven in respect of human beings but not in respect of animals. But can they be proven in respect of human beings yet not in respect of animals? &mdash; Yes: for it may help man, who is under planetary influence, but not animals, who are not under planetary influence.<a id="k53b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; If so, how is this 'a greater stringency in the case of an animal then in the case of a human being'?<a id="k53b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Do you think that that refers to amulets? It refers to the shoe.<a id="k53b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: One may anoint [a sore] and scrape [a scab] off for a human being, but not for an animal. Surely that means that there is [still] a sore, the purpose being [to obviate] pain? &mdash; No. It means that the sore has healed,<a id="k53b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; the purpose being pleasure.<a id="k53b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: If an animal has an attack of congestion. It may not be made to stand in water to be cooled; if a human being has an attack of congestion, he may be made to stand in water to be cooled?<a id="k53b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; 'Ulla answered: It is a preventive measure, on account of the crushing of [medical] ingredients.<a id="k53b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; If so, the same should also apply to man? &mdash; A man may appear to be cooling himself.<a id="k53b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; If so, an animal too may appear to be cooling itself? &mdash; There is no [mere] cooling for an animal,<a id="k53b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, do we enact a preventive measure in the case of animal? But it was taught: 'If it [an animal] is standing without the tehum,<a id="k53b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; one calls it and it comes',<a id="k53b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and we do not forbid this lest he [thereby] come to fetch it? &mdash; Said Rabina: It means, e.g., that its tehum fell<a id="k53b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; within his tehum.<a id="k53b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman b. Isaac said: The crushing of ingredients itself<a id="k53b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; is dependent on Tannaim. For it was taught: If an animal ate [an abundance of] vetch,<a id="k53b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; one must not cause it to run about in the courtyard to be cured; but R. Josiah<a id="k53b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; permits it.<a id="k53b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba lectured: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Josiah.
</p><p>
	The Master said: 'A <i>zab</i> may not go out with his pouch, nor goats with the pouch attached to their udders.' But it was taught: Goats may go out with the pouch attached to their udders? Said Rab Judah, There is no difficulty: Here it means that it is tightly fastened;<a id="k53b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; there it is not tightly fastened. R. Joseph answered: You quote Tannaim at random!<a id="k53b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; This is a controversy of Tannaim. For we learnt: GOATS MAY BE LED OUT [WITH THEIR UDDERS] TIED UP. R. JOSE FORBIDS IN ALL THESE CASES, SAVE EWES THAT ARE COVERED. R. JUDAH SAID: GOATS MAY BE LED OUT [WITH THEIR UDDERS] TIED UP IN ORDER TO GO DRY, BUT NOT IN ORDER TO SAVE THEIR MILK.<a id="k53b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Alternatively, both are according to R. Judah: in the one case it is in order that they may go dry; in the other it is for milking.<a id="k53b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; It was taught: R. Judah said: It once happened that goats in a household of Antioch<a id="k53b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; had large udders, and pouches were made for them, that their udders should not be lacerated.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: It once happened that a man's wife died and left a child to be suckled, and he could not afford to pay a wet-nurse, whereupon a miracle was performed for him and his teats opened like the two teats of a woman and he suckled his son. R. Joseph observed, Come and see how great was this man, that such a miracle was performed on his account! Said Abaye to him, On the contrary: how lowly was this man, that the order of the Creation<a id="k53b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; was changed on his account!<a id="k53b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab Judah observed, Come and see how difficult are men's wants [of being satisfied], that the order of the Creation had to be altered for him! R. Nahman said: The proof is that miracles do [frequently] occur, whereas food is [rarely] created<a id="k53b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; miraculously.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: It once happened that a man married a woman with a stumped hand, yet he did not perceive it in her until the day of her death. Rabbi observed: How modest this woman must have been, that her husband did not know her! Said R. Hiyya to him, For her it was natural;<a id="k53b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; but how modest was this man, that he did not scrutinize his wife!
</p><p>
	RAMS MAY GO OUT COUPLED [LEBUBIN]. What is lebubin? R. Huna said: coupled. How is it indicated that LEBUBIN implies nearness? For it is written, Thou hast drawn me near,<a id="k53b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; my sister, my bride.<a id="k53b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Ulla said: It refers to the hide which is tied over their hearts<a id="k53b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; that wolves should not attack them.<a id="k53b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; Do then wolves attack rams only but not ewes? &mdash; [Yes.] because they [the rams] travel at the head of the flock. And do wolves attack the head of the flock and not the rear? &mdash; Rather [they attack rams] because they are fat. But are there no fat ones among ewes? Moreover, can they distinguish between them? &mdash; Rather it is because their noses are elevated and they march along as though looking out [for the wolf].<a id="k53b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Nahman b. Isaac said, It means the skin which is tied under their genitals, to restrain them from copulating with the females. Whence [is this interpretation derived]? Because the following clause states: AND EWES MAY GO OUT SHEHUZOTH. What is SHEHUZOTH? With their tails tied back<a id="k53b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; upwards, for the males to copulate with them: thus in the first clause it is that they should not copulate with the females, whilst in the second it is for the males to copulate with them. Where is it implied that SHEHUZOTH denotes exposed? In the verse, And behold, there met him a woman
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k54a_1:" Heb. Shith zonah, which is regarded as connected with SHEHUZOTH. E.V.: With the attire of a harlot."
,k54a_2:" Prov. VII, 10."
,k54a_3:" Sing. masc. of kebuloth."
,k54a_4:" I Kings IX, 13."
,k54a_5:" Ibid. 12."
,k54a_6:" Jast.: the land of Humton, a district of northern Palestine."
,k54a_7:" That the wool should be of a fine, silky texture."
,k54a_8:" The reference is to Lev. XIII, 2."
,k54a_9:" Lit., 'its first day'."
,k54a_10:" Lit., 'cast lots'."
,k54a_11:" V. p. 12, n. 9"
,k54a_12:" In our Mishnah that both are permitted."
,k54a_13:" This is explained in the Gemara."
,k54a_14:" Lit., 'insert'."
,k54a_15:" In the first case it can slide off (v. <i>supra</i> 53a top). but not in the second."
,k54a_16:" The camel refrains from pulling at it, because it is painful; hence it will not fall off."
,k54a_17:" In the case of an animal, the forefoot and the hindfoot."
,k54a_18:" For this Tanna includes the tying together of the two forefeet or the two hindfeet in the term 'akud, whereas according to Rab Judah, who> gives the analogy of Isaac, only the tying of the forefoot to the hindfoot is thus designated."
,k54a_19:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> The prohibition of twining them together cannot refer to the Sabbath."
,k54a_20:" When he winds the cords round his hand, he may pull at something simultaneously with the camels; thus they act in unison, and this may be regarded as two different species working together, which is forbidden, v. Deut. XXII, 10. On this supposition the Mishnah must be translated: providing he does not wind them (round his hand)."
,k54a_21:" Sc. various animals, and this does not constitute kil'ayim."
,k54a_22:" In case some are of wool, while others are of flax; when twined together they become kil'ayim, and as he holds them, they warm his hands, which is the equivalent of 'wearing' (v. Deut. XII, 11)."
,k54a_23:" I.e., if he joins two pieces of cloth, one of wool and the other of linen, with a single stitch or knot."
,k54a_24:" Hence when he twines the cords together they are not kil'ayim."
,k54a_25:" This is a double fastening, which renders the combination kil'ayim."
,k54a_26:" For then it looks like a separate cord which he is carrying."
,k54a_27:" I.e., to be on the safe side we rule one handbreadth, yet no prohibition is violated for less than two. "
}

txt:
<p>
exposed<a id="k54a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and wily of heart.<a id="k54a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	EWES MAY GO OUT TIED [KEBULOTH]. What is KEBULOTH? &mdash; With their tails tied downwards, to restrain the males from copulating with them. How is it implied that kabul<a id="k54a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; denotes non-productively? &mdash; Because it is written, What cities are these which thou hast given me, my brother? And he called them the land of Cabul, unto this day.<a id="k54a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; What is 'the land of Cabul'? &mdash; Said R. Huna: It contained inhabitants who were smothered [mekubbolin] with silver and gold. Said Raba to him, If so, is that why it is written, and they pleased him not?<a id="k54a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; because they were smothered with silver and gold they pleased him not! &mdash; Even so, he replied; being wealthy and soft-living, they would do no work. R. Nahman b. Isaac said, It was a sandy region.<a id="k54a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and why was it called Cabul? Because the leg sinks into it up to the ankle, and people designate it an ankle-bound land which produces no fruit.
</p><p>
	[AND COVERED] KEBUNOTH. What is KEBUNOTH? &mdash; It means that they [the sheep] are covered for the sake of the fine wool.<a id="k54a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; As we learnt: [The hue of] a rising is like white wool.<a id="k54a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; What is white wool? &mdash; Said R. Bibi b. Abaye: Like pure wool [from a sheep] which is covered from birth<a id="k54a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; in order to produce fine wool.
</p><p>
	AND GOATS MAY BE LED OUT [WITH THEIR UDDERS] TIED UP. It was stated: Rab said: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Judah; while Samuel said: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Jose. Others learn this controversy independently. Rab said: If it is in order to go dry, it is permitted. but if it is for milking it is forbidden; while Samuel said: Both are forbidden. Others learn it in reference to the following: Goats may go out [with their udders] tied up in order to go dry, but not for milking. On the authority of R. Judah b. Bathyra it was said: That is the <i>halachah</i>; but who can vouch<a id="k54a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; which is for going dry and which is for milking? And since we cannot distinguish [between them], both are forbidden. Said Samuel, &mdash; others say. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Judah b. Bathyra. When Rabin came,<a id="k54a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; he said in the name of R. Johanan: The <i>halachah</i> is as the first Tanna.<a id="k54a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. AND WHEREWITH MAY IT NOT GO OUT? A CAMEL MAY NOT GO OUT WITH A PAD [TIED TO ITS TAIL] OR 'AKUD OR RAGUL;<a id="k54a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; AND SIMILARLY OTHER ANIMALS. ONE MUST NOT TIE CAMELS TOGETHER AND PULL [ONE OF THEM]. BUT HE MAY TAKE<a id="k54a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; THE CORDS IN HIS HAND AND PULL [THEM]. PROVIDING HE DOES NOT TWINE THEM TOGETHER.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. It was taught: A camel must not go out with a pad tied to its tail, but it may go out with a pad tied to its tail and its hump.<a id="k54a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbah son of R. Huna said: A camel may be led out with a pad tied to its after-birth.<a id="k54a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	OR 'AKUD OR RAGUL. Rab Judah said: 'AKUD means the tying of hand and foot<a id="k54a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; together, like Isaac the son of Abraham; RAGUL means that the forefoot must not be bent back on to the shoulder and tied. An objection is raised: 'Akud refers to the two forefeet or the two hindfeet [tied together]; ragul means that the forefoot must not be bent back on to the shoulder and tied? &mdash; He interprets as the following Tanna. For it was taught: 'Akud means the tying together of the forefoot and the hindfoot, or of the two forefeet or the two hindfeet; ragul means that the forefoot must not be bent back on to the shoulder and tied. Yet it is still not the same: as for the first and the last clauses, it is well; but the middle one is difficult?<a id="k54a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rather [he maintains] as the following Tanna. For it was taught: 'Akud means the tying of hand and foot, like Isaac the son of Abraham; ragul means that the forefoot must not be bent back on to the shoulder and tied.
</p><p>
	ONE MUST NOT TIE CAMELS TOGETHER. What is the reason? &mdash; Said R. Ashi: Because it looks as if he is going to the fair.
</p><p>
	BUT HE MAY TAKE [etc.]. R. Ashi said: This was taught only in respect to Kil'ayim.<a id="k54a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Kil'ayim of what? Shall we say, kil'ayim of man?<a id="k54a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely we learnt: A man is permitted to plough and pull with all of them.<a id="k54a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; But if it means kil'ayim of the cords,<a id="k54a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; surely we learnt: If one fastens [two pieces together] with one fastening,<a id="k54a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; it is not a connection?<a id="k54a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; After all, it means kil'ayim of the cords, but this is its teaching: providing that he does not twine and knot [them together].<a id="k54a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Samuel said: Providing that a handbreadth of a cord does not hang out of his hand.<a id="k54a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; But the School of R. Ishmael taught, Two handbreadths? &mdash; Said Abaye, Now that Samuel said one handbreadth, while the School of R. Ishmael taught two handbreadths, Samuel comes to inform us the <i>halachah</i> in actual practice.<a id="k54a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k54b_1:" Implying that there is no limit to the length that may hang out of his hand."
,k54b_2:" Between the man and the camel. If it trails nearer to the ground, it looks as though he is carrying a cord."
,k54b_3:" This refers to a species of ram whose tail was very fat, to preserve which it was yoked to a waggonette."
,k54b_4:" v. Gemara."
,k54b_5:" Discussed in the Gemara."
,k54b_6:" Tied round its udder."
,k54b_7:" For the prohibition relating to the cushion."
,k54b_8:" <i>Supra</i> 53a."
,k54b_9:" Jast.: a bandage or bar under the jaw."
,k54b_10:" I.e., it should let it heal."
,k54b_11:" To prevent the legs from knocking each other."
,k54b_12:" The two legs were tied together; hence it could not run about and cause damage."
,k54b_13:" Lit., 'hid'"
,k54b_14:" The head of the <i>Beth din</i>. &mdash; A sheep will not be treated with such care."
,k54b_15:" Rashal reads: R. Nahman."
,k54b_16:" His wife."
,k54b_17:" Deriving HANUNOTH from hanan, to be gracious, kind."
,k54b_18:" To accustom it to bend its head under the yoke when it grows up."
,k54b_19:" V. preceding note."
,k54b_20:" Isa. LVIII, 5."
,k54b_21:" 'Believed to suck and injure the udders of cattle' (Jast)."
,k54b_22:" V. <i>supra</i> 52a."
,k54b_23:" Sc. the cow referred to in the Mishnah."
,k54b_24:" Lit., 'it was called by his name'."
,k54b_25:" V. Introduction to this Order, in this volume."
,k54b_26:" I.e., these four names."
,k54b_27:" This is a parenthetic observation by the Talmud (Tosaf.)."
,k54b_28:" Just as a pledge is seized for non-payment of debt. I.e., he is punished."
,k54b_29:" V. p. 217. n. 7."
,k54b_30:" Is'. Ill, 14. "
}

txt:
<p>
But it was taught: Providing that he lifts it a handbreadth from the ground?<a id="k54b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; That was taught of the cord between.<a id="k54b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. AN ASS MAY NOT GO OUT WITH A CUSHION, WHEN IT IS NOT TIED TO IT, OR WITH A BELL, EVEN IF IT IS PLUGGED, OR WITH A LADDER[-SHAPED YOKE] AROUND ITS NECK, OR WITH A THONG AROUND ITS FOOT. FOWLS MAY NOT GO OUT WITH RIBBONS, OR WITH A STRAP ON THEIR LEGS; RAMS MAY NOT GO OUT WITH A WAGGONETTE UNDER THEIR TAILS,<a id="k54b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; EWES MAY NOT GO OUT PROTECTED [HANUNOTH].<a id="k54b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; OR A CALF WITH A GIMON,<a id="k54b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; OR A COW WITH THE SKIN OF A HEDGEHOG,<a id="k54b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; OR WITH THE STRAP BETWEEN ITS HORNS. R. ELEAZAR B. 'AZARIAH'S COW USED TO GO OUT WITH A THONG BETWEEN ITS HORNS, [BUT] NOT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE RABBIS.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What is the reason?<a id="k54b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; As we have said.<a id="k54b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	OR WITH A BELL., EVEN IF IT IS PLUGGED UP. Because it looks like going to the fair.
</p><p>
	OR WITH A LADDER [-SHAPED YOKE] AROUND ITS NECK. R. Huna said: That is a jaw bar.<a id="k54b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; For what purpose is it made? For where it has a bruise, lest it chafe it afresh.<a id="k54b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	OR WITH A STRAP ON THEIR LEGS. It is put on him [the ass] as a guard.<a id="k54b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; FOWLS MAY NOT GO OUT WITH RIBBONS. Which are put on them, for a sign, that they should not be exchanged.
</p><p>
	OR WITH A STRAP. Which is fastened on them to restrain them from breaking utensils.<a id="k54b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	RAMS MAY NOT GO OUT WITH A WAGGONETTE. [Its purpose is] that their tails may not knock [against rocks, etc.].
</p><p>
	EWES MAY NOT GO OUT PROTECTED [HANUNOTH]. R. Aha b. 'Ulla sat before R. Hisda, and he sat and said: When it is sheared, a compress is saturated<a id="k54b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; in oil and placed on its forehead that it should not catch cold. Said R. Hisda to him: If so, you treat it like Mar 'Ukba!<a id="k54b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; But R. Papa b. Samuel sat before R. Hisda,<a id="k54b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and he sat and said: When she kneels for lambing two oily compresses are made for her, and one is placed on her forehead and the other on her womb, that she may be warmed. Said R. Nahman to him, If so, you would treat her like Yaltha!<a id="k54b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; But said R. Huna, there is a certain wood in the sea towns called hanun, whereof a chip is brought and placed in her nostril to make her sneeze, so that the worms in her head should fall out. If so, the same [is required] for males? &mdash; Since the males butt each other, they fall out in any case. Simeon the Nazirite said: A chip of the juniper tree [is placed in its nostril]. As for R. Huna, it is well: hence HANUNOTH is mentioned. But according to the Rabbis, what is the meaning of HANUNOTH? &mdash; That an act of kindness is done for it.<a id="k54b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	NOR MAY A CALF GO OUT WITH A GIMON. What is the meaning of A CALF WITH A GIMON? &mdash; Said R. Huna: A little yoke.<a id="k54b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Where is it implied that 'GIMON' connotes bending?<a id="k54b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; In the verse, Is it to bow down his head as a rush [ke-agmon]?<a id="k54b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	NOR A COW WITH THE SKIN OF A HEDGEHOG. It is placed upon it to prevent hedgehogs<a id="k54b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; from sucking it. 
</p><p>
	NOR WITH THE STRAP BETWEEN ITS HORNS. On Rab's view, whether as an ornament or as a protection, it is forbidden; on Samuel's view, as an ornament it is forbidden, as a protection it is permitted.<a id="k54b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. ELEAZAR B. 'AZARIAH'S COW. Did he have [but] one cow? Surely Rab-others state, Rab Judah in Rab's name &mdash; said: The tithe of R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah's flocks amounted to thirteen thousand calves annually? &mdash; It was taught: This was not his,<a id="k54b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; but a female neighbour of his; yet since he did not protest thereat, it was designated his.<a id="k54b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab and R. Hanina, R. Johanan and R. Habiba taught [the following] (In the whole of the Order Mo'ed<a id="k54b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; whenever this pair<a id="k54b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; occur some substitute R. Jonathan for R. Johanan)<a id="k54b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Whoever can forbid his household [to commit a sin] but does not, is seized<a id="k54b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; for [the sins of] his household; [if he can forbid] his fellow citizens, he is seized for [the sins of] his fellow citizens; if the whole world, he is seized for [the sins of] the whole world. R. Papa observed, And the members of the Resh Galutha's [household]<a id="k54b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; are seized for the whole world. Even as R. Hanina said, Why is it written, The Lord will enter into judgement with the elders of his people, and the princes thereof:<a id="k54b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; if the princes sinned,
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k55a_1:" About a wrong done to her."
,k55a_2:" Prov. XXI, 13."
,k55a_3:" Or, man of long teeth."
,k55a_4:" I.e., I, your superior, will go unscathed, because there is a higher court than mine, viz., Mar 'Ukba's. which should really take the matter up."
,k55a_5:" The father, i.e., the head of the <i>Beth din</i>."
,k55a_6:" Jer. XXI, 12. From this Samuel deduced that only the head, with whom lay the real power, would be punished."
,k55a_7:" Lit., 'a good attribute'."
,k55a_8:" Ezek. IX, 4."
,k55a_9:" Gabriel, 'man of God', is mentioned in the Book of Daniel VIII, 16-26; IX, 21-27. He was regarded as God's messenger, who executes His will on earth."
,k55a_10:" The last letter of the Hebrew alphabet."
,k55a_11:" Justice was often hypostasized as an independent being."
,k55a_12:" Lit., 'it was revealed and known'."
,k55a_13:" Lit., 'accepted (it) from them'."
,k55a_14:" Ezek. IX, 6."
,k55a_15:" The first and the last letters of the alphabet &mdash; as we say from Alpha to Omega'. Nevertheless they were included, because they had failed to protest. Thus the Almighty retracted from His original intention, the change being for evil."
,k55a_16:" Ibid. 2."
,k55a_17:" According to tradition Solomon hid it and substituted an earthen altar for it; v. I Kings VIII, 64 and Zeb. 59b."
,k55a_18:" I.e., start with the Levites, who utter song to the accompaniment of musical instruments of brass."
,k55a_19:" The merit of the Patriarchs, which acted as a shield for the wicked, is at an end."
,k55a_20:" Samuel explains the taw on the wicked; R. Johanan that on the righteous."
,k55a_21:" V. n. 2."
,k55a_22:" Hos. II, 12; 'and none', i.e., their merit"
,k55a_23:" II Kings XIII, 22."
,k55a_24:" Ibid. 23. 'Until now' implies, but no longer."
,k55a_25:" I Kings XVIII, 36. Here too this day implies a limitation."
,k55a_26:" Isa. IX, 6. 'The zeal, etc.' implies, but not the merit of the Patriarchs, this being exhausted by now."
,k55a_27:" One's sins cause his death."
,k55a_28:" Ezek. XVIII, 20."
,k55a_29:" Ps. LXXXIX, 33. "
}

txt:
<p>
how did the elders sin? But say, [He will bring punishment] upon the elders because they do not forbid the princes.
</p><p>
	Rab Judah was sitting before Samuel. [when] a woman came and cried before him,<a id="k55a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; but he ignored her. Said he to him, Does not the Master agree [that] 'whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry, but shall not be heard'?<a id="k55a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; 'O keen scholar!'<a id="k55a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; he replied. 'Your superior [will be punished] with cold [water]. but your superior's superior [will be punished] with hot.<a id="k55a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely Mar 'Ukba, the Ab-Beth din<a id="k55a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; is sitting!' For it is written, O house of David, thus saith the Lord. Execute judgement in the morning, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor, lest my fury go forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doing, etc.<a id="k55a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Zera said to R. Simeon, Let the Master rebuke the members of the Resh Galutha's suite. They will not accept it from me, was his reply. Though they will not accept its returned he, yet you should rebuke them. For R. Aha b. R. Hanina said: Never did a favourable word<a id="k55a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; go forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, of which He retracted for evil, save the following, where it is written, And the Lord said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark [taw] upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof, etc.<a id="k55a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Gabriel,<a id="k55a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Go and set a taw<a id="k55a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; of ink upon the foreheads of the righteous, that the destroying angels may have no power over them; and a taw of blood upon the foreheads of the wicked, that the destroying angels may have power over them. Said the Attribute of Justice<a id="k55a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; before the Holy One, blessed be He, 'Sovereign of the Universe! Wherein are these different from those?' 'Those are completely righteous men, while these are completely wicked,' replied He. 'Sovereign of the Universe!' it continued, 'they had the power to protest but did not.' 'It was fully known<a id="k55a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; to them that had they protested they would not have heeded them.'<a id="k55a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Sovereign of the Universe!' said he, 'If it was revealed to Thee, was it revealed to them?' Hence it is written, [Slay utterly] the old man, the young and the maiden, and little children and women; but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my Sanctuary [mikdashi]. Then they began at the elders which were before the house.<a id="k55a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph recited: Read not mikdashi but mekuddashay [my sanctified ones]: this refers to the people who fulfilled the Torah from alef to taw.<a id="k55a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; And straightway, And behold, six men came from the way of the upper gate, which lieth toward the north, every man with his slaughter weapon in his hand; and one man in the midst of them clothed in linen, with a writer's inkhorn by his side. And they went in, and stood beside the brazen altar.<a id="k55a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Was then the brazen altar [still] in existence?<a id="k55a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The Holy One, blessed be He, spake thus to them; Commence [destruction] from the place where song is uttered before Me.<a id="k55a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; And who were the six men? &mdash; Said R. Hisda: Indignation [Kezef], Anger [Af], Wrath [Hemah], Destroyer [Mashhith] Breaker [Meshabber] and Annihilator [Mekaleh]. And why   taw? &mdash; Said Rab: Taw [stands for] tihyeh [thou shalt live], taw [stands for] tamuth [thou shalt die]. Samuel said: The taw denotes, the merit of the Patriarchs is exhausted [tamah].<a id="k55a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan said: The merit of the Patriarchs will confer grace [tahon].<a id="k55a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; While Resh Lakish said: Taw is the end of the seal of the Holy One, blessed be He. For R. Hanina said: The seal of the Holy One, blessed be He, is emeth [truth]. R. Samuel b. Nahmani said: It denotes the people who fulfilled the Torah from alef to taw.<a id="k55a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And since when has the merit of the Patriarchs been exhausted? &mdash; Rab said, Since the days of Hosea the son of Beeri, for it is written, [And now] will I discover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers, and none shall deliver her out of mine hand.<a id="k55a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Samuel said. Since the days of Hazael, for it is said, And Hazael king of Syria oppressed Israel all the days of Jehoahaz;<a id="k55a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is written, But the Lord was gracious unto them, and had compassion upon them, and had respect unto them, because of the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them, neither cast he them from his presence until now.<a id="k55a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joshua b. Levi said: Since the days of Elijah, for it is said, And it came to pass at the time of the offering of the evening oblation, that Elijah the prophet came near, and said, O Lord, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou art God in Israel, and that I am thy servant, and that I have done all these things at thy word.<a id="k55a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan said: Since the days of Hezekiah, for it is said, Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with judgement and with righteousness for henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts shall perform this.<a id="k55a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Ammi said: There is no death without sin,<a id="k55a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; and there is no suffering without iniquity. There is no death without sin, for it is written, The soul that sinneth, it shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son, the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him, etc.,<a id="k55a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; There is no suffering without iniquity, for it is written, Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.<a id="k55a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k55b_1:" Eccl. IX, 2."
,k55b_2:" Showing that death may come without sin."
,k55b_3:" Num. XX, 12."
,k55b_4:" On the view that they died sinless, this deduction is made: but had ye believed, you would have led the assembly into the land, etc. The punishment therefore was that they would not lead, not that they should die, which would have been disproportionate to their fault (Maharsha)."
,k55b_5:" I.e., because the serpent caused Adam and Eve to sin, but not on account of their own sin. &mdash; This is not to be confused with the doctrine of Original sin, which is rejected by Judaism, v. B.B., Sonc. ed., p. 86, n. 11."
,k55b_6:" II Sam. XVII, 25."
,k55b_7:" I Chron. II, 16. 'Their sisters' refers to the sons of Jesse; v. preceding verse."
,k55b_8:" It may be observed that the Talmud calls this an explicit intimation."
,k55b_9:" Gen. XXXV, 22."
,k55b_10:" Lit., 'balanced as one' &mdash; they were all equal in righteousness."
,k55b_11:" Ibid."
,k55b_12:" Placing it in Leah's tent; v. <i>infra</i>."
,k55b_13:" He did not even have the opportunity."
,k55b_14:" Deut. XXVII; 20; v. 13."
,k55b_15:" Rashi: Jacob set a couch for the <i>Shechinah</i> in the tents of each of his wives, and where the <i>Shechinah</i> came to rest, there he spent the night."
,k55b_16:" Gen. XLIX, 4. This translation is based on the change of person from second (defiledst) to third (went), which implies a different subject for 'went'."
,k55b_17:" Ibid."
,k55b_18:" To be saved from sin."
,k55b_19:" Of Modim, some fifteen miles north of Jerusalem."
,k55b_20:" All treat the word Pahaz (E.V. unstable) as a mnemonic, each letter indicating a word. Thus R. Eliezer and R. Joshua maintain that he sinned, while the others hold that his nobler feelings triumphed."
,k55b_21:" Through defying his lust."
,k55b_22:" V. p. 149, n. 6."
,k55b_23:" I Sam. I, 3."
,k55b_24:" lbid. II, 22."
,k55b_25:" After childbirth; v. Lev. XII, 6-8."
,k55b_26:" They had to wait in Shiloh until their birds were sacrificed."
,k55b_27:" lbid. XIV, 3."
,k55b_28:" Mal. II, 12."
,k55b_29:" I.e., not a priest."
,k55b_30:" [H], defectively, and to be treated as 3rd. person singular; cf. Arabic ending in an]."
,k55b_31:" I Sam. II, 24."
,k55b_32:" The sing. and the plural are the same in Heb. He must mean that the earlier traditional reading was my son."
,k55b_33:" Ibid."
,k55b_34:" [H]: M.T. has [H], but in a number of places the Talmud version differs from ours. V. Tosaf and Marginal Gloss]."
,k55b_35:" Ibid. 12. "
}

txt:
<p>
An objection is raised: The ministering angels asked the Holy One, blessed be He: 'Sovereign of the Universe! Why didst Thou impose the penalty of death upon Adam?' Said He to them, I gave him an easy command, yet he violated it.' 'But Moses and Aaron fulfilled the whole Torah,' they pursued &mdash; 'yet they died'. <i>'There is one event to the righteous and to the wicked; to the good,</i> etc.,<a id="k55b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; He replied.<a id="k55b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He maintains as the following Tanna. For it was taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Moses and Aaron too died through their sin, for it is said, Because ye believed not in me[...therefore ye shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them]:<a id="k55b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; hence, had ye believed in Me, your time had not yet come to depart from the world.<a id="k55b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	An objection is raised: Four died through the serpent's machinations,<a id="k55b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; viz., Benjamin the son of Jacob, Amram the father of Moses, Jesse the father of David, and Caleb the son of David. Now, all are known by tradition, save Jesse the father of David, in whose case the Writ gives an explicit intimation. For it is written, And Absalom set Amasa over the host instead of Joab. Now Amasa was the son of a man whose name was Ithra the Israelite, that went in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah Joab's mother.<a id="k55b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, was she the daughter of Nahash? Surely she was the daughter of Jesse, for it is written, and their sisters were Zeruiah and Abigail?<a id="k55b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence it must mean, the daughter of one who died through the machinations of the nahash [serpent].<a id="k55b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Who is [the author of this]? Shall we say, the Tanna [who taught] about the ministering angels? &mdash; Surely there were Moses and Aaron too! Hence it must surely be R. Simeon b. Eleazar, which proves that there is death without sin and suffering without iniquity. Thus the refutation of R. Ammi is [indeed] a refutation.
</p><p>
	R. Samuel b. Nahman said in R. Jonathan's name: Whoever maintains that Reuben sinned is merely making an error, for it is said, Now the sons of Jacob were twelve,<a id="k55b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; teaching that they were all equal.<a id="k55b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Then how do I interpret, and he lay with Bilhah his father's concubine?<a id="k55b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; This teaches that he transposed his father's couch,<a id="k55b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and the Writ imputes [blame] to him as though he had lain with her. It was taught, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: That righteous man was saved from that sin and that deed did not come to his hand.<a id="k55b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Is it possible that his seed was destined to stand on Mount Ebal and proclaim, Cursed be he that lieth with his father's wife,<a id="k55b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; yet this sin should come to his hand? But how do I interpret, and he lay with Bilhah his father's concubine'? He resented his mother's humiliation. Said he, If my mother's sister was a rival to my mother, shall the bondmaid of my mother's sister be a rival to my mother? [Thereupon] he arose and transposed her couch. Others say, He transposed two couches, one of the <i>Shechinah</i> and the other of his father.<a id="k55b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Thus it is written, Then thou defiledst, my couch on which [the <i>Shechinah</i>] went up.<a id="k55b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	This is dependent on Tannaim. Unstable [Pahaz] as water, thou shalt not excel:<a id="k55b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Eliezer interpreted: Thou wast hasty [Paztah], thou wast guilty [Habtah] thou didst disgrace [Zaltah]. R. Joshua interpreted: Thou didst overstep [Pasatah] the law, thou didst sin [Hatatha], thou didst fornicate [Zanitha]. R. Gamaliel interpreted: Thou didst meditate [Pillaltah],<a id="k55b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; thou didst supplicate [Haltah], thy prayer shone forth [Zarhah]. Said R. Gamaliel, We still need [the interpretation of] the Modiite. R. Eleazar the Modiite<a id="k55b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; said, Reverse the word and interpret it: Thou didst tremble [Zi'az'atha], thou didst recoil [Halitha], thy sin fled [Parhah] from thee.<a id="k55b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba &mdash; others state, R. Jeremiah b. Abba interpreted: Thou didst remember [Zakarta] the penalty of the crime, thou wast [grievously] sick [Halitha],<a id="k55b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; thou heldest aloof [Pirashta] from sinning.
</p><p>
	(Mnemonic: <i>Reuben, the sons of Eli, the sons of Samuel, David, Solomon, and Josiah</i>.)<a id="k55b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Jonathan's name: Whoever maintains that the sons of Eli sinned is merely making an error, for it is said, And the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, priests unto the Lord, were there.<a id="k55b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; Now he agrees with Rab, who said, Phinehas did not sin. [Hence] Hophni is likened to Phinehas: just as Phinehas did not sin, so did Hophni not sin. Then how do I interpret, and how that they [sc. Eli's sons] lay with the women?<a id="k55b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; Because they delayed their bird-offerings<a id="k55b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; so that they did not go to their husbands,<a id="k55b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; the Writ stigmatizes them as though they had lain with them.
</p><p>
	It was stated above, 'Rab said, Phinehas did not sin,' for it is said, and Ahijah, the son of Ahitub, Ichabod's brother, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eli, the priest of the Lord, etc.<a id="k55b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, is it possible that sin had come to his hand, yet the Writ states his descent? Surely It is said, The Lord will cut off to the man that doeth this, him that waketh ['er] and him that answereth, out of the tents of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the Lord of hosts:<a id="k55b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; [this means:] if an Israelite,<a id="k55b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; he shall have none awakening [i.e., teaching] among the Sages and none responding among the disciples; if a priest, he shall have no son to offer an offering? Hence it follows that Phinehas did not sin. But it is written, 'how that they lay [etc.']? &mdash; 'He lay' is written.<a id="k55b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; But it is written, Nay, my sons; for it is no good report that I hear?<a id="k55b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: My son is written.<a id="k55b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; But it is written, ye make [the Lord's people] to transgress?<a id="k55b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said R. Huna son of R. Joshua, It is written, he causes them to transgess.<a id="k55b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; But it is written, sons of Belial?<a id="k55b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Because Phinehas should have protested to Hophni but did not, the Writ regards him as though he [too] sinned.
</p><p>
	R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Jonathan's name: Whoever maintains
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k56a_1:" I Sam. VIII, 1, 3."
,k56a_2:" Ibid."
,k56a_3:" Ibid. VII, 16."
,k56a_4:" Who are sent to summon the litigants. On hazzan v. p. 41, n. 7."
,k56a_5:" Who record the pleas, arguments, verdicts, etc."
,k56a_6:" They were Levites, and personally demanded the tithes. Owing to their exalted position their demands were acceded to, while the humbler Levites might starve. But they did not actually pervert judgment. &mdash; R. Meir's interpretation may have been called forth by the troublous times before the overthrow of the Jewish state, when many High Priests abused their positions by such extortion; v. Halevi, Doroth I, 5, pp. 4 seq."
,k56a_7:" They compelled people to be their business agents."
,k56a_8:" Either the priestly dues, viz., the shoulder, cheeks, and maw of animals, though they were not priests; or the Levitical dues, sc. the first tithes, their sin being that they used force."
,k56a_9:" Ibid. XVIII, 14."
,k56a_10:" II Sam. XII, 9."
,k56a_11:" II Sam. Xli, 9."
,k56a_12:" The great court; v. Sanh. 2a."
,k56a_13:" Lakah, the verb employed here, denotes marriage; cf. Deut. XXIV, 1."
,k56a_14:" I Sam. XVII, 18."
,k56a_15:" Lit., 'him and her', sc. the marriage. I.e., take away their marriage &mdash; cancel it by means of a divorce. &mdash; The divorce was conditional, in the sense that it became retrospectively valid if the husband died. Thus, since Uriah died, she was a free woman from the time he went out, and was not married when David took her."
,k56a_16:" II Sam. XI, 11. Thus he disobeyed David's order to go home."
,k56a_17:" I Kings XV, 5. Rashi: his only sin lay in encompassing Uriah's death, but not in taking Bathsheba (as explained above). From the context, however, it appears that Rab does not exculpate him from adultery with Bathsheba, but means that David was guilty of no other sin save that in connection with Uriah, which naturally includes his behaviour with Bathsheba. On that view Rab rejects Rabbi's exegesis (That too appears from Rab's prefacing remark: 'Rabbi who is descended, etc.')."
,k56a_18:" II Sam. IX, 4."
,k56a_19:" Ibid. 5. Maharsha: belo dabar is translated: He (Mephibosheth son of Jonathan and grandson of Saul) has words, i.e., makes unloyal accusations against you. But David found that he was millo dabar, i.e., he had not made such accusations. Thus Ziba's charges were unfounded. This explains the Gemara that follows."
,k56a_20:" Ibid. XVI, 3."
,k56a_21:" Ibid. 4."
,k56a_22:" Which substantiated Ziba's charges. Thus it was not a mere acceptance of slander."
,k56a_23:" Ibid. XIX, 24. "
}

txt:
<p>
that Samuel's sons sinned is merely erring. For it is said, And it came to pass when Samuel was old... that his sons walked not in his ways:<a id="k56a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; thus, they [merely] walked not in his ways, yet they did not sin either. Then how do I fulfil, 'they turned aside for lucre'?<a id="k56a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; That means that they did not act like their father. For Samuel the righteous used to travel to all the places of Israel and judge them in their towns, as it is said, And he went from year to year in circuit to Beth-el, and Gilgal, and Mizpah; and he judged Israel.<a id="k56a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; But they did not act thus, but sat in their own towns, in order to increase the fees of their beadles<a id="k56a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and scribes.<a id="k56a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	This is a controversy of Tannaim: 'They turned aside for lucre': R. Meir said, [That means,] They openly demanded their portions.<a id="k56a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Judah said: They forced<a id="k56a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; goods on private people. R. Akiba said: They took an extra basket of tithes by force. R. Jose said: They took the gifts by force.<a id="k56a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Jonathan's name: Whoever says that David sinned is merely erring, for it is said, And David behaved himself wisely in all his ways: and the Lord was with him.<a id="k56a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Is it possible that sin came to his hand, yet the Divine Presence was with him? Then how do I interpret, Wherefore hast thou despised the word of the Lord, to do that which is evil in his sight?<a id="k56a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; He wished to do [evil], but did not. Rab observed: Rabbi, who is descended from David, seeks to defend him, and expounds [the verse] in David's favour. [Thus:] The 'evil' [mentioned] here is unlike every other 'evil' [mentioned] elsewhere in the Torah. For of every other evil [mentioned] in the Torah it is written, 'and he did,' whereas here it is written, 'to do': [this means] that he desired to do, but did not. Thou hast smitten Uriah the Hittite with the sword:<a id="k56a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; thou shouldst have had him tried by the Sanhedrin,<a id="k56a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; but didst not. And hast taken his wife to be thy wife: thou hast marriage rights in her.<a id="k56a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; For R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Jonathan's name: Every one who went out in the wars of the house of David wrote a bill of divorcement for his wife, for it is said, and bring these ten cheeses unto the captain of their thousand, and look how thy brethren fare, and take their pledge ['arubatham].<a id="k56a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; What is meant by 'arubatham? R. Joseph learned: The things which pledge man and woman [to one another].<a id="k56a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; And thou hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon:<a id="k56a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; just as thou art not [to be] punished for the sword of the Ammonites, so art thou not [to be] punished for [the death of] Uriah the Hittite. What is the reason? He was rebellious against royal authority, saying to him, and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open field [etc].<a id="k56a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab said: When you examine [the life of] David, you find nought but 'save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.'<a id="k56a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye the Elder pointed out a contradiction in Rab['s dicta]: Did Rab say thus? Surely Rab said, David paid heed to slander? The difficulty remains.
</p><p>
	[To revert to] the main text: 'Rab said, David paid heed to slander,' for it is written, And the king said unto him, where is he? And Ziba said unto the king, Behold, he is in the house of Machir the son of Ammiel, belo da bar [in Lo-debar].<a id="k56a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; And it is written, Then David sent, and fetched him out of the house of Machir the son of Ammiel, millo dabar [from Lo-debar].<a id="k56a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Now consider: he [David] saw that he [Ziba] was a liar; then when he slandered him a second time, why did he pay heed thereto? For it is written, And the king said, And where is thy master's son? And Ziba said unto the king, Behold, he abideth at Jerusalem [: for he said, To-day shall the house of Israel restore me the kingdom of  my father].<a id="k56a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; And how do we know that he accepted it [the slander] from, him? Because it is written, Then said the king to Ziba, Behold, thine is all that pertaineth unto Mephibosheth. And Ziba said, I do obeisance; let me find favour in thy sight, my lord, O king.<a id="k56a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But Samuel maintained: David did not pay heed to slander, [for] he saw self-evident things in him,<a id="k56a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; For it is written, And Mephibosheth the son of Saul came down to meet the king; and he had neither dressed his feet, nor trimmed his beard, nor washed his clothes, etc.<a id="k56a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; While it is written, And it came to pass, when he was come to Jerusalem to meet the king, that the king said unto him, Wherefore wentest thou not with me, Mephibosheth? And he answered, My Lord, O king, my servant deceived me: for thy servant said, I will saddle me an ass, that I may ride thereon, and go with the king, because thy servant is lame,
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k56b_1:" II Sam. XIX, 25-30."
,k56b_2:" Lit., 'said'."
,k56b_3:" Thus he confirmed Ziba's accusation. For David regarded Mephibosheth's unkempt appearance too as a sign that he grieved over his return."
,k56b_4:" I Chron. VIII, 34; IX, 40."
,k56b_5:" Be'alaw fr. ba'al."
,k56b_6:" I Sam. XV, 5."
,k56b_7:" Saul argued: If the Torah decreed that a heifer should have its neck broken in the valley on account of a single murdered man (Deut. XXI, 1-9), how much greater is the sin of slaying all these Amalekites! (v. Yoma 22b). Thus he strove against God's command."
,k56b_8:" This agrees with Rab's view (<i>supra</i> a) that David paid heed to slander and acted unjustly. Hence this punishment."
,k56b_9:" The first step to idolatry was Jeroboam's setting up of the golden calves in order to maintain the independence of his kingdom (v. I Kings XII, 26 seq.)."
,k56b_10:" As a punishment for idolatry."
,k56b_11:" I Kings XI, 4."
,k56b_12:" Ibid."
,k56b_13:" His wives attempted to seduce him, but failed."
,k56b_14:" E.V. 'did'."
,k56b_15:" I Kings XI, 7."
,k56b_16:" Yibneh is imperfect, denoting uncompleted action; v. Driver's Hebrew Tenses, ch. III, 21 seq."
,k56b_17:" Josh. VIII, 30."
,k56b_18:" The statement that Solomon did not sin."
,k56b_19:" II Kings XXIII, 13. This refers to the religious reformations of Josiah."
,k56b_20:" Josiah merely removed the idols that were reintroduced after the deaths of the former two kings, but not all idols, since they had already been destroyed, yet it is all attributed to him. So Solomon too was not responsible for the building of the idolatrous high places; nevertheless, since he did not veto them, they are ascribed to him."
,k56b_21:" I Kings XI, 6."
,k56b_22:" Lit., 'something else' &mdash; i.e., to an idol, receiving pay for drawing water and hewing wood in its service, etc., though not believing in it."
,k56b_23:" Lit., 'do'."
,k56b_24:" This, of course, is an allegory. Solomon's unfaithfulness laid the seeds for the dissolution of the Jewish State."
,k56b_25:" On the site of Rome."
,k56b_26:" This term was particularly applied to the southern portion of Italy, called Magna Graecia, Cf. Meg. 6b in the ed. Ven. (omitted in later ed.): Greek Italy, that means the great city of Rome, v. Meg., Sonc. ed., p. 31, nn. 5-6."
,k56b_27:" II Kings XXII. 2."
,k56b_28:" Ibid. XXIII, 25. Shab really means that he repented, and thus implies that he first sinned."
,k56b_29:" I.e., from his accession until the finding of the Book of the Law, i.e., the Torah (v. XXII, 1-8). He revised his judgments in the light of the Torah, and shab is translated accordingly."
,k56b_30:" In the course of this revision."
,k56b_31:" Me'odo <me'od is translated money, wealth, in the Talmud. Cf. Sanh. 74a on Deut. VI, 5 (Sonc. ed., p. 502)."
,k56b_32:" V. p. 217, n. 7."
,k56b_33:" Jast.: a repentant sinner with a halo; others: whom an angel seized by his forelock (accepting his repentance and bringing him to God). "
}

txt:
<p>
And he hath slandered thy servant unto my lord the king; but my lord the king is as an angel of God: do therefore what is good in thine eyes. For all my father's house were but dead men before my lord the king: yet didst thou set thy servant among them that did eat at thine own table. What right therefore have I yet that I should cry and more unto the king? And the king said unto him, Why speakest thou any more of thy matters? I say, Thou and Ziba divide the land. And Mephibosheth said unto the king, Yea, let him take all, forasmuch as my lord the king is come in peace unto his own house.<a id="k56b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; He said [thus] to him: I prayed,<a id="k56b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; when wilt thou return In peace? Yet thou treatest me so. Not against thee have I resentment, but against Him who restored thee in peace!<a id="k56b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence it is written, And the son of Jonathan was Meribbaal:<a id="k56b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; was then his name Merib-baal? Surely it was Mephibosheth? But because he raised a quarrel [meribah] with his Master,<a id="k56b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; a Heavenly Echo went forth and rebuked him, Thou man of strife, [and] the son of a man of strife! Man of strife, as we have stated. Son of a man of strife, for it is written, And Saul came to the city of Amalek, and strove in the valley.<a id="k56b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Manni said: [That means,] concerning the matter of the valley.<a id="k56b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in Rab's name: When David said to Mephibosheth, 'Thou and Ziba divide the land,' a Heavenly Echo came forth and declared to him, Rehoboam and Jeroboam shall divide the kingdom.<a id="k56b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab Judah said in Rab's name: Had not David paid heed to slander, the kingdom of the House of David would not have been divided, Israel had not engaged in idolatry,<a id="k56b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and we would not have been exiled from our country.<a id="k56b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Jonathan's name: Whoever maintains that Solomon sinned is merely making an error, for it is said, and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father:<a id="k56b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; it was [merely] not as the heart of David his father, but neither did he sin. Then how do I interpret, For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart?<a id="k56b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; That is [to be explained] as R. Nathan. For R. Nathan opposed [two verses]: It is written, For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart,' whereas it is [also] written, and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father, [implying that] it was [merely] not as the heart of David his father, but neither did he sin? This is its meaning: his wives turned away his heart to go after other gods, but he did not go.<a id="k56b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; But it is written, Then would<a id="k56b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Solomon build a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab?<a id="k56b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; That means, he desired to build, but did not.<a id="k56b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; If so, Then Joshua built [yibneh] an altar unto the Lord,<a id="k56b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; [does this too mean,] he desired to build but did not! Hence it [surely means] that he [actually] built; so here too it means that he built? &mdash; Rather it<a id="k56b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; is as was taught: R. Jose said, and the high places that were before Jerusalem, which were on the right hand of the mount of corruption, which Solomon the king of Israel had builded for Ashtoreth the abomination of Moab.<a id="k56b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, is it possible that Assa came and did not destroy them, then Jehoshaphat, and he did not destroy them, until Josiah came and destroyed them! But surely Assa and Jehoshaphat destroyed all the idolatrous cults in Palestine? Hence [the explanation is that] the earlier are assimilated to the later: just as the later did not do, yet it was ascribed to them, to their glory, so the earlier ones too did not do, yet it was ascribed to them, to their shame.<a id="k56b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; But it is written, And Solomon did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord?<a id="k56b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But because he should have restrained his wives, but did not, the Writ regards him as though he sinned.
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: Better had it been for that righteous man to be an acolyte to the unmentionable,<a id="k56b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; only that it should not be written of him, 'and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord'.
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: When Solomon married Pharaoh's daughter, she brought him a thousand musical instruments and said to him, Thus we play<a id="k56b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; in honour of that idol, thus in honour of that idol, yet he did not forbid her.
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: When Solomon married Pharaoh's daughter, Gabriel descended and planted a reed in the sea, and it gathered a bank around it, on which the great city of Rome was built.<a id="k56b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; In a Baraitha it was taught: On the day that Jeroboam brought the two golden calves, one into Bethel and the other into Dan, a hut was built,<a id="k56b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; and this developed into Greek Italy.<a id="k56b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Jonathan's name: Whoever maintains that Josiah sinned is merely making an error, for it is said, And he did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and walked in all the ways of David his father.<a id="k56b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Then how do I interpret, and like unto him there was no king before him, that returned [shab] to the Lord with all his heart etc.?<a id="k56b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; [This teaches] that he revised every judgment which he had pronounced between the ages of eight and eighteen.<a id="k56b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; You might say that he took from one and gave to another:<a id="k56b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; therefore it is taught, 'with all me'odo [his might]', [teaching] that he gave of his own.<a id="k56b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, he disagrees with Rab. For Rab said: There was no greater penitent than Josiah in his generation and a certain person in ours; and who is that? Abba the father of R. Jeremiah b. Abba, and some say Aha the brother of Abba the father of Jeremiah b. Abba. (For a Master said: R. Abba and Aha were brothers). R. Joseph said: And there is yet another in our generation. And who is he? 'Ukban b. Nehemiah the Resh Galutha.<a id="k56b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; And he is 'Nathan with the ray of light.'<a id="k56b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph said: I was sitting at the session and dozing, and saw in a dream how one [an angel] stretched out his hand and received him.
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k58a_1:" The wearing of bridal crowns was forbidden as a sign of mourning for the destruction of the Temple; v. Sot. 49a."
,k58a_2:" This is the slave's neck-chain."
,k58a_3:" In the former case he fears to remove it; hence he may wear it. But he is not afraid to remove it in the latter case, and possibly will."
,k58a_4:" He may fold the garment to hide the absence of the signet, fearing that his master may accuse him of having purposely removed it in order to pass as a free man."
,k58a_5:" V. p. 217. n. 7."
,k58a_6:" From this it appears that some scholars wore a badge to indicate that they belonged to the retinue of the exilarch, and were possibly in the position of his clients. He was also evidently very particular about this, so that if the seal fell off one might fold up the garment to hide its absence."
,k58a_7:" Because they are neither ornaments nor useful utensils, but merely badges of shame."
,k58a_8:" These are ornamental."
,k58a_9:" v. <i>supra</i> 54b for the reason."
,k58a_10:" They are not ornamental for the animal."
,k58a_11:" V. p. 270, n. 6."
,k58a_12:" It is shown below that this must refer to a metal seal; hence even if his master set it upon him he may not go out with it, for should it accidentally snap off the slave would be afraid to leave it in the street on account of its value, but would bring it home, which is forbidden. But the value of a clay seal is negligible, whilst if his master set it upon him he is certainly afraid to remove it; hence he may go out with it. Consequently, the prohibition in the Mishnah, which treats of a clay seal, must refer to one that he set upon himself."
,k58a_13:" On account of its value."
,k58a_14:" I.e., the general appointments of an animal, its accoutrement and equipment, which rank as utensils."
,k58a_15:" Of clay."
,k58a_16:" Lit., 'the words of the scribes; v. Kid., Sonc. ed., p. 79, n. 7. These clay seals were not glazed or burnt in a kiln, to be regarded as pottery, which can be defiled. Thus there is no point in teaching that they are free thereof, for no utensil of similar make is susceptible. "
,k58a_17:" I.e., if something is woven into a garment, it may be worn on the Sabbath without fear of its falling off. V. <i>supra</i> 57b."
,k58a_18:" I.e., liable to uncleanness. "
}

txt:
<p>
bridal crowns.<a id="k58a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But Samuel maintained: We learnt of a slave's neck-chain. Now, did Samuel say thus? Surely Samuel said: A slave may go out with a seal round his neck,<a id="k58a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; but not with a seal on his garments? There is no difficulty: in the one case [the reference is] where his master set it upon him; in the other where he set it upon himself.<a id="k58a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; How have you explained this latter [dictum] of Samuel? that his master set it upon him! Then why [may he] not [go out] with the seal on his garment? &mdash; Lest it break off, and he be afraid and fold it [the garment] and put it over his shoulder.<a id="k58a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; This is as R. Isaac b. Joseph, who said in R. Johanan's name: If one goes out on the Sabbath with a folded garment slung over his shoulder, he incurs a sin-offering. And [this is] as Samuel said to R. Hinena b. Shila: No scholar of the house of the Resh Galutha<a id="k58a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; may go out with a cloak bearing a seal, except you, because the house of the Resh Galutha is not particular about you.<a id="k58a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was stated above: 'Samuel said: A slave may go out with a seal around his neck, but not with the seal on his garments.' It was taught likewise: A slave may go out with a seal around his neck, but not with the seal on his garments. But the following contradicts this: A slave may not go out with the seal around his neck, nor with the seal on his garments; and neither are susceptible to defilement.<a id="k58a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [He may] not [go out] with the bell around his neck, but he may go out with the bell on his garments, and both are susceptible to defilement.<a id="k58a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; An animal may not go out with a seal around its neck nor with a seal on its covering, nor with the bell on its covering nor with the bell around its neck,<a id="k58a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and none of these are susceptible to defilement.<a id="k58a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Shall we say that in the one case his master had set it upon him, while in the other he had set it upon himself?<a id="k58a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No. In both cases his master had set it upon him, but one refers to a metal [seal] while the other refers to a clay [seal].<a id="k58a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; And [this is] as R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: That about which the master is particular,<a id="k58a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; one [a slave] may not go out with it; that about which the master is not particular, one may go out with it. Reason too supports this, since it is stated: 'none of these are susceptible to defilement'. Now, if you say [that the reference is to] metal [seals], it is well; [hence] only these are not susceptible to defilement, but their utensils<a id="k58a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; are. But if you say that we learnt of clay [seals], [it might be asked] are only these not susceptible to defilement, whereas their utensils<a id="k58a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; are? Surely it was taught: Utensils of stone, dung, or earth do not contract uncleanness either by Biblical or by Rabbinical law.<a id="k58a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence it follows that the reference is to metal [seals]. This proves it.
</p><p>
	The Master said: '[He may] not [go out] with the bell around his neck, but he may go out with the bell on his garment.' Why not with the bell around his neck; [presumably] 'lest it snap off and he come to carry it: then also in the case of the bell on his garment let us fear that it may snap off and he come to carry it? &mdash; The reference here is to one that was woven [sewn] into it. And [this is] in agreement with R. Huna the son of R. Joshua, who said: Concerning whatever is woven they enacted no prohibition.<a id="k58a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The Master said: 'An animal may not go out with a seal around its neck, with a seal on its covering, nor with a bell around its neck nor with a bell on its coat, and none of these are susceptible to defilement.' Now, does not an animal's bell contract uncleanness? But the following contradicts it: An animal's bell is unclean,<a id="k58a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k58b_1:" The door being part of the house, it is not a utensil, and hence cannot become unclean; the bell, in turn, is part of the door."
,k58b_2:" V. p. 238, n. 9. Here too the bells were left unchanged."
,k58b_3:" If it has a clapper it is susceptible to defilement as a utensil."
,k58b_4:" I.e., it ranks as a utensil."
,k58b_5:" Num. XXXI, 23."
,k58b_6:" In order to cleanse it, which shows that it is liable to defilement. This connects dabar (E.V. thing) with dibbur, speech, i.e., a sound-producing object is a utensil."
,k58b_7:" In which the spices are pounded for use as frankincense in the Temple. Sound was thought to add to the efficacy of crushing; v. Ker. 6b."
,k58b_8:" To amuse the baby or lull it to sleep."
,k58b_9:" Of the Torah. It was customary to adorn these with bells."
,k58b_10:" From the very outset."
,k58b_11:" After the bells were defiled."
,k58b_12:" Because they do not lose the status of utensils and become as broken utensils through the removal of the clapper."
,k58b_13:" Hence without a clapper its purpose is not fulfilled, and it is not a utensil."
,k58b_14:" That they are not regarded as broken utensils."
,k58b_15:" And rank as a single utensil, so that if once becomes unclean the other is too. (This is, of course, when they are together.) Similarly, if one is besprinkled (v. Num. XIX, 18f), the other becomes clean. This shows that when they are separated, each is but a fragment of a utensil, though an unskilled person can replace it, and should therefore be clean."
,k58b_16:" Exactly as the sense in Abaye's explanation."
,k58b_17:" Lit., 'joints'."
,k58b_18:" For notes v. <i>supra</i> 48b and 49a. Now, obviously this must all refer to where the parts are joined, since we compare these utensils when not in use to same when in use. Hence it is implied that when not actually together they do not become defiled even by Rabbinical law, because each is regarded as a fragment, though all unskilled person can join them. "
}

txt:
<p>
but a door bell is clean.<a id="k58b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; A door [bell] appointed for an animal['s use] is unclean; an animal [bell] appointed for [fixing] to a door, even if attached to the door and fastened with nails, is unclean; for all utensils enter upon their uncleanness by intention, but are relieved from their uncleanness only by a change-effecting act?<a id="k58b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is no difficulty: in the one case [the reference is] where it has a clapper: in the other where it has no clapper.<a id="k58b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; What will you: if it is a utensil, then even if it has no clapper [it is unclean]; if it is not a utensil, does the clapper make it one? Yes, as R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Johanan's name, Viz.: How do we know that a metal object which causes sound is unclean?<a id="k58b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Because it is said, Everything [dabar] that may abide the fire, ye shall make go through the fire:<a id="k58b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; even speech [dibbur &mdash; i.e., sound] must pass through the fire.<a id="k58b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	How have you interpreted it? as referring to [a bell] without a clapper! Then consider the middle clause: 'Nor with a bell around his neck, but he may go out with a bell on his garments, and both can contract uncleanness.' But if it has no clapper, can it become defiled? Surely the following contradicts this: If one makes bells for the mortar,<a id="k58b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; for a cradle,<a id="k58b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; for the mantles of Scrolls,<a id="k58b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; or for children's mantles, then if they have a clapper, they are unclean; if they have no clapper,<a id="k58b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; they are clean. If their clappers are removed,<a id="k58b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; they still retain their uncleanness.<a id="k58b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; That is only in the case of a child, where its purpose is [to produce] sound.<a id="k58b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; But in the case of an adult, it is an ornament for him even without a clapper.
</p><p>
	The Master said: 'If their clappers are removed, they still retain their uncleanness.' What are they fit for?<a id="k58b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Abaye: [They are still utensils,] because an unskilled person can put it back. Raba objected: A bell and its clapper are [counted as] connected.<a id="k58b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; And should you answer, This is its meaning: Even when they are not connected, they are [counted as] connected,<a id="k58b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; surely it was taught: A shears of separate blades<a id="k58b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and the cutter of a [carpenter's] plane are [counted as] connected in respect of uncleanness, but not in respect of sprinkling. Now we objected, What will you: if they are [counted as] connected, [they should be so] even in respect of sprinkling too; [if they count] not as connected, they should not [be so] even in respect of defilement either? And Rabbah answered: By Scriptural law, when in use they are [counted as] connected in respect of both defilement and sprinkling; when not in use, they are [counted as] connected in respect of neither defilement nor sprinkling. But they [the Rabbis] enacted a preventive measure in respect of defilement when they are not in use on account of defilement when they are in use; and in respect of sprinkling, when they are in use, on account of when they are not in use!<a id="k58b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather said Raba,
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k59a_1:" The bells that had their clappers removed."
,k59a_2:" Then they produce a bell-like sound just as when they have a clapper. Hence It is a utensil like before, and so remains unclean. But when the parts of a shears or of a plane are separated, they cannot be used at all."
,k59a_3:" Where a utensil is damaged or divided, does not R. Johanan hold that in order to remain unclean or susceptible to defilement it must still be fit for the same usage as before, it being insufficient that it shall merely be fit for some purpose?"
,k59a_4:" Lev. XV, 6. The reference is to a <i>zab</i>, q.v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k59a_5:" A measure of capacity. V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k59a_6:" Half a <i>se'ah</i>."
,k59a_7:" I.e., the <i>zab</i> would be told that the measure is needed for its main purpose; hence it is not unclean. This shows that as a general principle every article is regarded from the point of view of its original and primary function."
,k59a_8:" Lit., 'treading'. The uncleanness caused by a zab's treading, leaning against, or weighing down upon an article, even if he does not actually touch it with his body. This includes sitting."
,k59a_9:" I.e., in respect of an article's defilement through a corpse, or by a person who was himself defiled by a corpse, we do not say that in order to become unclean or remain unclean it shall be fit for its main purpose, but even if one has to say to the person using it, 'Get up, that we may do our business' it is still subject to the laws of uncleanness."
,k59a_10:" Thus he insists that it shall be fit for its original function. Rashi maintains that this can refer only to a utensil which is broken or divided after becoming defiled; it does not remain unclean unless fit for a usage of its original nature. R. Han. holds that it refers to its defilement from the very outset."
,k59a_11:" Transpose the reasons given by R. Jose b. Hanina and R. Johanan."
,k59a_12:" Transpose the views of R. Johanan and R. Eleazar."
,k59a_13:" I.e., liable to become unclean."
,k59a_14:" On a field of battle where no other utensils may be available, one can take up water in the cavity of the shoe into which the animal's foot fits."
,k59a_15:" This is a necessary part of one's toilet in the hot eastern countries; v. T.A., I, 229-233. The shoe might serve as an improvised oil pot."
,k59a_16:" Thus R. Johanan justifies its uncleanness only because it is still fit for a usage of the original nature."
,k59a_17:" For drinking. Hence, on Rab's view it is not subject to defilement, but on R. Hanina's it is. Rab disregards its possible use as an oil container, holding that soldiers dispense with oil on a field of battle."
,k59a_18:" For running. According to R. Hanina it is nevertheless susceptible to defilement, but not according to R. Johanan."
,k59a_19:" An ornament with the picture or the engraving of Jerusalem; v. T.A., I, p. 662, n. 961. "
}

txt:
<p>
[The reason is] because they<a id="k59a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; are fit for beating on an earthen utensil.<a id="k59a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; It was stated likewise: R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: [The reason is] because they are fit for beating on an earthen utensil. R. Johanan said: Because they are fit for giving a child a drink of water therein.
</p><p>
	Now, does not R. Johanan require [that it shall be fit for] a usage of its original nature?<a id="k59a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely it was taught: And everything whereon he sitteth [shall be unclean];<a id="k59a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; I might think that if he [the <i>zab</i>] overturns a <i>se'ah</i><a id="k59a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and sits upon it, or a <i>tarkab</i><a id="k59a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and sits upon it, it is unclean: hence it is stated, 'whereon he sitteth', teaching, [only] that which is appointed for sitting, excluding this, where we say to him, 'Get up, that we may do our business!'<a id="k59a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Eleazar said: In cases of midras<a id="k59a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; we say. 'Get up, that we may do our business'; but we do not say in the case of the defilement of the dead, 'Get up, that we may do our business!'<a id="k59a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; But R. Johanan maintained: In the case of defilement through the dead too we say. 'Get up, that we may do our business!'<a id="k59a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Reverse the former.<a id="k59a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; But what [reason] do you see to reverse the former; reverse the latter?<a id="k59a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Because we know R. Johanan to require [fitness for] usage of its original nature For we learnt an animal's shoe, [if] of metal, is unclean.<a id="k59a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; For what is it fit? &mdash; Rab said: It is fit for drinking water therein in battle.<a id="k59a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hanina said: It is fit for anointing oneself with oil from, it in battle.<a id="k59a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan said: When one is fleeing from the field of battle, he places this [shoe] on his [own] feet and runs over briars and thorns.<a id="k59a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Wherein do Rab and R. Johanan differ? &mdash; Where it is repulsive.<a id="k59a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan and R. Hanina differ where it is [too] heavy.<a id="k59a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	NOR WITH A GOLDEN CITY, what is meant by, WITH A GOLDEN CITY? &mdash; Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: A golden Jerusalem.<a id="k59a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k59b_1:" V. Ned. 50a."
,k59b_2:" Thus it is only Rabbinically forbidden, and involves no sacrifice."
,k59b_3:" A wreath or chaplet worn on the forehead. Some were entirely of gold or silver; others of silk shot through with gold or silver."
,k59b_4:" To be worn by a woman in the street on the Sabbath."
,k59b_5:" This being very costly, a woman is more likely to remove it to show to her friends."
,k59b_6:" I.e., where the chaplet or coronet is of a stuff with gold or silver embroidery, which would contain pieces of cast metal too."
,k59b_7:" And therefore a woman may be tempted to remove and show it."
,k59b_8:" And that is not worth showing. The translation follows what seems to be Rashi's interpretation. Jast.: they differ in respect of what is made of beaten, wrought metal, opp. to cast metal. One Master holds that what is made of cast metal is original (or perhaps, reading [H], v. MS.M., more precious), while the other holds the reverse."
,k59b_9:" Hence R. Ashi's version must be correct, for on the other version there is no case where Rab permits it."
,k59b_10:" Lit., 'his soul has gone to rest'."
,k59b_11:" Lit., 'to be by his side'. On R. Afes' accession as head of the Academy R. Hanina, who would not recognize him as his superior, pursued his studies outside, where he was joined by Levi; v. Keth. 103b."
,k59b_12:" Levi being in no way inferior to R. Hanina, he could not accept him as a head, and so he has come hither. Zuri, I. S. Toledoth, First Series, Bk. 2 pp. 137-139 observes that Levi was probably born in Babylon, whither he was now returning to resettle."
,k59b_13:" Who was his senior."
,k59b_14:" As head of the academy. Lit., 'there is no way or path that R. Hanina' etc.: i.e., it is impossible."
,k59b_15:" Job XXII, 28."
,k59b_16:" The famous town on the Tigris where Raba had his great academy; v. Obermeyer, pp. 161-186,"
,k59b_17:" V. I. S. Zuri, <i>op. cit</i>., Part I, Bk. 3, pp. 19-27 on the significance of numbers. He maintains that eighteen is often used symbolically to denote a large number. &mdash; Mahoza was a very wealthy town, owing to its central position and the great caravan and shipping trade that passed through it; this is reflected in the present statement. Obermeyer, p. 173."
,k59b_18:" <i>Var. lec</i>.: Mar Judah in the name of R. Shesheth, v. D.S."
,k59b_19:" Kamra was a costly girdle, made either of solid gold or of cloth adorned with gold and precious stones (Rashi)."
,k59b_20:" V. p. 276, n. 7."
,k59b_21:" There is no fear of either being removed."
,k59b_22:" Which was likewise made of beaten gold. Rashi: all Israel are princes, and worthy to wear such belts."
,k59b_23:" Rashi: That is certainly forbidden, for one is superfluous and a burden. Rashi quotes another interpretation to the effect that it is permitted, but prefers the first."
,k59b_24:" For by their means it can be firmly tied to the wearer, so that it will not fall off and necessitate its being carried in the street."
,k59b_25:" A band or necklace on which beads, trinkets, etc., are suspended."
,k59b_26:" The deduction is from the end of the Mishnah."
,k59b_27:" I.e., susceptible to defilement."
,k59b_28:" V. <i>supra</i> 52b for notes."
,k59b_29:" Jast. Rashi: Two rods fitted into the yoke the breadth of an ox's shoulder apart. Jast.: if they are broken off, the yoke ceases to be susceptible to defilement. Rashi: if they are of metal, the yoke is susceptible to defilement. The yoke itself is a straight piece of wood, and wood utensils are not subject to uncleanness unless they possess a cavity which, e.g., can hold water. "
}

txt:
<p>
such as R. Akiba made for his wife.<a id="k59b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: A woman must not go out with a golden city, and if she does, she incurs a sin-offering: this is R. Meir's view. The Sages maintain: She may not go out [therewith], but if she does, she is not liable. R. Eliezer ruled: A woman may go out with a golden city at the very outset. Wherein do they differ? &mdash; R. Meir holds that it is a burden; while the Rabbis hold that it is an ornament, [and it is forbidden only] lest she remove it to show [to a friend], and thus come to carry it [in the street];<a id="k59b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; but R. Eliezer reasons: Whose practice is it to go out with a golden city? [That of] a woman of rank; and such will not remove it for display.
</p><p>
	As for a coronet,<a id="k59b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab forbids it;<a id="k59b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Samuel permits it. Where it is made of cast metal, all agree that it is forbidden;<a id="k59b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; they differ about an embroidered stuff:<a id="k59b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; one Master holds that the cast metal [sewn on to it] is the chief part;<a id="k59b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; while the other Master holds that the embroidered stuff is the chief part.<a id="k59b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ashi learnt it in the direction of leniency. As for an embroidered stuff, all agree that it is permitted. They differ only about what is made of cast metal: one Master holds [that it is forbidden] lest she remove it in order to show, and [thus] come to carry it; while the other Master holds: Whose practice is it to go out with a coronet? That of a woman of rank; and such will not remove it for display.
</p><p>
	R. Samuel b. Bar Hanah said to R. Joseph: You explicitly told us in Rab's name that a coronet is permitted.<a id="k59b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab was told: A great, tall, and lame man has come to Nehardea, and has lectured: A coronet is permitted. Said he: Who is a great tall man who is lame? Levi. This proves that R. Afes is dead<a id="k59b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and R. Hanina [now] sits at the head [of the Academy], so that Levi has none for a companion,<a id="k59b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and therefore he has come hither.<a id="k59b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; But perhaps R. Hanina had died, R. Afes remaining as before, and since Levi [now] had no companion he had come hither? &mdash; Had R. Hanina died, Levi would indeed have subordinated himself to R. Afes.<a id="k59b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Moreover, it could not be that R. Hanina should not rule.<a id="k59b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; For when Rabbi was dying he ordered, 'Let Hanina son of R. Hama sit at the head.' And of the righteous men it is written, Thou shalt also decree a thing, and it shall be established unto thee.<a id="k59b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Levi lectured in Nehardea: A coronet is permitted; [whereupon] there went forth twenty-four coronets from the whole of Nehardea. Rabbah b. Abbuha lectured in Mahoza:<a id="k59b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; A coronet is permitted: [whereupon] there went forth eighteen coronets from a single alley.<a id="k59b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in the name of R. Samuel:<a id="k59b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; A girdle [kamra] is permitted.<a id="k59b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Some say, That means of embroidered stuff,<a id="k59b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; and R. Safra said: It may be compared to a robe shot through with gold.<a id="k59b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Others say, It means of cast metal; whereon R. Safra observed: It may be compared to a royal girdle.<a id="k59b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabina asked R. Ashi: What about wearing a kamra over a [plain] girdle [HEMYANA]? &mdash; You ask about two girdles! he replied.<a id="k59b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ashi said: As for a piece of a garment, if it has fringes, it is permitted;<a id="k59b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; if not, it is forbidden.
</p><p>
	NOR WITH A KATLA. What is a KATLA? &mdash; A trinket holder.<a id="k59b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	NEZAMIM. [That is] ear-rings.
</p><p>
	NOR WITH A FINGER-RING THAT HAS NO SIGNET. This [implies that] if it has a signet, she is liable;<a id="k59b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; hence it proves that it is not an ornament. But the following contradicts this: Women's ornaments are unclean.<a id="k59b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; And these are women's ornaments: Necklaces, ear-rings and finger-rings, and a finger-ring, whether it has a signet or has no signet, and nose-rings? &mdash; Said R. Zera, There is no difficulty: one agrees with R. Nehemiah; the other with the Rabbis. For it was taught: If it [the ring] is of metal and its signet is of coral, it is unclean; if it is of coral while the signet is of metal, it is clean.<a id="k59b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; But R. Nehemiah declares it unclean. For R. Nehemiah maintained: In the case of a ring, follow its signet; in the case of a yoke, go by its carved ends;<a id="k59b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k60a_1:" Placed outside a shop and fitted with nails and hooks for exhibiting goods."
,k60a_2:" If they are of metal, the whole is susceptible to uncleanness."
,k60a_3:" The machine itself was of wood."
,k60a_4:" E.g., the ladder depends on its frame, not on the rungs, etc. &mdash; Hence, according to R. Nehemiah the signet is the chief part of the ring, and since a signet is not ornamental, a sin-offering is incurred. But the Rabbis hold that the ring itself is the chief part, and that is an ornament."
,k60a_5:" Lit., 'to (separate) sides'. The clause 'and a ring whether it has a signet etc.' is not included in the definition of 'women's ornaments'."
,k60a_6:" He likewise treats the clause 'and a ring etc.' as independent of the preceding but as referring to the general laws of uncleanness."
,k60a_7:" Num. XXXI. 51; i.e., which have a definite function."
,k60a_8:" How can it be regarded as an ornament? V. p. 266, n. 1."
,k60a_9:" Lit., 'gathers up': if some wisps of hair stray out from under her wig, they are wound about this needle or bodkin and pushed back (Rashi). Tosaf.: the needle is thrust through the wig to keep the hair in order and prevent it from straying out. 'Aruch reads: ogedeth, she fastens."
,k60a_10:" V. <i>infra</i> 63a. So here too, since the bodkin is required to keep the hair in order, and uncovered hair is considered disgraceful (v. Sanh. 58b), a woman will certainly not remove it for display."
,k60a_11:" Identical with Nahras or Nahr-sar, on the canal of the same name, which was a tributary falling into the Euphrates on its eastern bank; Obermeyer, pp. 307 seq."
,k60a_12:" When parting the hair is forbidden."
,k60a_13:" One end was needle-like while the other was flattened and broadened into a plaque."
,k60a_14:" She thrusts the needle end into her wig, letting the other end come over her forehead as an ornament."
,k60a_15:" Either because he may be suspected of carrying the other sandal under his garments (T.J.), or because he may evoke ridicule, which will cause him to remove and carry it. But when one foot is wounded, there is no fear of this. V. Rashi."
,k60a_16:" Because these are garments in war, hence do not rank as burdens."
,k60a_17:" So Jast. Rashi: There were fugitives from persecution. [The reference is generally held to be to the Syrian persecutions under Antiochus Epiphanes; v. Berliner, Hoffmann Magazin XX, p. 123]."
,k60a_18:" As he could see beforehand whether the enemies' spies were on the watch."
,k60a_19:" For fear of spies, lest their whereabouts be disclosed."
,k60a_20:" Panic stricken, in order to flee."
,k60a_21:" According to Samuel, because this had led them astray. According to R. Ila'i b. Eleazar and Rami b. Ezekiel, because the carnage had been wrought by their nail-studded sandals."
,k60a_22:" The interdict was felt to be in memory of the disaster rather than through actual fear of its repetition, and therefore confined to the Sabbath. "
}

txt:
<p>
in the case of a rack,<a id="k60a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; go after its nails;<a id="k60a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; in the case of a ladder, go after its rungs; in the case of a weighing machine, go after its chains.<a id="k60a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; But the Sages maintain: Everything depends on the support.<a id="k60a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba said: It is taught disjunctively:<a id="k60a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; if it has a signet, it is a man's ornament; if it has no signet, it is a woman's ornament. R. Nahman b. Isaac answered: Do you oppose uncleanness to the Sabbath!<a id="k60a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [In respect to] uncleanness, the Divine Law said, utensils [fit] for work,<a id="k60a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and this [a signet ring] is a utensil. But the Sabbath [interdiction] was imposed by the Divine Law on account of the burden: if it has no signet, it is an ornament; if it has a signet, it is a burden.
</p><p>
	NOR WITH A NEEDLE WHICH IS UNPIERCED. What is it fit for?<a id="k60a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said R. Joseph: Since a woman tidies<a id="k60a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; her hair with it [it is therefore ornamental]. Said Abaye objected: Let it be as a garter, which is clean, and hence permitted?<a id="k60a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; But R. Adda of Naresh<a id="k60a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; interpreted it before R. Joseph: Since a woman parts her hair with it, [it is ornamental]. What is it fit for on the Sabbath?<a id="k60a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said Raba: It has a golden plaque at the end thereof:<a id="k60a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; on weekdays she parts her hair therewith, [while] on the Sabbath she lets it lie against her forehead.<a id="k60a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A MAN MAY NOT GO OUT WITH A NAIL-STUDDED SANDAL, NOR WITH A SINGLE [SANDAL]. IF HE HAS NO WOUND ON HIS FOOT;<a id="k60a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; NOR WITH TEFILLIN, NOR WITH AN AMULET, IF IT IS NOT FROM AN EXPERT, NOR WITH A COAT OF MAIL [SHIRYON], NOR WITH A CASQUE [KASDA], NOR WITH GREAVES [MEGAFAYYIM]. YET IF HE GOES OUT, HE DOES NOT INCUR A SIN-OFFERING.<a id="k60a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. A NAIL-STUDDED SANDAL: What is the reason? &mdash; Said Samuel: It was at the end of the period of persecution.<a id="k60a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and they [some fugitives] were hiding in a cave. They proclaimed, 'He who would enter, let him enter,<a id="k60a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; but he who would go out, let him not go out.'<a id="k60a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, the sandal of one of them became reversed, so that they thought that one of them had gone out and been seen by the enemies, who would now fall upon them. Thereupon they pressed against each other,<a id="k60a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; and they killed of each other more than their enemies slew of them. R. Ila'i b. Eleazar said: They were stationed in a cave when they heard a sound [proceeding] from above the cave. Thinking that the enemy was coming upon them, they pressed against each other and slew amongst themselves more than the enemy had slain of them. Rami b. Ezekiel said: They were stationed in a Synagogue, when they heard a sound from behind the synagogue. Thinking that the enemy was coming upon them, they pressed against each other and slew amongst themselves more than the enemy had slain of them. In that hour it was enacted: A man must not go out with a nail-studded sandal.<a id="k60a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; If so, it should be forbidden on weekdays too? &mdash; The incident happened on the Sabbath.<a id="k60a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Then let it be permitted on Festivals! Why did we learn:
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k60b_1:" V. Bez. 14b. These may not be sent because they cannot be used for the Festival. &mdash; A sandal ([H]) consists only of a sole and straps, while a shoe ([H]) has uppers in addition, Levi, Worterbuch, s.v. [H]."
,k60b_2:" Why was it forbidden then?"
,k60b_3:" V. Ta'an. 15a."
,k60b_4:" V. Hag. 23a. It once happened that the purification water (v. Num. XIX, 9 Seq.) was carried in a boat over the Jordan, when a portion of a corpse was found in the bottom of the boat, whereby the water itself was defiled. The Rabbis maintain that it was then enacted that the water of lustration must not be carried over any river, whether in a boat or over a bridge. But R. Hanina disputes this, as quoted. It might therefore be thought that in the matter under discussion he maintains that there was no prohibition in respect to Festivals."
,k60b_5:" In breadth, depth, current, etc."
,k60b_6:" Lit., 'food for a person', which may be prepared on Festivals (Ex. XII, 16) but not on the Sabbath."
,k60b_7:" To go out wearing the sandal on the Sabbath. Nails are normally put in to strengthen the sandal, and such must have been worn on the occasion of the tragedy; hence the decree was only in respect of same."
,k60b_8:" But if there are more, their purpose is to strengthen, not ornamental."
,k60b_9:" Of the sandal, one at the heel and the other at the toe."
,k60b_10:" The sole of which is thicker at one side than at the other. It is leveled by nails inserted at the thin end."
,k60b_11:" These too are ornamental, not for strength. But if there are more, the sandal may not be worn on the Sabbath, as above."
,k60b_12:" Rashi. i.e., a leather shoe was placed inside a sandal and sewn thereto."
,k60b_13:" He had heard this ruling, but did not know why."
,k60b_14:" [MS.M. omits 'but I do not know' and 'does not the Master &hellip; reason'. This reading is preferable as R. Ashi and R. Ammi were not contemporaries]."
,k60b_15:" A sandal ([H]) is merely a sole, while a shoe ([H]) has uppers too."
,k60b_16:" Kalbus is a tongs or pinchers, which presumably opened X-wise."
,k60b_17:" Probably from room to room in the same house, where each room has a separate occupant."
,k60b_18:" Because it ranks as a utensil; v. <i>Supra</i> 46a, p. 211."
,k60b_19:" Lest he put it on."
,k60b_20:" Because the sandal is not exactly similar to that which caused the disaster."
,k60b_21:" BaH deletes this."
,k60b_22:" These refer to the tops of the nails (Rashi)."
,k60b_23:" If they are levelled down, leaving marks of nails on the sole, then even if more than four or five are left it is permissible, since the sandal was obviously not made like this originally. But if they are clean pulled out, leaving no mark on the wood of the sole, the sandal may appear to have been originally manufactured thus, and therefore not more than five are permitted. Others reverse the translation, but the sense remains the same."
,k60b_24:" All are necessary to level it up, and none are for strength."
,k60b_25:" V. <i>supra</i>."
,k60b_26:" V. p. 283, n. 4."
,k60b_27:" He was a Babylonian who went to study in Palestine; Suk. 20a. This may indicate that the Palestinians on the whole were stricter."
,k60b_28:" On his way to Palestine. "
}

txt:
<p>
But one may not [send] a nail-studded sandal or an unsewn shoe [on Festivals]?<a id="k60b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; What is the reason of the Sabbath?<a id="k60b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Because there is a gathering [of people]. So on Festivals too there is a gathering. But there is a gathering on a public fast day:<a id="k60b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; let it be forbidden [then too]? &mdash; The incident happened on a day of assembly when there is an interdict [against work]; but here it is [a day of] assembly when it is permitted [to work]. And even according to R. Hanina b. Akiba who maintained, They enacted a prohibition only in respect of the Jordan and a ship, just as the incident that occurred:<a id="k60b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; that applies only to the Jordan, which differs from other rivers;<a id="k60b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; but Festivals and the Sabbath are alike, for we learnt: There is no difference between Festivals and the Sabbath save in respect of food consumption.<a id="k60b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; 
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: They learnt this only [where the nails are] to strengthen [the sandal], but where they are ornamental, it is permitted.<a id="k60b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; And how many [nails] constitute an ornament? &mdash; R. Johanan said: Five on each; R. Hanina maintained: Seven on each<a id="k60b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and one on [each of] the straps; according to R. Hanina, there are three on each side<a id="k60b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and one in the strapping.
</p><p>
	An objection is raised: For an inclining sandal<a id="k60b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; one inserts seven [nails]; this is R. Nathan's view. But Rabbi permits thirteen.<a id="k60b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; As for R. Hanina, It Is well: he rules as R. Nathan. But whose view does R. Johanan state? &mdash; He rules as R. Nehorai. For it was taught, R. Nehorai said: Five are permitted, but seven are forbidden. Efah said to Rabbah b. Bar Hanah: You, as disciples of R. Johanan, should act as R. Johanan; but we will act as R. Hanina.
</p><p>
	R. Huna asked R. Ashi: What of five [nails]? &mdash; Even seven are permitted, he answered him. What of nine? Even eight are forbidden, was his reply. A certain shoe-maker asked R. Ammi: What if it is sewn from within?<a id="k60b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; It is permitted, replied he, but I do not know what is the reason.<a id="k60b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Ashi, And does not the Master know what is the reason?<a id="k60b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Since it was sewn from within, it becomes a shoe:<a id="k60b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; the Rabbis enacted a decree in respect to a sandal, but in respect of a shoe they did not enact any decree.
</p><p>
	R. Abba b. Zabda asked R. Abba b. Abina: What if he arranged them [the nails] zigzag-shape?<a id="k60b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is permitted, he answered him. It was stated likewise: R. Jose b. R. Hanina said: If they are arranged zigzag-shape, it is permitted.
</p><p>
	R. Shesheth said: If the whole of it [the sole] is covered with nails [underneath] so that the ground should not wear it away. it is permitted. It was taught in accordance with R. Shesheth, A man may not go out wearing a nail-studded sandal, nor may he stroll [in it] from house to house,<a id="k60b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and even from bed to bed. But it may be handled in order to cover a utensil or support the legs of a bed therewith;<a id="k60b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; but R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon forbids this.<a id="k60b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; If most of its nails are fallen out, but four or five are left, it is permitted; while Rabbi permits it up to seven. If one covers it with leather underneath and drives nails into it on top, it is permitted.<a id="k60b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; If one arranges them [the nails] zigzag-fashion,<a id="k60b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; or flattens [them] out, or points [them],<a id="k60b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; or covers the whole of it with nails so that the ground should not wear it out, it is permitted. Now, this is self-contradictory: You say, if most of the nails are fallen out, [implying], even if many are left [it may be worn]; then it is taught, only four or five, but not more? &mdash; Said R. Shesheth, There is no difficulty: in the one case they are scooped out; in the other they are pulled out.<a id="k60b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'[If] four or five [are left], it is permitted.' Seeing that it is permitted [with] five, need four be stated? &mdash; Said R. Hisda: [It means] four in a small sandal and five in a large sandal.
</p><p>
	'While Rabbi permits it up to seven.' But it was taught: Rabbi permits it up to thirteen? An inclining [sandal] is different.<a id="k60b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; Now that you have arrived at this [distinction], on R. Johanan's view too there is no difficulty: an inclining [sandal] is different.<a id="k60b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Mattenah &mdash; others state, R. Ahadboi b. Mattenah in R. Mattenah's name &mdash; said: The <i>halachah</i> is not as R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon. But that is obvious: [where] one disagrees with many, the <i>halachah</i> is as the majority? &mdash; You might argue, R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon's view is logical here;<a id="k60b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; hence we are informed [that we do not follow him].
</p><p>
	R. Hiyya said: But that I would be dubbed a Babylonian who permits forbidden things,<a id="k60b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; I would permit more. And how many, &mdash; In Pumbeditha they say, Twenty-four; in Sura, twenty-two. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: And your sign [to remember this is]: by the time he [R. Hiyya] travelled from Pumbeditha to Sura<a id="k60b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; two [nails] were missing [from his sandals].
</p><p>
	NOR WITH A SINGLE [SANDAL], IF HE HAS NO WOUND [or, BRUISE] ON HIS FOOT.
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k61a_1:" Wearing the sandal on which foot?"
,k61a_2:" For the sandal is obviously being worn merely as a luxury, and no one will suspect him of carrying the other (v. p. 280, n. 4) which he is not wearing, because he cannot put it on on account of the wound."
,k61a_3:" R. Johanan holds that the left sandal must be put on first (<i>infra</i>). Hence if he put on the right, the other foot would have to be left unshod, and people would think that his right foot was wounded. Thus he holds with R. Huna that the sandal is donned on the wounded foot as a protection."
,k61a_4:" [It is left to each individual to decide for himself whether to assign pride of place to the right or left side each enjoys in some respects distinction over the other. V. Tosaf.]."
,k61a_5:" It is really a Baraitha, not a Mishnah."
,k61a_6:" The right half of the body being stronger, more honour must be shown to it. Removing the left first is likewise a mark of honour to the right, for the right shoe remains longer on the foot."
,k61a_7:" V. p. 275, n. 8."
,k61a_8:" I.e., the most important."
,k61a_9:" V. 'Er. 95b."
,k61a_10:" In his hand, in case of need."
,k61a_11:" By donning it in the usual manner."
,k61a_12:" It may be worn on the Sabbath."
,k61a_13:" Heb. mumheh describes both the practitioner who issues it and the charm itself. The Mishnah, however, refers only to the former."
,k61a_14:" Even if the wearer has not actually suffered but fears an attack of epilepsy. "
}

txt:
<p>
Hence if he has a wound on his foot, he may go out. With which of them does he go out?<a id="k61a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Huna said: With that [worn on the foot] which has the wound. This proves that he holds that the purpose of the sandal is [to save him] pain. Hiyya b. Rab said: With that [worn] where there is no wound. This proves that he holds that it is employed as a luxury, while this [foot] that has a wound, its wound is evidence for it.<a id="k61a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, R. Johanan too holds as R. Huna. For R. Johanan said to R. Shamen b. Abba: Give me my sandals. When he gave him the right one, he [R. Johanan] observed, You treat it as though it had a wound.<a id="k61a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [No]. Perhaps he agrees with Hiyya b. Rab, and he meant thus: You treat the left [foot] as through it had a wound? Now, R. Johanan [here] follows his general view. For R. Johanan said: Like tefillin, so are shoes: just as tefillin [are donned] on the left [hand], so are shoes [put on] the left [foot first]. An objection is raised: When one puts on his shoes, he must put on the right first and then the left? &mdash; Said R. Joseph: Now that it was taught thus, while R. Johanan said the reverse, he who acts in either way acts [well].<a id="k61a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Abaye to him: But perhaps R. Johanan did not hear this Baraitha, but if he had heard it, he would have retracted? Or perhaps he heard it and held that the <i>halachah</i> is not as that Mishnah?<a id="k61a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman b. Isaac said: A God-fearing person satisfies both views. And who is that? Mar, the son of Rabina. What did he do? He put on the right foot [sandal] but did not tie it. Then he put on the left, tied it, and then tied the right [sandal]. R. Ashi said: I saw that R. Kahana was not particular.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: When one puts on his shoes, he must put on the right first and then the left; when he removes [them], he must remove the left [first] and then the right.<a id="k61a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; When one washes, he must [first] wash the right [hand, foot] and then the left. When one anoints [himself] with oil,<a id="k61a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; he must anoint the right and then the left. But one who desires to anoint his whole body must anoint his head first, because it is the king of all the limbs.<a id="k61a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	NOR WITH TEFILLIN. R. Safra said: Do not think that this is [only] according to the view that the Sabbath is not a time for tefillin; but even on the view that the Sabbath is a time for tefillin,<a id="k61a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; one must not go out [with them], lest he come to carry them [four cubits] in the street.<a id="k61a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Others learn this in reference to the last clause: YET IF HE GOES OUT, HE DOES NOT INCUR A SIN OFFERING: Said R. Safra: Do not think that this is [only] according to the view that the Sabbath is a time for tefillin; but even on the view that the Sabbath is not a time for tefillin, he is [nevertheless] not liable to a sin-offering. What is the reason? He treats it as a garment.<a id="k61a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	NOR WITH AN AMULET, IF IT IS NOT FROM AN EXPERT. R. Papa said: Do not think that both the man [issuing it] and the amulet must be approved; but as long as the man is approved, even if the amulet is not approved.<a id="k61a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; This may be proved too for it is stated, NOR WITH AN AMULET, IF IT IS NOT FROM AN EXPERT; but it is not stated, if it is not approved.<a id="k61a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; This proves it.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: What is an approved amulet? One that has healed [once], a second time and a third time; whether it is an amulet in writing or an amulet of roots, whether it is for an invalid whose life is endangered or for an invalid whose life is not endangered. [It is permitted] not [only] for a person who has [already] had an epileptic fit, but even [merely] to ward it off.<a id="k61a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; And one may tie and untie it even in the street, providing that he does not secure it
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k61b_1:" If secured with a ring or a bracelet it looks like being worn as an ornament, which it is not, and it would be forbidden to wear it as such."
,k61b_2:" 'Simultaneously' is absent from Rashi's version, but present in cur. edd. and Tosaf., which explains that it refers to three amulets (presumably of exactly the same pattern) worn by three men. Whereas by the previous definition it is sufficient if it has healed three times, even the same person."
,k61b_3:" In order that the practitioner may rank as an expert, he must have healed three different men with three different amulets; these three men would be suffering from three diverse maladies, and the amulets likewise would be different, i.e., contain different charms. Whatever amulet he subsequently issues is approved. The second Baraitha must now accordingly be translated thus: What is an amulet of an approved person? (An amulet issued by) one who has healed three persons. But the first Baraitha refers to the approving of the amulet itself; once it has healed three times, whether the same person or three different persons suffering from the same complaint, it is now approved for all men. Or, the same charm can now be written by any man, and it is approved."
,k61b_4:" Each with a different charm and all written or prepared by the same man."
,k61b_5:" Even for the same person."
,k61b_6:" Who prepared them."
,k61b_7:" V. p. 286, n. 7."
,k61b_8:" Lit., 'planetary destiny', v. <i>infra</i> 156a, h."
,k61b_9:" Sc. written amulets. But the practitioner might not be successful for another."
,k61b_10:" That if a fire breaks out in a house, it shall be permitted to carry these into a courtyard which is not formally joined to the house by means of an 'erub (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>). Nothing may be taken out of a house into this courtyard, except sacred writings, to save them from fire; <i>infra</i> 115a."
,k61b_11:" In writing."
,k61b_12:" When sacred writings are worn out and not fit for use, they may not be thrown away or burnt, but must be 'hidden', i.e., buried; Meg. 26b."
,k61b_13:" For magical purposes; v. A. Marmorstein in <I>MGWJ</I>. [1928], pp. 391 seq."
,k61b_14:" Thus whatever contains the Divine Name must be treated as sacred in this respect."
,k61b_15:" He may have to remove it in order to deposit it somewhere and carry it thither."
,k61b_16:" This certainly does not possess sanctity, since the Divine Name is not there."
,k61b_17:" If the amulet is removed. He may take it into a privy even if it possesses sanctity."
,k61b_18:" Permitted as a kind of cure. For even if one does carry it in the street in his hands, it is not a culpable act. "
}

txt:
<p>
with a ring or a bracelet and go out therewith into the street, for appearances sake.<a id="k61b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; But it was taught: What is an approved amulet? One that has healed three men simultaneously?<a id="k61b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is no difficulty: the one is to approve the man; the other is to approve the amulet.<a id="k61b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Papa said: It is obvious to me that if three amulets<a id="k61b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [are successful for] three people, each [being efficacious] three times,<a id="k61b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; both the practitioner<a id="k61b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and the amulets are [henceforth] approved. If three amulets [are successful for] three people, each [being efficacious] once, the practitioner is [henceforth] approved, but not the amulets. If one amulet [is efficacious] for three men, the amulet is approved but not the practitioner. [But] R. Papa propounded: What if three amulets [are efficacious] for one person?<a id="k61b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; The amulets are certainly not rendered approved: but does the practitioner become approved or not? Do we say, Surely. he has healed him! Or perhaps, it is this man's fate<a id="k61b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; to be susceptible to writings?<a id="k61b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; The question stands over.
</p><p>
	The scholars propounded: Have amulets sanctity or not? In respect of what law? Shall we say, in respect of saving them from a fire?<a id="k61b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Then come and hear: Benedictions<a id="k61b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and amulets, though they contain the [divine] letters and many passages from the Torah, may not be saved from a fire, but are burnt where they are. Again, if in respect to hiding,<a id="k61b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Come and hear: If it [the Divine Name] was written on the handles of utensils or on the legs of a bed,<a id="k61b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; it must be cut out and hidden.<a id="k61b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather [the problem is] what about entering a privy with them? Have they sanctity, and it is forbidden; or perhaps they have no sanctity, and it is permitted? &mdash; Come and hear: NOR WITH AN AMULET, IF IT IS NOT FROM AN EXPERT. This [implies that] if it is from an expert, one may go out [with it]; now if you say that amulets possess sanctity, it may happen that one needs a privy, and so come to carry it four cubits in the street?<a id="k61b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; The reference here is to an amulet of roots.<a id="k61b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; But it was taught. Both a written amulet and an amulet of roots? &mdash; The reference here is to an invalid whose life is endangered.<a id="k61b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; But it was taught: 'Both an invalid whose life is endangered and one whose life is not endangered'? &mdash; Rather [this is the reply]: since it heals even when he holds it in his hand, it is well.<a id="k61b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k62a_1:" Or, skin. This may be taken into a privy."
,k62a_2:" I.e., the strips of parchment bearing the Biblical passages are encased in leather capsules."
,k62a_3:" V. <i>supra</i> 28b, p. 123. n. 7. Thus part of the Divine Name itself is uncovered; therefore one may not enter a privy with it."
,k62a_4:" The strap of the head-phylactery is knotted at the back of the head in the shape of a daleth ([H]); that of the hand-phylactery forms a noose and is knotted near the capsule in the shape of a yod ([H]). Cf. Heilprin. Seder ha-Doroth, I, p. 208 ed. Maskileison. Warsaw, 1897. Thus the three together make up the word [H] = Almighty. Tosaf., however, s.v. [H], deletes Abaye's last two statements on the daleth and yod."
,k62a_5:" Jast. Rashi: a leather helmet worn under the metal helmet."
,k62a_6:" A pin of the shape of a cochlea, which is a part of the inner ear."
,k62a_7:" 'Aruch reads: kokeleth, a perfume charm."
,k62a_8:" He regards these as burdens, not ornaments."
,k62a_9:" This refers to a ring. If it bears a signet he is not culpable; if not, he is."
,k62a_10:" So that what is an ornament for one is a burden for the other."
,k62a_11:" As a protection from the rain."
,k62a_12:" This shows that even when people are not in the habit of wearing it, yet since it is an ornament for one it is the same for the other."
,k62a_13:" In the street on the Sabbath."
,k62a_14:" To a safe place, where they will not be exposed to misuse."
,k62a_15:" I.e., he dons one pair on the hand and the head as they are usually worn, and walks with them as with an ordinary article of attire to his destination; then he returns and does the same with the second pair, and so on. This is R. Meir's view: Erub. 96b."
,k62a_16:" The precept of donning tefillin."
,k62a_17:" V. Kid. 29a. The difficulty is based on the assumption that tefillin are not to be worn on the Sabbath, nor at night. Since women are exempt, and at the same time they rank as a separate people, tefillin can surely not be accounted for them an article of attire?"
,k62a_18:" V. p. 188, n. 2. This raises a difficulty on the Mishnah. Why is a woman culpable for going out wearing a signet ring, seeing that this is not the usual manner of carrying out an object? [Liability is incurred only when the work done is performed in the usual manner.]"
,k62a_19:" Lit., 'treasurer'. She impresses the seal of her signet ring upon her orders for charity disbursements. Thus she usually wears the ring on her finger, and that is her way of carrying it out into the street. Yet since women do not generally wear such rings, this cannot be regarded as an ornament. &mdash; It is interesting to observe a woman occupying this position."
,k62a_20:" 'Ulla states that a man is culpable for wearing a non-signet ring; but that too is a backhanded manner?"
,k62a_21:" I.e., on her finger."
,k62a_22:" Thus in both cases this becomes the usual manner of carriage. Hence the reference in the Mishnah is to any woman, not particularly a treasurer."
,k62a_23:" V. note on Mishnah."
,k62a_24:" Which the kobeleth counteracts."
,k62a_25:" This implies that they may nevertheless not be worn. "
}

txt:
<p>
But it was taught: R. Oshaia said: Providing one does not hold it in his hand and carry it four cubits in the street? But the reference here is to [an amulet that is] covered with leather.<a id="k62a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; But tefillin are leather-covered,<a id="k62a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; yet it was taught: When one enters a privy, he must remove his tefillin at a distance of four cubits and then enter? There it is on account of the [letter] shin, for Abaye said: The shin of tefillin is a <i>halachah</i> of Moses at Sinai.<a id="k62a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye also said: The daleth of tefillin is a <i>halachah</i> of Moses at Sinai. Abaye also said: The yod of tefillin is a <i>halachah</i> of Moses at Sinai.<a id="k62a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	NOR WITH A SHIRYON, NOR WITH A KASDA, NOR WITH MEGAFAYYIM. SHIRYON is a coat of mail. KASDA, &mdash; Rab said: It is a polished metal helmet.<a id="k62a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; MEGAFAYYIM, &mdash; Rab said: These are greaves. 
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A WOMAN MAY NOT GO OUT WITH A NEEDLE THAT IS PIERCED, NOR WITH A RING BEARING A SIGNET, NOR WITH A KOKLIAR,<a id="k62a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; NOR WITH A KOBELETH,<a id="k62a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; NOR WITH A BALSAM PHIAL; AND IF SHE DOES GO OUT, SHE IS LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING; THIS IS R. MEIR'S VIEW.<a id="k62a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT THE SAGES RULE THAT SHE IS NOT CULPABLE IN THE CASE OF A KOBELETH AND A BALSAM PHIAL.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. 'Ulla said: And it is the reverse in the case of a man.<a id="k62a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Thus we see that 'Ulla holds that whatever is fit for a man is not fit for a woman, and whatever is fit for a woman is not fit for a man.<a id="k62a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph objected: Shepherds may go out [on the Sabbath] with sackcloths;<a id="k62a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and not only of shepherds did they [the Sages] say [thus], but of all men, but that it is the practice of shepherds to go out with sacks.<a id="k62a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather said R. Joseph. 'Ulla holds that women are a separate [independent] people.
</p><p>
	Abaye put an objection to him: If one finds tefillin,<a id="k62a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; he must bring them in<a id="k62a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; pair by pair;<a id="k62a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; [this applies to] both a man and a woman. Now if you say that women are a separate people, surely it is<a id="k62a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; a positive command limited in time, and from all such women are exempt?<a id="k62a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There R. Meir holds that night is a time for tefillin, and the Sabbath [too] is a time for tefillin: thus it is a positive precept not limited by time, and all such are incumbent upon women. 
</p><p>
	But it is carrying out in a 'backhanded' manner?<a id="k62a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said R. Jeremiah: The reference is to a woman who is a charity overseer.<a id="k62a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said [to him]: You have answered the case of a woman; but what can be said of a man?<a id="k62a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Raba, [This is the answer:] Sometimes a man gives a signet-ring to his wife to take it to a chest, and she places it on her hand<a id="k62a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; until she comes to the chest. And sometimes a woman gives a non-signet ring to her husband to take it to an artisan to be repaired, and he places it on his hand until he comes to the artisan.<a id="k62a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	NOR WITH A KOKLIAR, NOR WITH A KOBELETH. What is a KOKLIAR? &mdash; Said Rab: A brooch.<a id="k62a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; KOBELETH? &mdash; Said Rab: A charm [bead] containing phyllon; and thus did R. Assi explain it: A charm containing phyllon.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: She may not go out with a kobeleth, and if she does, she incurs a sin-offering, this is R. Meir's view; while the Sages maintain: She may not go out, but if she does, she is not culpable. R. Eliezer ruled: A woman may go out with a kobeleth at the very outset. Wherein do they differ? R. Meir holds that it is a burden. Whereas the Rabbis hold that it is an ornament, and [she hence may not wear it at the outset] lest she remove it for display, and so come to carry it. But R. Eliezer argues: Whose practice is it to wear this? A woman with an unpleasant odour;<a id="k62a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; and such a woman will not remove it for display, and so will not come to carry it four cubits in the street. But it was taught: R. Eliezer declares [her] non culpable on account of a kobeleth and a flask of spikenard oil?<a id="k62a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is no difficulty: the one [ruling] is in reference to R. Meir; the other, in reference to the Rabbis. [Thus:] when referring to R. Meir, who maintained that she is liable to a sin-offering, he [R. Eliezer] said to him that she is not culpable. When treating of the Rabbis who maintained that there is no culpability, yet it is forbidden, he ruled that it is permitted at the outset.
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k62b_1:" Where is R. Meir's view found without that of the Rabbis that R. Eliezer should refer exclusively to his ruling?"
,k62b_2:" R. Eliezer's ruling does not bear upon R. Meir's statement."
,k62b_3:" Then they are ornaments."
,k62b_4:" Because they are burdens."
,k62b_5:" V. 76b; also 93b for an opposing view. Liability is incurred for carrying out any quantity of perfume, no matter how little. Now even a flask without any perfume at all contains its fragrance: this fragrance may be regarded as less than the minimum quantity of food which imposes liability, and R. Eliezer rules that when it is together with the utensil it does involve culpability. &mdash; The opposing view on 93b is that the utensil is merely subordinate in purpose to the food, and since the food does not impose liability, the utensil does not either."
,k62b_6:" Mere fragrance is not a concrete object; hence the utensil cannot be subordinate to it, but is an independent article, for which liability is incurred. But even a very small quantity of food may render the utensil subordinate to it."
,k62b_7:" Amos VI, 6."
,k62b_8:" This was during the Hadrianic persecutions, when luxuries were proscribed."
,k62b_9:" The people, by setting their minds on such things, disregarded the essentials, viz., the teachings of the prophets."
,k62b_10:" Ibid."
,k62b_11:" A cup with spouts, enabling several persons to drink from it; v. T.A. II, pp. 280 and 641 (n. 237)."
,k62b_12:" Both derive mizreke from zarak, to throw, the first holds that the wine was 'thrown', i.e., passed from one spout to the other. &mdash; Thus the prophet criticizes this too as an unnecessary luxury."
,k62b_13:" V. p. 217. n. 7."
,k62b_14:" In reproof."
,k62b_15:" Ibid. 4."
,k62b_16:" Translating seruhim that act indecently."
,k62b_17:" Ibid. 7."
,k62b_18:" Eating without washing the hands."
,k62b_19:" Their floors were of earth."
,k62b_20:" Lit., 'he washes and does not wash', &mdash; i.e., he uses the barest minimum."
,k62b_21:" Lit., 'goodness'. This shows that water must be used generously."
,k62b_22:" Because he refuses them."
,k62b_23:" Cf. this with Raba's statement <i>supra</i> 32b, 33a."
,k62b_24:" Isa. III, 16."
,k62b_25:" Lit., 'erect stature'."
,k62b_26:" Ibid."
,k62b_27:" I.e., with short mincing steps. One who walks with outstretched neck must take short steps, because he cannot see his feet (Rashi)."
,k62b_28:" Ibid."
,k62b_29:" To the men."
,k62b_30:" Reading 'akus (serpent) and connecting te'akasnah with it by a play on words."
,k62b_31:" lbid. 24."
,k62b_32:" Reading pethigil as an abbreviation for pethahim (openings) of gilah (joy)."
,k62b_33:" Isa. Ill, 17."
,k62b_34:" Lev. XIV, 56."
,k62b_35:" Isa. Ill, 17."
,k62b_36:" I.e., they discharged an abundance of matter. Ye'areh (E. V. lay bare) is translated, will empty; cf. Gen. XXIV, 20: and She emptied (wate'ar) her pitcher."
,k62b_37:" The whole is a vulgar metaphor for the satisfaction of one's lust."
,k62b_38:" Gurdeli fr. garad, to scrape, means scraper, a nickname for an inferior white wine. "
}

txt:
<p>
And what is [this reference to] R. Meir?<a id="k62b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash;  As it was taught: A woman may not go out with a key in her hand, and if she does, she incurs a sin-offering; this is R. Meir's view. R. Eliezer holds her non-culpable in the case of a kobeleth and a flask of spikenard oil. Who mentioned a kobeleth?<a id="k62b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is a lacuna, and it was thus taught: And she may likewise not go out with a kobeleth or a flask of spikenard oil; and if she does, she incurs a sin-offering: this is R. Meir's view. R. Eliezer holds her non-culpable in the case of a kobeleth and a flask of spikenard oil. When is that said? When they contain perfume;<a id="k62b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; but if they do not contain perfume, she is culpable.<a id="k62b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Adda b. Ahabah said: This implies that if one carries out less than the statutory quantity of food in a utensil, he is culpable. For when it [the flask] does not contain perfume, it is analogous to less than the statutory quantity [of food carried out] in a utensil, and yet it is taught that she is culpable.<a id="k62b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ashi said: In general I may hold that there is no liability, but here it is different, because there is nothing concrete at all.<a id="k62b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And anoint themselves with the chief ointments:<a id="k62b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: This refers to spikenard oil. R. Joseph objected: R. Judah b. Baba forbade spikenard oil too, but they [the Sages] did not agree with him.<a id="k62b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Now if you say [that the prophet's objection] is on account of its being a luxury,<a id="k62b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; why did they not agree with him? Said Abaye to him, Then on your view, when it is written, that drink in bowls of [mizreke] wine,<a id="k62b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; [which] R. Ammi and R. Assi &mdash; one interpreted it [as meaning] kenishkanim,<a id="k62b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; while the other said, It means that they threw [mezarkim] their goblets to each other<a id="k62b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; is that too forbidden? Surely Rabbah son of R. Huna visited the house of the Resh Galutha,<a id="k62b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; who drank from a kenishkanim, yet he said nothing to him!<a id="k62b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; But whatever provides both enjoyment and rejoicings, the Rabbis forbade; but that which is a luxury but not associated with rejoicing, the Rabbis did not forbid.
</p><p>
	That lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch themselves [seruhim] upon their couches.<a id="k62b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: This refers to people who urinate before their beds naked.<a id="k62b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Abbahu derided this: If so, is that why it is written: Therefore shall they now go captive with the first that go captive:<a id="k62b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; because they urinate before their beds naked they shall go captive with the first that go captive! Rather said R. Abbahu: This refers to people who eat and drink together, join their couches, exchange their wives, and make their couches foul [maserihim] with semen that is not theirs.
</p><p>
	R. Abbahu<a id="k62b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; said &mdash; others say, In a Baraitha it was taught: Three things bring man to poverty. viz., urinating in front of one's bed naked, treating the washing of the hands with disrespect,<a id="k62b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and being cursed by one's wife in his presence. 'Urinating in front of one's bed naked': Raba said, This was said only when his face is turned to the bed: but if it is turned in the opposite direction, we have nought against it. And even when his face is turned to the bed, this was said only when it is on to the ground;<a id="k62b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; but if it is into a vessel, we have nought against it. 'And the treating of the washing of the hands with disrespect': Raba said, This was said only when one does not wash his hands at all; but if he washes them inadequately,<a id="k62b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; we have nought against it. (But this is not so, for R. Hisda said: I washed with full handfuls of water and was granted full handfuls of prosperity).<a id="k62b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; 'And being cursed by one's wife in his presence': Said Raba: [That is when she curses him] on account of her adornments.<a id="k62b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; But that is only when he has the means but does not provide them.<a id="k62b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba son of R. Ilai lectured: What is meant by, Moreover the Lord said, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty?<a id="k62b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; That means that they walked with haughty bearing.<a id="k62b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; And walk with outstretched necks<a id="k62b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; they walked heel by toe.<a id="k62b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; And wanton [mesakroth] eyes:<a id="k62b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; they filled their eyes with stibium and beckoned.<a id="k62b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; Walking and mincing: they walked, a tall woman by the side of a short one. And making a tinkling [te'akasnah] with their feet: R. Isaac of the School of R. Ammi said: This teaches that they placed myrrh and balsam in their shoes and walked through the market-places of Jerusalem, and on coming near to the young men of Israel, they kicked their feet and spurted it on them, thus instilling them with passionate desire like with serpent's poison.<a id="k62b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And what is their punishment? &mdash; As Rabbah b. 'Ulla lectured: And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet spices [bosem] there shall be rottenness:<a id="k62b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; the place where they perfumed themselves [mithbasmoth] shall be decaying sores. And instead of a girdle a rope [nikpeh]: the place where they were girded with a girdle shall become full of bruises [nekafim]. And instead of well-set hair baldness: the place where they adorned themselves shall be filled with bald patches. And instead of a stomacher [pethigil] a girding of sackcloth: the openings that lead to [sensual] joy<a id="k62b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; shall be for a girding of sackcloth. Branding [ki] instead of beauty: Said Raba, Thus men say, Ulcers instead of beauty.
</p><p>
	Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab [wesipah] the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion.<a id="k62b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: This teaches that leprosy broke out in them: here is written wesipah; whilst elsewhere it is written, [This is the law for all manner of plagues of leprosy &hellip;] and for a rising and for a scab [sapahath].<a id="k62b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; And the Lord will lay bare [ye'areh] their secret parts:<a id="k62b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab and Samuel &mdash; one maintained: This means that they were poured out like a cruse;<a id="k62b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; while the other said: Their openings became like a forest.
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in Rab's name: The men of Jerusalem were vulgar. One would say to his neighbour, On what did you dine to-day: on well-kneaded bread or on bread that is not well kneaded;<a id="k62b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; on white wine<a id="k62b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; or
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k63a_1:" Jast. Rashi: of Queen Zimzemai."
,k63a_2:" Isa. II, 4."
,k63a_3:" 'Clean' and 'unclean' mean not susceptible and susceptible to uncleanness respectively."
,k63a_4:" Being unnecessary then, it is not beautiful either. Thus, when war will be abolished, the instruments of war will not be adornments. Now, however, that they may be needed, they are also ornamental."
,k63a_5:" Sc. the view that they will cease to be in the days of the Messiah."
,k63a_6:" Deut. XV, 11. This implies that poverty will continue in the Messianic era. Hence the prophets' tidings of a new state of affairs cannot refer to the Messianic era, which will be the same as the present, save in this matter."
,k63a_7:" Sc. the Baraitha which states that weapons of war will cease to exist in the Messianic age."
,k63a_8:" Isa. LXIV, 3. &mdash; The conception of the future world is rather vague in the Talmud. In general, it is the opposite of [H], this world. In Ber, I, 5, 'this world' is opposed to the days of the Messiah, and this in turn is differentiated here from the future world. The following quotation from G. Moore, 'Judaism' (Vol. 2, p. 389) is apposite: 'Any attempt to systematize the Jewish notions of the hereafter imposes upon them an order and consistency which does not exist in them'."
,k63a_9:" Ps. XLV, 4."
,k63a_10:" 'Thy sword' is metaphorical for learning, which is Israel's weapon. It is indicative of the peace-loving spirit of the Rabbis and their exaltation of Torah that they regarded it as axiomatic that such a verse could not be taken literally."
,k63a_11:" Granted that it is metaphorical, yet the Torah would not have been likened to the sword, unless the latter were ornamental."
,k63a_12:" An abbreviation of shishah sedarim, the six orders into which the Talmud is divided: v. <i>supra</i> 31a. [MS.M. Talmud, Shas being a correction by the censor]."
,k63a_13:" [In the narrative and poetical passages v. Chayyes. Z. H. Glosses]."
,k63a_14:" Even when one does not understand all he learns he should nevertheless study, and understanding will come eventually."
,k63a_15:" V. p. 110, n. 1. For the explanation of this Mnemonic v. Hyman, Toledoth, p. 18."
,k63a_16:" By means of debating, etc."
,k63a_17:" Ibid. 5."
,k63a_18:" Zakah implies to acquire through one's merit."
,k63a_19:" V. Deut. XXXIII, 2."
,k63a_20:" Ps. XLV, 5."
,k63a_21:" Prov. III, 16."
,k63a_22:" Rashi:'... to the right hand' means that they study the Torah profoundly and intensively, just as the right hand is the stronger for work; alternatively, it refers to those who study the Torah for its own sake. '... to the left hand' implies the opposite of these."
,k63a_23:" Otherwise known as Resh Lakish."
,k63a_24:" Mal. III, 16."
,k63a_25:" Ps. XLVII, 3. Subdue implies lowliness, which in turn implies gentleness."
,k63a_26:" Mal. III, 16."
,k63a_27:" In the proper spirit."
,k63a_28:" Eccl. VIII, 5."
,k63a_29:" 'He' may refer either to God or to the observer of the precept, who is given power to annul God's decree &mdash; a daring thought. The former interpretation is indicated in the parallel passage in B.M. 85a (Sonc. ed., p. 488); the latter in M.K. 16b; but v. Weiss, Dor, I, p. 145."
,k63a_30:" Ibid. 4."
,k63a_31:" I.e., in spite of the king's word, viz., God's decree, whoso keepeth, etc."
,k63a_32:" Cant. VIII, 13. The Song of Songs was allegorically interpreted as a dialogue between God and Israel. 'In the gardens' thus means in the academies, and when one scholar hearkens to another's voice, God says. 'Cause me to hear it'."
,k63a_33:" Ibid. 14."
,k63a_34:" Rashi, deriving the word from degel, a flag, i.e., who come under one flag. Tosaf. in A.Z. 22b, s.v. [H], interprets: even when two students outwit each other by sophistries, without seeking the real truth, yet God loves them."
,k63a_35:" In the absence of a teacher."
,k63a_36:" Ibid. II, 4."
,k63a_37:" I.e., they have a general understanding of the subjects to be studied, so that a teacher is not indispensable."
,k63a_38:" Rashi: because the poor man is not ashamed to borrow. Also perhaps because one generally lends a larger sum than he would give as charity, and that may suffice to make the poor man independent."
,k63a_39:" With a poor man, providing the capital for him to trade with on agreed terms. Lit., 'who throws (money) into a (common) purse'."
,k63a_40:" The serpent was probably given that character on account of its part in the sin of Adam and Eve; cf. also Ta'an., Sonc. ed., 8a, Yoma 23a."
,k63a_41:" Cleave to him, for you will benefit by his scholarship."
,k63a_42:" His piety is tainted by his ignorance, which may influence his neighbour too. Cf. Ab. II, 6 (Sonc. ed., p. 15, n. 5)."
,k63a_43:" The poor are afraid to call. Thus he can show no lovingkindness to them, nor can he earn the love of God. "
}

txt:
<p>
on dark [i.e., mustard-coloured] wine; on a broad couch or on a narrow couch; with a good companion or with a poor companion? R. Hisda observed: And all these are in reference to immorality.
</p><p>
	Rahabah said in R. Judah's name: The [fuel] logs of Jerusalem were of the cinnamon tree, and when lit their fragrance pervaded the whole of Eretz Israel. But when Jerusalem was destroyed they were hidden, only as much as a barley grain being left, which is to be found in the queen's collections of rarities.<a id="k63a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A MAN MUST NOT GO OUT WITH A SWORD, BOW, SHIELD, LANCE [ALLAH], OR SPEAR; AND IF HE DOES GO OUT, HE INCURS A SIN-OFFERING. R. ELIEZER SAID: THEY ARE ORNAMENTS FOR HIM. BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN, THEY ARE MERELY SHAMEFUL, FOR IT IS SAID, AND THEY SHALL BEAT THEIR SWORDS INTO PLOWSHARES, AND THEIR SPEARS INTO PRUNING HOOKS: NATION SHALL NOT LIFT UP SWORD AGAINST NATION, NEITHER SHALL THEY LEARN WAR ANY MORE.<a id="k63a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; A KNEE-BAND [BERITH] IS CLEAN, AND ONE MAY GO OUT WITH IT ON THE SABBATH; ANKLE-CHAINS [KEBALIM] ARE UNCLEAN,<a id="k63a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; AND ONE MAY NOT GO OUT WITH THEM ON THE SABBATH.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What is, WITH AN ALLAH? &mdash; A lance.
</p><p>
	R. ELIEZER SAID: THEY ARE ORNAMENTS FOR HIM. It was taught: Said they [the Sages] to R. Eliezer: Since they are ornaments for him, why should they cease in the days of the Messiah? Because they will not be required, he answered, as it is said, nation shall not lift up sword against nation. Yet let them exist merely as ornaments? &mdash; Said Abaye. It may be compared to a candle at noon.<a id="k63a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Now this disagrees with Samuel.<a id="k63a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; For Samuel said, This world differs from the Messianic era only in respect to servitude of the exiled, for it is said, For the poor shall never cease out of the land.<a id="k63a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; This supports R. Hiyya b. Abba,<a id="k63a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; who said, All the prophets prophesied only for the Messianic age, but as for the world to come, the eye hath not seen, O Lord, beside thee [what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him].<a id="k63a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Some there are who state: Said they [the Sages] to R. Eliezer:  Since they are Ornaments for him, why should they cease in the days of the Messiah? In the days of the Messiah too they shall not cease, he answered. This is Samuel's view, and it disagrees with R. Hiyya b. Abba's.
</p><p>
	Abaye asked R. Dimi &mdash; others state, R. Awia, &mdash; others again state, R. Joseph [asked] R. Dimi &mdash; and others state, R. Awia whilst others state, Abaye [asked] R. Joseph: What is R. Eliezer's reason for maintaining that they are ornaments for him? &mdash; Because it is written, Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O mighty one, Thy glory and thy majesty.<a id="k63a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Kahana objected to Mar son of R. Huna: But this refers to the words of the Torah?<a id="k63a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; A verse cannot depart from its plain meaning, he replied.<a id="k63a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Kahana said: By the time I was eighteen years old I had studied the whole Shas,<a id="k63a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; yet I did not know that a verse cannot depart from its plain meaning.<a id="k63a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; until to-day. What does he inform us? &mdash; That a man should study and subsequently understand.<a id="k63a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	(Mnemonic: <i>ZaRuTH</i>.)<a id="k63a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jeremiah said in R. Eleazer's name: When two scholars sharpen each other in <i>halachah</i>,<a id="k63a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; the Holy One, blessed be He, gives them success, for it is said, and in thy majesty [wa-hadareka] be successful:<a id="k63a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; read not wa-hadareka but wa-hadadeka [thy sharpening]. Moreover, they ascend to greatness, as it is said, 'ride on prosperously' [successfully]. One might think [that this is so] even if it is not for its own sake, therefore it is taught, 'In behalf of truth'. I might think [that this is so] even if he becomes conceited; therefore it is taught, 'and meekness of righteousness'. But if they do thus, they are privileged to acquire<a id="k63a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; the Torah, which was given by the right Hand,<a id="k63a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; as it is said, and thy right hand shall teach thee awe-inspiring things.<a id="k63a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman b. Isaac said: They will obtain the things which were promised at the right hand of the Torah. For Raba b. R. Shila said &mdash; others state, R. Joseph b. Hama &mdash; said in R. Shesheth's name: What is meant by the verse, Length of days is in her right hand, In her left hand are riches and honour:<a id="k63a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; is there in her right hand length of days only, but not riches and honour? But to those who go to the right hand thereof there is length of days, and riches and honour <i>a fortiori</i>; but for those that go to the left hand thereof there is riches and honour, but not length of days.<a id="k63a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Jeremiah said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish:<a id="k63a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; When two scholars are amiable to each other in [their discussions in] <i>halachah</i>, the Holy One, blessed be He, gives heed to them, for it is said, Then they that feared the Lord spake [nidberu] one with another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard;<a id="k63a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; now speech [dibbur] can 'only mean [with] gentleness, for it is said, He shall subdue [yadber] the peoples under us.<a id="k63a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; What is meant by, and that thought upon his name?<a id="k63a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said R. Ammi: Even if one thinks of doing a good deed but is forcibly prevented and does not do it, the Writ ascribes it to him as though he did it.
</p><p>
	R. Hinena b. Idi said: Whoever fulfils a precept as it is commanded,<a id="k63a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; no evil tidings are told to him, for it is said, Whoso keepeth the commandment shall know no evil thing.<a id="k63a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Assi &mdash; others state, R. Hanina &mdash; said: Even if the Holy One, blessed be He, makes a decree, He annuls it,<a id="k63a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; for it is said, Because the king's word hath power; and who may say unto him, what doest thou;<a id="k63a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; in proximity to which [is written,] Whoso keepeth the commandment shall know no evil thing.<a id="k63a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Abba said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish: When two scholars pay heed to each other in <i>halachah</i>, the Holy One, blessed be He, listens to their voice, as it is said, Thou that dwellest in the gardens, The companions hearken to thy voice: Cause me to hear it.<a id="k63a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; But if they do not do thus, they cause the <i>Shechinah</i> to depart from Israel, as it is said, Flee, my beloved, and be thou like, etc.<a id="k63a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Abba said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish: When two disciples form an assembly<a id="k63a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; in <i>halachah</i>,<a id="k63a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; the Holy One, blessed be He, loves them, as it is said, and his banner over me was love.<a id="k63a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Raba: Providing they know the features of a subject;<a id="k63a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; providing also that there is no greater [scholar] in the town from whom to learn.
</p><p>
	R. Abba also said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish: He who lends [money] is greater than he who performs charity;<a id="k63a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; and he who forms a partnership<a id="k63a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; is greater than all. 
</p><p>
	R. Abba also said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish: [Even] if a scholar is vengeful and bears malice like a serpent.<a id="k63a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; gird him on thy loins;<a id="k63a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; [whereas even] if an 'am ha-arez is pious, do not dwell in his vicinity.<a id="k63a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Kahana said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish &mdash; others state, R. Assi said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish &mdash; others state, R. Abba said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish: He who breeds a wild dog in his house keeps loving kindness away from his house,<a id="k63a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; as it is said, To him that is ready to faint [lamos]
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k63b_1:" Job. VI, 14."
,k63b_2:" Perhaps from the Gk. [G]. Thus he translates: on account of a (wild) dog, love is kept back from one's neighbour."
,k63b_3:" Ibid."
,k63b_4:" She was pregnant."
,k63b_5:" Eccl. XI, 9."
,k63b_6:" From 'Rejoice' to 'thine eyes' is spoken by the Tempter (sin personified), urging man to sin; 'but know thou, etc.' is the warning of Good Desire, man's better nature (Rashi). Maharsha explains it differently."
,k63b_7:" Lit., 'the words of the Torah'."
,k63b_8:" Rejoice in your youth, when you can study, and apply your heart and eyes. i.e., your full understanding, to same. But know that you will be judged for non-fulfilment of the precepts learned by you in your studies."
,k63b_9:" For the hand."
,k63b_10:" It corresponds to a bracelet, i.e., the bracelet encircles the arm while the berith encircles the foot."
,k63b_11:" V. Krauss, T.A. I, pp. 205 and 665 (n. 977) on these terms."
,k63b_12:" That it is susceptible to uncleanness, as taught in the Mishnah. Surely not!"
,k63b_13:" Num. XXXI, 23."
,k63b_14:" V. <i>supra</i> 58b for notes."
,k63b_15:" E.g., a bell."
,k63b_16:" Viz., it makes a sound."
,k63b_17:" Though, of course, it holds up the stockings, that does not make it a utensil, which must serve an independent function, whereas this is merely an adjunct, as it were, to the stockings."
,k63b_18:" Lit., (with vf understood) 'thy strength be well'."
,k63b_19:" V. p. 12, n. 9."
,k63b_20:" The headplate worn by the High Priest, v. Ex. XXVIII, 36ff. Though quite small, it was counted among the High Priest's adornments, and was therefore susceptible to uncleanness."
,k63b_21:" I.e., the Divine Name on the upper line and 'Holy unto' on the lower line."
,k63b_22:" Whither it was taken after the destruction of the Temple."
,k63b_23:" From this Baraitha we see that the ziz was not of woven material."
,k63b_24:" Lev. XI, 32. 'Or' is an extension."
,k63b_25:" Tosaf. observes that this implies that nevertheless some minimum is required in the size of woven material and ornaments."
,k63b_26:" This is explained below."
,k63b_27:" Num. XXXI, 51 (E. V.: all wrought jewels)."
,k63b_28:" Which treats of defilement through the dead. Such is graver than uncleanness through dead reptiles (sherazim), which it is sought to prove here. "
}

txt:
<p>
kindness should be shewed from his friend;<a id="k63b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and in Greek a dog is called lamos.<a id="k63b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman b. Isaac said: He also casts off the fear of Heaven from himself, as it is said, and he forsaketh the fear of the Almighty.<a id="k63b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A certain woman entered a house to bake. The dog barked at her, [whereupon] her child<a id="k63b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; moved [from its place]. Said the householder to her, 'Fear not: his fangs and claws have been extracted.' 'Take your favours and throw them on the thorns,' she retorted, 'the child has already moved.'
</p><p>
	R. Huna said: What is meant by the verse, Rejoice, O young man, In thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgement?<a id="k63b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Thus far are the words of Evil Desire; thereafter are the words of Good Desire.<a id="k63b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Resh Lakish said: Thus far the reference is to study;<a id="k63b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; thereafter, to good deeds.<a id="k63b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A BERITH IS CLEAN. Rab Judah said: A berith is a bracelet.<a id="k63b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph objected: A BERITH IS CLEAN, AND ONE MAY GO OUT WITH IT ON THE SABBATH; but a bracelet is [liable to become] unclean? &mdash; He meant this: A berith stands in the place of a bracelet.<a id="k63b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabin and R. Huna were sitting before R. Jeremiah, and R. Jeremiah was dozing. Now Rabin sat and said: A berith is on one [leg]; whilst kebalim [ankle-chain] is on two.<a id="k63b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Huna to him, Both are on two, but a chain is placed between them and they become kebalim [anklets]. Does then the chain turn it into a utensil?<a id="k63b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; And should you answer, This is in accordance with R. Samuel b. Nahmani, for R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Jonathan's name: How do we know that a metal object which causes sound is unclean? Because it is said: Everything [dabar] that may abide the fire, ye shall make go through the fire:<a id="k63b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; even speech [dibbur &mdash; i.e., sound] is implied.<a id="k63b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; As for there, it is well: it [the utensil] is needed for sound<a id="k63b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and it performs an action;<a id="k63b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; but here, what action does it perform?<a id="k63b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Here too it performs an action, for Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: There was a certain family in Jerusalem that had large steps, whereby their virginity was destroyed. So they made them leg-suspenders and placed a chain between them, that their steps should not be large, and then their virginity was not destroyed. R. Jeremiah awoke at that and exclaimed to them, Well spoken!<a id="k63b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and thus did R. Johanan say [too].
</p><p>
	When R. Dimi came,<a id="k63b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; he said in the name of R. Johanan: How do we know that woven [material] of whatever size is [liable to become] unclean? From the ziz.<a id="k63b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Abaye to him, Was then the ziz woven? But it was taught: The ziz was a kind of golden plate two fingerbreadths broad, and it stretched round [the forehead] from ear to ear, and upon it was written in two lines 'yod he' above and 'Holy lamed' below.<a id="k63b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; But R. Eliezer son of R. Jose said: I saw it in the city of Rome,<a id="k63b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; and 'Holy unto the Lord' was written in one line.<a id="k63b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; When R. Dimi went up to Nehardea, he sent word: The things that I told you were erroneous. But in truth it was thus said on R. Johanan's authority: How do we know that an ornament of whatever size is [liable to become] unclean? From the headplate. And how do we know that woven material of whatever size is unclean? From [the phrase] or raiment.<a id="k63b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: Woven stuff of whatever size is unclean, and an ornament of whatever size is unclean. [An object partly] woven and [partly] an ornament of whatever size is unclean.<a id="k63b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; A sack goes beyond a garment, in that it is unclean as woven material.<a id="k63b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: Woven stuff of whatever size is unclean: this is [deduced] from, 'or raiment'. An ornament of whatever size is unclean: [this is learnt] from the headplate. [An object partly] woven and [partly] an ornament of whatever size is unclean: this is [deduced] from, every serviceable utensil.<a id="k63b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Said one of the Rabbis to Raba, But that is written in reference to Midian?<a id="k63b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; We learn
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k64a_1:" Concerning defilement by dead reptiles it is written, every utensil wherewith any work is done (Lev. XI, 32), and the meaning of 'utensil' is learnt from 'utensil' mentioned in connection with the dead, where ornaments are referred to. Tosaf explains the passage differently: But that &hellip; Midian, i.e., it treats of the spoil of Midian and has no bearing upon uncleanness at all? To which Raba replied that as 'utensil' in Lev. XI, 32 refers to uncleanness, so 'utensil' in Num. XXXI. 51 provides a teaching on uncleanness, notwithstanding that this does not appear so from the context."
,k64a_2:" The words are explained: &hellip; it is unclean as woven material though it is not woven. &mdash; By 'sack' a few plaited strands of goats' hair is meant."
,k64a_3:" Which are first spun."
,k64a_4:" Lev. XI, 32. &mdash; The reference is to defilement by dead reptiles (sherazim)."
,k64a_5:" Which is usually worn by shepherds."
,k64a_6:" The band with which the saddle or housing of a horse is fastened to its belly. Others: the housing itself. It was made of goats' hair spun and woven."
,k64a_7:" 'Or' is an extension."
,k64a_8:" Used for measuring. These were of unspun plaited goats' hair."
,k64a_9:" Before it is susceptible to uncleanness."
,k64a_10:" Num. XXXI, 20. These become unclean through contact with the dead."
,k64a_11:" 'All' is an extension."
,k64a_12:" This is a parenthesis. A verse will be quoted to show that they are not included, but before that it is parenthetically argued that it is logical not to include them, so that no verse for their exclusion is required. But it is shown that logic does not suffice to exclude them, so that a verse is required."
,k64a_13:" I.e., shall we deduce a lenient ruling by analogy?"
,k64a_14:" Surely not! Hence logic does not prove the exclusion of cords and ropes, and therefore a verse is necessary."
,k64a_15:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k64a_16:" Lev. XI, 32."
,k64a_17:" Num. XXXI, 51. E.V. garment."
,k64a_18:" Though an analogy between the two cannot be drawn, as shown, because the uncleanness of one is graver than that of the other, yet one can deduce equality of law through the <i>gezerah shawah</i>."
,k64a_19:" Providing it is spun and woven."
,k64a_20:" 'Or' being an extension."
,k64a_21:" For the susceptibility of a horse cover and a saddle band to uncleanness follows from the <i>gezerah shawah</i>, on the same lines as before."
,k64a_22:" V. p. 302, n. 11; the same applies here."
,k64a_23:" Uncleanness through a reptile ceases on the evening after the defiled object is subjected to ritual immersion, but uncleanness caused by the dead lasts seven days (v. Lev. XI, 32; Num. XIX, 11 seq.). Now, defilement until evening is extensive, in that it can be caused by many agencies, e.g., reptiles, the carcase of all animal (<i>nebelah</i>), semen, the touch of a <i>zab</i> and the touch of one who is himself unclean through the dead. Therefore it is logical that many objects too shall be susceptible to such uncleanness. But seven days' defilement is limited to the direct action of a corpse; hence it is probable that it does not extend to many objects either. Therefore the fact that what is made from the tail of a horse or cow is subject to defilement by reptiles is no warrant that it is also liable to defilement through the dead."
,k64a_24:" In a <i>gezerah shawah</i> the word used as a basis of deduction must be redundant (mufneh). Otherwise the deduction may be refuted if a point of known dissimilarity is found between the two subjects which are linked by the <i>gezerah shawah</i>. On this redundancy there are two views: (i) the redundancy is required in one passage only; (ii) the redundancy is necessary in both subjects. &mdash; There is a third view, that of R. Akiba, that no redundancy at all is required in order to make the deduction conclusive and incapable of being refuted."
,k64a_25:" Whereas the smallest portion of corpse to defile must be the size of an olive. In this matter defilement by a reptile is more stringent, and thus it may also be more stringent in the matter under discussion."
,k64a_26:" Lev. XXII, 4."
,k64a_27:" (Ibid. 5. Proximity indicates likeness in law."
,k64a_28:" Lev. XV, 17. Thus raiment and skin are defiled by semen, and therefore by reptiles too."
,k64a_29:" For the <i>gezerah shawah</i>."
,k64a_30:" I.e., in one of the two passages."
,k64a_31:" V. p. 656, n. 2."
,k64a_32:" Num. XXXI, 50."
,k64a_33:" Metargeminan, i.e., in the Targum, the Aramaic version of the Scriptures. The citation given here by R. Joseph is from the <i>Targum </i>ascribed to <i>Onkelos</i> the proselyte."
,k64a_34:" Treating Kumaz as an abbreviation."
,k64a_35:" Ibid. 14."
,k64a_36:" When they sinned with the daughters of Moab; v. Num. XXV."
,k64a_37:" Ibid. 49."
,k64a_38:" V. 50, to make atonement for their impure thoughts. "
}

txt:
<p>
the meaning of utensil' [here] from [the employment of] 'utensil' there, answered he.<a id="k64a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'A sack goes beyond a garment, in that it is unclean as woven material.' Is then a garment not woven material? &mdash; This is its meaning: A sack goes beyond a garment, for though it is not of woven material, yet it is unclean.<a id="k64a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; For what is it fit? &mdash; Said R. Johanan: A poor man plaits three threads [of goats' hair]<a id="k64a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and suspends it from his daughter's neck.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: [And upon whatsoever any of them&nbsp;&hellip; doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood &hellip; or] sack:<a id="k64a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; I know it only of a sack:<a id="k64a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; how do we know to include a horse cover and the saddle band?<a id="k64a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Therefore it is said, 'or sack'.<a id="k64a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; I might think that I can include ropes and cords;<a id="k64a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; therefore 'sack' is stated: just as a sack is spun and woven, so must everything be spun and woven.<a id="k64a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, concerning the dead it is stated, and all that is made of skin, and all work of goats' hair &hellip; ye shall purify yourselves:<a id="k64a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; this is to include a horse cover and the saddle band.<a id="k64a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; I might think that I can include ropes and cords. (But it [the reverse] is logical:<a id="k64a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; [the Divine Law] teaches defilement by a dead reptile, and it teaches defilement by the dead: just as when it teaches defilement by a reptile, it declares unclean only that which is spun and woven; so when it teaches defilement by the dead, it declares unclean only that which is spun and woven. How so! If it is lenient in respect to defilement through a reptile, which is lighter, shall we be lenient<a id="k64a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; in respect to defilement by the dead, which is graver?)<a id="k64a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Therefore 'raiment and skin' is stated twice, to provide a <i>gezerah shawah</i>.<a id="k64a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Thus: raiment and skin are mentioned in connection with reptiles,<a id="k64a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and also in connection with the dead:<a id="k64a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; just as the 'raiment and skin' which are mentioned in connection with reptiles, it [Scripture] declares unclean only that which is spun and woven, so the 'raiment and skin' which are stated in connection with the dead, it declares unclean only that which is spun and woven;<a id="k64a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and just as 'raiment and skin' which are stated in connection with the dead, anything made of goats' hair is unclean, so 'raiment and skin' which are stated in connection with reptiles, anything made of goats' hair is unclean.<a id="k64a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, I know it only of that which comes from goats: how do I know to include what is produced from the tail of a horse or a cow? Therefore it is stated, 'or sack'.<a id="k64a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; (But you have utilized it in respect of a horse cover and saddle bands? &mdash; That was only before the <i>gezerah shawah</i> was adduced; but now that we have the <i>gezerah shawah</i>, it [sc. the 'or'] is superfluous.)<a id="k64a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; And I know this only in the case of a reptile: how do we know it in respect to defilement by the dead? But it is logical:<a id="k64a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; [Scripture] declares uncleanness through the dead, and also declares uncleanness through reptiles: just as when it declares uncleanness through the dead, it treats that which is produced from the tail of a horse or cow as that which is made of goats' hair, so when it declares uncleanness through the dead, it treats that which is produced from the tail of a horse or a cow as that which is made of goats' hair. How so! If it [Scripture] includes [this] in defilement until evening, which is extensive, shall we include [it] in seven days' defilement, which is limited?<a id="k64a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; Therefore 'raiment and skin' are stated twice, to provide a <i>gezerah shawah</i>. 'Raiment and skin' are stated in connection with reptiles, and 'raiment and skin' are stated also in connection with the dead; just as raiment and skin,' which are stated in connection with reptiles, that which comes from the tail of a horse or cow is treated as that which is made of goats' hair, so 'raiment and skin' which are stated in connection with the dead, that which is produced from the tail of a horse or cow is treated as that which is made of goats' hair. And this must be redundant.<a id="k64a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; For if it is not redundant, one can refute [the deduction]: as for a reptile, that is because it defiles by the size of a lentil.<a id="k64a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; In truth, it is redundant. For consider: a reptile is likened to semen, for it is written, a man whose seed goeth from him,<a id="k64a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; in proximity to which it is written, or whosoever toucheth any creeping thing;<a id="k64a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; while in respect to semen it is written, and every garment and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation;<a id="k64a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; then what is the purpose of 'raiment and skin' written by the Divine Law in connection with reptiles? Infer from this that its purpose is to leave it redundant.<a id="k64a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; Yet it is still redundant [only] on one side:<a id="k64a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; this is well on the view that where it is redundant on one side we can learn [identity of law] and cannot refute [the deduction]; but on the view that we can learn, but also refute,<a id="k64a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; what can be said? &mdash; That [stated] in connection with the dead is also redundant. For consider: the dead is likened to semen, for it is written, 'and whoso toucheth anything that is unclean by the dead, or a man whose seed goeth from him'; while in respect to semen it is written, 'and every garment and every skin, whereon shall be the seed of copulation. What then is the purpose of 'raiment and skin' written by the Divine Law in connection with the dead? Infer from this that its purpose is to leave it redundant.
</p><p>
	And we have brought the Lord's oblation, what every man hath gotten, of jewels of gold, ankle chains, and bracelets, signet-rings, ear-rings, and armlets.<a id="k64a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Eleazar said: 'Agil is a cast of female breasts; kumaz is a cast of the womb. R. Joseph observed: Thus it is that we translate it<a id="k64a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; mahok, [meaning] the place that leads to obscenity [gihuk]. Said Rabbah to him, It is implied in the very Writ itself: Kumaz=here [Ka-an] is the place [Mekom] of unchastity [Zimmah].<a id="k64a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host.<a id="k64a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: Moses said to Israel: 'Maybe ye have returned to your first lapse [sin]?'<a id="k64a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; 'There lacketh not one man of us,<a id="k64a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; they replied. 'If so,' he queried, 'Why an atonement?' 'Though we escaped from sin,' said they. 'yet we did not escape from meditating upon sin.' Straightway, 'and we have brought the Lord's offering'<a id="k64a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; The School of R. Ishmael taught: Why were the Israelites of that generation in need of atonement? Because
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k64b_1:" In this verse, according to the translation given above of 'agil and kumaz."
,k64b_2:" The first is where the finger-ring is worn, and since it is enumerated, it follows that even for looking upon that they needed atonement."
,k64b_3:" With which she dresses her hair."
,k64b_4:" V. <i>supra</i> 57b."
,k64b_5:" Lit., 'strange (false) curls'."
,k64b_6:" I.e., any soft substance to ease the foot."
,k64b_7:" Before the commencement of the Sabbath."
,k64b_8:" On the Sabbath."
,k64b_9:" Rashi regards these as one: an artificial tooth of gold."
,k64b_10:" Referring to ribbons of hair."
,k64b_11:" I.e., ribbons made of another woman's hair may not match her own."
,k64b_12:" She may be ridiculed and thereby tempted to remove it, and thus carry it in the street."
,k64b_13:" For there the disharmony is even more striking."
,k64b_14:" Young hair on old &mdash; e.g. black on grey &mdash; or vice versa is ugly, and so the wearer might remove it in the street."
,k64b_15:" No young woman would dream of wearing ribbons made from an old woman's hair. &mdash; The translation follows one interpretation given in Tosaf. Tosaf. offers another, which is based on a reversed order of the text."
,k64b_16:" Lest she forget herself and go out into the street too."
,k64b_17:" It is axiomatic that an amora cannot disagree with a Tanna, but another Tanna of course can. The Mishnah certainly disagrees with R. 'Anani b. Sason, but it does not matter, as he is supported by another Tanna."
,k64b_18:" Hence some ornaments must be permitted."
,k64b_19:" Lev. XV, 33. The reference is to a menstruant."
,k64b_20:" Lit., 'elders'."
,k64b_21:" I.e., until she has a ritual bath."
,k64b_22:" E.g., one must not lead on Sabbath a number of animals tied together, lest he be suspected of going to market with them (<i>supra</i> 54a). Accordingly he may not do so even in the utmost privacy."
,k64b_23:" V. <i>supra</i> 54b Mishnah."
,k64b_24:" <i>Var. lec</i>.: and it was taught thereon."
,k64b_25:" This refutes Rab, for though it may not be done publicly in the street, it may be done privately in one's courtyard. "
}

txt:
<p>
they gratified their eyes with lewdness. R. Shesheth said: Why does the Writ enumerate the outward ornaments with the inner?<a id="k64b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; To teach you: Whoever looks upon a woman's little finger is as though he gazed upon the pudenda.<a id="k64b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A WOMAN MAY GO OUT WITH RIBBONS MADE OF HAIR,<a id="k64b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; WHETHER THEY ARE OF HER OWN [HAIR] OR OF HER COMPANIONS, OR OF AN ANIMAL, AND WITH FRONTLETS AND WITH SARBITIN<a id="k64b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; THAT ARE FASTENED TO HER. [SHE MAY GO OUT] WITH A HAIR-NET [KABUL] AND WITH A WIG<a id="k64b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; INTO A COURTYARD; WITH WADDING IN HER EAR, WITH WADDING IN HER SANDALS,<a id="k64b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; AND WITH THE CLOTH PREPARED FOR HER MENSTRUATION; WITH A PEPPERCORN, WITH A GLOBULE OF SALT AND ANYTHING THAT IS PLACED IN HER MOUTH,<a id="k64b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; PROVIDING THAT SHE DOES NOT PUT IT IN HER MOUTH IN THE FIRST PLACE ON THE SABBATH, AND IF IT FAILS OUT,<a id="k64b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; SHE MAY NOT PUT IT BACK. AS FOR AN ARTIFICIAL TOOTH, [OR] A GOLD TOOTH,<a id="k64b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; RABBI PERMITS BUT THE SAGES FORBID IT.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. And it is necessary [to state all the cases].<a id="k64b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; For if we were told about her own [hair], that might be because it is not ugly; but as for her companions', which is unbecoming.<a id="k64b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; I might say [that it is] not [permitted].<a id="k64b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; While if we were informed about her companions', that might be because she is of her own kind; but an animal's, that is not of her own kind, I might say [that it is] not [permitted].<a id="k64b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Thus they are necessary.
</p><p>
	It was taught: Providing that a young woman does not go out with an old woman's [hair], or an old woman with a young woman's.<a id="k64b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; As for an old woman [not going out] with a young woman's hair, that is well, because it is an improvement for her; but [that] a young woman [may not go out] with an old woman's [hair]. why [state it], seeing that it is unsuitable for her?]<a id="k64b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Because he teaches of an old woman's [going out] with a young woman's [hair], he also teaches of a young woman's [going out] with an old woman's hair.
</p><p>
	WITH A HAIR-NET AND A WIG INTO A COURTYARD. Rab said: Whatever the Sages forbade to go out therewith into the street, one may not go out therewith into a courtyard,<a id="k64b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; except a hair-net and a wig. R. 'Anani b. Sason said on the authority of R. Ishmael son of R. Jose: It is all like a hair-net. We learnt: WITH A HAIR-NET AND A WIG INTO A COURTYARD. As for Rab, it is well; but according to R. 'Anani b. Sason it is a difficulty? &mdash; On whose authority does R. 'Anani b. Sason say this? On that of R. Ishmael son of R. Jose! R. Ishmael son of R. Jose is a Tanna, and can disagree.<a id="k64b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Now, according to Rab, why do these differ? &mdash; Said 'Ulla, [They are permitted] lest she become repulsive to her husband.<a id="k64b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; As it was taught: And she that is sick shall be in her impurity:<a id="k64b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; the early Sages<a id="k64b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; ruled: That means that she must not rouge nor paint nor adorn herself in dyed garments; until R. Akiba came and taught: If so, you make her repulsive to her husband, with the result that he will divorce her! But what [then] is taught by, 'and she that is sick shall be it, her impurity'? She shall remain in her impurity until she enters Into water.<a id="k64b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in Rab's name: Wherever the Sages forbade [aught] for appearances' sake, it is forbidden even In one's innermost chambers.<a id="k64b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	We learnt: Nor with a bell, even if it is plugged.<a id="k64b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; And it was elsewhere taught.<a id="k64b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; One may plug the bell around its [the animal's] neck and saunter with it in the courtyard?<a id="k64b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is [a controversy of] Tannaim. For it was taught:
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k65a_1:" This refers to one whose garments are accidentally wetted on the Sabbath. The first Tanna forbids them to be spread out in the sight of the people, lest they suspect him of having washed them on the Sabbath, yet he permits it to be done privately, thus agreeing with the Baraitha just quoted. While R. Eleazar and R. Simeon forbid it even in private, which agrees with Rab."
,k65a_2:" If it drops out."
,k65a_3:" Sewing on to it a piece that she could hold in her hand. This is not repulsive, and so she may carry it."
,k65a_4:" It is repulsive none the less."
,k65a_5:" Sc. the wadding in his ear, because he had a copious discharge of pus, and with wadding in his sandals. This must be the explanation according to cur. edd. which reads 'with them'; this appears to be Alfasi's version too (v. Korban Nethanel on Asheri a.l.). Rashi reads: with it, and refers it to the first mentioned."
,k65a_6:" Rashi: because he did not have it tied to his ear."
,k65a_7:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> and <i>supra</i> 6a."
,k65a_8:" Whereas R. Johanan did not have it tied to his ear."
,k65a_9:" [In which case tying to the ear is not necessary. Hence the practice of R. Johanan."
,k65a_10:" Rami b. Ezekiel refers to the latter case."
,k65a_11:" Jast. Rashi: toothache."
,k65a_12:" Sic. The reading in the Mishnah is slightly different."
,k65a_13:" Rashi: a gold tooth being valuable, the woman may take it out of her mouth for display, and meanwhile carry it in the street; but this does not apply to a silver tooth."
,k65a_14:" This being the reason that he permits a gold tooth, in spite of its being valuable."
,k65a_15:" V. <i>supra</i> 62a."
,k65a_16:" V. <i>supra</i> 57b."
,k65a_17:" A coin."
,k65a_18:" Lit., 'daughters'."
,k65a_19:" To prevent the hole pierced for ear-rings from closing up."
,k65a_20:" Parap, p.p. parup. f.p. perupoth, means to fasten a garment over the shoulder by attaching a weight to its overhanging corner (Jast.)."
,k65a_21:" Arabian and Median women affect these fashions."
,k65a_22:" The pressure or chafing of the ground on the foot causing a wound or a bunion."
,k65a_23:" Of the metal, which softens the callus."
,k65a_24:" Stamped on the coin, which may protect the growth."
,k65a_25:" Rashi: of wood, upon which a figure is impressed."
,k65a_26:" Viz., the hardness, corrosion, and the figure, and only a coin possesses all three."
,k65a_27:" Mikweh, pl. mikwa'oth, ritual bath."
,k65a_28:" A mikweh made of collected rain water is efficacious only if its water is still, not running or flowing. But 'a well or spring, with its waters gushing forth from its source, is efficacious even when they flow onward. Now, during the whole year the river may contain more rain water or melted snow (which is the same) than its own natural waters; consequently it is all considered as rain water, which does not cleanse when in a running state. But in Tishri when the rains have ceased, nor is there any melted snow in the river, it is like a well or spring, and even though running its waters are efficacious. &mdash; According to this the river's rise is caused mainly by rain. &mdash; Hence in Nisan he did not permit them to take their ritual bath in the river, but made special enclosed baths for them. But in Tishri they could perform their ablutions in the river. Yet since the bed of the river is miry, and should the feet sink into it, the water cannot reach the soles, thus rendering the immersion invalid, he placed mats on the river bed for them to stand on (Rashi). R. <i>Tam</i> a.l. and Rab in Ned. 40b explain: he hung up mats on the shore, to serve as a screen."
,k65a_29:" Which they might remove and show."
,k65a_30:" Sc. to marry a High Priest, who must marry none but a virgin (Lev. XXI, 13), for their lewdness destroys their virginity. Though there were no High Priests in his days, he nevertheless objected to this on grounds of decency, and therefore may have taken steps to prevent it. &mdash; V. Weiss, Dor, II, 23. "
}

txt:
<p>
He may spread them out in the sun, but not in the sight of people; R. Eleazar and R. Simeon forbid it.<a id="k65a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	AND WITH THE WADDING IN HER EAR. Rami b. Ezekiel learnt: Providing it is tied to her ear.
</p><p>
	AND WITH THE WADDING IN HER SANDALS. Rami b. Ezekiel learnt: Providing it is tied to her sandal.
</p><p>
	AND WITH THE CLOTH SHE PREPARED FOR HER MENSTRUATION. Rami b. Ezekiel thought to say, Providing it is fastened between her thighs. Said Raba, Even if it is not tied to her: since it is repulsive, she will not come to carry it.<a id="k65a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jeremiah asked R. Abba: What if she made a handle for it?<a id="k65a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is permitted, replied he.<a id="k65a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; It was stated likewise: R. Nahman b. Oshaia said in R. Johanan's name: [Even] if she made a handle for it, it is permitted.
</p><p>
	R. Johanan used to go out with them<a id="k65a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; to the <i>Beth Hamidrash</i>, but his companions disagreed with him.<a id="k65a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jannai would go out with it into a <i>karmelith</i><a id="k65a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; but all his contemporaries disagreed with him. But Rami b. Ezekiel learnt: Providing it is tied to her ear?<a id="k65a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is no difficulty: in the one case it is firmly placed;<a id="k65a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; in the other it was not.<a id="k65a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	WITH A PEPPERCORN, AND WITH A GLOBULE OF SALT. A peppercorn is for [counteracting] the [evil] breath of the mouth; a globule of salt is for the gum.<a id="k65a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	AND WITH ANYTHING THAT SHE PLACES<a id="k65a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; IN HER MOUTH. [Sc.] ginger, or cinnamon.
</p><p>
	AN ARTIFICIAL TOOTH, [OR] A GOLD TOOTH, &mdash; RABBI PERMITS BUT THE SAGES FORBID IT. R. Zera said: They taught this only of a gold [tooth], but as for a silver one, all agree that it is permitted.<a id="k65a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye said: Rabbi, R. Eliezer, and R. Simeon b. Eleazar all hold that whatever detracts from a person['s appearance], one will not come to display it. Rabbi, as stated.<a id="k65a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Eliezer, for it was taught: R. Eliezer declares [her] non-culpable on account of a kobeleth and a flask of spikenard oil.<a id="k65a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon b. Eleazar, for it was taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar stated a general rule: Whatever is [worn] beneath the net, one may go out therewith; whatever is [worn] above the net, one may not go out with it.<a id="k65a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. SHE MAY GO FORTH WITH THE <I>SELA'</I><a id="k65a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; ON A ZINITH [CALLUS]. YOUNG GIRLS<a id="k65a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; MAY GO OUT WITH THREADS, AND EVEN WITH CHIPS IN THEIR EARS.<a id="k65a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; ARABIAN WOMEN MAY GO FORTH VEILED, AND MEDIAN WOMEN MAY GO FORTH WITH THEIR CLOAKS THROWN OVER THEIR SHOULDERS.<a id="k65a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; INDEED, ALL PEOPLE [MAY DO LIKEWISE]. BUT THAT THE SAGES SPOKE OF NORMAL USAGE.<a id="k65a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; A WOMAN MAY WEIGHT [HER CLOAK] WITH A STONE, NUT, OR COIN, PROVIDING THAT SHE DOES NOT ATTACH THE WEIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE ON THE SABBATH.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What is ZINITH? A growth caused by the soil.<a id="k65a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; And why particularly a <i>sela'</i>? Shall we say that anything hard is beneficial thereto? Then let a shard be prepared for it? Again, if it is on account of the corrosion,<a id="k65a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; let a metal foil be used? But if it is on account of the figure,<a id="k65a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; let him use any circular plate?<a id="k65a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Abaye: This proves that all [these things] are beneficial for it.<a id="k65a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</p><p>
	YOUNG GIRLS MAY GO OUT WITH THREADS. Samuel's father did not permit his daughters to go out with threads, nor to sleep together; and he made mikwa'oth<a id="k65a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; for them in the days of Nisan, and had mats placed in the days of Tishri.<a id="k65a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; 'He did not permit them to go out with threads'. But we learnt, YOUNG GIRLS MAY GO OUT WITH THREADS! &mdash; The daughters of Samuel's father had coloured ones.<a id="k65a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; 'He did not permit them to sleep together'. Shall we say that this supports R. Huna? For R. Huna said: Women that commit lewdness with one another are unfit for the priesthood.<a id="k65a_30"><sup>30</sup></a> &mdash;
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k65b_1:" Rashi: for when it rains in Palestine the water flows down to Babylon and causes the swelling of the Euphrates. Obermeyer, p 45 and n. 2 rejects this on hydrographical grounds, and explains that in most cases the rains in northern Mesopotamia in the Taurus range, where the Euphrates has its source, are the precursors of rain in Palestine. &mdash; Thus Rab too holds that the swelling of a river is caused chiefly through rain."
,k65b_2:" I.e., the added rain water might exceed the normal volume of the river, in which case it is all regarded as rain water; v. p. 310, n. 11."
,k65b_3:" Lit., 'rock'. Though it seems to swell through the rains, actually more water gushes upward from the river bed than is added by the rain."
,k65b_4:" Which is in accordance with his father and with Rab."
,k65b_5:" Which certainly means that she may do so in the first place on the Sabbath, since the preceding clause has already taught that she may wear a weighted cloak."
,k65b_6:" Which may not be handled on the Sabbath."
,k65b_7:" V. <i>infra</i> 120a."
,k65b_8:" Hence it is possibly forbidden."
,k65b_9:" E.g., clothes; merchants wear the clothes they have to sell (Rashi)."
,k65b_10:" Since the first is the normal way of carrying, when one puts on more than he requires the excess is a mere burden, carried out in the normal manner; hence it is forbidden. But in the case under discussion, even if a person intentionally carries a nut out thus, without any subterfuge, he does not transgress by Biblical law and is not liable to a sin-offering, which is incurred only for doing a thing in its normal fashion. Hence a subterfuge may be permitted even by Rabbinical law (R. Jacob Emden, Novellae)."
,k65b_11:" A <i>log</i> of wood hollowed out to receive the stump. "
}

txt:
<p>
No: it was in order that they should not become accustomed to a foreign body. 'And he made a mikweh for them in the days of Nisan'. This supports Rab, for Rab said: Rain in the West [Palestine] is strongly testified to by the Euphrates;<a id="k65b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and he [Samuel's father] feared that the rainwater might exceed the running water.<a id="k65b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, he differs from Samuel, who said: A river increases in volume from its beds.<a id="k65b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; But this conflicts with another [statement] of his. For Samuel said: No water purifies when flowing, save the Euphrates in the days of Tishri alone.<a id="k65b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A WOMAN MAY WEIGHT [HER CLOAK] WITH A STONE, etc. But you say in the first clause, that she may weight it?<a id="k65b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said Abaye: The second clause refers to a coin.<a id="k65b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye asked: May a woman evade [the Sabbath prohibition] by weighting [her cloak] with a nut in order to carry it out to her infant child on the Sabbath? This is a problem on the view of both him who maintains that an artifice may be used and him who holds that an artifice may not be used.<a id="k65b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; It is a problem on the view that all artifice may be used in the case of a conflagration: that is only there, because if you do not permit it to him, he will come to extinguish it; but here, if you do not permit it, one will not come to carry it [sc. the nut] out.<a id="k65b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Or perhaps, even on the view that all artifice may not be used; there that is a normal way of carrying [clothes] out;<a id="k65b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; but here this is not a usual way of carrying it, and therefore I might say that it is well.<a id="k65b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; The question stands over.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A STUMP-LEGGED PERSON MAY GO FORTH WITH HIS WOODEN STUMP:<a id="k65b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; THIS IS R. MEIR'S VIEW;
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k66a_1:" Upon which the stump rests."
,k66a_2:" 'Unclean' and 'clean' in this and similar passages means susceptible and not susceptible to uncleanness respectively. A wooden article is unclean only when it has a receptacle for objects to be carried therein. If the <i>log</i> is merely hollowed out for the stump, it is not a receptacle in this sense."
,k66a_3:" Leather supports for one who is stumped in both legs."
,k66a_4:" If he is a <i>zab</i>, q.v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> Midras, lit., 'treading' is the technical term for the uncleanness occasioned by a <i>zab</i> through bringing his weight to bear upon an object, e.g., by treading, sitting, or leaning, even if he does not actually touch it with his body. The degree of defilement imposed thereby is called 'the principal degree of uncleanness' (Heb. ab, father), and is only one grade less than that of a corpse: cf. p. 55, n. 6."
,k66a_5:" They rank as ornaments."
,k66a_6:" Though one may not enter wearing his shoes (Ber. 54a), these are not accounted as such."
,k66a_7:" This refers to one who is unable to walk upon supports alone, the muscles of his foreleg being atrophied or paralysed. A stool is made for him, and also supports for his stumps, and he propels himself along with his hands and just a little with his feet too. R. Israel Lipshitz in his commentary [H] on Mishnah seems to translate [H] here as referring to the hand supports used by the cripple in propelling himself along, and not to the foot supports, which meaning it bears in the earlier clause."
,k66a_8:" Rashi: as he does not actually walk upon them, they dangle in the air and may fall off, which will cause him to carry them in the street."
,k66a_9:" There seems no adequate reason for this, and most commentators are silent upon the matter. Tosaf. Yom Tob states that 'ONE MAY NOT &hellip; SABBATH' refers only to the 'SUPPORTS' mentioned in the first clause, not to the 'STOOL AND ITS SUPPORTS' (he appears to agree with R. Israel Lipshitz in his interpretation), which are mentioned only to teach that they are unclean as midras."
,k66a_10:" Jast. s.v. [H]: for carrying burdens. Rashi: a kind of mask for frightening children. The actual meaning of the word is discussed in the Gemara."
,k66a_11:" Jast.: because it is intended for carrying burdens. Rashi: because it is neither useful nor ornamental."
,k66a_12:" The text seems to have been doubtful, and it was not clear whether R. Meir gave a lenient ruling and R. Jose a stringent one or the reverse. V. Weiss, Dor, II, 213 seqq. on doubtful and corrupt readings in the Mishnah."
,k66a_13:" This was their text in the Mishnah; thus it differed from ours."
,k66a_14:" Samek (x) is a letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Thus R. Jose (hxuh) forbids (rxut), the samek occurring in the name and in the ruling."
,k66a_15:" 'Too' in the sense that he too subsequently held as Rab."
,k66a_16:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k66a_17:" Sc. her brother-in-law's."
,k66a_18:" That a wooden shoe comes within the term and she shall loose his shoe' (Deut. XXV, 9)."
,k66a_19:" R. Meir regards even a hollowed-out <i>log</i> as a shoe, though it is unusual, and the same applies here, though wood is an unusual material for a shoe. Thus Samuel quotes Rab's version of the Mishnah."
,k66a_20:" Rashi states two views: (i) that it was of wood; (ii) that it was of straw. Rashi and Tosaf. incline to the latter view."
,k66a_21:" Wilna Gaon emends: but we learnt, since the citation is from a Mishnah."
,k66a_22:" V. n. 6; the same argument applies here."
,k66a_23:" Thus he accepts our version of the Mishnah."
,k66a_24:" Or reeds, Wilna Gaon emends: A straw mat and a tube of straw."
,k66a_25:" The former holds that straw is the same as wood, which is susceptible to uncleanness, while the latter regards it as a different material."
,k66a_26:" It was put on over the ordinary leather shoe to protect the latter from the burning action of the lime. In order to be subject to midras uncleanness an object must be used for walking, sitting, or lying upon."
,k66a_27:" 'The uncleanness of a corpse' is mentioned merely as an example of any ordinary defilement, where the uncleanness of the object defiled is one degree less than that of the object which defiles it, and which requires either actual contact or that the object be under the same covering as the corpse. Thus Abaye holds that it attains even a primary degree of uncleanness (ab hatum'ah) through a corpse, which itself possesses a <i>supra</i>-primary degree of uncleanness, but not through the midras of a <i>zab</i>. Abaye holds that the wooden stump is not made primarily for leaning upon."
,k66a_28:" Rashi: on which it is carried, thus a perambulator. Tosaf. with which a child learns to walk, by holding on to it."
,k66a_29:" I.e., it is susceptible neither to midras nor to any other form of defilement. It is not susceptible to midras because it is not made for leaning, since one walks on his feet. This shows that though one does lean on it occasionally, yet since that is not its main purpose, it is not defiled as midras, and the same applies here. &mdash; It is not susceptible to other forms of defilement because it is a wooden utensil without a cavity (p. 238, n. 6)."
,k66a_30:" How does he rebut this proof? "
}

txt:
<p>
WHILE R. JOSE FORBIDS IT. AND IF IT HAS A RECEPTACLE FOR PADS,<a id="k66a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; IT IS UNCLEAN.<a id="k66a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; HIS SUPPORTS<a id="k66a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; ARE UNCLEAN THROUGH MIDRAS,<a id="k66a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; AND ONE MAY GO OUT THEREWITH ON THE SABBATH,<a id="k66a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; AND ENTER THE TEMPLE COURT WHILST WEARING THEM.<a id="k66a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; HIS STOOL AND SUPPORTS<a id="k66a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; ARE UNCLEAN AS MIDRAS, AND ONE MAY NOT GO OUT WITH THEM ON THE SABBATH,<a id="k66a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; AND ONE MAY NOT ENTER THE TEMPLE COURT WITH THEM.<a id="k66a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; AN ARTIFICIAL ARM [LUKITMIN]<a id="k66a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; IS CLEAN, BUT ONE MAY NOT GO OUT THEREWITH.<a id="k66a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Raba asked R. Nahman, How do we learn [this]?<a id="k66a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; I do not know, replied he. What is the law? I do not know, was his answer. It was stated: Samuel said: A stump-legged person may not, [etc.]; and R. Huna said likewise: A stump-legged person may not, [etc.].<a id="k66a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph observed: Since Samuel said: A stump-legged person may not [etc.], and R. Huna [also] said: A stump-legged person may not [etc.], then we too should learn, A stump-legged person may not. Rabbah b. Shila demurred: Did they not hear what R. Hanan b. Raba recited to Hiyya b. Rab before Rab in a little room of Rab's academy: A stump-legged person may not go out with his wooden stump: this is R. Meir's view; but R. Jose permits it; whereupon Rab signalled to them that it was the reverse? R. Nahman b. Isaac observed: And your token is samek samek.<a id="k66a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Now, Samuel too retracted.<a id="k66a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; For we learnt: If she performs <i>halizah</i><a id="k66a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; with a shoe that is not his,<a id="k66a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; with a wooden shoe, or with a left-footed [shoe] placed on the right foot, the <i>halizah</i> is valid. Now we observed, Which Tanna [rules thus]?<a id="k66a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Samuel, R. Meir: For we learnt: A STUMP-LEGGED PERSON MAY GO OUT WITH HIS WOODEN STUMP: THIS IS R. MEIR'S VIEW; WHILE R. JOSE FORBIDS IT.<a id="k66a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Now, R. Huna too retracted. For it was taught: A lime burner's shoe<a id="k66a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; is unclean as midras, a woman may perform <i>halizah</i> therewith, and one may not go out with it on the Sabbath: this is R. Akiba's view; but they [the Sages] did not agree with him. But it was taught:<a id="k66a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; They agree with him? &mdash; Said R. Huna, Who agreed with him? R. Meir.<a id="k66a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; And who did not agree with him? R. Jose.<a id="k66a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph said: Who did not agree with him? R. Johanan b. Nuri. For we learnt: A hive of straw and a tube of canes:<a id="k66a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Akiba declares it unclean; while R. Johanan b. Nuri declares it clean.<a id="k66a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The Master said: 'A lime-burner's shoe is unclean as midras'. But it is not made for walking?<a id="k66a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said R. Aha son of R. 'Ulla: That is because the lime-burner walks in it until he comes home.
</p><p>
	AND IF IT HAS A RECEPTACLE FOR PADS, IT IS UNCLEAN. Abaye said: It has the uncleanness of a corpse, but not midras; Raba said: It is unclean even as midras.<a id="k66a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Raba: Whence do I know it? For we learnt: A child's waggonette<a id="k66a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; is unclean as midras. But Abaye said: There he [the child] leans upon it, but here he [the stump-legged person] does not lean upon it. Abaye said: How do I know it? Because it was taught: A staff of old men is completely clean.<a id="k66a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; And Raba?<a id="k66a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k66b_1:" But not that his whole body should lean upon it."
,k66b_2:" I.e., its purpose is to bear the weight of his whole body."
,k66b_3:" Which shows that they count as shoes, in which one may not enter the Temple court."
,k66b_4:" So Jast. Rashi: a wooden donkey's head worn by mummers."
,k66b_5:" A vegetable; dyer's madder; a prophylactic."
,k66b_6:" She was really his foster-mother, v. Kid. 31a."
,k66b_7:" Garlands; or, plants."
,k66b_8:" It is useless as a remedy to-day, as none take all these precautions &mdash; probably a sarcastic remark showing his disbelief in these remedies."
,k66b_9:" This is an objection to Rab Judah's explanation. If the Mishnah means garlands used as prophylactics, they are surely not confined to young boys!"
,k66b_10:" This cures him so that he is able to bear his father's absence."
,k66b_11:" The right hand winds the strap on the left hand."
,k66b_12:" If the strap of his left is tied to the son's right."
,k66b_13:" To alleviate stomach ache."
,k66b_14:" Into the skin."
,k66b_15:" I.e., when they were at these colleges."
,k66b_16:" The heat of the flesh would clarify it."
,k66b_17:" Let the fumes depart!"
,k66b_18:" This is an instance of sympathetic magic."
,k66b_19:" Lit., 'strangle'. An operation performed in cases of abdominal affection by squeezing the jugular veins. Rashi and 'Aruk reads: one may have the laryngeal muscle reset."
,k66b_20:" In order to set its limbs."
,k66b_21:" I.e., R. Papa recited two separate dicta about children, both in the name of Abin b. Huna, as explained below, while R. Zebid recited a single law about children in his name."
,k66b_22:" The one referring to the child that yearns for his father and the other relating to swaddling."
,k66b_23:" For magical purposes of healing."
,k66b_24:" As a safeguard against abortion. [The aetit (or Eagle stone). For the belief in the efficacy of this stone against abortion among the ancients v. Preuss, Medizin, p. 446]."
,k66b_25:" Anything that was weighed against it."
,k66b_26:" To protect her from a repetition."
,k66b_27:" Without anything having been added or taken away."
,k66b_28:" A quotidian whose paroxysms recur every day."
,k66b_29:" I.e., new and clean."
,k66b_30:" In a cavity in which sea-water was allowed to evaporate."
,k66b_31:" The number is not exact, but simply means many e.g., sealing wax over the lead, then pitch above that, then clay, etc. (Rashi)."
,k66b_32:" And the second would now take it over. "
}

txt:
<p>
it is made to facilitate his steps;<a id="k66b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas here it is made to lean on, and he does so.<a id="k66b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	HIS STOOL AND SUPPORTS ARE UNCLEAN AS MIDRAS, AND ONE MAY NOT GO OUT WITH THEM ON THE SABBATH, AND ONE MAY NOT ENTER THE TEMPLE COURT WITH THEM. A tanna recited before R. Johanan: One may enter the Temple court with them. Said he to him, I learn, A woman can perform <i>halizah</i> therewith,<a id="k66b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; yet you say [that] they may enter! Learn, One may not enter the Temple court with them. 
</p><p>
	AN ARTIFICIAL ARM [LUKITMIN] IS CLEAN. What is lukitmin? &mdash; Said R. Abbahu: A pulley for loads.<a id="k66b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba b. Papa said: Stilts. Raba son of R. Huna said: A mask.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. BOYS MAY GO OUT WITH GARLANDS [KESHARIM], AND ROYAL CHILDREN MAY GO OUT WITH BELLS, AND ALL PEOPLE [MAY DO LIKEWISE], BUT THAT THE SAGES SPOKE OF THE USUAL PRACTICE.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What is kesharim? &mdash; Said Adda Mari in the name of R. Nahman b. Baruch in the name of R. Ashi b. Abin in Rab Judah's name: Garlands of pu'ah.<a id="k66b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; (Abaye said, Mother<a id="k66b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; told me: Three<a id="k66b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; arrest [illness], five cure [it], seven are efficacious even against witchcraft. R. Aha b. Jacob observed: Providing that neither the sun nor the moon see it, and that it does not see rain nor hear the sound of iron, or the cry of a fowl or the sound of steps. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: The pu'ah has fallen into a pit!)<a id="k66b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Why [then] particularly BOYS; even girls too [may go out therewith]? And why particularly children; even adults too?<a id="k66b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But [then] what is meant by KESHARIM? As Abin b. Huna said in the name of It. Hama b. Guria: If a son yearns for his father [the father] takes a strap from his right shoe and ties it to his left [hand].<a id="k66b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman b. Isaac said: And your token is phylacteries.<a id="k66b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; But if the reverse there is danger.<a id="k66b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abin b. Huna said in the name of R. Hama b. Guria: The placing of a [hot] cup upon the navel on Sabbath<a id="k66b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; is permitted. Abin b. Huna also said in the name of R. Hama b. Guria: One may rub in oil and salt on the Sabbath.<a id="k66b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Like R. Huna at Rab's college, and Rab at R. Hiyya's, and R. Hiyya at Rabbi's,<a id="k66b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; when they felt the effect of the wine they would bring oil and salt and rub into the palms of their hands and the instep of their feet and say, 'Just as this oil is becoming clear,<a id="k66b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; so let So-and-so's wine become clear.'<a id="k66b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; And if [this was] not [possible], they would bring the sealing clay of a wine vessel and soak it in water and say, 'Just as this clay becomes clear, so let So-and-so's wine become clear.'<a id="k66b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abin b. Huna also said in the name of R. Hama b. Guria: One may reset [a laryngeal muscle]<a id="k66b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; on the Sabbath. Abin b. Huna also said in the name of R. Hama b. Guria: To swaddle a babe on the Sabbath is in order.<a id="k66b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Papa recited [two dicta about] children, [while] R. Zebid recited [one dictum] about a child.<a id="k66b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Papa recited [the two dicta about] children,<a id="k66b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; and both in the name of Abin b. Huna. While R. Zebid recited a dictum about a child [in his name]; for the first he recited in the name of Abin b. Huna, but this [latter one] he recited in the name of Rabbah b. Bar Hanah, for Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said: To swaddle a babe on the Sabbath is in order.
</p><p>
	Abaye said: Mother told me, All incantations which are repeated several times must contain the name of the patient's mother, and all knots<a id="k66b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; must be on the left [hand?]. Abaye also said: Mother told me, of all incantations, the number of times they are to be repeated, is as stated; and where the number is not stated, it is forty-one times.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: One may go out with a preserving stone<a id="k66b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; on the Sabbath. On the authority of R. Meir it was said: Even with the counterweight of a preserving stone.<a id="k66b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; And not only when one has miscarried,<a id="k66b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; but even [for fear] lest she miscarry; and not only when she is [already] pregnant, but even lest she become pregnant and miscarry. R. Yemar b. Shalmia said on Abaye's authority: Provided that it was found to be its natural counterweight.<a id="k66b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye asked: What about the counterweight of the counterweight? The question stands over.
</p><p>
	Abaye also said: Mother told me, For a daily fever<a id="k66b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; one must take a white <i>zuz</i>,<a id="k66b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; go to a salt deposit,<a id="k66b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; take its weight in salt, and tie it up in the nape of the neck with a white twisted cord. But if this is not [possible], let one sit at the cross-roads, and when he sees a large ant carrying something, let him take and throw it into a brass tube and close it with lead, and seal it with sixty seals.<a id="k66b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; Let him shake it, lift it up and say to it, 'Thy burden be upon me and my burden be upon thee.' Said R. Aha son of R. Huna to R. Ashi: But perhaps [another] man had [previously] found it and cast [his illness] upon it?<a id="k66b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather let him say to it, 'My burden and thy burden be upon thee.' But if this is impossible, let him take a new pitcher, go to the river and say to it, 'O river, O river, lend me a pitcher of water for a journey that had chanced to me.' Let him then turn it seven times about his head, throw it behind his back, and say to it, 'O river, O river, take back the water thou gavest me, for the journey that chanced to me came in its day and departed in its day!'
</p><p>
	R. Huna said:
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k68a_1:" The general principle is this: a sin-offering in connection with the Sabbath is incurred for every unwitting transgression. The number of transgressions is determined by the number of unknown facts. Thus, when one is ignorant of the Sabbath law altogether, he is unaware of a single fact, and incurs one sin-offering only. If he forgets a number of Sabbaths, each is a separate fact; hence he is liable for each. If he knows that it is the Sabbath but forgets that certain labours are forbidden, each labour is a separate fact, and he is liable for each separately. &mdash; For primary (Heb. ab, lit., 'father') labours v. p. 3, n. 2."
,k68a_2:" I.e., all derivatives (toledoth) of the same primary labour (ab)."
,k68a_3:" <i>Infra</i> 75b."
,k68a_4:" By contrast, this being wider in scope."
,k68a_5:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> It is also the name of a Tractate dealing with the laws thereof."
,k68a_6:" V. Sheb. v, 5 and VII, 1."
,k68a_7:" V. Ma'as. I, 1, and II, 7."
,k68a_8:" V. <i>infra</i> 73a seq. Agricultural labour forbidden during the seventh year is likewise divided into primaries and derivatives: sowing, harvesting, reaping and fruit gathering, are primaries, other forms of labour in a field or vineyard are derivatives; v. M.K. 3a."
,k68a_9:" In his collection of Baraithas. These are collections of Tannaitic teachings not incorporated by R. Judah ha-Nasi in the Mishnah; there were several such collections, the most authoritative being those of R. Hiyya and R. Oshaia."
,k68a_10:" Why GREAT is stated in connection with Sabbath."
,k68a_11:" Thus: one must do no work on growing (lit., attached') produce on the Sabbath, e.g., sow, reap, etc., nor on detached produce, e.g., grind corn. But only the former is forbidden in the seventh year, not the latter."
,k68a_12:" Thus the scope of both the Sabbath and shebi'ith is greater than that of tithes, and for that reason 'great' is employed in connection with the first two."
,k68a_13:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k68a_14:" 'Penal scope', Heb. 'onesh, is employed here in the sense that the violation of these laws is punishable."
,k68a_15:" I.e., the whole of the crop ripens about the same time."
,k68a_16:" Lit., 'is brought in to be kept'. This applies to cereals in general, which are stored in granaries over long periods."
,k68a_17:" [G], <i>isatis tinctoria</i>, a plant producing a deep blue dye."
,k68a_18:" Both being used as dyes."
,k68a_19:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k68a_20:" Though these grow in the earth, they were held to draw their sustenance mainly from the air."
,k68a_21:" Whose fruits do not all ripen at the same time. The same holds good of many other trees, which are likewise excluded."
,k68a_22:" Which must be consumed whilst fresh."
,k68a_23:" So that they never knew the laws of the Sabbath."
,k68a_24:" He is regarded as knowing the sanctity of the Sabbath but forgetting on each occasion that it is the Sabbath."
,k68a_25:" Lit., 'forgotten'. "
}

txt:
<p>
PRIMARY LABOUR.<a id="k68a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; HE WHO PERFORMS MANY LABOURS BELONGING TO THE SAME CATEGORY OF WORK<a id="k68a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; IS LIABLE TO ONE SIN-OFFERING ONLY.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Why does he [the Tanna] state, A GREAT PRINCIPLE? Shall we say that because he wishes to teach 'another principle',<a id="k68a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; he [therefore] states here, A GREAT PRINCIPLE?<a id="k68a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; And in respect to shebi'ith<a id="k68a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; too, because he wishes to teach another principle, he states, This is a great principle?<a id="k68a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; But what of tithes, though 'another principle' is taught, he nevertheless does not teach [elsewhere] 'a great principle'?<a id="k68a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said R. Jose b. Abin: As for the Sabbath and shebi'ith, since they possess both primaries and derivatives,<a id="k68a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; he teaches GREAT; but in respect to tithes, since there are no primaries and derivatives, he does not teach great'. Then according to Bar Kappara, who did learn 'A great principle' in respect to tithes,<a id="k68a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; what primaries and what derivatives are there? But surely this must be the reason:<a id="k68a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; The penal scope of the Sabbath is 'greater' than that of shebi'ith, for whereas [the restriction of] the Sabbath is found in respect of both detached and growing [produce], [the prohibitions of] shebi'ith do not operate in respect of detached, but only in respect of growing [produce].<a id="k68a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Again, the penal scope of the seventh year is 'greater' than that of tithes: for whereas [the law of] shebi'ith applies to both human food and animal fodder, [the law of] tithes operates in the case of human food, but not of animal fodder.<a id="k68a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; And according to Bar Kappara who learned 'a great principle' in connection with tithes, &mdash; the penal scope of tithes is greater than that of <i>pe'ah</i>:<a id="k68a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; for whereas [the law of] tithes operates in figs and vegetables [too], <i>pe'ah</i> does not operate in figs and vegetables.<a id="k68a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; For we learnt: A general principle was stated in respect to <i>pe'ah</i>: whatever is a foodstuff, is guarded, grows from the earth, is [all] gathered simultaneously,<a id="k68a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and is collected for storage,<a id="k68a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; is liable to <i>pe'ah</i>. 'Foodstuff' excludes the aftergrowth of woad<a id="k68a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and madder;<a id="k68a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; 'is guarded' excludes hefker;<a id="k68a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; 'grows from the earth' excludes mushrooms and truffles;<a id="k68a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; 'is [all] gathered simultaneously' excludes the fig-tree;<a id="k68a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; 'and is taken in to be stored' excludes vegetables.<a id="k68a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Whereas in respect to tithes we learnt: A general principle was stated in respect to tithes: Whatever is a foodstuff, is guarded, and grows from the earth is subject to tithes; but we did not learn, 'is gathered simultaneously and is collected for storage.
</p><p>
	Rab and Samuel both maintain: Our Mishnah treats of a child who was taken captive among Gentiles, or a proselyte who became converted in the midst of Gentiles.<a id="k68a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; But if one knew and subsequently forgot, he is liable [to a sin-offering] for every Sabbath.<a id="k68a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; We learnt: HE WHO FORGETS THE ESSENTIAL LAW OF THE SABBATH: surely that implies that he knew [it] originally? &mdash; No: what is meant by HE WHO FORGETS THE ESSENTIAL LAW OF THE SABBATH? That the very existence of the Sabbath was unknown<a id="k68a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; to him. But what if he knew and subsequently forgot; he is liable for every Sabbath? Then instead of teaching, HE WHO KNOWS THE ESSENTIAL LAW OF THE SABBATH AND PERFORMS MANY LABOURS ON MANY SABBATHS, INCURS A SIN-OFFERING ON ACCOUNT OF EACH SABBATH: let him teach, He who knew and subsequently forgot, and how much more so this one? &mdash; What is meant by, HE WHO KNOWS THE ESSENTIAL LAW OF THE SABBATH? That he who knew the essential law of the Sabbath and forgot it.
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k68b_1:" Sc. the essential law of the Sabbath, but merely that that particular day was the Sabbath."
,k68b_2:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k68b_3:" I.e., for the violation of each law, which if deliberately infringed, carries with it the penalty of <i>kareth</i>, he incurs one sin-offering only, no matter how many times he actually infringes it. The consumption of blood and heleb and the worshipping of idols are given as examples."
,k68b_4:" For a wilful trangressor v. Lev. V, 1: And if any one sin, etc. That refers to wilful transgression, since Scripture does not maintain that his sin be hidden from him', i.e., committed in ignorance. For unwitting transgression v. Lev. IV, 2 et passim."
,k68b_5:" of the forbidden nature of his action."
,k68b_6:" Formerly, though at the time of sinning he had forgotten it."
,k68b_7:" Which is absurd!"
,k68b_8:" Lit., 'according to your words'."
,k68b_9:" For they too maintain that he is liable. Now, they can argue that the same holds good even if one originally knew the law but subsequently forgot it, just as they explain the Mishnah, while the particular illustration is given because of Monabaz's dissent in this case."
,k68b_10:" The analogy on mere grounds of logic is insufficient, since wilful and unwitting transgression are obviously dissimilar."
,k68b_11:" Num. XV, 29."
,k68b_12:" Ibid. 30; this obviously applies to deliberate transgression."
,k68b_13:" I.e., Scripture itself intimates by this proximity that the two are similar."
,k68b_14:" Before a sin-offering is incurred. "
}

txt:
<p>
What if he did not forget it?<a id="k68b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; He is liable for each labour? Then instead of teaching, HE WHO KNOWS THAT IT IS THE SABBATH AND PERFORMS MANY LABOURS ON MANY SABBATHS, IS LIABLE FOR EVERY LABOUR, let him teach, He who knows the essential law of the Sabbath, and how much more so this case? Rather our Mishnah refers to one who knew but subsequently forgot, and Rab and Samuel's [ruling] too is similar to the case of one who knew but subsequently forgot, and it was thus stated: Rab and Samuel both maintain: Even a child who was taken captive among Gentiles or a proselyte who became converted in the midst of Gentiles is as one who knew but subsequently forgot, and so he is liable. But R. Johanan and Resh Lakish maintain: Only one who knew but subsequently forgot [is liable], but a child who was taken captive among Gentiles, or a proselyte who became converted in the midst of Gentiles, is not culpable.
</p><p>
	An objection is raised: A great principle is stated in respect to Sabbath: He who forgets the essential law of Sabbath and performs many labours on many Sabbaths, incurs one sin-offering only. E.g., if a child is taken captive among Gentiles or a proselyte is converted in the midst of Gentiles and performs many labours on many Sabbaths, he is liable to one sin-offering only. And he is liable to one [sin-offering] on account of blood, one on account of heleb,<a id="k68b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and one on account of idolatry.<a id="k68b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; But Monabaz exempts him. And thus did Monabaz argue before R. Akiba: Since a wilful transgressor is designated a sinner, and an unwitting transgressor [too] is designated a sinner;<a id="k68b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; then just as wilful transgression implied that he had knowledge,<a id="k68b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; so when unwittingly transgressing he must have had the knowledge.<a id="k68b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Akiba to him, Behold, I will add to your words. If so, just as wilful transgression involves that he shall have had knowledge at the time of his deed, so in unwitting transgression he must have had knowledge at the time of his deed.<a id="k68b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Even so, he replied, and all the more so since you have added [this argument]. As you define it,<a id="k68b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; such is not designated unwitting, but wilful transgression, he retorted. Now after all it is stated, 'E.g., if a child' [etc.]: as for Rab and Samuel, it is well.<a id="k68b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; But according to R. Johanan and Resh Lakish it presents a difficulty? &mdash; R. Johanan and Resh Lakish can answer you: Is there not Monabaz who declares him non-culpable? We rule as Monabaz.
</p><p>
	What is Monabaz's reason?<a id="k68b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Because it is written, Ye shall have one law for him that doeth unwittingly;<a id="k68b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and in proximity thereto [it is written], And the soul that doeth aught with a high hand:<a id="k68b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; hence unwitting is assimilated to wilful transgression:<a id="k68b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; just as wilful transgression involves that he shall have had knowledge, so unwitting transgression implies that he shall have had knowledge.<a id="k68b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; And the Rabbis: how do they employ this [verse], Ye shall have one law, [etc.]? &mdash; They employ it even as R. Joshua b. Levi taught his son: Ye shall have one law for him that doeth unwittingly; and it is written,
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k69a_1:" Ibid. 22; in Hor. 8a it is deduced that this refers to idolatry."
,k69a_2:" I.e., cutting off."
,k69a_3:" V. v. 27."
,k69a_4:" But where wilful transgression involves a lesser penalty than <i>kareth</i>, an unwitting offence does not involve a sin-offering."
,k69a_5:" When the offender has knowledge at the time of his action."
,k69a_6:" He knew that the wilful offence involved <i>kareth</i>, but not that the unwitting transgression involved a sin-offering."
,k69a_7:" I.e., he knows that it is forbidden by a negative injunction but not that its penalty is <i>kareth</i>. This constitutes sinning in ignorance, and involves a sin-offering."
,k69a_8:" Lev. IV, 27."
,k69a_9:" Not to be done after 'sin unwittingly' implies that he is ignorant that it is forbidden at all."
,k69a_10:" One who is professedly antagonistic to Jewish law. If he sins unwittingly, he cannot offer a sacrifice, even if he desires. This is deduced from the partitive of the common people, expressed in the original by the letter mem ( n ), which is regarded as a limitation."
,k69a_11:" I.e., R. Simeon b. Yohai."
,k69a_12:" Lit., 'turn back'."
,k69a_13:" For the verse implies that he acted solely through his ignorance; only then can he atone with a sacrifice. R. Simeon too teaches the exclusion of a mumar, but deduces it differently."
,k69a_14:" <i>Infra</i> 73a."
,k69a_15:" Since they are enumerated by name."
,k69a_16:" Of their forbidden nature."
,k69a_17:" For in the reverse case he incurs only one sin-offering (v. Mishnah 67b). Now awareness of the Sabbath implies that he knows at least one of the labours forbidden, for otherwise the Sabbath is the same to him as any other day, and he cannot be said to be aware thereof. But in the present passage he appears to have known none at all: how then can we regard him as being aware of the Sabbath? This the Talmud proceeds to discuss."
,k69a_18:" Seeing that he was ignorant of all the forbidden labours."
,k69a_19:" That one may not go on the Sabbath more than a certain distance beyond the town limits. Infringement of this law does not entail a sacrifice."
,k69a_20:" Who maintains that the limitation of boundaries is Biblical. The Rabbis dispute this."
,k69a_21:" I.e., of the Sabbath and that this labour is forbidden on the Sabbath."
,k69a_22:" He certainly falls within this category."
,k69a_23:" <i>Supra</i>."
,k69a_24:" E.g., 'I swear that I will eat', or, 'I swear that I will not eat', and then broken, cf. Lev. V, 4."
,k69a_25:" I.e., the offender must have forgotten his oath at the time of breaking it, so that he is unaware that his action is interdicted by his oath. A sacrifice for a broken oath is decreed in Lev. V, 4 seq."
,k69a_26:" For Abaye cannot mean by 'all' that even Monabaz agrees that it is insufficient that he shall merely be ignorant that a vain oath entails a sacrifice. For how can this be maintained? On the contrary, the reverse follows <i>a fortiori</i>: if Monabaz regards unawareness of the liability to a sin-offering elsewhere as true unawareness, though such liability is in accordance with the general principle that where <i>kareth</i> is incurred for a wilful offence a sin-offering is incurred for an unwitting transgression, how much more so here, seeing that the very liability to a sacrifice is an anomaly unexpected, for the deliberate breaking of an oath does not entail <i>kareth</i>. Hence Abaye must refer to R. Johanan's view on the ruling of the Rabbis."
,k69a_27:" Lit., 'a new thing' &mdash; something outside the general rule."
,k69a_28:" Which does not entail <i>kareth</i>."
,k69a_29:" Even on the views of the Rabbis. "
}

txt:
<p>
and when ye shall err, and not observe all these commandments;<a id="k69a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is written, And the soul that doeth aught with a high hand&nbsp;&hellip; [that soul shall be cut off]: thus they are all assimilated to idolatry: just as there it is something for the wilful transgression of which <i>kareth</i><a id="k69a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; is incurred, and for the unwitting transgression a sin-offering is incurred,<a id="k69a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; so for everything the wilful transgression of which involves <i>kareth</i>, its unwitting transgression involves a sin-offering.<a id="k69a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But according to Monabaz, wherein lies his non-wilfulness?<a id="k69a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; E.g., if he was ignorant in respect of the sacrifice.<a id="k69a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; But the Rabbis hold that ignorance in respect of the sacrifice does not constitute ignorance.
</p><p>
	Now according to the Rabbis, in respect to what is ignorance [required]? R. Johanan said: As long as one errs in respect to <i>kareth</i>, even if he wilfully sins in respect of the negative command;<a id="k69a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; while Resh Lakish maintained: He must offend unwittingly in respect of the negative injunction and <i>kareth</i>. Raba said, What is R. Simeon b. Lakish's reason? Scripture saith, [And if any one of the common people sin unwittingly, in doing any of the things which the Lord hath commanded] not to be done, and be guilty:<a id="k69a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; hence he must err both as to the negative injunction and its attendant <i>kareth</i>.<a id="k69a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; And R. Johanan: how does he employ this verse adduced by R. Simeon b. Lakish? &mdash; He utilizes it for what was taught: [And if any one] of the common people: this excludes a mumar.<a id="k69a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon b. Eleazar said on the authority of R. Simeon:<a id="k69a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [&hellip; sin unwittingly in doing any of the things which the Lord hath commanded] not to be done, and be guilty: he who would refrain<a id="k69a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; on account of his knowledge, brings a sacrifice for his unwitting offence; but he who would not refrain on account of his knowledge cannot bring a sacrifice for his unwitting offence.<a id="k69a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	We learnt: The primary forms of labour are forty less one.<a id="k69a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Now we pondered thereon, Why state the number?<a id="k69a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; And R. Johanan replied: [To teach] that if one performs all of them in a single state of unawareness,<a id="k69a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; he is liable [to a sin-offering] for each. Now, how is this possible? [Surely only] where he is aware of the Sabbath but unconscious of [the forbidden nature of] his labours.<a id="k69a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; As for R. Johanan, who maintained that since he is ignorant in respect of <i>kareth</i>, though fully aware of the negative injunction, [his offence is unwitting], it is well: it is conceivable e.g., where he knew [that labour is forbidden on] the Sabbath by a negative injunction. But according to R. Simeon b. Lakish, who maintained that he must be unaware of the negative injunction and of <i>kareth</i>, wherein did he know of the Sabbath?<a id="k69a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He knew of [the law of] boundaries,<a id="k69a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; this being in accordance with R. Akiba.<a id="k69a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Who is the authority for the following which was taught by the Rabbis: If one is unaware of both,<a id="k69a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; he is the erring sinner mentioned in the Torah;<a id="k69a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; if one wilfully transgresses in respect of both, he is the presumptuous offender mentioned in the Torah. If one is unaware of the Sabbath but conscious of [the forbidden character of] his labours or the reverse, or if he declares, 'I knew that this labour is forbidden, but not whether it entails a sacrifice or not, he is culpable? With whom does this agree? With Monabaz.<a id="k69a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye said: All agree in respect to an 'oath of utterance'<a id="k69a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; that a sacrifice is not incurred on account thereof unless one is unaware of its interdict.<a id="k69a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; 'All agree': who is that? R. Johanan?<a id="k69a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; But that is obvious! When did R. Johanan say [otherwise], where there is [the penalty of] <i>kareth</i>; but here [in the case of an 'oath of utterance'] that there is no [penalty of] <i>kareth</i>, he did not state [his ruling]? &mdash; One might argue: Since liability to a sacrifice [here] is an anomaly,<a id="k69a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; for we do not find in the whole Torah that for a [mere] negative injunction<a id="k69a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; one must bring a sacrifice, whilst here it is brought; hence even if he is unaware of the [liability to a] sacrifice, he is culpable:<a id="k69a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k69b_1:" I.e., where one falsely swears that he has eaten."
,k69b_2:" Knowing that he is swearing to an untruth."
,k69b_3:" This contradicts Abaye."
,k69b_4:" V. n. 2."
,k69b_5:" The passage 'Another &hellip; refutation' is bracketed in the edd., and Rashi deletes it. For in fact the ruling is necessary according to Monabaz too. For whereas elsewhere ignorance is constituted by unawareness either of the forbidden nature of the act or of the sacrifice it entails, here the former does not constitute ignorance, and there must be unawareness of the liability to a sacrifice. This does not follow from Monabaz's other ruling and so must be stated."
,k69b_6:" If a non-priest eats <i>terumah</i> unwittingly. he must indemnify the priest for its value and add a fifth (Lev. XXII, 14). Abaye states that he must have been unaware of its forbidden nature, i.e., thinking it to be ordinary food."
,k69b_7:" If <i>terumah</i> is knowingly eaten by a non-priest, he is liable to death inflicted by Heaven."
,k69b_8:" Death and the addition of a fifth for the conscious and unconscious eating of <i>terumah</i> respectively are the equivalent of <i>kareth</i> and a sacrifice in the case of other transgressions. Hence according to R. Johanan on the basis of the ruling of the Rabbis one is liable to the addition of a fifth if he eats <i>terumah</i> in ignorance that the conscious offence is punishable by death at the hands of Heaven."
,k69b_9:" Alfasi, Asheri, Maim., Tur and J.D. omit 'on a road or'."
,k69b_10:" From the day that he discovers that he has forgotten when it is the Sabbath."
,k69b_11:" The first after his discovery."
,k69b_12:" Where the Sabbath followed six working days."
,k69b_13:" He was created on the sixth day; thus his first complete day was the Sabbath."
,k69b_14:" But no unnecessary work, since each day may be the Sabbath."
,k69b_15:" Kiddush =sanctification; habdalah=distinction. The former is a prayer recited at the beginning of the Sabbath; the latter is recited at the end thereof, and thanks God for making a distinction between the sanctity of the Sabbath and the secular nature of the other days of the week."
,k69b_16:" On the day that he discovers that he has forgotten when it is the Sabbath, he nevertheless remembers how many days it is since he set out. The passage may also possibly be translated: if he recognizes a part, viz., the day on which he set out."
,k69b_17:" Viz., on the seventh after he set out, without any restrictions, since he certainly did not commence his journey on the Sabbath."
,k69b_18:" As it is unusual."
,k69b_19:" Ex. XXXI, 16."
,k69b_20:" Lev. XIX, 3."
,k69b_21:" Sc. the employment of the sing. in one verse and the plural in the other."
,k69b_22:" In the sense that if one desecrates many Sabbaths he fails in a single observance and is liable to one sin-offering only."
,k69b_23:" Viz., that the desecration of each Sabbath entails a separate sacrifice. It then rests with the Rabbis to decide where each shall apply."
,k69b_24:" R. Nahman b. Isaac agrees that the distinctions of the Mishnah follow from these texts, but he reverses their significance. "
}

txt:
<p>
hence he [Abaye] informs us [otherwise].
</p><p>
	An objection is raised: What is an unwitting offence in respect of an 'oath of utterance' relating to the past?<a id="k69b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Where one says, 'I know that this oath is forbidden,<a id="k69b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; but I do not know whether it entails a sacrifice or not,' he is culpable?<a id="k69b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This agrees with Monabaz. (Another version: Who is the authority for this? Shall we say, Monabaz? But then it is obvious! seeing that in the whole Torah, where it [liability to a sacrifice] is not an anomaly, Monabaz rules that unawareness of the sacrifice constitutes unawareness, how much more so here that it is an anomaly!<a id="k69b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence it must surely be the Rabbis, and this refutation of Abaye is indeed a refutation.)<a id="k69b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye also said: All agree in respect to <i>terumah</i> that one is not liable to [the addition of] a fifth unless he is unaware of its interdict.<a id="k69b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; 'All agree': who is that? R. Johanan: But that is obvious: when did R. Johanan say [otherwise], where there is the penalty of <i>kareth</i>, but here that there is no penalty of <i>kareth</i>, he did not state [his ruling]? &mdash; You might argue: death stands in the place of <i>kareth</i>,<a id="k69b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and therefore if one is ignorant of [this penalty of] death, he is culpable; hence he informs us [otherwise]. Raba said: Death stands in the place of <i>kareth</i>, and the fifth stands in the place of a sacrifice.<a id="k69b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Huna said: If one is travelling on a road or<a id="k69b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; in the wilderness and does not know when it is the Sabbath, he must count six days and observe one.<a id="k69b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Hiyya b. Rab said: He must observe one<a id="k69b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and count six [weekdays]. Wherein do they differ? One Master holds that it is as the world's Creation;<a id="k69b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; the other Master holds that it is like [the case of] Adam.<a id="k69b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	An objection is raised: If one is travelling on a road and does not know when it is the Sabbath, he must observe one day for six. &mdash; Surely that means that he counts six days and observes one? No: he keeps one day and counts six. If so, [instead of] 'he must observe one day for six,' he should state, 'he must observe one day and count six'? Moreover, it was taught: If one is travelling on a road or in a wilderness and does not know when it is the Sabbath, he must count six and observe one day.' This refutation of Hiyya b. Rab is indeed a refutation.
</p><p>
	Raba said: Every day he does sufficient for his requirements [only],<a id="k69b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; except on that day. And on that day he is to die? &mdash; He prepared double his requirements on the previous day. But perhaps the previous day was the Sabbath? But every day he does sufficient for his requirements, and even on that day. Then wherein may that day be recognized? By kiddush and habdalah.<a id="k69b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba said: If he recognizes the relationship to the day of his departure,<a id="k69b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; he may do work the whole of that day.<a id="k69b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; But that is obvious? &mdash; You might say, Since he did not set out on the Sabbath, he did not set out on the eve of the Sabbath either;<a id="k69b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; hence this man, even if he set out on Thursday. it shall be permitted him to do work on two days. Hence he informs us that sometimes one may come across a company and chance to set out [on a Friday].
</p><p>
	HE WHO KNOWS THE ESSENTIAL LAW OF THE SABBATH. How do we know it? &mdash; Said R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha, Two texts are written: Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath;<a id="k69b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is written, and ye shall keep my Sabbaths.<a id="k69b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; How is this to be explained?<a id="k69b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath' [implies] one observance for many Sabbaths;<a id="k69b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; [whereas] 'and ye shall keep my Sabbaths' [implies] one observance for each separate Sabbath.<a id="k69b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman b. Isaac demurred: On the contrary, the logic is the reverse: Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath [implies] one observance for each separate Sabbath; [whereas] 'and ye shall keep my Sabbaths' [implies] one observance for many Sabbaths.<a id="k69b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</p><p>
	HE WHO KNOWS THAT IT IS THE SABBATH.
</P>


