# snc

lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k31a_1:" Insolently, without the courtesy of a title."
,k31a_2:" Hillel himself was a Babylonian."
,k31a_3:" V. p. 91, n. 8."
,k31a_4:" Hence their feet must be wide to enable them to walk there, just as ducks' feet are webbed."
,k31a_5:" Patriarch, the religious head of the people."
,k31a_6:" Torah, pl. Toroth, is generally, though incorrectly, translated 'law'. It means rather a system of teaching; v. R.T. Herford, The Pharisees, pp. 53ff."
,k31a_7:" The Written Torah is the Pentateuch; the Oral Torah is the whole body of Rabbinical and traditional teaching thereon. This was originally not committed to writing (for the reasons v. Weiss, Dor, 111, 24b; and Kaplan, Redaction of the Talmud, ch. XIX), and hence designated the Oral Torah. Weiss, <i>op. cit</i>. I, p. 1, n. 1. observes that Hillel was the first man to whom the use of the term [H], 'Oral Law' is found ascribed."
,k31a_8:" Of teaching him."
,k31a_9:" The first four letters of the Hebrew alphabet."
,k31a_10:" As to what the letters are."
,k31a_11:" There must be a certain reliance upon authority before anything can be learnt at all. Cf. M. Farbridge, Judaism and the Modern Mind, chs. VII and VIII."
,k31a_12:" Rashi: a cubit to measure off the amount of work done by a builder."
,k31a_13:" The golden Rule; cf. Lev. XIX, 18: but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.- V. Hertz, Leviticus, pp. 22 or 223, and cf. R. T. Herford, Talmud and Apocrypha, p. 148."
,k31a_14:" Lit.,'a scribe'."
,k31a_15:" Ex. XXVIII, 4."
,k31a_16:" The laws appertaining to the functions of a High Priest."
,k31a_17:" Num. I, 51."
,k31a_18:" Deut. XIV, 11."
,k31a_19:" Ex. IV, 22."
,k31a_20:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k31a_21:" From these stories it would appear that proselytes were eagerly accepted by Hillel; v. Kid., Sonc. ed., p. 313, n. 3."
,k31a_22:" Isa. XXXIII, 6."
,k31a_23:" V. n. 9."
,k31a_24:" These are the six orders into which the Talmud is divided. Faith is applied to Seeds, because it requires faith in the Almighty to sow with the assurance of a crop (J.T.); 'times' as meaning Festivals is self-explanatory; hosen, here translated 'strength', is derived by Rashi from a root meaning to inherit, and thus identified with the Order of Women, because heirs are created through women; Nezikin treats of civil law, knowledge of which saves men (i.e., brings him 'salvation') from encroaching upon his neighbour's rights or allowing his own to be filched away; the last two Orders are very intricate and require deep understanding, and are therefore identified with wisdom and knowledge."
,k31a_25:" Ibid. Learning without piety is valueless."
,k31a_26:" In the next world."
,k31a_27:" That is Raba's interpretation of the verse; he too translates 'hosen' as inheritance, and thus applies it to procreation (v. preceding note), and understands 'knowledge' as the process of inferring the unknown from the known."
,k31a_28:" last.: a sandy soil containing salty substances and used for the preservation of wheat."
,k31a_29:" Of dishonesty, when he sells the whole as grain, because that proportion is necessary for its preservation. One <i>kab</i> = one hundred and eightieth of a <i>kor</i>. "
}

txt:
<p>
made a wager with each other, saying, He who goes and makes Hillel angry shall receive four hundred <i>zuz</i>. Said one, 'I will go and incense him.' That day was the Sabbath eve, and Hillel was washing his head. He went, passed by the door of his house, and called out, 'Is Hillel here, is Hillel here?'<a id="k31a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Thereupon he robed and went out to him, saying, 'My son, what do you require?' 'I have a question to ask,' said he. 'Ask, my son,' he prompted. Thereupon he asked: 'Why are the heads of the Babylonians round?<a id="k31a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; 'My son, you have asked a great question,' replied he: 'because they have no skillful midwives.' He departed, tarried a while, returned, and called out, 'Is Hillel here; is Hillel here?' He robed and went out to him, saying, 'My son, what do you require?' 'I have a question to ask,' said he. 'Ask, my son,' he prompted. Thereupon he asked: 'Why are the eyes of the Palmyreans<a id="k31a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; bleared?' 'My son, you have asked a great question, replied he: 'because they live in sandy places.' He departed, tarried a while, returned, and called out, 'Is Hillel here; is Hillel here?' He robed and went out to him, saying, 'My son, what do you require?' 'I have a question to ask,' said he. 'Ask, my son,' he prompted. He asked, 'Why are the feet of the Africans [negroes] wide?' 'My son, you have asked a great question,' said he; 'because they live in watery marshes.'<a id="k31a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; 'I have many questions to ask,' said he, 'but fear that you may become angry.' Thereupon he robed, sat before him and said, 'Ask all the questions you have to ask,' 'Are you the Hillel who is called the nasi<a id="k31a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; of Israel?' 'Yes,' he replied. 'If that is you,' he retorted, may there not be many like you in Israel. 'Why, my son?' queried he. 'Because I have lost four hundred <i>zuz</i> through you,' complained he. 'Be careful of your moods,' he answered. 'Hillel is worth it that you should lose four hundred <i>zuz</i> and yet another four hundred <i>zuz</i> through him, yet Hillel shall not lose his temper.'
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: A certain heathen once came before Shammai and asked him, 'How many Toroth<a id="k31a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; have you?' 'Two,' he replied: 'the Written Torah and the Oral Torah.'<a id="k31a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; 'I believe you with respect to the Written, but not with respect to the Oral Torah; make me a proselyte on condition that you teach me the Written Torah [only].<a id="k31a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [But] he scolded and repulsed him in anger. When he went before Hillel, he accepted him as a proselyte. On the first day, he taught him, Alef, beth, gimmel, daleth;<a id="k31a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; the following day he reversed [them] to him. 'But yesterday you did not teach them to me thus,' he protested. 'Must you then not rely upon me?<a id="k31a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Then rely upon me with respect to the Oral [Torah] too.'<a id="k31a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen came before Shammai and said to him, 'Make me a proselyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.' Thereupon he repulsed him with the builder's cubit which was in his hand.<a id="k31a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; When he went before Hillel, he said to him, 'What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbour:<a id="k31a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; that is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary thereof; go and learn it.' 
</p><p>
	On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen was passing behind a <i>Beth Hamidrash</i>, when he heard the voice of a teacher<a id="k31a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; reciting, And these are the garments which they shall make; a breastplate, and an ephod.<a id="k31a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Said he, 'For whom are these?' 'For the High Priest,' he was told. Then said that heathen to himself, 'I will go and become a proselyte, that I may be appointed a High Priest.' So he went before Shammai and said to him, 'Make me a proselyte on condition that you appoint me a High Priest.' But he repulsed him with the builder's cubit which was in his hand. He then went before Hillel, who made him a proselyte. Said he to him, 'Can any man be made a king but he who knows the arts of government? Do you go and study the arts of government!'<a id="k31a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; He went and read. When he came to, and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death,<a id="k31a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; he asked him, 'To whom does this verse apply?' 'Even to David King, of Israel,' was the answer. Thereupon that proselyte reasoned within himself <i>a fortiori</i>: if Israel, who are called sons of the Omnipresent,<a id="k31a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and who in His love for them He designated them, Israel is my son, my firstborn,<a id="k31a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; yet it is written of them, 'and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death': how much more so a mere proselyte, who comes with his staff and wallet! Then he went before Shammai and said to him. 'Am I then eligible to be a High Priest; is it not written in the Torah, 'and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death?' He went before Hillel and said to him, 'O gentle Hillel; blessings rest on thy head for bringing me under the wings of the <i>Shechinah</i>!'<a id="k31a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Some time later the three met in one place; said they, Shammai's impatience sought to drive us from the world, but Hillel's gentleness brought us under the wings of the <i>Shechinah</i>.<a id="k31a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Resh Lakish said, What is meant by the verse, and there shall be faith in thy times, strength, salvation, wisdom and knowledge?<a id="k31a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Faith' refers to the Order of Seeds; thy times, the Order of Festivals; strength, the Order of Women; salvation, the Order of Nezikin;<a id="k31a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; wisdom, the Order of Sacrifices; and knowledge, to the Order of Purity.<a id="k31a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; Yet even so the fear of the Lord is his treasure.<a id="k31a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba said, When man is led in for Judgment<a id="k31a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; he is asked, Did you deal faithfully [i.e., with integrity], did you fix times for learning, did you engage in procreation, did you hope for salvation, did you engage in the dialectics of wisdom, did you understand one thing from another.<a id="k31a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Yet even so, if 'the fear of the Lord is his treasure,' it is well: if not, [it is] not [well]. This may be compared to a man who instructed his agent, 'Take me up a <i>kor</i> of wheat in the loft,' and he went and did so. 'Did you mix in a <i>kab</i> of humton?'<a id="k31a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; he asked him, 'No,' replied he. 'Then it were better that you had not carried it up,' he retorted. The School of R. Ishmael taught: A man may mix a <i>kab</i> of humton in a <i>kor</i> of grain, and have no fear.<a id="k31a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabbah b. R. Huna said: Every man who possesses learning without
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k31b_1:" Learning is a gate whereby one enters the court of piety. Woe to him who prepares the entry without the court itself!"
,k31b_2:" By 'fear' not dread but awe and reverence is to be understood, proceeding out of man's realization of God's essential perfection. This reverence, and the attempt to attain something of that perfection which it inculcates, is man's highest aim in life, and that is probably the meaning of this dictum; cf. Maim. (Guide, III, 52."
,k31b_3:" Eccl. III, 14."
,k31b_4:" in the Yalkut, 'Ekeb, 855 the reading is: Rabbi and R. Eleazar b. Simeon."
,k31b_5:" The former is a greater attribute."
,k31b_6:" This would be R. Eleazar b. Pedath, R. Johanan's younger contemporary; he is hardly likely to have quoted him. Hence the Yalkut's version given in p. 142, n. 7 is preferable, and the reading is: R. Johanan in the name of R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon."
,k31b_7:" i.e., cherishes nothing so highly."
,k31b_8:" Deut. X, 12."
,k31b_9:" Thus translating: the fear of the Lord is one, unique (in God's affections)."
,k31b_10:" Sc. R. Eleazar's (or, R. Eleazar b. Simeon's) view."
,k31b_11:" Eccl. VII, 17."
,k31b_12:" i.e., having sinned a little, do not think that you must go on sinning."
,k31b_13:" Ps. LXXIII, 4."
,k31b_14:" Regarding harzuboth as a combination of hared (trembling) and 'azeb (grief-stricken) and translating ulam, a hall, edifice."
,k31b_15:" Ps. XLIX, 14."
,k31b_16:" Which close their understanding. The loins (reins) were regarded as the seat of understanding."
,k31b_17:" That one is liable for work not needed in itself, v. p. 131, n. 4"
,k31b_18:" V. <i>supra</i> 12a."
,k31b_19:" One is not liable for desecrating the Sabbath when his work is destructive; but if he demolishes a house in order to rebuild, it is regarded as constructive. Now, extinguishing a wick, thereby destroying its light, is the equivalent of demolishing a house; if the purpose is to save the wick to be used again later, it is analogous to demolishing a house to build on the same site, since it is the wick which is extinguished and the wick which is to be relit. But if the purpose is to save the oil or the lamp, it is analogous to demolishing a house in order to rebuild elsewhere, for whereas the wick is extinguished, it is the oil or lamp that is saved for subsequent use."
,k31b_20:" <i>infra</i> 49b."
,k31b_21:" The Tabernacle was only taken down when they had to journey onwards, and it was re-erected on their new camping pitch."
,k31b_22:" Num. IX, 23."
,k31b_23:" In order to burn clearer."
,k31b_24:" For its purpose, and thus it is a labour needed for itself, which involves liability."
,k31b_25:" The text implies that by extinguishing it he intends making charcoal, i.e., to make it more ready for relighting, and thus must apply to a wick which needs singeing."
,k31b_26:" On the terms v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k31b_27:" [In time before Sabbath sets in, v. Strashun]."
,k31b_28:" Rebi'ith=one <i>log</i>=one fourth of a <i>kab</i>, and was held to be the smallest quantity of blood within a human being on which life in be supported."
,k31b_29:" Not to shed it: Gen. IX. 5f. "
}

txt:
<p>
the fear of Heaven is like a treasurer who is entrusted with the inner keys but not with the outer: how is he to enter? R. Jannai proclaimed: Woe to him who has no courtyard yet makes a gate for same!<a id="k31b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab Judah said, The Holy One, blessed be He, created His world only that men should fear Him,<a id="k31b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; for it is said, and God hath done it, that men should fear before Him.<a id="k31b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Simon and R. Eleazar<a id="k31b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; were sitting, when R. Jacob b. Aha came walking past. Said one to his companion, 'Let us arise before him, because he is a sin-fearing man.' Said the other, 'Let us arise before him, because he is a man of learning.' 'I tell you that he is a sin-fearing man, and you tell me that he is a man of learning!' retorted he.<a id="k31b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; It may be proved that it was R. Eleazar who observed that he was a sin-fearing man. For R. Johanan said in R. Eleazar's name:<a id="k31b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; The Holy One, blessed be He, has nought else in His world but<a id="k31b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; the fear of Heaven alone, for it is said, And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God requires of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God?<a id="k31b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is written, And unto man he said, Behold [hen], the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom, and in Greek one is hen.<a id="k31b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; That proves it.<a id="k31b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. 'Ulla expounded: Why Is it written, Be not much wicked?<a id="k31b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; must one not be much wicked, yet he may be a little wicked! But if one has eaten garlic and his breath smells, shall he eat some more garlic that his breath may [continue to] smell?<a id="k31b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba son of R. 'Ulla expounded: What is meant by, For there are no pangs [harzuboth] in their death: but their strength is firm [bari] ulam]?<a id="k31b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; The Holy One, blessed be He, said, it is not enough for the wicked that they do not tremble and are not grief-stricken before the day of death, but their hearts are as firm as an edifice.<a id="k31b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; And that is what Raba said, What is meant by, This their way is their confidence [kesel]?<a id="k31b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; The wicked know that their way is to death, but they have fat on their loins [kislam].<a id="k31b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; But lest you think that it is their forgetfulness, therefore it is stated, and they approve their end with their own mouths.<a id="k31b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF HE WOULD SPARE THE LAMP, etc. With whom does R. Jose agree? If with R. Judah,<a id="k31b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; then one should be liable for the others too; and if with R. Simeon,<a id="k31b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; he should be exempt even for[sparing] the wick? &mdash; Said 'Ulla, After all, he agrees with R. Judah; yet R. Jose holds that demolishing in order to rebuild on the same site is destroying, but if it is in order to rebuild elsewhere, it is not destroying.<a id="k31b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Rabbah to him, Consider; all forms of labour are derived from the Tabernacle,<a id="k31b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; yet there it was taking down in order to rebuild elsewhere?<a id="k31b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; It was different there, answered he; for since it is written, At the commandment of the Lord they encamped, [and at the commandment of the Lord they journeyed],<a id="k31b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; it was like demolishing in order to rebuild on the same site.
</p><p>
	But R. Johanan maintained: After all, he agrees with R. Simeon, yet why is the case of a wick different? As R. Hamnuna-others state, R. Adda b. Ahabah-said: This refers to a wick which needs singeing,<a id="k31b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; and in such a case even R. Simeon agrees since he renders an object fit.<a id="k31b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said, This may be inferred too, for it is stated, BECAUSE HE MAKES CHARCOAL, and not, because a charcoal is formed.<a id="k31b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; This proves it.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. FOR THREE SINS WOMEN DIE IN CHILDBIRTH: BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT OBSERVANT OF [THE LAWS OF] <I>NIDDAH</I>, <I>HALLAH</I>,<a id="k31b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THE KINDLING OF THE [SABBATH] LIGHTS.<a id="k31b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What is the reason of <i>niddah</i>? &mdash; Said R. Isaac: She transgressed through the chambers of her womb, therefore she is punished through the chambers of her womb. That is right of <i>niddah</i>, but what can be said of <i>hallah</i> and the kindling of lights? &mdash; As a certain Galilean lectured before R. Hisda: The Holy One, blessed be He, said: I put a rebi'ith of blood in you;<a id="k31b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; therefore I commanded you concerning blood.<a id="k31b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k2a_1:" Lit., 'outgoings'."
,k2a_2:" i.e., the acts of transporting objects from private to public ground or vice versa, which are forbidden on the Sabbath, Tosaf. observes that the phraseology, 'outgoings,' ([H]) instead of the more usual 'carryings out' ([H]) is based on Ex. XVI, 29: <i>let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.</i> L. Blau in <I>MGWJ.</I>, 1934 (<i>Festschrift</i>), P. 122, n. 2 is inclined to reject this, and conjectures that 'outgoings' ([H]) is the original Hebrew for 'carrying out,' and its present use indicates the extreme antiquity of this Mishnah."
,k2a_3:" I.e., by Biblical law two acts of carrying out are interdicted to the person standing in a private domain ('within') and two to the person standing in public ground ('without'); to each two the Rabbis added another two, thus making '<small>TWO WHICH ARE FOUR</small>.' Tosaf. is much exercised with the question why this is taught at the beginning of the Tractate, instead of in the seventh chapter, where all the principal forbidden acts of the Sabbath, including this, are enumerated, and offers various answers. L. Blau, op. cit., p. 124f maintains that this was originally part of the Mishnah of Shebu. I, 1, which is quoted at the beginning of the Gemara (<i>infra</i>), where a number of subjects, having no inner connection, are grouped together by the catch phrase 'two which are four.' As an aid to the memory each subject was then put at the head of the Tractate to which it refers."
,k2a_4:" For desecrating the Sabbath."
,k2a_5:" Because the poor man performs the two acts which together constitute 'carrying out' in the Biblical sense, viz., he removes an object from one domain and replaces it in another. (When he withdraws the object into the street, holding it in his hand, he is regarded as having deposited it in the street.) The master, on the other hand, is quite passive, performing no action at all."
,k2a_6:" In both cases here the master performs the two acts, the poor man being passive. Thus there are two Biblically forbidden acts for each.-'Liable' means to a sin-offering, if the acts are committed unwittingly, or to death (in theory, hardly in practice) if committed knowingly, and can apply here only to a Biblical interdict."
,k2a_7:" In iii and iv each performs one act only, either removing from one domain or depositing in another. This is Rabbinically forbidden, and involves no liability. (When the master places an object into the poor man's outstretched hand, which is already in the house, he, and not the poor man, is regarded as having removed it from the private domain.)"
,k2a_8:" Shebu. I, 1."
,k2a_9:" In Lev. V, 4-7 (q.v.) a variable sacrifice (vv. 6-7) is imposed for taking a false oath (v. 4 is so explained). 'To do evil, or to do good,' is interpreted as meaning that one swears, 'I will eat,' or 'I will not eat,' which are the two referred to, viz., a positive or a negative oath relating to the future. These are further increased to four by including similar oaths relating to the past: 'I ate', or 'I did not eat.' "
}

txt:
<p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_i">CHAPTER I</A>
      </H2>

</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. THE CARRYINGS OUT<a id="k2a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; OF THE SABBATH<a id="k2a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; ARE TWO WHICH ARE FOUR WITHIN, AND TWO WHICH ARE FOUR WITHOUT.<a id="k2a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; HOW SO? THE POOR MAN STANDS WITHOUT AND THE MASTER OF THE HOUSE WITHIN: [i] IF THE POOR MAN STRETCHES HIS HAND WITHIN AND PLACES [AN ARTICLE] INTO THE HAND OF THE MASTER OF THE HOUSE, OR [ii] IF HE TAKES [AN ARTICLE] FROM IT AND CARRIES IT OUT, THE POOR MAN IS LIABLE,<a id="k2a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THE MASTER OF THE HOUSE IS EXEMPT.<a id="k2a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [AGAIN] [i] IF THE MASTER OF THE HOUSE STRETCHES HIS HAND WITHOUT AND PLACES [AN OBJECT] IN THE POOR MAN'S HAND, OR [ii] TAKES [AN OBJECT] THEREFROM AND CARRIES IT IN, THE MASTER IS LIABLE, WHILE THE POOR MAN IS EXEMPT.<a id="k2a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [iii] IF THE POOR MAN STRETCHES HIS HAND WITHIN AND THE MASTER TAKES [AN OBJECT] FROM IT, OR PLACES [AN OBJECT] THEREIN AND HE CARRIES IT OUT, BOTH ARE EXEMPT; [iv] IF THE MASTER STRETCHES HIS HAND WITHOUT AND THE POOR MAN TAKES [AN OBJECT] FROM IT, OR PLACES [AN ARTICLE] THEREIN AND HE CARRIES IT INSIDE, BOTH ARE EXEMPT.<a id="k2a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	GEMARA, We learnt elsewhere:<a id="k2a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [False] oaths are two which are four:<a id="k2a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k2b_1:" In Lev. V, 2f, 5-7 a variable sacrifice is also decreed for transgressing through uncleanness. According to the Talmud (Shebu. 7b) this refers to the eating of holy food, e.g., the flesh of sacrifices, and entering the Temple while unclean. Further, liability is contracted only if one was originally aware of his uncleanness, forgot it, and ate sacred food or entered the Temple, and then became conscious of it again. Thus there are two, viz., forgetfulness of uncleanness when eating sacred food, and same when entering the Temple. To these another two are added: forgetfulness of the sacred nature of the food and forgetfulness of the sanctity of the Temple while being aware of one's uncleanness."
,k2b_2:" The two are 'a rising' and 'a bright spot' (Lev. XIII, 2), which, in order to be unclean, must be snowy white and white as wool respectively. To these the Rabbis added, by exegesis, the whiteness of the plaster of the Temple and the whiteness of the white of an egg respectively-in each case a darker shade."
,k2b_3:" BaH, on the basis of the text in Shebu. I, 1, reverses the order of the last two."
,k2b_4:" Labours forbidden on the Sabbath are of two classes: (i) principal labours (aboth, lit., 'fathers') and (ii) derivatives (toledoth, lit., 'offsprings'), which are prohibited as partaking of the nature of the principal labours. Both are regarded as Biblical. Carrying out from private into public ground is a principal labour, while the reverse is a derivative thereof (<i>infra</i> 96b)."
,k2b_5:" Viz., that of the poor man who takes an article from the houseowner's hand, and that of the master of the house who puts an article into the poor man's hand. Where then are the 'two which are four?'"
,k2b_6:" I.e., two carryings out impose liability, as in preceding note, and another two are forbidden yet do not involve liability. Viz., if the poor man stretches his hand within, receives an article, and withdraws it; likewise, if the master of the house puts forth his hand with an object which the other takes, as explained on p. 1, n. 5 on the Mishnah. &mdash; Thus there are 'two which are four,' all referring to carrying out."
,k2b_7:" To the purificatory sacrifices of a leper (Lev. XIV)."
,k2b_8:" V. notes on Mishnah."
,k2b_9:" Two instances of carrying out, and two of carrying in, as explained in the Mishnah."
,k2b_10:" Though there is liability for carrying in, the Mishnah in Shebu. speaks only of 'carryings out.'"
,k2b_11:" Employing 'carrying out' in the wider sense of transporting between private and public ground."
,k2b_12:" I.e., in respect of the Sabbath we recognize two domains, public and private, carrying between which is prohibited. On account of these two four acts are forbidden to a person standing within and four to a person standing without, and that is the meaning of 'TWO WHICH ARE FOUR,' both here and in Shebu. (Rashi). Riba explains it differently. &mdash; Actually four domains are distinguished (<i>infra</i> 6a), but these are the principal two."
,k2b_13:" 'TWO WHICH ARE FOUR WITHIN, AND TWO WHICH ARE FOUR WITHOUT.'"
,k2b_14:" In addition to the four acts which involve liability, there are eight which do not. Viz., two acts of removal by the poor man without depositing, i.e., if he stretches his hand into the house and the master takes an object from him, or the master puts his hand without and the poor man places an object in it. Reversing these, we have two acts of depositing by the poor man without removal. These four, again, are also to be viewed from the standpoint of the master of the house, which gives eight in all."
,k2b_15:" For the two actions which involve liability for the poor man are likewise to be regarded from the standpoint of the master of the house, and vice versa, which yield another four. "
}

txt:
<p>
the forms of consciousness of uncleanness are two which are four;<a id="k2b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; the appearances of leprosy are two, which are four;<a id="k2b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; the carryings out of the Sabbath are two which are four.<a id="k2b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, why is it taught here, TWO WHICH ARE FOUR WITHIN, AND TWO WHICH ARE FOUR WITHOUT; whereas there it is [simply] stated, 'two which are four,' and nothing else? &mdash; Here, since the Sabbath is the main theme, [both] principal [forms of labour] and derivatives are taught;<a id="k2b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; but there, since the main theme is not the Sabbath, principal labours only are taught, but not derivatives. What are the principal labours? &mdash; carryings out! But the carryings out are only two?<a id="k2b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; And should you answer, some of these involve liability, and some do not involve liability<a id="k2b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; surely it is taught on a par with the appearances of leprosy: just as there all involve liability,<a id="k2b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; so here too all involve liability? &mdash; Rather said R. Papa: here that the Sabbath is the main theme, acts of liability and non-liability are taught;<a id="k2b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; there, since the Sabbath is not the main theme, only acts of liability are taught, but not of exemptions.<a id="k2b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, what are the cases of liability-carryings out? But the carryings out are [only] two?<a id="k2b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There are two forms of carrying out and two of carrying in. But 'carry ings out' are taught? &mdash; Said R. Ashi: The Tanna designates carrying in' too as 'carrying out.'<a id="k2b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; How do you know it? &mdash; Because we learnt: If one carries out [an object] from one domain to another, he is liable. Does this not mean even if he carries [it] in from the public to a private domain, and yet it is called 'carrying out.' And what is the reason? &mdash; Every removal of an article from its place the Tanna designates 'carrying out.' Rabina said: Our Mishnah too proves it, because CARRYINGS OUT are taught, yet straightway a definition of carrying in is given; this proves it. Raba said: He [the Tanna] teaches [the number of] domains; the domains of the Sabbath are two.<a id="k2b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Mattenah objected to Abaye: Are there eight?<a id="k2b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; but there are twelve!<a id="k2b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But according to your reasoning, there are sixteen!<a id="k2b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Said he to him, That is no difficulty: as for the first clause, it is well:
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k20a_1:" Lit., 'borders', the technical term for Palestine in contradistinction to the Temple (and generally, though not here, to Jerusalem)."
,k20a_2:" Sc. of the logs."
,k20a_3:" Providing that the coals start burning before nightfall, even if only slightly, it is permitted."
,k20a_4:" Must the meat etc. be roasted before the Sabbath?"
,k20a_5:" I.e., a third done. Rashi: he was a robber and always ate in a hurry."
,k20a_6:" Food cooked entirely by Gentiles is forbidden; but if a third done by a Jew, it may be finished by a Gentile."
,k20a_7:" On the Sabbath; i.e., if it was a third done before."
,k20a_8:" V. <i>infra</i> 36b."
,k20a_9:" The oven or stove would appear to have been without a closed bottom, but perhaps consisted of a number of bars over the fire, and the loaves were placed thereon and pressed to the sides of the oven; v. T.A., pp. 87f- The question is whether BOTTOM surface means the surface directly on the open bars facing the fire underneath, or that adhering to the side of the oven."
,k20a_10:" V. p. 82, n. 11."
,k20a_11:" V. <i>supra</i> 18b."
,k20a_12:" The Passover sacrifice was roasted whole. Hence the draught would not injure it, and therefore it is permitted only on account of the reason stated."
,k20a_13:" Ex. XXXV, 3."
,k20a_14:" Let it be permitted."
,k20a_15:" Of animals sacrificed on Friday; these may be burnt on Friday night, the interpretation being, 'through all your habitations', i.e., for a secular purpose, but not for a sacred purpose."
,k20a_16:" That is the real reason of the ruling in the Mishnah, as explained in p. 83, n. 2."
,k20a_17:" it should be burning strongly enough not to require such assistance."
,k20a_18:" V. <i>infra</i> 21a (p. 89). But Rashi observes that its author there is Hama b. Hama, and further that it is not a Baraitha, and so he mentions that other scholars relate it immediately to this Mishnah, whereof it is an explanation."
,k20a_19:" The fire must take hold of the greater part of its thickness before the Sabbath. "
,k20a_20:" I.e., the fire must take hold of the greater part of its thickness."
,k20a_21:" I.e., the greater part of its circumference."
,k20a_22:" Ezek. XV, 4."
,k20a_23:" A.V. hearth; R.V. brazier."
,k20a_24:" Jer. XXXVI, 22."
,k20a_25:" [H]; willow twigs used for kindling a fire."
,k20a_26:" it is sufficient if they are kindled before the Sabbath, even if the greater part has not caught on, because they will go on burning without further attention."
,k20a_27:" To be burning before the Sabbath, because the air has no access and it may otherwise require attention."
,k20a_28:" And fail to catch alight from each other, thus necessitating attention. "
}

txt:
<p>
BUT IN THE COUNTRY<a id="k20a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; THERE MUST BE TIME FOR THE FIRE TO TAKE HOLD OF ITS GREATER PART.<a id="k20a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; R. JUDAH SAID: IN THE CASE OF CHARCOAL, JUST A LITTLE [SUFFICES].<a id="k20a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. And how much?<a id="k20a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash;  R. Eleazar said in Rab's name: That it may be roasted before sunset as the food of the son of Derusai.<a id="k20a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; It was stated likewise: R. Assi said in R. Johanan's name: Whatever is as the food of the son of Derusai's not subject to [the interdict of] the cooking of Gentiles.<a id="k20a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; It was taught: Hanina said: Whatever is as the food of the son of Derusai may be kept on the stove,<a id="k20a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; though it is not swept [clear of the cinders] and besprinkled with ashes.<a id="k20a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	BREAD MAY NOT BE PUT, etc. The scholars propounded: Does the BOTTOM [surface] mean the one by the oven, or perhaps BOTTOM means the one by the fire?<a id="k20a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Come and hear: R. Eleazar said: There must be time for the surface adhering to the oven to form a crust.
</p><p>
	THE PASSOVER SACRIFICE MAY BE LOWERED, [etc.]. What is the reason? &mdash;  Because the members of the company are extremely careful.<a id="k20a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; But otherwise, it would not [be permitted]? Yet a Master said: [With the flesh of) a kid, whether it [the oven] is daubed round or not, it is well?<a id="k20a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There it is cut up, whereas here it is not cut up.<a id="k20a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	AND THE FIRE IS LIGHTED WITH CHIPS, etc. Whence do we know this? &mdash; Said R. Huna: Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations:<a id="k20a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; [only] throughout your habitations you may not kindle, but you may kindle in the pile in the chamber of the Hearth. R. Hisda demurred: If so, even on the Sabbath too!<a id="k20a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather, said R. Hisda: The verse, when it comes, conies to permit [the burning of] limbs and the fat;<a id="k20a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; while the priests are very particular.<a id="k20a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	BUT IN THE COUNTRY, THERE MUST BE TIME FOR THE FIRE TO TAKE HOLD, etc. What is meant by 'their greater part?' &mdash; Rab said: the greater part of each [<i>log</i>]; and Samuel said: That it should not be said, Let us bring chips to place under them.<a id="k20a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hiyya taught [a Baraitha which affords] support to Samuel: That the flame should ascend of its own accord, and not with the help of something else.<a id="k20a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	As to a single <i>log</i>, Rab said: The greater part of its thickness;<a id="k20a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; while others state, The greater part of its circumference. R. Papa observed: Therefore we require the greater part of both its thickness and its circumference. This is a controversy of Tannaim: R. Hiyya said: That the <i>log</i> may be rendered unfit for an artisan's work;<a id="k20a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Judah b. Bathyra said: That the fire should take hold on both sides.<a id="k20a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; And though there is no proof of the matter, there is a hint thereof: the fire hath devoured both the ends of it, and the midst of it is burned; is it profitable for any work.<a id="k20a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And there was a fire in the ah<a id="k20a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; burning before him,<a id="k20a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; What is 'ah?' &mdash; Rab said, Willow-fire;<a id="k20a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; while Samuel said: Logs kindled by willowfire. A certain man announced, who wants ahwawna? and it was found to be willows.
</p><p>
	R. Huna said: Canes do not require the greater part,<a id="k20a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; [but] if they are tied together, the greater part is required;<a id="k20a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; kernels [of dates] do not require the greater part; but if they are put in bales they require the greater part. R. Hisda demurred: On the contrary, [separate] canes may fall apart,<a id="k20a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; but if tied together they cannot fall apart; kernels can fall apart, but if placed in bales they cannot? It was stated likewise,
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k20b_1:" Thus he agrees with R. Huna in respect to staves, and with R. Hisda in respect to kernels."
,k20b_2:" Alfasi reads: wax."
,k20b_3:" I.e., any fatty substance."
,k20b_4:" 'Rakings' refers to small stubble collected in the field."
,k20b_5:" Because they burn easily."
,k20b_6:" Before the Sabbath."
,k20b_7:" Which burn less freely."
,k20b_8:" This was extremely dry and burnt rapidly."
,k20b_9:" I.e., of what must the wick be made?"
,k20b_10:" Explained in the Gemara."
,k20b_11:" The foreign terms are discussed in the Gemara."
,k20b_12:" And is obviously unfit for a wick."
,k20b_13:" Isa. I, 31. E.V. And the strong shall be as tow, but Abaye identifies hason with hosen and thus deduces that hosen is not ne'oreth (hatcheled flax)."
,k20b_14:" Jast.: cissaros-blossom, 'a woolly substance growing on stones at the Dead Sea, looking like gold, and being very soft; its name is [H] ([G]): and it resembles sheep wool'."
,k20b_15:" A cotton-like plant."
,k20b_16:" I.e., Rabbi. This is a Babylonian title, perhaps = Rabbenu, our teacher."
,k20b_17:" 'Head of the Exile', the title of the official head of Babylonian Jewry."
,k20b_18:" [G], silk. "
,k20b_19:" Sachs, Beitr. II, p. 185 refers to late Greek [G] ([G], fillet) from which he derives French frange, Eng. fringe (Jast.)."
,k20b_20:" V. Num. XV, 38. &mdash; This shows that <i>kallak</i> is not identical with silk."
,k20b_21:" Raban's observation."
,k20b_22:" Or perhaps, in a secluded valley."
,k20b_23:" A tall, woolly weed."
,k20b_24:" A wick cannot be made from it in any case."
,k20b_25:" As being unfit for use."
,k20b_26:" When lit; hence they are unfit in any case."
,k20b_27:" I.e., from PITCH."
,k20b_28:" A waxen wick (i.e., a wax candle) is permitted. V., however, Tosaf. a.l,"
,k20b_29:" A sort of resin. "
}

txt:
<p>
R. Kahana said: Canes tied together require the greater part; if not tied together, they do not require the greater part. Kernels require the greater part; if put in bales they do not.<a id="k20b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Joseph learned: Four fires do not require the greater part, [viz.] of pitch, sulphur, cheese,<a id="k20b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and grease.<a id="k20b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; In a Baraitha it was taught: straw and rakings too.<a id="k20b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan said: Babylonian woods do not require the greater part. R. Joseph demurred: To what does this refer? Shall we say, To chips?<a id="k20b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; But if [concerning] a wick 'Ulla said, He who kindles must kindle the great part of what protrudes,<a id="k20b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; is there a question of chips!<a id="k20b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather, said R. Joseph: [It refers to] the bark of cedar.<a id="k20b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Rami b. Abba said: [It refers to] dry twigs.
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_ii">CHAPTER II</A>
      </H2>

</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. WHEREWITH MAY WE KINDLE [THE SABBATH LIGHTS], AND WHEREWITH MAY WE NOT KINDLE THEM]?<a id="k20b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; WE MAY NOT KINDLE [THEM] WITH LEKESH, HOSEN [TOW], KALLAK, A BAST WICK, A DESERT WICK, SEAWEED, ZEFETH [PITCH], SHA'AWAH [WAX], KIK OIL, OIL OF BURNING,<a id="k20b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; TAIL FAT, OR TALLOW. NAHUM THE MEDE SAID: WE MAY KINDLE [THEM] WITH BOILED HELEB; BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: WHETHER BOILED OR NOT, YOU MAY NOT KINDLE THEREWITH.<a id="k20b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Lekesh is cedar bark. But cedar bark is simply wood!<a id="k20b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; It means the woolly substance [bast] within it.
</p><p>
	NOR WITH HOSEN [TOW]. R. Joseph said: [That is,] hatcheled flax. Abaye demurred: But it is written, And the hason shall be as ne'oreth?<a id="k20b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather said Abaye: It is crushed but uncombed flax.
</p><p>
	NOR WITH KALLAK. Samuel said: I asked all seafarers about it, and they told me that it is called kulka.<a id="k20b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Isaac b. Ze'ira said: Gushkera.<a id="k20b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabin and Abaye were sitting before Rabana<a id="k20b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Nehemiah the brother of the Resh Galutha.<a id="k20b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Seeing that he was wearing metaksa,<a id="k20b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabin said to Abaye, That is the kallak of which we learnt. We call it <i>peranda</i> silk,<a id="k20b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; he answered him. An objection is raised: [Garments of] silk, kallak and corded [silk], are liable to fringes.<a id="k20b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; This refutes it.<a id="k20b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Alternatively, silk is one thing and peranda silk is another.
</p><p>
	NOR WITH A BAST WICK: [I.e.,] willow-bast. Rabin and Abaye were walking in the valley of Tamruritha,<a id="k20b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; when they saw some willows. Said Rabin to Abaye, That is the idan [bast] of which we learnt. But that is simply wood, he objected. Thereupon he peeled it and showed him the wool-like substance within.
</p><p>
	NOR WITH A DESERT WICK: Mullein.<a id="k20b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	NOR WITH SEAWEED. What is this? Shall we say, The black moss of pits? But that is crumbly!<a id="k20b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather said R. Papa: it is the black fungus of ships. A Tanna taught: To these [enumerated in the Mishnah] were added [wicks] of wool and hair.<a id="k20b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; And our Tanna? &mdash; Wool shrinks [and] hair smoulders.<a id="k20b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</p><p>
	NOR WITH PITCH [ZEFETH]. ZEFETH is pitch; SHA'AWAH is wax. A Tanna taught: Thus far the unfitness of wicks [is taught]; from here onwards it is the unfitness of oils.<a id="k20b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; But that is obvious? &mdash; It is necessary in respect to wax: you may say, It is not fit for wicks either; hence we are informed [otherwise].<a id="k20b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rami b. Abin said: 'Itrona<a id="k20b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; is the by-product of pitch; wax is the residue of honey.
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k36a_1:" The community has to look after him, and therefore the community's <i>shofar</i> may be used for this purpose."
,k36a_2:" (i) R. Judah holds that a <i>shofar</i> may be moved, since it can be put to a permitted use, but not a trumpet. This can be used only in a way that is forbidden on the Sabbath, sc. drawing a blast, and is therefore mukzeh (q.v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>), the handling of which R. Judah prohibits on the Sabbath, (ii) R. Simeon holds that mukzeh may be handled, hence both may be moved. (iii) R. Nehemiah holds that a utensil may be handled only for its normal use: hence both are forbidden:"
,k36a_3:" In the first Baraitha, once it is stated that a <i>shofar</i> may not be moved, though it can be put to a permitted use, a trumpet need not be mentioned. Hence it is stated that the language changed in the course of time, '<i>shofar</i>' and 'trumpet' reversing their meaning. Thus the first Baraitha first states that a trumpet may not be handled, and then adds that the same applies even to a <i>shofar</i>."
,k36a_4:" V. Lev. XXIII, 24; Num. XXIX, 1. This must be blown on what is popularly called a trumpet, which is really a <i>shofar</i> (ram's horn)."
,k36a_5:" The palm-branch; V. Lev. XXIII, 40. For the willow (Heb. <i>'arabah</i>), what is now called <i>zafzafah</i> must be taken."
,k36a_6:" A small money-changer's table, counter."
,k36a_7:" A large table."
,k36a_8:" If one orders a pathora it now means a large table."
,k36a_9:" <i>Hoblila</i> is the second stomach in ruminants; <i>be kasse</i> the first. But nowadays the terms have reversed their meanings."
,k36a_10:" I.e., the <i>be kasse</i>."
,k36a_11:" I.e., penetrating both sides of the wall."
,k36a_12:" Unfit for food. Abaye states that this law applies only to what is now called <i>hoblila</i>."
,k36a_13:" The town Babylon is on the Euphrates, and Borsipha is on an arm of the Euphrates. V. Obermeyer, P. 314 and map. "
}

txt:
<p>
Then in the case of a community['s] too, it is fit for giving a drink to a poor child?<a id="k36a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Moreover, as to what was taught: 'Just as a <i>shofar</i> may be moved, so may a trumpet be moved': with whom does that agree? &mdash; Rather [reply thus]; there is no difficulty: one agrees with R. Judah, one with R. Simeon, and one with R. Nehemiah;<a id="k36a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and what indeed is meant by '<i>shofar</i>', a trumpet,<a id="k36a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; in accordance with R. Hisda. For R. Hisda said: The following three things reversed their designations after the destruction of the Temple: [i] trumpet [changed to] <i>shofar</i>, and <i>shofar</i> to trumpet. What is the practical bearing thereof? in respect of the <i>shofar</i> [blown] on New Year.<a id="k36a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [ii] 'Arabah [willow] [changed to] <i>zafzafah</i> and <i>zafzafah</i> to 'Arabah. What is the practical bearing thereof? &mdash; In respect of the lulab<a id="k36a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [iii] Pathora<a id="k36a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [changed to] pathorta<a id="k36a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and pathorta to Pathora. What is the practical bearing thereof? &mdash; In respect of buying and selling.<a id="k36a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye observed: We too can state: <i>Hoblila</i> [changed to] be kasse and be kasse to <i>hoblila</i>.<a id="k36a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the practical bearing thereof? In respect of a needle which is found in the thickness of the beth hakosoth,<a id="k36a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; which if [found] on one side, it [the animal] is fit [for food]; if through both sides,<a id="k36a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; it [the animal] is <i>terefah</i>.<a id="k36a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ashi said, We too will state: Babylon [changed to] Borsif and Borsif to Babylon.<a id="k36a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k36b_1:" The name of the towns in which the husband and wife are residing must be written in divorces. With respect to Babylon and Borsipha, the names as after the change must be written."
,k36b_2:" A stove which held two pots."
,k36b_3:" On the eve of the Sabbath, the reference being to a cooked dish."
,k36b_4:" Clear of burning pieces."
,k36b_5:" Otherwise it adds heat, which is forbidden; v. <i>supra</i> 34a."
,k36b_6:" Only the former may be placed there after it is swept; but not the latter, because he may wish it to boil more, forget himself, and rake the coals or logs."
,k36b_7:" After the commencement of the Sabbath."
,k36b_8:" From the eve of the Sabbath."
,k36b_9:" A third cooked."
,k36b_10:" V. <i>supra</i> 20a, q.v. notes."
,k36b_11:" Presumably referring to a dish, since Beth Shammai permit the replacing of hot water."
,k36b_12:" It has already been stated in the previous clause, 'BUT NOT A DISH'. "
}

txt:
<p>
What is the practical difference? &mdash; In respect of women's bills of divorce.<a id="k36b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_iii">CHAPTER III</A>
      </H2>

</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A [DOUBLE]<a id="k36b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; STOVE IS HEATED WITH STUBBLE OR RAKINGS, A POT MAY BE PLACED THEREON;<a id="k36b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; WITH PEAT OR WOOD, ONE MAY NOT PLACE [A POT THERE] UNTIL, HE SWEEPS IT<a id="k36b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; OR COVERS IT WITH ASHES.<a id="k36b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN: HOT WATER, BUT NOT A DISH;<a id="k36b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT BETH HILLEL RULE; BOTH HOT WATER AND A DISH. BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN: ONE MAY REMOVE [IT], BUT NOT PUT [IT] BACK; BUT BETH HILLEL RULE: ONE MAY PUT [IT] BACK TOO.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. The scholars propounded: Does this, ONE MAY NOT PLACE, mean one must not put [it] back,<a id="k36b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; yet it is permitted to keep [it there],<a id="k36b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; even if it [the stove] is neither swept nor covered with ashes: and who is the authority thereof? Hananiah. For it was taught, Hananiah said: 'Whatever is as the food of the son of Derusai<a id="k36b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; may be kept on the stove, even if it is neither swept nor covered with ashes'?<a id="k36b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Or perhaps we learnt about keeping [it there], and that is [permitted] only if it is swept or covered with ashes, but not otherwise: how much more so with respect to putting it back!-Come and hear! For two clauses are taught in our Mishnah: BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN: HOT WATER, BUT NOT A DISH; BUT BETH HILLEL RULE: BOTH HOT WATER AND A DISH. BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN: ONE MAY REMOVE [IT], BUT NOT PUT[IT] BACK; BUT BETH HILLEL RULE: ONE MAY PUT [IT] BACK TOO. Now, if you say that we learnt about keeping [it there], it is well, for this is what he [the Tanna] teaches: IF A STOVE IS HEATED WITH STUBBLE OR RAKINGS, a pot may be kept thereon; WITH PEAT OR WOOD, one may not keep [a pot] there UNTIL, HE SWEEPS IT OR COVERS IT WITH ASHES. And what may be kept there? BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN: HOT WATER, BUT NOT A DISH; BUT BETH HILLEL RULE: BOTH HOT WATER AND A DISH. And just as they differ in respect to keeping it there, so do they differ in respect to putting it back, where BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN: ONE MAY REMOVE [IT], BUT NOT PUT [IT] BACK; BUT BETH HILLEL RULE: ONE MAY PUT [IT] BACK TOO. But if you say that we learnt about putting it back, then this is what he teaches: IF A STOVE IS HEATED WITH STUBBLE OR RAKINGS, A POT MAY BE PUT BACK THEREON; WITH PEAT OR WOOD, one must not put it back UNTIL, HE SWEEPS IT OR COVERS IT WITH ASHES. And what may be put back? BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN: HOT WATER, BUT NOT A DISH; BUT BETH HILLEL RULE: BOTH HOT WATER AND A DISH. BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN: ONE MAY REMOVE [IT], BUT NOT PUT [IT] BACK;<a id="k36b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT BETH HILLEL RULE: ONE MAY PUT [IT] BACK TOO. Then what is the purpose of this addition?<a id="k36b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; 
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k47a_1:" They cannot be compared with others."
,k47a_2:" Sc. the flame. Whilst the lamp is alight everything may be regarded as subsidiary to the flame: R. Simeon admits that such mukzeh is forbidden."
,k47a_3:" Used for fumigating. This is the meaning as first supposed. Ashes are mukzeh, and it is assumed that he was permitted to move the ashes on account of the pan, which is a utensil."
,k47a_4:" And the pan is analogous."
,k47a_5:" Dan. IV, 16."
,k47a_6:" Surely not! Hence the pan with the ashes may not be handled on their account."
,k47a_7:" The reference is to the minimum size of material which is liable to defilement as a 'garment'. The smallest size which has any value to a wealthy person is three handbreadths square; if it is less, he throws it away. A poor man, however, endeavours to find a use for it even if it is only three fingerbreadths square, and that accordingly is his minimum (cf. <i>supra</i> 26b seq.). These are the minima for the wealthy and the poor respectively which are technically called garments."
,k47a_8:" They do not rank as 'garments' when in a wealthy man's possession. The same principle applies here."
,k47a_9:" Which may be carried away with the excrements, and similarly the pan and ashes."
,k47a_10:" Hence the former must be removed."
,k47a_11:" Their shovels or coal pans were covered with a lid or top."
,k47a_12:" I.e., when the ashes were needed for covering anything. These ashes were counted upon for this from before the Sabbath, and hence the whole might be handled. So here too, R. Romanus states that Rabbi permitted him to handle a fumigating pan on account of the ashes."
,k47a_13:" The latter might not be handled, and therefore the utensil which contained it likewise, save that it also contained ashes."
,k47a_14:" R. Judah and R. Simeon."
,k47a_15:" The same applies to pieces of wood on a brazier. For the lamp also contains oil, just as the brazier contains ashes too."
,k47a_16:" Owing to the abundance of oil in Galilee the residue of oil in the lamp would be of no value to its owner, and therefore the lamp with the fragments of wick may not be handled on account of its oil (Tosaf. and R. Nissim Gaon)."
,k47a_17:" The frame or loom consisted of jointed parts, which fitted into each other."
,k47a_18:" If done in ignorance."
,k47a_19:" The handle of the painter's brush was jointed, to allow of different lengths according to requirements."
,k47a_20:" A candelabrum is not taken to pieces frequently, and therefore when one inserts its branches he finishes its manufacture; hence he is liable to a sin-offering, it being a general rule that this is incurred for the completion of any utensil. But a painter's brush is continually taken to pieces; therefore the insertion of one of its parts is only temporary and does not complete it."
,k47a_21:" These are musical instruments into which reeds were inserted to give various notes; v. T.A. III, 96. The putting together of the former was skilled work; hence liability is incurred. But the latter was assembled amateurishly, being frequently taken to pieces; hence no liability is incurred.-The difficulty is presented by the branch of a candelabrum, whose principle is the same as a weaver's frame."
,k47a_22:" R. Abba and R. Huna b. Hiyya."
,k47a_23:" Into which the legs of a bed fitted. to prevent them from being rotted by the damp earth."
,k47a_24:" Rashi: a small wooden plaque inserted in the bow upon which the arrow presses before it is released. Jast. translates: 'the boards on which the straw rests', but does not make it clear what fitting or joining is required there. "
}

txt:
<p>
leave the lamp, oil, and wicks alone,<a id="k47a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; because they become a base for a forbidden thing.<a id="k47a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Zera said in R. Assi's name in R. Johananis name in R. Hanina's name in the name of R. Rommanus: Rabbi permitted me to handle a pan with its ashes.<a id="k47a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Zera to R. Assi: Did R. Johanan say thus? But we learnt: A man may take up his son while he is holding a stone, or a basket containing a stone. Whereon Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: The reference is to a basket filled with fruit. Thus, only because it contains fruit; but if it does not contain fruit, it is not so?<a id="k47a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; 'He was astonied for a while,'<a id="k47a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; then answered, Here too it means that it [the pan] contains [also] some grains [of spice]. Abaye objected: Did grains have any value in Rabbi's house?<a id="k47a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; And should you answer, They were fit for the poor, &mdash; surely it was taught: 'The garments of the poor for the poor, and the garments of the wealthy for the wealthy'.<a id="k47a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; But those of the poor are not [deemed fit] for the purpose of the wealthy?<a id="k47a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; But said Abaye, it is analogous to a chamber pot.<a id="k47a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba observed: There are two refutations to this. Firstly, a chamber pot is repulsive, while this is not repulsive.<a id="k47a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; And secondly, a chamber pot is uncovered, whereas this is covered!<a id="k47a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather, said Raba, when we were at R. Nahmanis we would handle a brazier on account of its ashes,<a id="k47a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; even if broken pieces of wood were lying upon it.<a id="k47a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	An objection is raised: And both<a id="k47a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; agree that if it [a lamp] contains fragments of a wick, it may not be handled.<a id="k47a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Abaye: They learnt this of Galilee.<a id="k47a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Levi b. Samuel met R. Abba and R. Huna b. Hiyya standing at the door of R. Huna's college. Said he to them: Is it permissible to re-assemble a weaver's frame on the Sabbath?<a id="k47a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; It is well, answered they. Then he went before Rab Judah, who said: Surely Rab and Samuel both rule: If one re-assembles a weaver's frame on the Sabbath, he as liable to a sin-offering.<a id="k47a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	An objection is raised: If one puts back the branch of a candelabrum on the Sabbath, he is liable to a sin-offering; as for the joint of a whitewasher's pole,<a id="k47a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; it must not be re-inserted, yet if one does re-insert it, he is exempt, but it is forbidden.<a id="k47a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simai said: For a circular horn, one is liable; for a straight horn, one is exempt!<a id="k47a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; They<a id="k47a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; ruled as this Tanna. For it was taught: The sockets of a bed,<a id="k47a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; the legs of a bed, and the archer's tablets,<a id="k47a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; may not be re-inserted, yet if one does re-insert [them], he is not liable [to a sin-offering],
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k47b_1:" I.e., if it is so constructed that it need be only loosely joined, it is permitted even at the very outset. R. Abba and R. Huna b. Hiyya likewise refer to branches that sit lightly in their sockets."
,k47b_2:" The technical term for work not done in a professional and usual way.-I.e., do you think that because it is loosely fitted it does not constitute building?"
,k47b_3:" V. p. 196, n. 5."
,k47b_4:" V. p. 198, n. 2."
,k47b_5:" Even if one does not directly extinguish; v. <i>infra</i> 120a."
,k47b_6:" By pouring water into the vessel, And therefore as a preventive measure it is forbidden, also on the eve of sabbath. But in the case below, q.v., it is indirect extinguishing, because the heat must first cause the jars to burst before the water is released."
,k47b_7:" When a pot is removed from the fire on the eve of the Sabbath, it may be stored in anything that preserves heat, but not in something that adds heat (<i>supra</i> 34b)."
,k47b_8:" I.e., a pressed, hard mass. The Gemara discusses which mass is meant."
,k47b_9:" Zebel is foliage piled up for forming manure."
,k47b_10:" E.g., rags, wool, etc."
,k47b_11:" For the Sabbath, to preserve its heat. "
}

txt:
<p>
but it is forbidden; nor must they be [tightly] fixed in, and if one does so, he is liable to a sin offering. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: if it is loose, it is permitted.<a id="k47b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	At R. Hama's home there was a folding bed, which they used to put up on Festivals. Said one of the Rabbis to Raba: What is your view, that it is building from the side:<a id="k47b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; granted that there is no Scriptural prohibition, yet it is Rabbinically forbidden? Said he to him, I agree with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who ruled: If it is loose, it is permitted.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A VESSEL, MAY BE PLACED UNDER A LAMP TO CATCH THE SPARKS, BUT ONE MUST NOT POUR WATER THEREIN, BECAUSE HE EXTINGUISHES [THEM].
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. But he deprives the vessel of its readiness?<a id="k47b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said R. Huna the son of R. Joshua: Sparks are intangible.<a id="k47b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	BUT ONE MUST NOT POUR WATER THEREIN, BECAUSE HE EXTINGUISHES [THEM]. Shall we say that we learnt anonymously as R. Jose, who maintained: That which is a cause of extinguishing is forbidden?<a id="k47b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, is that logical: granted that R. Jose ruled thus for the Sabbath: did he rule thus for the eve of the Sabbath? And should you say, Here also it refers to the eve of the Sabbath, &mdash; surely it was taught: A vessel may be placed under a lamp on the Sabbath to catch the sparks, and on the eve of the Sabbath goes without saying; but one must not pour water therein on the eve of the Sabbath, because he extinguishes [them], and the Sabbath goes without saying? &mdash; Rather, said R. Ashi, you may say that it agrees even with the Rabbis: here it is different, because one brings the extinguisher near.<a id="k47b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_iv">CHAPTER IV</A>
      </H2>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. WHEREIN MAY WE STORE [FOOD], AND WHEREIN MAY WE NOT STORE [IT]?<a id="k47b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; WE MAY NOT STORE [IT] IN PEAT,<a id="k47b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; FOLIAGE,<a id="k47b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; SALT, LIME, OR SAND, WHETHER MOIST OR DRY; NOR IN STRAW, GRAPE-SKINS, SOFT FLOCKING<a id="k47b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; OR HERBAGE, WHEN THEY ARE MOIST; BUT WE MAY STORE [FOOD] IN THEM WHEN THEY ARE DRY.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. The scholars propounded: Did we learn, peat of olives, whereas peat of poppy seed is well; or perhaps we learnt peat of poppy seed, and how much more so of olives? &mdash; Come and hear: For R. Zera said on the authority of one of the disciples of the School of R. Jannai: A basket in which one put away [food]<a id="k47b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; may not be placed on peat of olives. This proves that we learnt peat of olives!-[No.] After all I may tell you that in respect of storing [peat] of poppy seed too is forbidden; [but] as for
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k51a_1:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> This does not constitute the planting of diverse seeds."
,k51a_2:" If these are from the sixth year and are placed in the earth in the seventh, they are not subject to the laws of seventh year produce."
,k51a_3:" Having been tithed before they were placed in the earth they are not to be retithed on removal, as though this were a new harvest."
,k51a_4:" On this account the proviso is made that some of the leaves must be uncovered, for otherwise it would be necessary to remove the earth, which may not be done. But the other statements hold good even if they are entirely covered (Rashi and Tosaf.)."
,k51a_5:" For it is not stated that the earth must be loosened before the Sabbath."
,k51a_6:" I.e., put away in something to retain its heat."
,k51a_7:" V. <i>supra</i> 34a."
,k51a_8:" To prevent the sun from reaching and warming it."
,k51a_9:" V. preceding note."
,k51a_10:" To heat it, as for instance cold water; therefore it may be hidden in order to keep it cold."
,k51a_11:" For if permission is given to hide it in order to keep it cold, the reverse too may be regarded as permitted."
,k51a_12:" To keep it cool."
,k51a_13:" The Sage, referring to R. Jose."
,k51a_14:" And I retract."
,k51a_15:" I.e., he was as great as his father (Rashi)."
,k51a_16:" As a disciple before his master."
,k51a_17:" Thus showing deference to his views."
,k51a_18:" On the Sabbath."
,k51a_19:" Lit., 'Syrian'."
,k51a_20:" On weekdays. Food cooked by Gentiles is forbidden. R. Nahman showed that this interdict does not apply to boiled water."
,k51a_21:" Lit., 'as it is raw'."
,k51a_22:" He should be more stringent for himself."
,k51a_23:" Another covering."
,k51a_24:" In which the pot is wrapped."
,k51a_25:" According as he desires more or less heat."
,k51a_26:" I.e., food may not be stored after nightfall in the same pot in which it was cooked."
,k51a_27:" By emptying it from one pot into another."
,k51a_28:" Surely there is no fear of this, which is the reason for the usual prohibition (<i>supra</i> 34a); hence it is permitted."
,k51a_29:" Since the cover can be removed, one can take hold of the pot."
,k51a_30:" Since there is something by which he can grasp it. "
}

txt:
<p>
on account of kil'ayim,<a id="k51a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; or the seventh year,<a id="k51a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; or tithes,<a id="k51a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and they may be removed on the Sabbath.<a id="k51a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; This is indeed a refutation.<a id="k51a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF IT [A POT] WAS NOT COVERED<a id="k51a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; WHILE IT WAS YET DAY, IT MAY NOT BE COVERED AFTER NIGHTFALL.<a id="k51a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; IF IT WAS COVERED BUT BECAME UNCOVERED, IT MAY BE RECOVERED. A CRUSE MAY BE FILLED WITH [COLD] WATER AND PLACED UNDER A PILLOW OR BOLSTER.<a id="k51a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: Cold [water, food, etc.<a id="k51a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; may be hidden.; Said R. Joseph, What does he inform us? We learnt: A CRUSE MAY BE FILLED WITH [COLD] WATER AND PLACED UNDER A PILLOW OR A BOLSTER. Abaye answered him: He tells us much. For if [we learnt] from the Mishnah [alone], I might argue: That applies only to an object which it is not customary to store away,<a id="k51a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; but not to an object which it is customary to store away.<a id="k51a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Therefore he informs us [that it is not so]. 
</p><p>
	R. Huna said on Rabbi's authority: Cold [water, food, etc.] may not be hidden.<a id="k51a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; But it was taught: Rabbi permitted cold [water, etc.] to be hidden? &mdash; There is no difficulty: the one [ruling was given] before he heard it from R. Ishmael son of R. Jose; the other after he heard it [from him]. For Rabbi sat and declared: Cold [water, etc.] may not be hidden. Said R. ishmael son of R. Jose to him, My father permitted cold [water] to be hidden. Then the Elder<a id="k51a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; has already given a ruling, answered he.<a id="k51a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Papa observed: Come and see how much they loved each other! For were R. Jose alive, he would have sat submissively before Rabbi, since R. Ishmael son of R. Jose, who occupied his father's place,<a id="k51a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; sat submissively before Rabbi,<a id="k51a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; yet he [Rabbi] said, Then the Elder has already given a ruling.<a id="k51a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Nahman said to his slave Daru: Put away cold water for me,<a id="k51a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and bring me water heated by a Gentile<a id="k51a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; cook<a id="k51a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; When R. Ammi heard thereof, he objected. Said R. Joseph: Why should be have objected? He acted in accordance with his teachers, one [act] being according to Rab, and the other according to Samuel. According to Samuel, for Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: Cold [water, etc.] may be hidden. According to Rab, for R. Samuel son of R. Isaac said in Rab's name: Whatever can be eaten in its natural state,<a id="k51a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; raw, is not subject to [the interdict against] the cooking of Gentiles. But he [R. Ammi] held that an important man is different.<a id="k51a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: Though it was said, One may not store [food] after nightfall even in a substance which does not add heat, yet if one comes to add,<a id="k51a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; he may add. How does he do it?<a id="k51a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: He may remove the sheets and replace them with blankets, or remove the blankets and replace them with sheets.<a id="k51a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; And thus did R. Simeon b. Gamaliel say: Only the self-same boiler was forbidden;<a id="k51a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; but if it [the food] was emptied from that boiler into another, it is permitted: seeing that he cools it,<a id="k51a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; will he indeed heat it up!<a id="k51a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; If one stored [food] in and covered [it] with a substance that may be handled on the Sabbath, or if he stored [it] in something that may not be handled on the Sabbath, but covered [it] with something that may be handled on the Sabbath, he may remove [the covering] and replace it.<a id="k51a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; If one stored [food] in and covered [it] with a substance that may not be handled on the Sabbath, or if he stored (it] in something that may be handled on the Sabbath, but covered it with something that may not be handled on the Sabbath, provided it was partly uncovered, he may take it [out] and replace [it];<a id="k51a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; but if not,
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k51b_1:" It adds heat, and therefore food may not be put away in it even before the Sabbath."
,k51b_2:" A boiler is of copper, and a pot is of earthenware."
,k51b_3:" That is the corrected text."
,k51b_4:" <i>Var. lec</i>.: and a pot upon a boiler, but not a boiler upon a pot. [The reason for the distinction is not clear and Rashi explains because a pot being of earthenware retains more effective heat which it communicates to the boiler of copper. Tosef. Shab. VI, however reads: and a pot upon a boiler and a boiler upon a pot. V. Asheri and Alfasi]."
,k51b_5:" [I.e., of the lower vessel, v. R. Hananel]."
,k51b_6:" Kneaded before the Sabbath."
,k51b_7:" [I.e., the contents of the upper vessel]."
,k51b_8:" Of desecrating the Sabbath, though they may melt there."
,k51b_9:" To whom the law of Sabbath rest applies. V. Ex. XX, 10; Deut. V, 14. If the chain becomes ritually unclean, the ceremony of sprinkling (v. Num. XIX, 14 seq.) and immersion (tebillah) may be performed while they are on the animal."
,k51b_10:" The words used in the Mishnah had become unfamiliar to the Babylonian amoraim and needed explaining."
,k51b_11:" A district on the caravan route along the Tigris and its canals. The modern Khuzistan, a province of S.W. Persia, Obermeyer, Landschaft, pp. 204ff."
,k51b_12:" I.e., barley is the proper food for asses. &mdash; Rashi: they returned the money, not wishing to send an ass so far. "
,k51b_13:" [I.e., the appurtenances mentioned in the Mishnah."
,k51b_14:" And must certainly not be led out with it."
,k51b_15:" Or, collar."
,k51b_16:" It is a complete guard in itself, and there can be no reason for prohibiting it."
,k51b_17:" Therefore it is forbidden."
,k51b_18:" He thought that Levi had acted intentionally, which was disrespectful, for Rabbah b. R. Huna was a greater scholar. "
}

txt:
<p>
it may not be removed and replaced. R. Judah said: Thoroughly beaten flax is the same as foliage.<a id="k51b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; A boiler may be placed upon a boiler, and a pot upon a pot,<a id="k51b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; but not a pot upon a boiler,<a id="k51b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; or a boiler upon a pot;<a id="k51b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and the mouth [thereof]<a id="k51b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; may [also] be daubed over with dough:<a id="k51b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; not in order to make them<a id="k51b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; hotter, but that [their heat] may be retained. And just as hot [food] may not be hidden, so may cold [food] not be hidden. Rabbi permitted cold [food] to be hidden. And neither snow nor hail may be broken up on the Sabbath in order that the water should flow, but they may be placed in a goblet or dish, without fear.<a id="k51b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_v">CHAPTER V</A>
      </H2>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. WHEREWITH MAY AN ANIMAL GO OUT [ON THE SABBATH], AND WHEREWITH MAY IT NOT GO OUT? A CAMEL MAY GO FORTH WITH A BIT, A DROMEDARY [NE'AKAH] WITH ITS NOSE-RING [HOTEM], A LYBIAN ASS WITH A HALTER, A HORSE WITH ITS CHAIN, AND ALL CHAINWEARING ANIMALS MAY GO OUT WITH THEIR CHAINS AND BE LED BY THEIR CHAINS, AND [WATER OF LUSTRATION] MAY BE SPRINKLED UPON THEM, AND THEY MAY BE IMMERSED IN THEIR PLACE.<a id="k51b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What is meant by a NE'AKAH WITH A HOTEM? &mdash; Said Rabbah b. Bar Hanah: A white [female] camel with its iron nose-ring.
</p><p>
	A LYBIAN ASS WITH A HALTER. R. Huna said: That means a Lybian ass with an iron halter.<a id="k51b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Levi sent money to Be Hozae<a id="k51b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; for a Lybian ass to be bought for him. [But] they parcelled up some barley and sent it to him, to intimate to him that an ass's steps depend on barley.<a id="k51b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: They [the scholars] transposed them<a id="k51b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; [in their questions] before Rabbi: What about one animal going forth with [the accoutrement] of the other? As for a dromedary [ne'akah] with a bit, there is no question; since it is not guarded thereby, it is a burden.<a id="k51b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; The problem is in respect of a camel with a nose-ring. How is it: Since a bit is sufficient, this [the nose-ring] is a burden; or Perhaps an additional guard is not called a burden? Said R. Ishmael son of R. Jose before him, Thus did my father rule: Four animals may go out with a bit: a horse, mule, camel and ass. What does this exclude? Surely it excludes a camel [from being led out] with a nose-ring? &mdash; No: it excludes a dromedary [ne'akah] with a bit. In a Baraitha it was taught: A Lybian ass and a camel may go out with a bit.
</p><p>
	This is dependent on Tannaim: A beast may not go forth with a muzzle;<a id="k51b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Hananiah said: It may go forth with a muzzle and with anything whereby it is guarded. To what is the reference? Shall we say, to a large beast? is a muzzle sufficient! But if a small beast is meant, is a muzzle insufficient?<a id="k51b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence they must surely differ in respect to a cat: the first Tanna holds: since a mere cord is sufficient, it [a muzzle] is a burden;<a id="k51b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; while Hananiah holds, Whatever is an additional guard is not called a burden. R. Huna b. Hiyya said in Samuel's name: The <i>halachah</i>, is as Hananiah.
</p><p>
	Levi son of R. Huna b. Hiyya and Rabbah b. R. Huna were travelling on a road, when Levi's ass went ahead of Rabbah b. R. Huna's, whereupon Rabbah b. R. Huna felt aggrieved.<a id="k51b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Said he [Levi], I will say something to him, so that
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k57a_1:" On the Sabbath. The general rule is that a woman may wear superfluous garments which are ornamental, save some which the Rabbis prohibited for fear that she might remove them for a friend's inspection and admiration, carrying them meanwhile in the street. Those which are not considered ornamental constitute a burden, and are always forbidden."
,k57a_2:" 'Her head' applies to all three. These are for tying the hair."
,k57a_3:" Ornaments worn on the forehead."
,k57a_4:" To the wig which was generally worn."
,k57a_5:" The Gemara discusses these. V. also T.A. I, 188 and note a.l."
,k57a_6:" But she may wear it in a courtyard, whereas all the others are forbidden even in a courtyard, lest she forget herself and go out into the street; v. <i>infra</i> 64b."
,k57a_7:" An ornament which contained a picture of Jerusalem."
,k57a_8:" Because all these are ornaments, hence only Rabbinically prohibited; v. n. 1."
,k57a_9:" The reference to immersion is apparently irrelevant."
,k57a_10:" I.e., if the first evening, when she is permitted to take a ritual bath after menstruation to enable her to cohabit with her husband, falls on the Sabbath."
,k57a_11:" Chains or cords formed in network fashion. These cannot be tied very tightly; hence the question is whether they need be loosened before a ritual bath and by corollary, must not be worn on the Sabbath, or not."
,k57a_12:" I.e., a network."
,k57a_13:" In connection with Sabbath, since they need not be removed for immersion."
,k57a_14:" To remove them before bathing. This shows that they know that the water enters through the network. Consequently it is unnecessary to remove them before a ritual bath, and they may be worn on the Sabbath."
,k57a_15:" And is particular to remove them."
,k57a_16:" When one takes a ritual bath, nothing must interpose between the water and his body. If one of these is worn it does interpose, rendering the bath invalid."
,k57a_17:" And reaches the skin."
,k57a_18:" I.e., the wool and linen ribbons also mean those that are used for tying the hair."
,k57a_19:" Sc. the hair, which is hard in comparison with the skin of the neck."
,k57a_20:" Surely not, for it is more clinging, making it more difficult for the water to enter."
,k57a_21:" Linen ribbon is regarded as hard in comparison with wool."
,k57a_22:" Though ribbons cling more closely to flesh than to hair when tied with equal strength, they are always worn more loosely around the neck, for the reason stated."
,k57a_23:" They are inserted there after the ear is pierced for ear-rings to prevent the hole from closing up."
,k57a_24:" For they need not be removed before a ritual bath, being loose; v. p. 267. n. 5. "
}

txt:
<p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_vi">CHAPTER VI</A>
      </H2>

</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. WHEREWITH MAY A WOMAN GO OUT, AND WHEREWITH MAY SHE NOT GO OUT?<a id="k57a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; A WOMAN MAY NOT GO OUT WITH RIBBONS OF WOOL, LINEN RIBBONS, OR FILLETS ROUND HER HEAD;<a id="k57a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; NOR MAY SHE PERFORM RITUAL IMMERSION WHILST WEARING THEM, UNLESS SHE LOOSENS THEM. [SHE MAY NOT GO OUT] WITH FRONTLETS,<a id="k57a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; GARLANDS [SARBITIN], IF THEY ARE NOT SEWN,<a id="k57a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; OR WITH A HAIR-NET [KABUL]<a id="k57a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; INTO THE STREET,<a id="k57a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; OR WITH A GOLDEN CITY,<a id="k57a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; OR WITH A NECKLACE [KATLA]. OR WITH EAR-RINGS, OR WITH A FINGER &mdash; RING WHICH HAS NO SIGNET, OR WITH A NEEDLE WHICH IS UNPIERCED. YET IF SHE GOES OUT WITH THESE], SHE IS NOT LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING.<a id="k57a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Who mentioned anything about ritual immersion?<a id="k57a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said R. Nahman b. Isaac in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: He [the Tanna] states what is the reason. [Thus:] what is the reason that A WOMAN MAY NOT GO OUT WITH WOOL RIBBONS OR LINEN RIBBONS? Because the Sages ruled, SHE MAY NOT PERFORM RITUAL IMMERSION WHILST WEARING THEM, UNLESS SHE LOOSENS THEM. And since she may not perform ritual immersion on weekdays while wearing them, she may not go out [with them] on the Sabbath, lest she happen to need immersion by ritual law<a id="k57a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and she untie them, and so come to carry them four cubits in the street.
</p><p>
	R. Kahana asked Rab: What of openwork bands?<a id="k57a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said he to him, You speak of something woven:<a id="k57a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; whatever is woven, no prohibition was enacted [in respect thereof].<a id="k57a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; It was stated likewise: R. Huna son of R. Joshua said: Whatever is woven, no prohibition was enacted [in respect thereof]. Others state, R. Huna son of R. Joshua said: I saw that my sisters are not particular about them,<a id="k57a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the difference between the latter version and the former? &mdash; There is a difference where they are soiled. On the version that no prohibition was enacted for anything that is woven, these too are woven. But according to the version which bases it on [not] being particular; since they are soiled, one does indeed object to them.<a id="k57a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	We learnt elsewhere: And the following constitute interpositions in the case of human beings: Wool ribbons, linen ribbons, and the fillet round maidens' heads.<a id="k57a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Judah said: [Ribbons] of wool or of hair do not interpose. because the water enters through them.<a id="k57a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Huna observed: And we learnt all with reference to maidens' heads.<a id="k57a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph demurred: What does this exclude? Shall we say it excludes [ribbons] of the neck, &mdash; and of what [material]? Shall we say, it excludes wool: [The question can be raised] if soft [material] on hard<a id="k57a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; forms an interposition, is there a question of soft upon soft?<a id="k57a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Again. if it excludes linen ribbons, [one might ask] if hard upon hard constitutes an interposition, is there a question of hard upon soft?<a id="k57a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather, said R. Joseph. this is R. Huna's reason, because a woman does not strangle herself.<a id="k57a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye refuted him: Maidens may go out with the threads through their ears,<a id="k57a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; but not with fillets round their necks. Now if you say that a woman will not strangle herself, why not with fillets round their necks?<a id="k57a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said Rabina:
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k57b_1:" Rashi."
,k57b_2:" Lit., 'chokes or strangles herself'."
,k57b_3:" In eastern countries that constitutes beauty. Being broad, the band does not injure her."
,k57b_4:" But the first Tanna says nothing about this!"
,k57b_5:" Lit., 'he said to them, \"just as\".'"
,k57b_6:" V. <i>infra</i> 64b."
,k57b_7:" Rashi: to ward off the evil eye."
,k57b_8:" Jast.: obsidian beads."
,k57b_9:" For if she removes it, her hair is uncovered; hence she is unlikely to remove it."
,k57b_10:" Or wig."
,k57b_11:" The term Kabul bears both meanings."
,k57b_12:" To keep the hair in order under the net or wig."
,k57b_13:" Thus he refers to the kabul as something above the hair band. Hence it can only mean the hair-net."
,k57b_14:" I.e., a clasp or buckle."
,k57b_15:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> This may contain diverse materials. Rashi: because it is not spun; Riba: because it is hard, in which case the Rabbis did not impose a prohibition."
,k57b_16:" I.e., if leprosy breaks out in the istema. The reason is that it is not technically a garment. "
}

txt:
<p>
The reference here is to a broad band<a id="k57b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; which a woman ties very tightly,<a id="k57b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; as she is pleased to have a fleshy appearance.<a id="k57b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'R. Judah said: [Ribbons] of wool or of hair do not interpose, because the water enters through them.' R. Joseph said in the name of Rab Judah in Samuel's name: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Judah in respect of ribbons of hair. Said Abaye to him: 'The <i>halachah</i> [is thus]' implies that they differ thereon?<a id="k57b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; And should you say, Had he not known the first Tanna to treat of ribbons of hair [too], he would not have treated thereof either: but perhaps he argued with them from analogy:<a id="k57b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; just as you agree with me in the matter of ribbons of hair, so should you agree with me in respect of wool ribbons? It was stated: R. Nahman said in Samuel's name: The Sages agree with R. Judah in respect to ribbons of hair. It was taught likewise: Ribbons of wool interpose; ribbons of hair do not interpose. R. Judah maintained: [Ribbons] of wool or of hair do not interpose. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: Our Mishnah too proves this. For it teaches: A woman may go out with ribbons of hair, whether of her own [hair] or of her companion's.<a id="k57b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Who is the authority [for this]? Shall we say. R. Judah &mdash; even ribbons of wool too [are permitted]? Hence it must surely be the Rabbis, which proves that they do not disagree in respect of ribbons of hair. This proves it.
</p><p>
	[SHE MAY] NOT [GO OUT] WITH FRONTLETS [TOTEFETH]. What is TOTEFETH? &mdash; Said R. Joseph: A charm containing balsam.<a id="k57b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Abaye to him: Let it be [regarded] as an approved amulet, and hence permitted? Rather said Rab Judah on Abaye's authority: It is an ornament of beads.<a id="k57b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; It was taught likewise: A woman may go out with a gilded hair-net,<a id="k57b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; a totefeth, and with sarbitin that are fastened to her. What is totefeth and what is sarbitin? &mdash; Said R. Abbahu: A totefeth encompasses her [head] from ear to ear; sarbitin reach to her cheeks. R. Huna said: poor women make them of various dyed materials; wealthy women make them of gold and silver.
</p><p>
	NOR WITH A HAIR-NET [KABUL]. R. Jannai said: I do not know what is this [kabul]: whether we learnt of a slave's chain, but a wool hair-net<a id="k57b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; is permitted; or perhaps we learnt of a wool hair-net and how much more so a slave's neckchain?<a id="k57b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Abbahu: Reason supports the view that we learnt of a wool hair-net. And it was taught likewise: A woman may go out into a courtyard with a kabul and a clasp [istema].<a id="k57b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: [She may go out] with a kabul into the street too. R. Simeon b. Eleazar stated a general rule: Whatever is [worn] beneath the net, one may go out therewith: whatever is [worn] above the net, one may not go out with it.<a id="k57b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	What is istema? &mdash; Said R. Abbahu: Bizyune. What is bizyune? Said Abaye in Rab's name: That which imprisons the flying [locks].<a id="k57b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Our Rabbis taught: Three things were said of an istema: It is not subject to [the interdict of] kil'ayim.<a id="k57b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; it is not defiled by leprosy,<a id="k57b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and one may not go out with it into the street. On the authority of R. Simeon it was said: It is also not subject to [the interdict against]
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k67a_1:" Magical properties were ascribed to the number seven, which was regarded as the most sacred number. Various factors were responsible for this: it is a combination of three and four, themselves held to be sacred; there are seven days in the week; the seventh day is holy. &mdash; The Rabbis, though opposed to superstitions practices in general (v. p. 243, n. 3), were nevertheless children of their age, and recognized their efficacy."
,k67a_2:" Or, wild rose bushes."
,k67a_3:" The knife, or the thorn bush?"
,k67a_4:" Ex. III, 2."
,k67a_5:" Ibid. 4. Sar also means to depart, and it is applied magically to the fever. The belief in the efficacy of sacred books or verses to effect cures, etc., was widespread in ancient times both among pagans and believers in God. V. J.E. art. Bibliomancy."
,k67a_6:" Ibid. 5; this may appropriately be referred to the illness."
,k67a_7:" Mentioning the mother's name."
,k67a_8:" Rashi: this is the incantation formula, but they were not actually sent thence."
,k67a_9:" Unintelligible words forming part of the incantation."
,k67a_10:" Let it not change to a deeper red."
,k67a_11:" Let it not spread."
,k67a_12:" An animal with uncloven hoofs (the sign of uncleanness) born of a clean animal. Rashi: one whose semen is locked up, so that he cannot reproduce."
,k67a_13:" Mentioning the mother's name."
,k67a_14:" Others: epilepsy."
,k67a_15:" Lit., 'the son of clay, son of defilement, son of filth' &mdash; names for the demon."
,k67a_16:" Hargal is a species of locust."
,k67a_17:" These are forms of heathen magic, forbidden in neither shall ye walk in their statutes, Lev. XVIII, 3."
,k67a_18:" I.e., where its remedial character is obvious, in contrast to magic."
,k67a_19:" A red paint."
,k67a_20:" It casts its fruit because they grow too heavy, owing to the tree's super-vitality."
,k67a_21:" Surely it is only magic?"
,k67a_22:" Lev. XIII, 45."
,k67a_23:" Chapters seven and eight of the Tosefta on Sabbath, which deals with these. "
}

txt:
<p>
[As a remedy] for a tertian fever one should procure seven prickles from seven palm trees, seven chips from seven beams, seven pegs from seven bridges, seven [heaps of] ashes from seven ovens, seven [mounds of] earth from under seven door-sockets, seven specimens of pitch from seven ships, seven handfuls of cummin, and seven hairs from the beard of an old dog, and tie them, in the nape of the neck with a white twisted thread.<a id="k67a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Johanan said: For an inflammatory fever let one take an all-iron knife, go whither thorn-hedges<a id="k67a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; are to be found, and tie a white twisted thread thereto.<a id="k67a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; On the first day he must slightly notch it, and say, 'and the angel of the Lord appeared unto him, etc.'<a id="k67a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; On the following day he [again] makes a small notch and says, 'And Moses said, I will turn aside now, and see, etc.' The next day he makes [another] small notch and says, 'And when the Lord saw that he turned aside [sar] to see.'<a id="k67a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Aha son of Raba said to R. Ashi, Then let him say, 'Draw not nigh hither?'<a id="k67a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather on the first day he should say. 'And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him, etc. &hellip; And Moses said, I will, etc.'; the next day he says, 'And when, the Lord saw that he turned aside to see'; on the third, 'And he said, Draw not nigh.' And when he has recited his verses he pulls it down [sc. the bush] and says thus: 'O thorn, O thorn, not because thou art higher than all other trees did the Holy One, blessed be He, cause His <i>Shechinah</i> to rest upon thee, but because thou art lower than all other trees did He cause His <i>Shechinah</i> to rest upon thee. And even as thou sawest the fire [kindled] for Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah and didst flee from before them, so look upon the fire [i.e., fever.] of So-and-so<a id="k67a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and flee from him.' 
</p><p>
	For an abscess one should say thus: 'Let it indeed be cut down, let it indeed be healed, let it indeed be overthrown; Sharlai and Amarlai are those angels who were sent from the land of Sodom<a id="k67a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; to heal boils and aches: bazak, bazik, bizbazik, mismasik, kamun kamik,<a id="k67a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; thy colour [be confined] within thee, thy colour [be confined] within thee,<a id="k67a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; thy seat be within thee,<a id="k67a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; thy seed be like a kalut<a id="k67a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and like a mule that is not fruitful and does not increase; so be thou not fruitful nor increase in the body of So-and-so.'<a id="k67a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Against ulcers<a id="k67a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; one should say thus: 'A drawn sword and a prepared sling, its name is not Joheb, sickness and pains.' Against a demon one should say thus: 'Thou wast closed up; closed up wast thou. Cursed, broken, and destroyed be Bar Tit, Bar Tame, Bar Tina<a id="k67a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; as Shamgez, Mezigaz and Istamai.' For a demon of the privy one should say thus: 'On the head of a lion and on the snout of a lioness did we find the demon Bar Shirika Panda; with a bed of leeks I hurled him down, [and] with the jawbone of an ass I smote him.'
</p><p>
	AND ROYAL CHILDREN MAY GO OUT WITH BELLS. Who is the authority [for this ruling]? &mdash; Said R. Oshaia: It is R. Simeon, who maintained: All Israel are royal children. Raba said: It means that it is woven [sewn] into his garment; thus it agrees with all.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. ONE MAY GO OUT WITH A HARGOL'S EGG,<a id="k67a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; A FOX'S TOOTH, AND A NAIL FROM [THE GALLOWS OF] AN IMPALED CONVICT AS A PROPHYLACTIC: THIS IS R. MEIR'S VIEW; BUT THE SAGES FORBID THIS EVEN ON WEEKDAYS ON ACCOUNT OF 'THE WAYS OF THE AMORITE.'<a id="k67a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. ONE MAY GO OUT WITH A HARGOL'S EGG, which is carried for ear-ache; AND WITH A FOX'S TOOTH, which is worn on account of sleep: a living [fox's] for one who sleeps [too much], a dead [fox's] for him who cannot sleep.
</p><p>
	AND A NAIL FROM [THE GALLOWS OF] AN IMPALED CONVICT. It is applied to an inflammation,
</p><p>
	AS A PROPHYLACTIC: THIS IS R. MEIR'S VIEW. Abaye and Raba both maintain: Whatever is used as a remedy is not [forbidden] on account of the ways of the Amorite.<a id="k67a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Then if it is not an [obvious] remedy, is it forbidden on account of the ways of the Amorite? But surely it was taught: If a tree casts its fruit, one paints it with sikra<a id="k67a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and loads it with stones. Now, as for loading it with stones, that is in order to lessen its strength.<a id="k67a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; But when he paints it with sikra, what remedy does he effect?<a id="k67a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; That is in order that people may see and pray for it. Even as it was taught: And he [the leper] shall cry, 'Unclean, unclean':<a id="k67a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; he must make his grief publicly known, so that the public may pray for him. Rabina observed: In accordance with whom do we suspend a cluster of dates on a [sterile] date tree? In accordance with this Tanna.
</p><p>
	A tanna recited the chapter of Amorite practices<a id="k67a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; before R. Hiyya b. Abin. Said he to him: All these are forbidden as Amorite practices, save the following: If one has a bone in his throat, he may bring of that kind, place it on his head, and say thus: 'One by one go down, swallow, go down one by one': this is not considered the ways of the Amorite. For a fish bone he should say thus: 'Thou art stuck in like a pin, thou art locked up as [within] a cuirass; go down, go down.'
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k67b_1:" This is the conjectured translation."
,k67b_2:" lsa. LXV, II. Hence this statement is an invocation to an idol."
,k67b_3:" Lit., 'he by her name and she by his name &mdash; probably done to ward off evil."
,k67b_4:" Amos. VIII, 14. This translation differs from that of the E.V. q.v."
,k67b_5:" Later than usual. Others: it crowed like a raven."
,k67b_6:" That the rest may be blessed."
,k67b_7:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k67b_8:" That they should be well prepared. &mdash; Sound (or silence in some cases) was thought to benefit certain food preparations; cf. Ker. 6b."
,k67b_9:" This is not enchantment."
,k67b_10:" The salt clarifies the oil."
,k67b_11:" These cool the oil and retard its flow."
,k67b_12:" Derived from Deut. XX, 19, q.v. Because these cause the lamp to burn with unnecessary speed."
,k67b_13:" A drinking toast."
,k67b_14:" Not knowing at all that there exists a law of the Sabbath."
,k67b_15:" Forgetting on each occasion that it was the Sabbath. "
}

txt:
<p>
He who says, 'Be lucky, my luck [gad gedi] and tire not by day or night,'<a id="k67b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; is guilty of Amorite practices. R. Judah said: Gad is none other but an idolatrous term, for it is said, ye that prepare a table for Gad.<a id="k67b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; If husband and wife exchange their names,<a id="k67b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; they are guilty of Amorite practices. [To say], 'Be strong, o ye Barrels'! is [forbidden] as the ways of the Amorite. R. Judah said: Dan [Barrel] is none other but the designation of an idol, for it is said, They that swear by the sin, of Samaria, and say, As thy god Dan liveth.<a id="k67b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; He who says to a raven, 'Scream,' and to a she-raven, 'Screech, and return me thy tuft for [my] good,' is guilty of Amorite practices. He who says, 'Kill this cock, because it crowed in the evening,'<a id="k67b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; or, 'this fowl, because it crowed like a cock,' is guilty of Amorite practices. He who says. 'I will drink and leave over, I will drink and leave over,'<a id="k67b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; is guilty of the ways of the Amorite. He who breaks eggs on a wall in front of fledglings, is guilty of Amorite practices. He who stirs [eggs?] before fledglings is guilty of Amorite practices. He who dances and counts seventy-one fledglings in order that they should not die, is guilty of Amorite practices. He who dances for kutah,<a id="k67b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; or imposes silence for lentils, or cries for beans,<a id="k67b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; is guilty of Amorite practices. She who urinates before her pot in order that it should be quickly cooked is guilty of Amorite practices. Yet one may place a chip of a mulberry tree and broken pieces of glass in a pot in order that it should boil quickly.<a id="k67b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; But the Sages forbade broken pieces of glass [to be employed thus] on account of danger.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: A lump of salt may be placed in a lamp in order that it should burn brightly;<a id="k67b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and mud and clay may be placed under a lamp in order that it should burn slowly.<a id="k67b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Zutra said: He who covers an oil lamp or uncovers a naphtha [lamp] infringes the prohibition of wasteful destruction.<a id="k67b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Wine and health to the mouth of our teachers!'<a id="k67b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; is not considered the ways of the Amorite. It once happened that R. Akiba made a banquet for his son and over every glass [of liquor] that he brought he exclaimed, 'Wine and health to the mouth of our teachers; health and wine to the mouths of our teachers and their disciples!'
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_vii">CHAPTER VII</A>
      </H2>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A GREAT PRINCIPLE WAS STATED IN RESPECT TO THE SABBATH: HE WHO FORGETS THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE SABBATH<a id="k67b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; AND PERFORMS MANY LABOURS ON MANY SABBATHS, INCURS ONE SIN-OFFERING ONLY. HE WHO KNOWS THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE SABBATH AND PERFORMS MANY LABOURS ON MANY SABBATHS,<a id="k67b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; INCURS A SIN-OFFERING ON ACCOUNT OF EACH SABBATH. HE WHO KNOWS THAT IT IS THE SABBATH AND PERFORMS MANY LABOURS ON MANY SABBATHS, IS LIABLE FOR EVERY
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k76a_1:" He found a use for it."
,k76a_2:" These are the respective minima to which value is assigned, and for which a penalty is incurred. Each is the minimum which will satisfy the animal whose food it is. Moist garlic or onion leaves are fit for human consumption, hence the standard of a dried fig, which is the minimum for all human food."
,k76a_3:" To make up the minimum."
,k76a_4:" V. p. 12, n. 9."
,k76a_5:" Lit., 'fit'."
,k76a_6:" And since it is cow's fodder, that is the determining factor, notwithstanding that he carries it out for a camel."
,k76a_7:" V. p. 12, n. 9."
,k76a_8:" This is not a cow's usual food, and it eats it only when nothing else is obtainable."
,k76a_9:" The commodity whose standard is greater does not combine with that whose standard is lesser to make up that lesser quantity, but the latter does combine with the former to make up the greater quantity. That which requires a lesser quantity is naturally more stringent."
,k76a_10:" Even for the more lenient?"
,k76a_11:" I.e., a piece of cloth."
,k76a_12:" A rough material, as of goats hair."
,k76a_13:" v. p. 312, n. 9."
,k76a_14:" When joined to make up the requisite minimum, they are susceptible to midras."
,k76a_15:" I.e., the uncleanness caused by a zab's (q.v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) sitting upon them when pieced together. That is because one may employ them thus for patching up a saddle."
,k76a_16:" And having that in common, they can naturally combine. "
}

txt:
<p>
R. Eleazar said: This does not agree with R. Simeon b. Eleazar. For it was taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar stated a general rule: That which is not fit to put away, and such is not [generally] put away, yet it did become fit to a certain person<a id="k76a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and he did put it away; then another came and carried it out, the latter is rendered liable through the former's intention.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. HE WHO CARRIES OUT A COW'S MOUTHFUL OF STRAW, A CAMEL'S MOUTHFUL OF PEA-STALKS ['EZAH], A LAMB'S MOUTHFUL OF EARS OF CORN, A GOAT'S MOUTHFUL OF HERBS, MOIST GARLIC OR ONION LEAVES TO THE SIZE OF A DRIED FIG, [OR] A GOAT'S MOUTHFUL OF DRY [LEAVES], [IS CULPABLE].<a id="k76a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THEY DO NOT COMBINE WITH EACH OTHER,<a id="k76a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT ALIKE IN THEIR STANDARDS.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What is 'EZAH? &mdash; Said Rab Judah: The stalks of certain kinds of peas. 
</p><p>
	When R. Dimi came,<a id="k76a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; he stated: If one carries out a cow's mouthful of straw for a camel, &mdash; R. Johanan maintained: He is culpable: R. Simeon b. Lakish said: He is not culpable. In the evening R. Johanan ruled thus, [but] in the morning he retracted. R. Joseph observed: He did well to retract, since it is not sufficient<a id="k76a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; for a camel. Said Abaye to him: On the contrary, logic supports his original view, since it is sufficient for a cow.<a id="k76a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; But when Rabin came,<a id="k76a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; he said: If one carries out a cow's mouthful of straw for a camel, all agree that he is culpable. Where do they differ: if one carries out a cow's mouthful of pea-stalks for a cow,<a id="k76a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and the reverse was stated: R. Johanan maintained: He is not culpable; Resh Lakish maintained: He is culpable. R. Johanan maintained; He is not culpable: eating through pressing need is not designated eating. Resh Lakish maintained, He is culpable: eating through pressing need is designated eating.
</p><p>
	A LAMB'S MOUTHFUL OF EARS OF CORN. But it was taught: As much as a dried fig? &mdash; Both standards are identical.
</p><p>
	MOIST GARLIC OR ONION LEAVES TO THE SIZE OF A DRIED FIG, [OR] A GOAT'S MOUTHFUL OF DRY LEAVES. AND THEY DO NOT COMBINE WITH EACH OTHER, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT ALIKE IN THEIR STANDARDS. R. Jose b. Hanina said: They do not combine for the more stringent, but they do combine for the more lenient [standard].<a id="k76a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Yet can anything combine when their standards are not alike?<a id="k76a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; But surely we learnt: A garment<a id="k76a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; three [handbreadths] square, a sack<a id="k76a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; four square, a hide five square, and [reed] matting six square [are susceptible to uncleanness as midras].<a id="k76a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Now it was taught thereon: A garment, sacking, a hide, and matting combine with each other.<a id="k76a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; And R. Simeon observed: What is the reason? Because they are liable to the uncleanness of sitting.<a id="k76a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Thus the reason is that they are liable to the uncleanness of sitting;<a id="k76a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; but whatever is not liable to the uncleanness of sitting is not so? &mdash; Said Raba:
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k76b_1:" These can be pieced together to serve as a commercial pattern or sample of one's ware."
,k76b_2:" Or, thin bran (Levy, Worterbuch)."
,k76b_3:" These are not eaten, and consequently do not combine with the edible foodstuffs."
,k76b_4:" Hence they count as foodstuffs too, and are excluded from the exception."
,k76b_5:" v. <i>supra</i> 15a for notes."
,k76b_6:" Thus they do combine."
,k76b_7:" But with respect to the Sabbath bread of better quality is required before liability is incurred."
,k76b_8:" Their shells combine."
,k76b_9:" The peel of old beans goes black and when in the dish looks like flies."
,k76b_10:" Wine had to be mixed with water before it could be drunk."
,k76b_11:" Rashi offers two interpretations: (i) the sore spot on the backs of horses or camels, caused by the chafing of the saddle; (ii) a bruise on the hand or foot."
,k76b_12:" An eye-salve. Rashi: to rub it over and cause it to dissolve. &mdash; So that it can be applied to the eye in liquid form."
,k76b_13:" v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k76b_14:" Any dirty liquid that must be poured out."
,k76b_15:" v. <i>supra</i> 75b, p. 359, n. 6. Here Rashi explains: These measures are less than a rebi'ith, and only one who actually put away that quantity and then carries it out is liable to a sin-offering. Tosaf. on 75b s.v. [H] accepts Rashi's explanation a.l. and rejects the present one."
,k76b_16:" Lit., 'fair'."
,k76b_17:" Grace after meals. It is sometimes recited over a cup of wine, which must be a full-measured rebi'ith, i.e., full to the very brim. "
}

txt:
<p>
Here too they are fit for patterns.<a id="k76b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. HE WHO CARRIES OUT [HUMAN] FOODSTUFFS TO THE SIZE OF A DRIED FIG IS LIABLE, AND THEY COMBINE WITH EACH OTHER, BECAUSE THEY ARE EQUAL IN THEIR STANDARDS, EXCEPT THEIR SHELLS, KERNELS, STALKS, HUSKS<a id="k76b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; AND COARSE BRAN.<a id="k76b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; R. JUDAH SAID: EXCLUDING THE SHELLS OF LENTILS, BECAUSE THEY ARE BOILED TOGETHER WITH THEM.<a id="k76b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Now, do not husks and coarse bran combine [with the grain or flour]? But we learnt: Just over five quarters of flour are liable to <i>hallah</i>,<a id="k76b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [including] that itself [sc. the flour], the husks and the bran?<a id="k76b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said Abaye: That is because a poor man eats his bread [baked] of unsifted dough.<a id="k76b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. JUDAH SAID: EXCLUDING THE SHELLS OF LENTILS, BECAUSE THEY ARE BOILED TOGETHER WITH THEM. Only lentils, but not beans? But it was taught, R. Judah said: Excluding the shells of beans and lentils. &mdash; There is no difficulty: The one refers to new [beans],<a id="k76b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; the other to old. Why not old ones? Said R. Abbahti: Because they look like flies in the dish.<a id="k76b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_viii">CHAPTER VIII</A>
      </H2>

</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. HE WHO CARRIES OUT [RAW] WINE, [THE STANDARD IS THAT IT BE] ENOUGH FOR THE MIXING OF A CUP;<a id="k76b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; MILK, AS MUCH AS IS QUAFFED AT A TIME; HONEY, SUFFICIENT TO PLACE ON A SCAB;<a id="k76b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; OIL, AS MUCH AS IS REQUIRED TO RUB IN A SMALL LIMB; WATER, ENOUGH FOR RUBBING COLLYRIUM;<a id="k76b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; AND ALL OTHER LIQUIDS, [THE STANDARD IS] A REBI'ITH;<a id="k76b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; AND ALL WASTE WATER,<a id="k76b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; A REBI'ITH. R. SIMEON SAID: [THE STANDARD FOR] ALL THESE IS A REBI'ITH, ALL THESE MEASURES HAVING BEEN STATED ONLY IN RESPECT OF THOSE WHO PUT THEM AWAY.<a id="k76b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. A Tanna taught: Enough for the mixing of a full-measured<a id="k76b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; cup. And what is a full-measured cup? The cup of benediction.<a id="k76b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: The cup of benediction must contain a quarter of a rebi'ith [of raw wine], so that it may be mixed and amount to a rebi'ith. Said Raba, We too
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k82a_1:" And are thus not exposed to witchcraft &mdash; this remark gives the point of the story."
,k82a_2:" But you first untie the bunch."
,k82a_3:" I.e., not on Torah."
,k82a_4:" Lit., 'the life (health) of the creatures."
,k82a_5:" Though the first is not a utensil (v. p. 389. n. 1), because the latter is dangerous."
,k82a_6:" Because the former is technically a utensil."
,k82a_7:" Which are rounded and smooth; hence they are not dangerous."
,k82a_8:" Because it injures the flesh (Rashi). Or the reference is to attached (growing) grass, and one must not make use on the Sabbath of that which is attached to the soil."
,k82a_9:" He ignores the prohibition mentioned in the last note, and holds grass to be preferable, because a pebble is not a utensil and may normally not be handled on the Sabbath."
,k82a_10:" Lit., 'over which the fire rules'."
,k82a_11:" I.e., the teeth-like glands supporting the rectum."
,k82a_12:" This is permissible."
,k82a_13:" From his mouth."
,k82a_14:" From the whole body."
,k82a_15:" Which affects the whole body."
,k82a_16:" But concentrate on this."
,k82a_17:" Lit., 'a fixed meal' as opposed to a mere snack, so that he will have to sit some time there."
,k82a_18:" When they are piled up. Rashi: the boards are not allowed to touch, but are separated by shards to prevent them from warping. 'Aruk: to enable the air to enter and dry them."
,k82a_19:" Isa. XXX. 14."
,k82a_20:" Ibid. The least quantity of water to be counted is a rebi'ith; v. first Mishnah of this chapter."
,k82a_21:" Rashal and BaH delete this bracketed passage."
,k82a_22:" This is raised as a difficulty. Generally speaking, only a very small shard is required for scraping out a fire from a stove, certainly not one large enough to contain a rebi'ith. On the other hand, the prophet would not curse by first observing that not even a small shard will remain, and then add that a large shard will not remain either."
,k82a_23:" Which requires a larger shard."
,k82a_24:" If one carries a <i>niddah</i> (q.v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>), even without actually touching her, he becomes unclean, and R. Akiba teaches that the same applies to an idol."
,k82a_25:" Isa. XXX, 22."
,k82a_26:" Rashi: This Mishnah is quoted here because of its similarity in style to a later Mishnah concerning circumcision on the Sabbath (<i>infra</i> 86a). R. Han. and Tosaf.: Since the last Mishnah of the preceding chapter quotes a law which is supported by, though not actually deduced from, a Biblical verse, this chapter commences similarly. Both verses quoted are from Isa. XXX."
,k82a_27:" V. A.Z. 47b."
,k82a_28:" So that its wall is also the wall of the heathen temple, though actually it belongs entirely to him."
,k82a_29:" Since he thereby builds a wall for the temple too. "
}

txt:
<p>
seeing that you do not cleanse yourselves with a shard,<a id="k82a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; nor kill vermin on your garments, and you do not pull out and eat a vegetable from a bunch which the gardener has tied together'?<a id="k82a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Huna said to his son Rabbah, 'Why are you not to be found before R. Hisda, whose dicta are [so] keen?' 'What should I go to him for,' answered he, 'seeing that when I go to him he treats me to secular discourses!'<a id="k82a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [Thus] he tells me, when one enters a privy, he must not sit down abruptly, nor force himself overmuch, because the rectum rests on three teeth-like glands, [and] these teeth-like glands of the rectum, might become dislocated and he [his health] is endangered. 'He treats of health matters,'<a id="k82a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; he exclaimed, 'and you call them secular discourses! All the more reason for going to him!'
</p><p>
	If a pebble and a shard lie before one, &mdash; R. Huna said: He must cleanse himself with the pebble, but not with the shard;<a id="k82a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; but R. Hisda ruled: He must cleanse himself with the shard, and not with the pebble.<a id="k82a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; An objection is raised: If a pebble and a shard lie before one, he must cleanse himself with the shard, not with the pebble this refutes R. Huna? &mdash; Rafram b. Papa interpreted it before R. Hisda on R. Huna's view as referring to the rims of utensils.<a id="k82a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	If a pebble and grass lie before one, &mdash; R. Hisda and R. Hamnuna [differ therein]: one maintains: He must cleanse himself with the pebble, but not with the grass;<a id="k82a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; whilst the other ruled: He must cleanse himself with the grass, not with the pebble.<a id="k82a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; An objection is raised: If one cleanses himself with inflammable material,<a id="k82a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; his lower teeth<a id="k82a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; will be torn away? &mdash; There is no difficulty: the one refers to wet [grass];<a id="k82a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; the other to dry [grass].
</p><p>
	If one has a call of nature but does not obey it &mdash; R. Hisda and Rabina &mdash; one said: He has an attack of offensive odour;<a id="k82a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; the other said: He is infected by an offensive smell.<a id="k82a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; It was taught in accordance with the view that he is infected by an offensive smell. For it was taught: One who has a call of nature yet eats, is like an oven which is heated up on top of its ashes, and that is the beginning of perspiration odour.<a id="k82a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	If one has a call of nature but cannot obey it, &mdash; R. Hisda said: He should repeatedly stand up and sit down; R. Hanan of Nehardea said: Let him move to [different] sides; R. Hamnuna said: Let him work about that place with a pebble; while the Rabbis advise: Let him not think: Said R. Aha son of Raba to R. Ashi: If he does not think [of it], he is all the more likely not to be moved? Let him not think of other things, replied he.<a id="k82a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jeremiah of Difti observed: I myself saw a certain Arab repeatedly arise and sit down until he poured forth like a cruse.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: If one enters [a house] to [partake of] a complete meal,<a id="k82a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; he should [first] walk ten four-cubit lengths others say, four ten-cubit lengths &mdash; be moved, then enter and take his seat.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. [IF ONE CARRIES OUT] A SHARD, [THE STANDARD IS] AS MUCH AS IS NEEDED FOR PLACING BETWEEN ONE BOARD AND ANOTHER:<a id="k82a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; THIS IS R. JUDAH'S VIEW. R. MEIR SAID: LARGE ENOUGH TO SCRAPE OUT THE FIRE THEREWITH; R. JOSE SAID: LARGE ENOUGH TO CONTAIN A REBI'ITH. R. MEIR OBSERVED: THOUGH THERE IS NO PROOF OF THE MATTER, YET THERE IS A HINT: SO THAT THERE SHALL NOT BE FOUND AMONG THE PIECES THEREOF A SHARD TO TAKE FIRE FROM THE HEARTH.<a id="k82a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; SAID R. JOSE TO HIM, THENCE IS PROOF [OF MY VIEW, VIZ.]: OR TO TAKE WATER WITHAL OUT OF THE CISTERN.<a id="k82a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. (The Scholars asked: Is R. Meir's standard greater or R. Jose's standard greater?)<a id="k82a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Logically, R. Jose's standard is greater, whereas the verse [quoted indicates that] R. Meir's standard is greater, for should you think that R. Jose's standard is greater, does he [the prophet] [first] curse in respect to a small vessel, and then curse in respect to a large one!<a id="k82a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said Abaye: Our Mishnah too [means] to scrape out a fire from a large hearth.<a id="k82a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	SAID R. JOSE TO HIM, THENCE IS PROOF. But R. Jose says well to R. Meir! &mdash; R. Meir maintains that he proceeds to a climax: Not only will nothing that is of value to people be found therein, but even that which is of no value to people shall not be found therein.
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_ix">CHAPTER IX</A>
      </H2>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. R. AKIBA SAID: WHENCE DO WE KNOW THAT AN IDOL DEFILES BY CARRIAGE LIKE A <I>NIDDAH</I>?<a id="k82a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; BECAUSE IT IS SAID, THOU SHALT CAST THEM [SC. THE IDOLS] AWAY AS A MENSTRUOUS THING; THOU SHALT SAY UNTO IT, GET THEE HENCE:<a id="k82a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; JUST AS A <I>NIDDAH</I> DEFILES BY CARRIAGE, SO DOES AN IDOL DEFILE BY CARRIAGE.<a id="k82a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. We learnt elsewhere:<a id="k82a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; If one's house adjoins an idol,<a id="k82a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; and it collapses, he must not rebuild it.<a id="k82a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; What shall he do? He must retreat four cubits within his own [ground] and rebuild.
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k82b_1:" E.g., if the wall is two cubits thick, one cubit only is accounted as his portion, and be must retreat another three cubits."
,k82b_2:" Deut. VIII, 26. Shakkez teshakkezenu fr. shekez, something loathsome, which is connected with sherez (E.V.: thou shalt utterly detest it). A sherez defiles by its touch, but not when it is merely carried; but v. discussion <i>infra</i>."
,k82b_3:" I.e., one must absolutely reject it (Tosaf. s.v.[H])."
,k82b_4:" Rashi: a stone resting upon laths, and under it lie utensils. Tosaf.: a stone so heavy that when a <i>niddah</i> sits upon it her additional weight makes no difference to the utensils upon which it rests. According to both definitions, the question is whether these utensils are defiled when an idol is placed upon the stone."
,k82b_5:" As it is in the verse, v.p. 393, n. 8."
,k82b_6:" The utensils used in an idol's service do not defile through carriage or through a cavity-closing stone."
,k82b_7:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> This analogy would give the exact law, whereas the analogy with <i>niddah</i> has to be qualified by a further analogy with sherez."
,k82b_8:" If a limb e.g., an arm, is cut off from a <i>niddah</i>, it defiles as the severed limb of a living human being in general, but not as <i>niddah</i>. The practical difference is that it does not defile through a cavity-closing stone."
,k82b_9:" This is the text as emended by Rashal. "
}

txt:
<p>
If it belongs to him and to the idol, it is judged as half and half.<a id="k82b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; The stones, timber and earth thereof defile like a [dead] creeping thing [sherez], for it is said, Thou shalt treat a creeping thing.<a id="k82b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Akiba said: [They defile] like a <i>niddah</i>, because it is said, 'Thou shalt cast them away [tizrem] as a menstruous thing': just as a <i>niddah</i> defiles by carriage, so does an idol defile by carriage. Rabbah observed, Tizrem, mentioned in the verse, means 'thou shalt alienate them from thee as a zar [stranger].' 'Thou shalt say unto it, Get thee hence', but thou shalt not say unto it, Enter hither.<a id="k82b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabbah also observed: As for carriage, all agree that it defiles thereby, since it is assimilated to <i>niddah</i>. They differ in respect to a stone that closes a cavity:<a id="k82b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Akiba holds, It is like a <i>niddah</i>: just as a <i>niddah</i> defiles through a cavity-closing stone, so does an idol defile through a cavity-closing stone; while the Rabbis maintain, It is like a creeping thing [sherez]: just as a sherez does not defile through a cavity-closing stone, so does an idol not defile through a cavity-closing stone.
</p><p>
	Now, according to R. Akiba, in respect of which law is it likened to a sherez?<a id="k82b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; In respect of its service utensils.<a id="k82b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; And according to the Rabbis, in respect of which law is it likened to <i>niddah</i>? &mdash; In respect of carriage. Then let it be likened to <i>nebelah</i>?<a id="k82b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; That indeed is so, but [the analogy with <i>niddah</i> teaches:] just as a <i>niddah</i> is not [a source of contamination] through her [separate] limbs,<a id="k82b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; So is an idol not [a source of contamination] through its limbs. Then when R. Hama b. Guria asked: 'Does the law of an idol operate in respect of its limbs or not?'-solve it for him from this that according to the Rabbis it does not operate in respect of its limbs? &mdash; R. Hama b. Guria asked it on R. Akiba's view.
</p><p>
	But R. Eleazar maintained: In respect of a cavity-closing stone all agree that it does not defile thereby, since it is likened to a sherez,<a id="k82b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; they differ only in respect of carriage. R. Akiba holds, It is like a <i>niddah</i>: just as a <i>niddah</i> defiles through carriage, so does an idol defile through carriage. While the Rabbis argue. It is like a sherez: just as a sherez does not defile through carriage, so does an idol not defile through carriage. Now, according to R. Akiba, in respect of what law is it likened to a sherez? &mdash; In respect of its service utensils. And according to the Rabbis', in respect of what law is it likened to a <i>niddah</i>? &mdash; Just as a <i>niddah</i> is not [a source of contamination] through her [separate] limbs, so is an idol not [a source of contamination] through its limbs.
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k90a_1:" I.e., where the different kinds of spices are all for sweetening."
,k90a_2:" Ready for use."
,k90a_3:" Given to the dyer."
,k90a_4:" After that it loses its efficacy as a cleansing agent, and the standard of the Mishnah does not apply."
,k90a_5:" A city founded by Herod the Great c. 10 B.C.E. in the plain of Kefar Saba. it was the most northerly limit of Judea (Tosaf. Git. VII. 9; Yoma 69a), and about twenty-six miles south of Caesarea."
,k90a_6:" Jast.: bulb of ornithogalum."
,k90a_7:" Jast.: garden-orache."
,k90a_8:" Jast.: an alcalic plant used as soap. &mdash; These were added to the list of plants subject to the laws of the seventh year (shebi'ith)."
,k90a_9:" Jast.: a mineral substance used for cleansing. Maim. Nid. IX, 6. states that it is a vegetable."
,k90a_10:" This is not the same Baraitha as cited before; v. Maharsha."
,k90a_11:" A popular nickname for Cimolian carth."
,k90a_12:" A kind of resin used for lighting: cf. <i>supra</i> 24b."
,k90a_13:" When a sacred thing ceases to be fit for use, it must be 'hidden', i.e., buried or otherwise disposed of in accordance with the regulations stated in Meg. 26b, but not thrown away."
,k90a_14:" Deut. XIII, 17."
,k90a_15:" V. p. 218, n. 11."
,k90a_16:" Lit., 'the virgin of a rose'."
,k90a_17:" Lit.. 'I (take) upon myself'."
,k90a_18:" To the Temple."
,k90a_19:" 'Others' frequently refers to R. Meir, Hor. 13b."
,k90a_20:" Rashi: spiked sheets of metal were placed on the Temple roof to prevent birds from alighting thereon; v. M.K. 9a."
,k90a_21:" In the Temple."
,k90a_22:" To him who eats them."
,k90a_23:" They are dangerous worms, not thorns. "
}

txt:
<p>
They learnt this of sweetening condiments,<a id="k90a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Since they are fit for sweetening a dish. Thus it is only because they are fit for sweetening a dish, but otherwise it is not so? &mdash; Here too [in our Mishnah] they are fit for sweetening.
</p><p>
	NUTSHELLS, POMEGRANATE SHELLS, WOAD AND MADDER, [THE STANDARD IS] AS MUCH AS IS REQUIRED FOR DYEING THE SMALL PIECE OF CLOTH, [etc.]. But this contradicts it: If one carries out dissolved dyes,<a id="k90a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; [the standard is] as much as is required for dyeing a sample colour for wool?<a id="k90a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: That is because no man troubles to steep dyes in order to dye therewith a sample colour for wool.
</p><p>
	URINE. A Tanna taught: Urine, until forty days.<a id="k90a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	NATRON. it was taught: Alexandrian natron, but not natron of Antipatris.<a id="k90a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	LYE [BORITH]. Rab Judah said: That is sand. But it was taught: Borith and sand? Rather what is Borith? Sulphur. An objection is raised: To these were added halbezin<a id="k90a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and le'enn<a id="k90a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and borith and ahol.<a id="k90a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; But if you maintain that it is sulphur, is then sulphur subject to shebi'ith? Surely it was taught: This is the general rule: Whatever as a root is subject to shebi'ith, but that which has no root is not subject to shebi'ith? But what is borith? Ahala.<a id="k90a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; But it was taught: And borith and ahala?<a id="k90a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There are two kinds of ahala.
</p><p>
	CIMOLIAN EARTH. Rab Judah said: That is 'pull out stick in.'<a id="k90a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	ASHLEG. Samuel said: I asked all seafarers and they told me that it is called shunana; it is found in the cavity wherein the pearl lies and it is scraped out with an iron nail.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. [IF ONE CARRIES OUT] LONG PEPPER, OF WHATEVER QUANTITY, ITRAN,<a id="k90a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; OF WHATEVER QUANTITY, VARIOUS KINDS OF PERFUME, OF WHATEVER QUANTITY, VARIOUS KINDS OF METAL, OF WHATEVER QUANTITY, [PIECES] OF THE ALTAR STONES OR THE ALTAR EARTH, MOTH-EATEN SCROLLS OR THEIR MOTH-EATEN MANTLES, OF WHATEVER QUANTITY, [HE IS CULPABLE]. BECAUSE THEY ARE STORED AWAY IN ORDER TO BE HIDDEN.<a id="k90a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; R. JUDAH SAID: ALSO HE WHO CARRIES OUT THE SERVICE VESSELS OF IDOLS, OF WHATEVER SIZE, [IS CULPABLE], FOR IT IS SAID, AND THERE SHALL NOT CLEAVE AUGHT OF THE ACCURSED THING TO THINE HAND.<a id="k90a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Of what use is any [small] quantity of long pepper? For [dispelling] the [evil] odour of one's mouth.
</p><p>
	ITRAN, OF WHATEVER QUANTITY. What is this good for? For megrim.
</p><p>
	VARIOUS KINDS OF PERFUME, OF WHATEVER QUANTITY. Our Rabbis taught: If one carries out a malodorous [perfume], [the standard is] however little: good oil, however little: crimson [dye],<a id="k90a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; however little; and a closed rose,<a id="k90a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [the standard is] one. VARIOUS KINDS OF METAL, OF WHATEVER QUANTITY. What is it fit for? &mdash; It was taught; R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Because one can make a small goad out of it.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: If one says, 'Behold, I vow<a id="k90a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; iron,'<a id="k90a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; others rule:<a id="k90a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; He must not give less than a square cubit [of sheet iron]. What is it fit for? &mdash; Said R. Joseph: To ward off the ravens.<a id="k90a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Some state, Others rule: He must not give less than a raven barrier. And how much is that? &mdash; Said R. Joseph: A square cubit. [If he vows] brass, he must not give less than a silver <i>ma'ah</i>['s worth]. it was taught, R. Eleazar said: He must not give less than a small brass hook. What is it fit for?<a id="k90a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said Abaye, The wicks were scraped out and the branches [of the candelabrum] were cleansed therewith.
</p><p>
	MOTH-EATEN SCROLLS AND MOTH-EATEN MANTLES. Rab Judah said: The worm [mekak] that attacks scrolls, the worm [tekak] of silk, the mite [ela] of grapes, the worm [pah] of figs, and the worm [heh] of pomegranates are all dangerous.<a id="k90a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; A certain disciple was sitting before R. Johanan eating figs. 'My Master,' he exclaimed, there are thorns in the figs. 'The pah [worm] has killed this person,' answered he.<a id="k90a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF ONE CARRIES OUT A PEDLAR'S BASKET, THOUGH IT CONTAINS MANY COMMODITIES, HE INCURS ONLY ONE SIN-OFFERING. [FOR] GARDEN-SEEDS, [THE STANDARD IS] LESS THAN THE SIZE OF A DRIED FIG; R. JUDAH B. BATHYRA RULED: FIVE.
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k90b_1:" I.e., that may be eaten."
,k90b_2:" A species of locust; it is discussed in the Gemara."
,k90b_3:" in accordance with the general rule of the Mishnah <i>supra</i> 75b."
,k90b_4:" Which shows that the seed for a single plant entails culpability."
,k90b_5:" E.g., each to denote a certain sum."
,k90b_6:" I.e., made of palm bark."
,k90b_7:" Rashi: made of the bast of palm trees. These are finer than palm bands."
,k90b_8:" Perhaps, 'searcher in forests' (Jast.) &mdash; the name of a locust."
,k90b_9:" Eccl. X, a fool who has to acquire wisdom has to tie this on his left arm."
,k90b_10:" Lit., 'be eradicated'."
,k90b_11:" An unclean locust is not laid aside, etc."
,k90b_12:" A species of long-headed locust, which is eatable."
,k90b_13:" Lev. XI, 43. The abomination consists in eating it alive."
,k90b_14:" But not eat it."
,k90b_15:" Since by laying it aside he shows that he values it."
,k90b_16:" As stated in the previous chapter."
,k90b_17:" Having carried it out he decides not to sow it, etc., after all, and takes it back into the house."
,k90b_18:" For by changing his mind he removes the artificial value which he first attached to it, and it is the same as any other of its kind."
,k90b_19:" For a definite standard is required only when one carries it out without any specified purpose. But if he states his purpose, he ipso fucto attaches a value to it. "
}

txt:
<p>
[FOR] CUCUMBER SEED, [THE STANDARD IS] TWO; SEED OF GOURDS, TWO; SEED OF EGYPTIAN BEANS, TWO. IF ONE CARRIES OUT A LIVE CLEAN<a id="k90b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; LOCUST, WHATEVER ITS SIZE; DEAD, [ITS STANDARD IS] THE SIZE OF A DRIED FIG. THE BIRD OF THE VINEYARDS,<a id="k90b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; WHETHER LIVE OR DEAD, WHATEVER ITS SIZE, BECAUSE IT IS STORED AWAY FOR A MEDICINE.<a id="k90b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; R. JUDAH SAID: ALSO HE WHO CARRIES OUT A LIVE UNCLEAN LOCUST, WHATEVER ITS SIZE, [IS CULPABLE], BECAUSE IT IS PUT AWAY FOR A CHILD TO PLAY WITH.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. But this contradicts it: Manure, or thin sand, [the standard is] as much as is required for fertillizing a cabbage stalk: this is R. Akiba's view. But the Sages maintain: For fertilizing one leek-plant?<a id="k90b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said R. Papa: In the one case it is sown, and in the other it is not, because one does not trouble to carry out a single seed for sowing.
</p><p>
	CUCUMBER SEED. Our Rabbis taught: if one carries out kernels [of dates], &mdash; If for planting, [the standard for culpability is] two; if for eating, as much as fills the mouth of a swine. And how much fills the mouth of a swine? One. If for fuel, as much as is required for boiling a light egg; if for calculating,<a id="k90b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; two &mdash; others say, five. 
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: if one carries out two hairs of a horse's tall or a cow's tall, he is culpable, because these are laid aside for [bird] snares. Of the stiff bristles of a swine, one [involves liability]; of palm bands,<a id="k90b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; two; of palm fillets,<a id="k90b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; one.
</p><p>
	THE BIRD OF THE VINEYARDS, WHETHER LIVE OR DEAD, WHATEVER ITS SIZE. What is the bird of the vineyards? &mdash; Said Rab: Palya be'ari.<a id="k90b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye observed: And it is found in a palm tree of [only] one covering, and it is prepared [as food] for [acquiring] wisdom; one eats half of its right [side] and half of its left, places it [the rest] in a brass tube and seals it with sixty [i.e., many] seals and suspends it around his left arm; and the token thereof is. A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart is at his left.<a id="k90b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; He acquires as much wisdom as he desires, studies as much as he desires, and [then] eats the other half, for if [he does] not, his learning will vanish.<a id="k90b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. JUDAH SAID: ALSO HE WHO CARRIES OUT, etc. But the first Tanna holds, Not so.<a id="k90b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the reason? Lest he [the child] eat it. If so, a clean [locust] is the same, for R. Kahana was standing before Rab and passing a shoshiba<a id="k90b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; in front of his mouth. 'Take it away,' said he to him, 'that people should not say that you are eating it and thereby violating [the injunction], ye shall not make yourselves abominable.'<a id="k90b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather [the reason is] lest it dies and he [the child] eat it. But R. Judah [holds], if it dies the child will indeed weep for it.<a id="k90b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_x">CHAPTER X</A>
      </H2>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF ONE LAYS [AUGHT] ASIDE FOR SOWING, FOR A SAMPLE, OR FOR A MEDICINE, AND [THEN] CARRIES IT OUT ON THE SABBATH, HE IS CULPABLE WHATEVER ITS SIZE.<a id="k90b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT ALL OTHERS ARE NOT CULPABLE THEREFOR SAVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS STANDARD.<a id="k90b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; IF HE CARRIES IT BACK AGAIN,<a id="k90b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; HE IS LIABLE ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS STANDARD.<a id="k90b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Why must he teach, IF ONE LAYS ASIDE; let him teach, If one carries out [aught] for sowing, for a sample, or for a medicine, he is culpable, whatever its size?<a id="k90b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said Abaye: We discuss here a case e.g., where one laid it aside and [then] forgot why he laid it aside, and now he carries it out without specifying the purpose:
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k96a_1:" Rashi: in the case of large ones the greater portion must be broken, but for small ones a hole large enough for a pomegranate to fall out is sufficient. Ri: In the case of large ones a hole large enough etc., is required, but in the case of small ones, where this may be considerably more than half if the greater portion thereof is broken it is no longer a utensil."
,k96a_2:" v. p. 457, n. 4."
,k96a_3:" I.e., when a mutilated vessel springs a leak of this size, people throw it away without troubling to bring another such vessel or a shard to catch its drippings, therefore it is no longer a vessel."
,k96a_4:" Rashi: the question is how large the hole of a perforated pot must be in order to render its plants susceptible to defilement (v. p. 456, n. 6). R. <i>Tam</i>: they differ in reference to a vessel closed with a tight-fitting lid (cf. p. 458, n. 5)."
,k96a_5:" I.e., part of a Talmudic dictum, v. Men. 110a', the two extremes (v. Raba's enumeration of the five principles, <i>supra</i> 95b) are taken, and neither of these amoraim takes one of the intermediate standards."
,k96a_6:" A hole of that size renders it clean."
,k96a_7:" I.e., neither glazed nor baked in a kiln."
,k96a_8:" Lit., 'the words of the Scribes'; v. Kid. p. 79, n. 7. "
,k96a_9:" v. p. 458, n. 3."
,k96a_10:" This explains the view of the Rabbis."
,k96a_11:" I.e. on the same side of the street, which interposes lengthwise."
,k96a_12:" In connection with the Tabernacle in the Wilderness. "
}

txt:
<p>
the one refers to large ones, the other to small ones.<a id="k96a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Assi said, They [the Tannaim] learnt. As for an earthen vessel, its standard is [a hole] large enough to admit a liquid, while [one merely] sufficient to allow a liquid to run out was mentioned only in connection with a mutilated vessel.<a id="k96a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the reason? &mdash; Said Mar Zutra son of R. Nahman: Because people do not say, 'Let us bring one fragment for another.'<a id="k96a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'Ulla said, Two amoraim in Palestine differ on this matter, [viz.,] R. Jose son of R. Abin and R. Jose son of Zabda: One maintains: [the standard is a hole] large enough to allow a pomegranate to fall out; while the other rules: As large as a small root.<a id="k96a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; And your sign is, 'whether one increases or whether one diminishes.<a id="k96a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hinena b. Kahana said in R. Eliezer's name: As for an earthen vessel, its standard is [a hole] large enough to allow olives to fall out;<a id="k96a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and Mar Kashisha son of Rabbah completes [this statement] in R. Eliezer's name: And then they rank as vessels of dung, stone, or clay,<a id="k96a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; which do not contract uncleanness either by Biblical or by Rabbinical law;<a id="k96a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; but in respect to [the law of] a tight. fitting lid [it ranks as a vessel] unless the greater portion thereof is broken through.<a id="k96a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p> 
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_xi">CHAPTER XI</A>
      </H2>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF ONE THROWS [AN ARTICLE] FROM PRIVATE INTO PUBLIC GROUND [OR] FROM PUBLIC INTO PRIVATE GROUND, HE IS CULPABLE. FROM ONE PRIVATE DOMAIN TO ANOTHER, AND PUBLIC GROUND LIES BETWEEN, R. AKIBA HOLDS HIM LIABLE, BUT THE SAGES DECLARE HIM EXEMPT. HOW SO?<a id="k96a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; IF THERE ARE TWO BALCONIES FACING EACH OTHER IN THE STREET, HE WHO REACHES OVER OR THROWS [AN ARTICLE] FROM ONE TO THE OTHER IS NOT CULPABLE. IF BOTH ARE ON THE SAME STOREY,<a id="k96a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; HE WHO REACHES OVER IS CULPABLE, WHILE HE WHO THROWS IS NOT, FOR THUS WAS THE SERVICE OF THE LEVITES:<a id="k96a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; TWO WAGGONS [STOOD] BEHIND EACH OTHER IN PUBLIC GROUND, [AND] THEY REACHED OVER THE BOARDS FROM ONE TO ANOTHER, BUT DID NOT THROW.
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k96b_1:" On principal and derivative labours v. p. 3. n. 2. Throwing is certainly a derivative only, since it is not enumerated in the principal labours <i>supra</i> 73a: also it must be a derivative of carrying out, for it is not similar to any of the other principal labours,"
,k96b_2:" Ex. XXXVI, 6."
,k96b_3:" As everyone had to pass through to gain access to Moses."
,k96b_4:" Lit., 'he stood'."
,k96b_5:" Ex. XXXVI, 7."
,k96b_6:" Lev. XXV, 9."
,k96b_7:" Sc. the Sabbath. This method of exegesis is called <i>gezerah shawah</i>, q.v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k96b_8:" Lit., 'in the place of'."
,k96b_9:" V. <i>infra</i> 100a."
,k96b_10:" And he is not liable."
,k96b_11:" And since it traverses four cubits, he is culpable."
,k96b_12:" V. <i>supra</i> 75a."
,k96b_13:" Through public ground."
,k96b_14:" When stretching their arms to thread the needles they would strike each other."
,k96b_15:" When the weaver throws the clue through the web for the last time."
,k96b_16:" V. <i>supra</i> 6a; i.e., it passed between the portions of the curtain, which is certainly not public ground."
,k96b_17:" 'Aruch reads: their apprentices. On both readings the reference is to people working on other curtains, and the clue had to traverse public ground."
,k96b_18:" Crosswise, or in zigzag rows, so that they could work close together without touching each other."
,k96b_19:" An amora: Yalkut reads: Levi."
,k96b_20:" Ex. XXXVI, 4."
,k96b_21:" Having sufficient material of his own."
,k96b_22:" V. Num. XV 32 seq."
,k96b_23:" He cut off twigs or branches from a tree, which is the equivalent of detaching produce from the soil."
,k96b_24:" They were already lying on the ground. Tying them together is the same as binding sheaves."
,k96b_25:" V. <i>supra</i> 6b for notes."
,k96b_26:" As being referred to in Issi's dictum."
,k96b_27:" Num. XV, 32."
,k96b_28:" Ibid. XXVII, 3."
,k96b_29:" Lit., 'if it is as your words'."
,k96b_30:" Lit., 'covered'. "
}

txt:
<p>
<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Consider: throwing is a derivative of carrying out:<a id="k96b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; where is carrying out itself written? &mdash; Said R. Johanan, Scripture saith, And Moses gave commandment, and they caused a proclamation to pass throughout the camp, [etc.]:<a id="k96b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; now, where was Moses stationed? in the camp of the Levites, which was public ground,<a id="k96b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and he said to the Israelites, Do not carry out and fetch from your private dwellings into public ground. But how do you know that this was on the Sabbath: perhaps this happened<a id="k96b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; during the week, the reason being that the material was complete[ly adequate], as it is written, For the stuff they had was sufficient, etc.<a id="k96b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The meaning of 'passing through' is learnt from [its employment in connection with] the Day of Atonement, Here it is written, and they caused a proclamation to pass throughout the camp; whilst there it is written, Then shalt thou cause a loud trumpet to pass through [sc. the land]:<a id="k96b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; just as there the reference is to the day of the interdict, so here too the day of the interdict [is meant].<a id="k96b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; We have thus found [an interdict for] carrying out: whence do we know [that] carrying in [is forbidden]? &mdash; That is common sense: consider: it is [transference] from one domain to another: what does it matter whether one carries out or carries in? Nevertheless. carrying out is a primary [labour], [whereas] carrying in is a derivative.
</p><p>
	Yet let us consider: one is culpable for both: why is one designated a principal and the other a derivative [labour]? &mdash; The practical difference is that if one performs two principal or two derivative [labours] together he is liable to two [sacrifices], whereas if he performs a principal [labour] and its derivative he is liable only to one. But according to R. Eliezer, who imposes liability for a derivative [when performed] conjointly with<a id="k96b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; the principal, why is one called a principal and the other a derivative? &mdash; That which was of account in the Tabernacle is designated a principal, whereas that which was not of account in the Tabernacle is designated a derivative.<a id="k96b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Alternatively, that which is written is designated a principal, whereas that which is not written is designated a derivative.
</p><p>
	Again, as to what we learnt, 'If one throws [an article] four cubits on to a wall above ten handbreadths, it is as though he throws it into the air;<a id="k96b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; if below ten, it is as though he throws it on to the ground;<a id="k96b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and he who throws [an article] four cubits along the ground is culpable',<a id="k96b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash;  how do we know that he who throws [an article] four cubits in the street is culpable? &mdash; Said R. Josiah: Because the curtain weavers threw their needles to each other.<a id="k96b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Of what use are needles to weavers? &mdash; Rather [say:] Because the sewers threw their needles to each other. But perhaps they sat close together? &mdash; Then they would reach each other with their needles.<a id="k96b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Yet perhaps they sat within four [cubits] of each other? Rather said R. Hisda: Because the curtain weavers threw the clue into the curtain. But the other [worker] still has the distaff in his hand? &mdash; He refers to the last manipulation.<a id="k96b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; But it passed through a place of non-liability?<a id="k96b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rather [say:] Because the curtain weavers threw the clue to those who would borrow it from them.<a id="k96b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Yet perhaps they sat near each other? Then they would touch each other on making the border. Yet perhaps they sat in irregular lines?<a id="k96b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Moreover, did they borrow from each other? Surely Luda<a id="k96b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; taught: every man from his work which they wrouqht:<a id="k96b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; he wrought of his own work [stuff], but not of his neighbour's.<a id="k96b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Again, how do we know that if one carries [an article] four cubits in the street, he is culpable? Rather the whole [law of transporting] four cubits in the street is known by tradition.
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: [The offence of] the gatherer [of sticks]<a id="k96b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; was that he carried [them] four cubits over public ground. In a Baraitha it was taught: He cut [them] off.<a id="k96b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Aha b. Jacob said: He tied [them] together.<a id="k96b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; In respect of what is the practical difference? &mdash; In respect of Rab's [dictum]. For Rab said, I found a secret scroll of the School of R. Hiyya, wherein It is written, Issi b. Judah said: There are thirty-nine principal labours, but one is liable only [for] one. One and no more? Surely we learnt, The principal labours are forty less one. And we pondered thereon: why state the number? And R. Johanan answered: [To teach] that if one performs all of then, in one state of unawareness, he is liable for each separately? Say: for one of these he is not culpable.<a id="k96b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, Rab Judah is certain that he who carries [in the street] is culpable; the Baraitha is certain that he who cuts off is culpable; while R. Aha b. Jacob is certain that lie who binds is culpable. [Thus] one Master holds, This at least is not in doubt, while the other Master holds, That at least is not in doubt.<a id="k96b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: The gatherer was Zelophehad. And thus it is said, and while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man [gathering sticks, etc.];<a id="k96b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; whilst elsewhere it is said, our father died in the wilderness;<a id="k96b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; just as there Zelophehad [is meant], so here too Zelophehad [is meant]: this is R. Akiba's view. Said R. Judah b. Bathyra to him, 'Akiba! in either case you will have to give an account [for your statement]: if you are right,<a id="k96b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; the Torah shielded<a id="k96b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; him, while you reveal him; and if not, you cast a stigma upon a righteous man.'
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k102a_1:" Before it falls to the ground."
,k102a_2:" The exact meaning is discussed <i>infra</i>."
,k102a_3:" This assumes that the Mishnah means, AND RECALLS, and, ANOTHER CATCHES, etc."
,k102a_4:" Tied together. I.e., the second clause can refer only to one who throws a bolt whilst retaining the cord in his hand. If he recollects before it reaches the ground, he can pull it back; hence if he does not pull it back the end (sc. its alighting) is deliberate. But if the article has left his hand entirely and he cannot prevent its falling, the end too is regarded as unwitting. whether he recollects or not."
,k102a_5:" That is not throwing at all."
,k102a_6:" Rashi reads: But we learnt this explicitly why then intimate it in the general principle?"
,k102a_7:" Sc. the last clause: if he recollects, he can stop before he has traversed four cubits."
,k102a_8:" This is all one, not as Raba interprets it."
,k102a_9:" Before it alighted."
,k102a_10:" The thrower or carrier (v. <i>infra</i> to which this actually refers) was unaware of the Sabbath (or that throwing is prohibited) during the first two cubits of its passage, recollected for the next two, and forgot again for the last two. &mdash; Of course, this is a most unlikely hypothesis almost impossible in fact. Many similar unlikely contingencies are discussed in the Talmud, and their purpose is to establish the principles by which they are governed and which may then be applied to normal possibilities."
,k102a_11:" Cf. p. 341. n. 8. Here too' two cubits is half the standard."
,k102a_12:" Even if he recollects, since it has left his hand and he cannot bring it back."
,k102a_13:" Not to complete the action."
,k102a_14:" Thus there is no controversy, each referring to a different case."
,k102a_15:" For heleb and nothar v, <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k102a_16:" He is liable to separate sin-offering because he has violated the interdicts of heleb, nothar, eating on the Day of Atonement, and the prohibition against an unclean person's consumption of sacred food. Again. since the heleb of a sacrifice belongs to the altar, he is liable to a guilt-offering for trespass."
,k102a_17:" On account of carrying."
,k102a_18:" Sc. eating, for this liability is on account of carrying, not of eating; v. Ker. 13b."
,k102a_19:" One is not liable for performing an action in an abnormal manner."
,k102a_20:" For holding the food in to carry it out. R. Han.: his design renders his mouth the equivalent of a place four handbreadths square, whence and whither removal and depositing can take place."
,k102a_21:" Sc. that the dog should catch it, etc. "
}

txt:
<p>
<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. <small>IF ONE THROWS [AN ARTICLE] AND RECALLS [THAT IT IS THE SABBATH] AFTER IT LEAVES HIS HAND, AND ANOTHER CATCHES IT,<a id="k102a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; OR A DOG CATCHES IT. OR IT IS BURNT, HE IS NOT LIABLE.<a id="k102a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; IF ONE THROWS [AN ARTICLE] IN ORDER TO INFLICT A WOUND. WHETHER IN MAN OR IN BEAST, AND HE RECALLS [THAT IT IS THE SABBATH] BEFORE THE WOUND IS INFLICTED. HE IS NOT LIABLE THIS IS THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE: ALL WHO ARE LIABLE TO SIN-OFFERINGS ARE LIABLE ONLY IF THE BEGINNING AND THE END [OF THE FORBIDDEN ACTION] ARE UNWITTING. IF THEIR BEGINNING IS UNWITTING WHILE THEIR END IS WILFUL, IF THEIR BEGINNING IS WILFUL WHILE THEIR END IS UNWITTING. THEY ARE NOT LIABLE, UNLESS THEIR BEGINNING AND END ARE UNWITTING.</small>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Hence if it alighted, he is liable:<a id="k102a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; But surely he did not remind himself, and we learnt, <small>ALL WHO ARE LIABLE TO SIN-OFFERINGS ARE LIABLE ONLY IF THE BEGINNING AND THE END [OF THE FORBIDDEN ACTION] ARE UNWITTING? </small>Said R. Kahana: The last clause is applicable to a bolt and a cord.<a id="k102a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [You say.] 'A bolt and a cord'! But is not its tie in his hand?<a id="k102a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; It means, e.g., that he intended to inflict a wound. But this too we learnt:<a id="k102a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; <small>IF ONE THROWS [AN ARTICLE] IN ORDER TO INFLICT A WOUND, WHETHER IN MAN OR IN BEAST, AND HE RECALLS [THAT IT IS THE SABBATH] BEFORE THE WOUND IS INFLICTED, HE IS NOT LIABLE?</small> &mdash; Rather said Raba: It refers to one who carries.<a id="k102a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; But the statement, <small>THIS IS THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE,</small> is stated with reference to throwing? Rather said Raba: Two [contingencies] are taught. [Thus:] <small>IF ONE THROWS [AN ARTICLE] AND RECALLS</small> [that it is the Sabbath] after it leaves his hand, or even if he does not recall [it], but <small>ANOTHER CATCHES IT, OR A DOG CATCHES IT, OR IT IS BURNT, HE IS NOT LIABLE'</small> &mdash; R. Ashi said: It [the Mishnah] is defective, and teaches this: <small>'IF ONE THROWS [AN ARTICLE] AND RECALLS [THAT IT IS THE SABBATH] AFTER IT LEAVES HIS HAND, AND ANOTHER CATCHES IT, OR A DOG CATCHES IT, OR IT IS BURNT, HE IS NOT LIABLE.</small><a id="k102a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; But if it alights, he is liable. That, however, is said only if he forgot again;<a id="k102a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; but if he did not forget again, he is not liable, because <small>ALL WHO ARE LIABLE TO SIN-OFFERINGS ARE LIABLE ONLY IF THE BEGINNING AND THE END [OF THE FORBIDDEN ACTION] ARE UNWITTING'.</small>
</p><p>
	<small>THIS IS THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE: ALL WHO ARE LIABLE TO SIN-OFFERINGS</small>. etc. It was stated: [If the object travels] two cubits unwittingly, two cubits deliberately, and two cubits unwittingly.<a id="k102a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rabbah ruled, He [the thrower] is not liable; Raba said: He is liable. 'Rabbah ruled, He is not liable': even according to R. Gamaliel. who maintained. Knowledge in respect of half the standard is of no consequence,<a id="k102a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; that is [only] there, because when he completes the standard, he completes it unwittingly, but here that [he completes it] wilfully, it is not so. But to what [does this refer]? If to one who throws, [surely] he is an unwitting offender?<a id="k102a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Rather it must refer to one who carries. 'Raba said, He is liable': even according to the Rabbis, who maintained, Knowledge in respect of half the standard is of consequence: that is [only] there, because it is in his power,<a id="k102a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; but here that it is not in his power, it is not so. But to what [does this refer]? If to one who carries, surely it is in his power? Rather it must refer to one who throws.<a id="k102a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba said: If one throws [an article] and it falls into the mouth of a dog or a furnace, he is culpable. But we learnt, <small>AND ANOTHER CATCHES IT, OR A DOG CATCHES IT, OR IT IS BURNT, HE IS NOT LIABLE?</small> &mdash; There that is not his intention; here this is his intention. R. Bibi b. Abaye said, We too have learnt [thus]: A person may eat once, and be liable to four sin-offerings and one guilt-offering on account thereof, [viz.:] All unclean person who eats heleb, which is nothar<a id="k102a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; of sacred food [sacrifices] on the Day of Atonement.<a id="k102a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Meir said: If in addition it is the Sabbath, and he carries it out in his mouth, he is liable.<a id="k102a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Said they to him, That does not fall under this designation.<a id="k102a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Yet why so? Surely this is not the normal way of carrying out?<a id="k102a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; But [what you must say is.] since he intends it this, his design renders it [his mouth) the [right] place;<a id="k102a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; so here too, since he intends [it this].<a id="k102a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; his design renders it [the mouth of the dog or of the furnace] a place [for depositing]
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k102b_1:" 'However little' applies to all the foregoing labours."
,k102b_2:" I.e., it is not necessary to add thereto, which on occasion may be complete in itself"
,k102b_3:" This is explained in the Gemara."
,k102b_4:" <i>Perutah</i>. pl. perutoth, a very small coin. Thus we find an instance of very little building, and therefore this sets the standard. Money was hidden in the earth. Cf. B.M. 42a: 'Money can only be guarded by placing it in the earth'; Josephus. Wars, V. 7. 2: 'which the owners have treasured up underground against the uncertain fortunes of war'."
,k102b_5>\"</a> The labors performed there being the basis for the principal Sabbath labours, v. <i>supra</i> 73a."
,k102b_6:" This would never be necessary there, for everything was prepared in large quantities."
,k102b_7:" All these are instances of building."
,k102b_8:" Shifting the stone about on the ground until it is in the right spot."
,k102b_9:" For building, even if no mortar is used."
,k102b_10:" But not the former, which contradicts Samuel."
,k102b_11:" Tosaf. omits 'R. Jose said', and Wilna Gaon makes a somewhat similar emendation."
,k102b_12:" But no mortar, and Samuel refers to this."
,k102b_13:" This means all the rows between the bottom and the top rows."
,k102b_14:" Without the meticulous care needed for the bottom row, since nothing was to go upon it."
,k102b_15:" This being the completion of the work, v. <i>supra</i> 75b."
,k102b_16:" For ventilation, etc."
,k102b_17:" Rashi: the pin passed through the handle and made it fast to the blade."
,k102b_18:" Chiselling a stone to smooth it is an essential part of building."
,k102b_19:" By reversing the former argument."
,k102b_20:" The latter being explanatory of the former. "
}

txt:
<p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_xii">CHAPTER XII</A>
      </H2>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. <small>IF ONE BUILDS HOW MUCH MUST HE BUILD TO BE CULPABLE? HE WHO BUILDS HOWEVER LITTLE, AND HE WHO CHISELS, AND HE WHO STRIKES WITH A HAMMER OR WITH AN ADZE, AND HE WHO BORES [A HOLE], HOWEVER LITTLE,<a id="k102b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; IS CULPABLE. THIS IS THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE: WHOEVER DOES WORK ON THE SABBATH AND HIS WORK ENDURES,<a id="k102b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; IS CULPABLE. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: HE TOO IS CULPABLE WHO BEATS WITH THE SLEDGE HAMMER ON THE ANVIL AT THE TIME OF HIS WORK, BECAUSE HE IS AS ONE WHO IMPROVES HIS WORK.<a id="k102b_3"><sup>3</sup></a></small>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. <small>'HOWEVER LITTLE'</small> &mdash; what is that fit for? &mdash; Said R. Jeremiah: Because a poor man digs a hole to hide his perutoth therein.<a id="k102b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Similarly in connection with the Tabernacle<a id="k102b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; such a labour was performed because those who sewed the curtain dug holes to put away their needles therein. Said Abaye. Since they would rust, they would not do so! Rather [say]: because a poor man makes the feet of a small stove to place a pot upon it. Similarly in connection with the Tabernacle, [such a labor was performed] because those who boiled the dyes for dyeing the curtains, when their materials [the finished dyes] were insufficient, they made the feet of a small stove to place a small kettle upon it. Said R. Aha b. Jacob: There is no poverty in the place of wealth.<a id="k102b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather [say] because a householder who finds a hole in his dwelling closes it up. Similarly in connection with the Tabernacle, [such a labour was performed] because when a board was attacked by wood-worms, one dropped molten lead into it and closed it.<a id="k102b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Samuel said: He who arranges a building stone<a id="k102b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; is culpable.<a id="k102b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; An objection is raised: If one places the stone and another the mortar, he who places the mortar is culpable?<a id="k102b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But according to your view, consider the second clause: R. Jose said:<a id="k102b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Even if one lifts up [the stone] and sets [it] on the row of stones, he is liable? Rather [the fact is that] there are three modes of building, [viz., in connection with] the lower, the middle, and the upper [rows]. The lower requires arranging in place and [filling] earth [around it];<a id="k102b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; the middle<a id="k102b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; requires mortar too; whilst the top merely [requires] placing.<a id="k102b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<small>AND HE WHO CHISELS</small>. On what score is a chiseller culpable? &mdash; Rab said: On the score of building: while Samuel said: On the score of beating with a hammer.<a id="k102b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; If one makes a hole in a hencoop,<a id="k102b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rab said: [He is culpable] on account of building; while Samuel said: On account of beating with a hammer. If one inserts a pin through the eyelet of a spade,<a id="k102b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Rab said: [He is liable] on account of building; while Samuel said: On account of beating with a hammer. Now, these are [all] necessary. For if we were informed of the first, [I would argue]: in that case Rab rules [so], because such is a mode of building;<a id="k102b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; but if one makes a hole in a hen-coop, seeing that this is not a mode of building, I would maintain that he agrees with Samuel. And if we were informed of this [latter one only], &mdash; here does Rab rule [thus], because it is similar to a building, since it is made for ventilation; but [as for inserting] a pin through the eyelet of a spade, which is not a mode of building, I would say that he agrees with Samuel. And if we were told of this [latter one], only here does Samuel rule [thus], but in the former two I would maintain that he agrees with Samuel:<a id="k102b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [hence] they are necessary.
</p><p>
	R. Nathan b. Oshaia asked R. Johanan: On what grounds is a chiseller culpable? He intimated to him with his hand, On account of beating with a hammer. But we learnt, <small>HE WHO CHISELS AND HE WHO BEATS WITH A HAMMER?</small> &mdash; Say, <small>'HE WHO CHISELS, WHO BEATS WITH A HAMMER'.</small><a id="k102b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Come and hear:
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k105a_1:" If he intends writing a heth and writes two zayyinin."
,k105a_2:" The references to a Scroll of the Law, where certain letters, including the [H], are embellished with 'tittles', 'daggers'. If one writes [H] instead of [H] (in a Scroll of the law [H] is written as a double [H], thus: [H]) but without the daggers, he is not culpable; with the daggers, he is culpable."
,k105a_3:" Here too the <i>waw</i> is used vocally, but is interpreted consonantally."
,k105a_4:" Gen. XVII, 5."
,k105a_5:" H and [H] interchange."
,k105a_6:" Thus AB Hamwn is interpreted as an abbreviation."
,k105a_7:" Ex. XX, 1."
,k105a_8:" Num. XXII, 32."
,k105a_9:" Lev. XXIII, 14."
,k105a_10:" 1 Kings II 8."
,k105a_11:" Gen. XLIV, 16."
,k105a_12:" V. <i>supra</i> 71b; 102a."
,k105a_13:" Of a garment or a piece of cloth. V. Halevy, Doroth, l, 3, pp. 261 seq."
,k105a_14:" Lit., 'upon'."
,k105a_15:" From Palestine to Babylon; cf. p. 12, n. 9."
,k105a_16:" Under their own weight. Or, the thickness of the thread prevents them from being closely woven; hence if there are only two they may split."
,k105a_17:" Lit., 'known'."
,k105a_18:" One cannot see that anything substantial has been made; therefore he is not culpable."
,k105a_19:" Therefore weaving this amount on the selvedge is a culpable offence."
,k105a_20:" Lit., upon'."
,k105a_21:" Or, thickly woven material."
,k105a_22:" Rashi: made at the beginning of the cloth."
,k105a_23:" Jast.: the thrums or slips to which the threads of the warp are attached."
,k105a_24:" <i>Supra</i> 73a."
,k105a_25:" <i>Infra</i> b. "
}

txt:
<p>
but chanced to write two, he is culpable. But we learnt: HE IS NOT CULPABLE?<a id="k105a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; There is no difficulty: in the one case it requires crownlets; in the other, it does not require crownlets.<a id="k105a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF ONE WRITES ONE LETTER AS AN ABBREVIATION, R. JOSHUA B. BATHYRA HOLDS HIM LIABLE, WHILST THE SAGES EXEMPT HIM. R. Johanan said in R. Jose b. Zimra's name; How do we know [that] abbreviated forms [are recognized] by the Torah? Because it is written, for AB [the father of] HaMWN [a multitude of]<a id="k105a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; nations have I made thee:<a id="k105a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; a father [Ab] of nations have I made thee; a chosen one [Bahur] among nations have I made thee. HaMWN beloved [Habib]<a id="k105a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; have I made thee among nations; a king [Melek] have I appointed thee for the nations; distinguished [Wathik] have I made thee among the nations; faithful [Ne'eman] have I made thee to the nations.<a id="k105a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan on his own authority quoted. aNoKY [I &mdash; am the Lord thy God, etc.].<a id="k105a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; I [ana] Myself [Nafshi] have written the Script [Kethibah Yehabith]. The Rabbis interpreted: Sweet speech [amirah Ne'imah], a writing, a gift [Kethibah Yehibah]. Others state, aNoKY [interpreted] reversed is: Scripture was given [to man] [Yahibah Kethibah]. faithful are its words [Ne'emanin amarehah]. The School of R. Nathan quoted, Because thy way is perverse [YaRaT] before me:<a id="k105a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; She [the ass] feared [Yare'ah], saw [Ra'athah], [and] turned aside [naTethah]. The School of R. Ishmael taught: KaRMeL [fresh ears]:<a id="k105a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; rounded [KaR] and full [MaLe]. R. Aha b. Jacob quoted, and he cursed me with a curse that is grievous [NiMReZeTh].<a id="k105a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; This is an abbreviation: he is an adulterer [No'ef], a Moabite, a murderer [Rozeah], an adversary [Zorer], an abomination [To'ebah]. R. Nahman b. Isaac quoted, What shall we speak<a id="k105a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; or how shall we clear ourselves [NiZTaDaK]:<a id="k105a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; We are honest [Nekonim], we are righteous [Zaddikim], we are pure [Tehorim], we are submissive [Dakkim], we are holy [Kedoshim].
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF ONE WRITES TWO LETTERS IN TWO STATES OF UNAWARENESS, ONE IN THE MORNING AND ONE IN THE EVENING, R. GAMALIEL HOLDS HIM LIABLE, WHILST THE SAGES EXEMPT HIM.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Wherein do they differ? &mdash; R. Gamaliel holds: Awareness in respect of half the standard is of no account; whilst the Rabbis hold: Awareness in respect of half the standard is of account.<a id="k105a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_xiii">CHAPTER XIII</A>
      </H2>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. R. ELIEZER SAID: HE WHO WEAVES THREE THREADS AT THE BEGINNING<a id="k105a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; OR ONE [THREAD] ADDED TO<a id="k105a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; WOVEN STUFF, IS CULPABLE; BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: WHETHER AT THE BEGINNING OR AT THE END, THE STANDARD [FOR CULPABLE] IS TWO THREADS. HE WHO MAKES TWO MESHES, ATTACHING THEM EITHER TO THE CROSS-PIECES [NIRIM] OR TO THE SLIPS [KEROS], OR IN A WINNOW, SIEVE, OR BASKET, IS CULPABLE. AND HE WHO SEWS TWO STITCHES, AND HE WHO TEARS IN ORDER TO SEW TWO STITCHES [IS LIKEWISE CULPABLE].
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. When R. Isaac came,<a id="k105a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; he recited: Two. But we learnt THREE? &mdash; There is no difficulty: the one refers to thick [threads], the other to thin [ones]. Some explain it in one way, others explain it the reverse. Some explain it in one way: [of] thick threads, three will not break, but two will break;<a id="k105a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [of] thin threads, even two will not break. Others explain it the reverse: [of] thin [threads], three are noticeable<a id="k105a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas two are not:<a id="k105a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; [of] thick threads, even two are noticeable.
</p><p>
	It was taught: He who weaves three threads at the beginning or one thread added to woven stuff, is culpable; but the Sages maintain: Whether at the beginning or at the end, the standard is two threads, and at the selvedge, two threads over the breadth of three meshes. To what is this like? To weaving a small belt two threads over the breadth of three meshes [in size].<a id="k105a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [Now,] 'He who weaves three threads at the beginning or one thread added to woven stuff, is culpable': this anonymous [teaching] is in' agreement with R. Eliezer. Another [Baraitha] taught: He who weaves two threads added to<a id="k105a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; the border of the web<a id="k105a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; or to the hem,<a id="k105a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; is culpable. R. Eliezer said: Even one. And at the selvedge, two threads over the breadth of three meshes. To what is this like? To weaving a small belt two or three threads over the breadth of three meshes [in size]. 'He who weaves two threads added to the border of the web or to the hem, is culpable': this anonymous [teaching is] in agreement with the Rabbis. 
</p><p>
	HE WHO MAKES TWO MESHES, ATTACHING THEM EITHER TO THE CROSS-PIECES [NIRIM]. What does, 'TO THE NIRIM' mean? &mdash; Said Abaye: Two in a mesh and one in the cross-piece. 
</p><p>
	OR TO THE SLIPS [KEROS]. What is KEROS? &mdash; Said Rab: The slips.<a id="k105a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	AND HE WHO SEWS TWO STITCHES. But we have [already] learnt it in [the list of] principal labours: 'and he who sews two stitches?<a id="k105a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Because he wishes to teach the second clause: AND HE WHO TEARS IN ORDER TO SEW TWO STITCHES, he also teaches, AND HE WHO SEWS, [etc.]. But we learnt about tearing too in [the list of] principal labours? Rather because he wishes to teach in a subsequent clause, 'He who tears in his anger or for his dead',<a id="k105a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; he therefore teaches [here], HE WHO SEWS TWO STITCHES. 
</p><p>
	AND HE WHO TEARS IN ORDER TO SEW TWO STITCHES. How is that possible?
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k105b_1:" Rashi: bulging and creasing, so that part has to be torn open in order for it to be resewn."
,k105b_2:" At the death of one's parents, brothers, sisters, children, wife or husband the garments are rent."
,k105b_3:" As in the example mentioned immediately preceding the Mishnah."
,k105b_4:" Rashi: the distance between the tips of the index finger and middle finger when held wide apart, v. Gemara."
,k105b_5:" Sc. for the dead."
,k105b_6:" Sc. those enumerated in p. 508. n. 9. Since rending is a duty there, it is an act of positive value, and he is liable."
,k105b_7:" Though he rends his garment in grief, it is not actually necessary."
,k105b_8:" I.e., one whom through certain circumstances it is his duty to bury."
,k105b_9:" I.e., other than those enumerated in p. 508, n. 9."
,k105b_10:" This was a mourning rite in former times, but is no longer practised."
,k105b_11:" The first meal after the funeral is called the meal of comfort (se'udath habra'ah), and is supplied by friends of the mourner. In the case of a Sage all must partake of such a meal."
,k105b_12:" For the future surely not!"
,k105b_13:" I.e., at the moment of death."
,k105b_14:" If one sees this he must rend his garments, and even the most ignorant and the most worthless Jew has some knowledge thereof and has fulfilled some of its precepts."
,k105b_15:" V. <i>supra</i> 30a."
,k105b_16:" Since then this is forbidden, he cannot be held to effect an improvement."
,k105b_17:" Ps. LXXXI, 10."
,k105b_18:" This shows that no real separate identity was ascribed to the source of evil, of which the Tempter is merely a personification; cf. Joseph, M., 'Judaism as Creed and Life', pp. 65-68."
,k105b_19:" To show his anger."
,k105b_20:" Ps. LVI, 9."
,k105b_21:" Josh. XXIV, 30. 'Gaash' is derived from a root meaning to tremble or rage."
,k105b_22:" Because they did not fittingly lament him."
,k105b_23:" Isa. XXVII, 8."
,k105b_24:" Josh. ibid. 31. Thus they lived long in spite of their failure to mourn for Joshua."
,k105b_25:" (Maharsha: Their days seemed prolonged on account of the difficult times they experienced, v. however Rashi.]"
,k105b_26:" Deut. XI, 21."
,k105b_27:" [The length of days in the case of a blessing can be only another expression for length of years, cf. n. 6.] "
}

txt:
<p>
 &mdash; If he made it [the garment] like a pocket.<a id="k105b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. HE WHO TEARS IN HIS ANGER OR [IN MOURNING] FOR HIS DEAD,<a id="k105b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; AND ALL WHO EFFECT DAMAGE ARE EXEMPT; BUT HE WHO DAMAGES IN ORDER TO REPAIR,<a id="k105b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; HIS STANDARD [FOR CULPABILITY] IS AS FOR REPAIRING. THE STANDARD OF BLEACHING [WOOL], HATCHELLING, DYEING OR SPINNING IT, IS A FULL DOUBLE SIT.<a id="k105b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; AND HE WHO WEAVES TWO THREADS TOGETHER, HIS STANDARD IS A FULL SIT.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. But the following contradicts this: He who rends [his garment] in his anger, in his mourning or for his dead, is guilty, and though he desecrates the Sabbath, he has fulfilled his duty of rending?<a id="k105b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is no difficulty: the one refers to his dead,<a id="k105b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; the other to the dead in general.<a id="k105b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; But he [our Tanna] states, HIS DEAD? &mdash; After all, it does refer to his dead,<a id="k105b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; but those for whom there is no duty of mourning?<a id="k105b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, if he [the dead] was a Sage, he is indeed bound [to rend his garments]? For it was taught: If a Sage dies, all are his kinsmen. All are his kinsmen! can you think so? Rather say, all are as his kinsmen, [i.e.,] all must rend [their garments] for him; all must bare [their shoulders] for him,<a id="k105b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and all partake of the [mourner's] meal for him in a public square!<a id="k105b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; This holds good only if he was not a Sage. But [even] if he was [merely] a worthy man, one is indeed bound [to rend his garments]? For it was taught: Why do a man's sons and daughters die in childhood? So that he may weep and mourn for a worthy man? 'So that he may weep' &mdash; is a pledge taken!<a id="k105b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; But because he did not weep and mourn for a worthy man, for whoever weeps for a worthy man is forgiven all his iniquities on account of the honour which he showed him! &mdash; This holds good only if he was not a worthy man. But if he stood [there] at the parting of the soul<a id="k105b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; he is indeed bound? For it was taught, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: He who stands by the dead at the parting of the soul is bound to rend [his garments]: [for] what does this resemble? A scroll of the Law that is burnt!<a id="k105b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; This holds good only if he was not standing there at the moment of death. 
</p><p>
	Now, that is well in respect to his dead. But [the two statements concerning tearing] in one's anger are contradictory? &mdash; These too cause no difficulty: one agrees with R. Judah, the other with R. Simeon. One agrees with R. Judah, who maintained: One is liable in respect of a labour which is not required per se, the other with R. Simeon, who maintained: One is exempt in respect of a labour which is not required per se.<a id="k105b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; But you know R. Judah [to rule thus] in the case of one who repairs? do you know him [to rule thus] in the case of one who causes damage? &mdash; Said R. Abin: This man too effects an improvement, because he appeases his wrath. But is it permitted [to effect this] in such a manner? Surely it was taught, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said in the name of Halfa b. Agra in R. Johanan b. Nuri's name: He who rends his garments in his anger, he who breaks his vessels in his anger, and he who scatters his money in his anger, regard him as an idolater, because such are the wiles of the Tempter: To-day he says to him, 'Do this'; to-morrow he tells him, 'Do that,' until he bids him, 'Go and serve idols,' and he goes and serves [them].<a id="k105b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Abin observed: What verse [intimates this]? There shall be no strange god in thee; neither shalt thou worship any strange god;<a id="k105b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; who is the strange god that resides in man himself? Say, that is the Tempter!<a id="k105b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; This holds good only where he does it in order to instil fear in his household, even as Rab Judah pulled the thrums [of his garment;]<a id="k105b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Aha b. Jacob broke broken vessels; R. Shesheth threw brine on his maidservant's head; R. Abba broke a lid.
</p><p>
	R. Simeon b. Pazzi said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi in Bar Kappara's name: If one sheds tears for a worthy man, the Holy One, blessed be He, counts them and lays them up in His treasure house, for it is said, Thou countest my grievings: Put thou my tear into thy bottle; Are they not in thy book?<a id="k105b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab Judah said in Rab's name: He who is slothful to lament a Sage deserves to be buried alive, because it is said, And they buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnath-serah, which is in the hill country of Ephraim; on the north of the mountain of Gaash:<a id="k105b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; this teaches that the mountain raged against them to slay them.<a id="k105b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: He who is slothful to lament a Sage will not prolong his days, [this being] measure for measure, as it is said, In measure, when thou sendest her away, thou dost contend with her.<a id="k105b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hiyya b. Abba objected to R. Johanan: And Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua and all the days of the elders who prolonged their days after Joshua?<a id="k105b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; O Babylonian! answered he, they prolonged 'their days',<a id="k105b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; but not years. If so, that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children.'<a id="k105b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; [does that mean] days but not years! &mdash; A blessing is different.<a id="k105b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hiyya b. Abba also said in R. Johanan's name]: When one of brothers dies,
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k107a_1:" To prevent it from flying away."
,k107a_2:" For obviously one may lock his house in order to guard it."
,k107a_3:" Rashi: either on account of building an opening, or because of mending, for there is no difference between mending a utensil and mending (i.e., healing) a wound."
,k107a_4:" Lit., 'hand.needle'."
,k107a_5:" Because it pains him, and matter which causes pain is similar."
,k107a_6:" 'Mith'assek' may be understood in the sense of performing indirect labour, i.e., he catches it only incidentally, as he does not need the snake but merely desires to prevent it from dong harm."
,k107a_7:" The snake's poison can be used medicinally."
,k107a_8:" Though it is thereby caught."
,k107a_9:" As unclean, i.e., non-edible; Lev. XI, 29f."
,k107a_10:" These have a skin distinct from the flesh (v. <i>infra</i>), and a wound does not completely heal but leaves a scar; this is regarded as a minor degree of killing, i.e., part of the animal's life is taken away."
,k107a_11:" E.g., worms, insects, snakes, etc."
,k107a_12:" V. n. 2."
,k107a_13:" V. Hul. 122a. The Rabbis rule that the skins of four of these defile by the same standard as their flesh, viz., the size of a lentil. Thus they hold that their skin is not distinct from their flesh, and R. Johanan b. Nuri disputes it."
,k107a_14:" Ibid."
,k107a_15:" As those whose skins are the same as their flesh. "
}

txt:
<p>
<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Abba said in R. Hiyya b. Ashi's name in Rab's name: If a bird creeps under the skirts [of one's garments], he may sit and guard it<a id="k107a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; until evening. R. Nahman b. Isaac objected: IF THE FIRST SITS DOWN IN THE DOORWAY AND FILLS IT, AND A SECOND COMES AND SITS DOWN AT HIS SIDE, EVEN IF THE FIRST [THEN] RISES AND DEPARTS, THE FIRST IS CULPABLE WHILE THE SECOND IS EXEMPT. Surely that means, he IS EXEMPT, yet it is forbidden? &mdash; No: he is exempt, bind it is permitted. Reason too supports this: since the second clause teaches, WHAT DOES THIS RESEMBLE? ONE WHO SHUTS HIS HOUSE TO GUARD IT, AND A DEER IS [THEREBY] FOUND TO BE GUARDED THEREIN, it follows that it means, he is EXEMPT, and it is permitted.<a id="k107a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Others state, R. Nahman b. Isaac said: We too learnt thus: EVEN IF THE FIRST [THEN] RISES AND DEPARTS, THE FIRST IS CULPABLE, WHILE THE SECOND IS EXEMPT: surely that means, he IS EXEMPT, and it is permitted? No: he is EXEMPT, yet it is forbidden. But since the second clause states, WHAT DOES THIS RESEMBLE? ONE WHO SHUTS HIS HOUSE TO GUARD IT, AND A DEER IS [THEREBY] FOUND TO BE GUARDED THEREIN, it follows that he is EXEMPT, and it is permitted. This proves it.
</p><p>
	Samuel said: Everything [taught as] involving no liability on the Sabbath involves [indeed] no liability, yet is forbidden, save these three, which involve no liability and are permitted. This [sc. the capture of a deer] is one. And how do you know that he is exempt and it is permitted? Because  the second clause teaches: WHAT DOES THIS RESEMBLE? ONE WHO SHUTS HIS HOUSE TO GUARD IT, AND A DEER IS THEREBY FOUND TO BE GUARDED THEREIN. A second [is this]: If one manipulates an abscess on the Sabbath, if in order to make an opening for it, he is liable;<a id="k107a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; if in order to draw the matter out of it, he is exempt. And how do you know that he is exempt and it is permitted? Because we learnt: A small needle<a id="k107a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [may be moved on the Sabbath] for the purpose of extracting a thorn.<a id="k107a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; And the third: If one catches a snake on the Sabbath: if he is engaged therewith [sc. in catching it] so that it should not bite him,<a id="k107a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; he is exempt; if for a remedy,<a id="k107a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; he is liable. And how do you know that he is exempt and it is permitted? &mdash; Because we learnt: A dish may be inverted over a lamp, that the beams should not catch [fire], or over an infant's excrements, or over a scorpion, that it should not bite.<a id="k107a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_xiv">CHAPTER XIV</A>
      </H2>	
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. AS FOR THE EIGHT REPTILES [SHERAZIM] WHICH ARE MENTIONED IN THE TORAH,<a id="k107a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; HE WHO CATCHES OR WOUNDS THEM [ON THE SABBATH] IS CULPABLE;<a id="k107a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT [AS FOR] OTHER ABOMINATIONS AND CREEPING THINGS,<a id="k107a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; HE WHO WOUNDS THEM IS EXEMPT; HE WHO CATCHES THEM, BECAUSE HE NEEDS THEM, HE IS LIABLE; IF HE DOES NOT NEED THEM, HE IS EXEMPT, AS FOR A BEAST OR BIRD IN ONE'S PRIVATE DOMAIN, HE WHO CATCHES IT IS EXEMPT; HE WHO WOUNDS IT IS CULPABLE.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Since he [the Tanna] teaches, HE WHO WOUNDS THEM IS CULPABLE, it follows that they have skin.<a id="k107a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Which Tanna [maintains this]? &mdash; Said Samuel, It is R. Johanan b. Nuri. For we learnt, R. Johanan b. Nuri said: The eight reptiles have skins.<a id="k107a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbah son of R. Huna said in Rab's name, You may even say [that this agrees with] the Rabbis: the Rabbis disagree with R. Johanan b. Nuri only in respect of defilement, because it is written, And these are they which are unclean unto you,<a id="k107a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; extending [the law to teach] that their skins are as their flesh; but in respect to the Sabbath even the Rabbis agree. But do they not differ in respect of the Sabbath? Surely it was taught: He who catches one of the eight reptiles mentioned in the Torah, [or] he who wounds them, is culpable: this is R. Johanan b. Nuri's view. But the Sages maintain: Only those which the Sages enumerated<a id="k107a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; have skin.
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k107b_1:" Since their skin is the same as their flesh."
,k107b_2:" But those enumerated by them have no skin distinct from the flesh, and consequently wounding them involves no liability. On this interpretation the Rabbis differ even in respect of the Sabbath, which contradicts Rab. But on the following explanations there is no difficulty."
,k107b_3:" V. p. 518, n. 5."
,k107b_4:" I.e., the four not enumerated by the Sages. This shows that they differ even in respect of the Sabbath."
,k107b_5:" I.e., which leaves a permanent discolouring only such entails liability."
,k107b_6:" All involve culpability on the Sabbath."
,k107b_7:" Lit., 'who goes after touch'."
,k107b_8:" A species of lizard."
,k107b_9:" R. Judah holds that the question whether the skin of reptiles is like their flesh or not in the matter of defilement is not settled by deduction from the verse, 'and these are they which are unclean, etc.' (quoted <i>supra</i> a), but is dependent on touch. I.e., if the skin, is thick and perceptibly distinct from the flesh, it is not the same as the flesh; otherwise it is. By this criterion the halta'ah is like the weasel, since both have thick skins; though if the matter were decided by Scriptural exegesis these two would be dissimilar, as is shown in Hul. 142a. Hence he holds that in respect of the Sabbath, too, three of these eight have no skin, i.e., if one wounds them he is not guilty, for the skin is thin and not distinct from the flesh. But the Rabbis in Hul. count the halta'ah as one of the reptiles whose skin is the same as their flesh, in spite of its thickness. This shows that they settle the matter solely by reference to the verse, and therefore their view, which disagrees with R. Johanan b. Nuri's, applies only to defilement, since the verse is written in that connection, but not to the Sabbath."
,k107b_10:" Since the Rabbis agree with him."
,k107b_11:" This is probably not an emendation, but merely implies that it is to be understood thus."
,k107b_12:" For it to involve culpability on the Sabbath."
,k107b_13:" Lit., 'return'."
,k107b_14:" Jer. XIII, 23."
,k107b_15:" On this interpretation namer (E.V. leopard) is derived from mur, to change, and the verse is translated: Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or turn (i.e., heal) his wounds? habarbarothaw (E.V. spots) being derived from haburah, a wound."
,k107b_16:" Which were killed for the sake of their skins, which were dyed red and used in the Tabernacle. Thus killing was a labour of importance in the Tabernacle, and hence ranks as a principal labour; v. <i>supra</i> 49b."
,k107b_17:" In that killing them renders one liable."
,k107b_18:" 'Eggs of vermin is assumed to mean its progeny."
,k107b_19:" Name of certain small insects."
,k107b_20:" V. <i>supra</i> 105b."
,k107b_21:" V. end of last chapter for notes."
,k107b_22:" Rashi and Tosaf. both explain that this refers to a fish that was already caught before the Sabbath, In that case 'from the sea' is un- intelligible. Maim. in Hilchoth Sabbath beginning of ch. XI reads 'from a bowl', which is preferable. V. Marginal Gloss, [Rashi, however, did not seem to read 'from the sea']."
,k107b_23:" For taking life, as it cannot live after that. &mdash; There is no culpability for catching, since it was caught before the Sabbath."
,k107b_24:" But a dryness in any other part does not mean that the fish can no longer live."
,k107b_25:" I.e., it becomes partially dry only, so that the moisture adheres to one's finger in slimy threads."
,k107b_26:" But not for detaching from the soil, as cuscuta was not held to be attached to the soil; v. 'Er. 28b, "
}

txt:
<p>
[Whereon it was asked]: On the contrary, Those which the Sages enumerated have no skin?<a id="k107b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; And 'Abaye said, This is what he [the Tanna] states: Only those not enumerated by the Sages have a skin distinct from the flesh.<a id="k107b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Raba to him: But he states, which the Sages enumerated? Rather said Raba, This is the meaning: the skin of those [reptiles] only which the Sages enumerated defiles like the flesh.<a id="k107b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence it follows that R. Johanan b. Nuri holds that even those which the Sages did not enumerate defile [in this way]? But it is stated, R. Johanan b. Nuri said: The eight reptiles have skins and do not defile? &mdash; Rather Said R. Adda b. Mattenah, Reconcile it thus: But the Sages maintain: In respect of defilement those which the Sages enumerated have skin.
</p><p>
	Still, however, do they not differ in respect of the Sabbath? But it was taught: He who catches one of the eight reptiles mentioned in the Torah, [or] he who wounds them, is culpable, [viz.,] in the case of the reptiles which have skins.<a id="k107b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; And what is a wound that does not heal?<a id="k107b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; If the blood becomes clotted, even if it does not issue. R. Johanan b. Nuri said: The eight reptiles have skins!<a id="k107b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said R. Ashi, Who is the first Tanna? R. Judah, who maintains that touch is the criterion.<a id="k107b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; For we learnt, R. Judah said: The halta'ah<a id="k107b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; is like the weasel. But the Rabbis who disagree with R. Johanan b. Nuri in respect of defilement agree with him in respect of the Sabbath.<a id="k107b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; If so, instead of 'this is the view of R. Johanan b. Nuri,' 'this is the view of R. Johanan b. Nuri and his opponents' is required?<a id="k107b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Learn: 'this is the view of R. Johanan b. Nuri and his opponents.'<a id="k107b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Levi asked Rabbi: How do we know that a wound<a id="k107b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; is such as is permanent?<a id="k107b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Because it is written, Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots [habarbarothaw]?<a id="k107b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; What does 'habarbarothaw' mean: shall we say, that it is covered with spots? Then instead of 'and a leopard habarbarothaw,'it should read, 'a leopard gawwanaw [its colours]'? Rather it is parallel to Ethiopian, &mdash; just as the skin of an Ethiopian cannot turn, so is a [real] wound one that does not turn [i.e., heal].<a id="k107b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>

<a name="E6a"></a>

	BUT OTHER ABOMINATIONS, etc. But if one kills them, he is culpable: which Tanna [holds thus]? Said R. Jeremiah, It is R. Eliezer. For it was taught, R. Eliezer said: He who kills vermin on the Sabbath is as though he killed a camel on the Sabbath. R. Joseph demurred to this: The Rabbis disagree with R. Eliezer only in respect to vermin, which does not multiply and increase, but as for other abominations and creeping things, which multiply and increase, they do not differ [therein]. And both learn it from none but the rams.<a id="k107b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Eliezer holds, It is as the rams: just as there was the taking of life in the case of the rams, so whatever constitutes the taking of life [is a culpable offence]. While the Rabbis argue, It is as the rams: just as rams multiply and increase, so are all which multiply and increase [of account].<a id="k107b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Abaye to him, Do not vermin multiply and increase? But a Master said: 'The Holy One, blessed be He, sits and sustains [all creatures], from the horns of wild oxen to the eggs of vermin'?<a id="k107b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is a species called 'eggs of vermin'. But it was taught: Tippuyyi<a id="k107b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and the eggs of vermin? &mdash; The species is called 'eggs of vermin'. But there is the flea, which multiplies and increases, yet it was taught, If one catches a flea on the Sabbath: R. Eliezer declares him liable, while R. Joshua exempts [him]? &mdash; Said R. Ashi: You oppose catching to killing! R. Eliezer and R. Joshua disagree only in that one Master holds: If the species is not hunted, one is liable; whilst the other Master holds: He is exempt. But in respect to killing even R. Joshua agrees.
</p><p>
	HE WHO CATCHES THEM BECAUSE HE NEEDS THEM, HE IS LIABLE, etc. Which Tanna [rules thus]? &mdash; Said Rab Judah in Rab's name: It is R. Simeon, who maintains, One is not culpable on account of a labour unrequired per se.<a id="k107b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Others learn it in reference to this: If one manipulates an abscess on the Sabbath, &mdash; if in order to make an opening for it, he is liable; if in order to draw the matter out of it, he is exempt. Which Tanna [rules thus]? Said Rab Judah in Rab's name: It is R. Simeon, who maintains: One is not culpable on account of a labour unrequired per se. Others again learn it in reference to this: If one catches a snake on the Sabbath: if he is engaged therewith [in catching it] so that it should not bite him, he is exempt; if for a remedy, he is liable.<a id="k107b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Which Tanna [rules thus]? Said Rab Judah in Rab's name, It is R. Simeon, who maintains: One is not culpable on account of a labour unrequired per se. 
</p><p>
	Samuel said: If one removes a fish from the sea,<a id="k107b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; as soon as the size of a <i>sela'</i> thereof becomes dry, he is liable.<a id="k107b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jose b. Abin observed: provided it is between the fins.<a id="k107b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ashi said: Do not think literally dry, but even if it forms slimy threads.<a id="k107b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Mar Bar Hamduri said in Samuel's name: If one inserts his hand in an animal's bowels and detaches an embryo that is inside her, he is culpable. What is the reason? Said Raba: Bar Hamduri explained it to me: Did not R. Shesheth say: If one plucks cuscuta from shrubs and thorns, he is culpable on account of uprooting something from the place of its growth;<a id="k107b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; so here too he is culpable on account of uprooting something [sc. the embryo] from the place of its growth. Abaye said: He who plucks
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k111a_1:" I.e., the first kneads the dough after it was leaven, a second shapes it, and a third bakes it."
,k111a_2:" Lev. VI, 10."
,k111a_3:" Ibid. II, 11. The repeated prohibition shows that every separate act of preparation entails guilt."
,k111a_4:" E. V. cut,' from the present discussion it appears, however, that the Talmud translates the word 'cut away'."
,k111a_5:" Ibid. XXII, 24."
,k111a_6:" Then why mention it?"
,k111a_7:" Lit., 'bring'."
,k111a_8:" Hence even a castrate may not drink this potion."
,k111a_9:" Who is in any case unable to beget children."
,k111a_10:" The reference is to the remedies mentioned in Git. 70a."
,k111a_11:" And made me potent again."
,k111a_12:" Who is not commanded to procreate: hence she may sterilize herself."
,k111a_13:" Gen. I, 28. This is understood as a positive command."
,k111a_14:" 'Who certainly can not regain her youth in this respect."
,k111a_15:" This is healing which is forbidden on the Sabbath."
,k111a_16:" And eat the vinegar-soaked bread."
,k111a_17:" Since this is done even without intention of healing."
,k111a_18:" Which ordinary people use only as a remedy."
,k111a_19:" Prov. X, 26."
,k111a_20:" Rashi: Wine not fully matured in the grapes &mdash; that is injurious."
,k111a_21:" Or, swelling."
,k111a_22:" Bread dipped in vinegar was eaten before meals. Before one has done this he may sip vinegar for his tooth, as it merely looks like a substitute for soaked bread. But if he has already eaten, he is obviously sipping it now as a remedy only."
,k111a_23:" For a thing cannot be permitted during one portion of the Sabbath and forbidden during the other."
,k111a_24:" Lit., 'he accepts \"Since\"'."
,k111a_25:" In the matter of labour."
,k111a_26:" Sc. that which differentiates between before and after dipping."
,k111a_27:" It was in reference to this that Raba stated that what is permitted on the Sabbath is permitted on the Day of Atonement, and he is supported by a Baraitha."
,k111a_28:" I.e., with his lenient rulings relating to the Sabbath."
,k111a_29:" In which beer is kept during the process of brewing. The stopper was made of soft materials, such as rags, wound round the bung. "
}

txt:
<p>
All agree that if one prepares it [a meal-offering] as leaven after another has prepared it as leaven,<a id="k111a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; he is culpable; because it is said, It shall not be baked leaven,<a id="k111a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; it shall not be made leaven,<a id="k111a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; If one castrates after another has castrated, he is culpable, for it is said, That which hath its stones bruised, or crushed, or broken, or cut away,<a id="k111a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [ye shall not offer unto the Lord; neither shall ye do thus in your land]:<a id="k111a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; now, if one is guilty for cutting [them] away, how much more so for breaking them!<a id="k111a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; But it is to teach<a id="k111a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; that if one castrates after another, he is culpable!<a id="k111a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Rather it refers to an old man.<a id="k111a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; But R. Johanan said: It was those very [remedies]<a id="k111a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; which restored me to my youth?<a id="k111a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rather the reference [here] is to a woman.<a id="k111a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; But according to R. Johanan b. Beroka, who said: Concerning both [man and woman] it is said, And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply,<a id="k111a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; what can be said? &mdash;  The reference [here] is to an old woman<a id="k111a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; or to a barren woman.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF ONE'S TEETH PAIN HIM, HE MUST NOT SIP VINEGAR THROUGH THEM,<a id="k111a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT MAY DIP [HIS BREAD IN VINEGAR] IN THE USUAL MANNER,<a id="k111a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; AND IF HE IS CURED, HE IS CURED. IF ONE'S LOINS PAIN HIM, HE MUST NOT RUB THEM WITH WINE OR VINEGAR, BUT HE MAY ANOINT THEM WITH OIL,<a id="k111a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; YET NOT ROSE OIL.<a id="k111a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; ROYAL CHILDREN MAY ANOINT THEIR WOUNDS WITH ROSE OIL, SINCE IT IS THEIR PRACTICE TO ANOINT THEMSELVES THUS ON WEEKDAYS. R. SIMEON SAID: ALL ISRAEL ARE ROYAL CHILDREN.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Aha the Long, i.e., R. Ahab. Papa, pointed out a contradiction to R. Abbahu. We learnt: IF ONE HAS TOOTHACHE, HE MUST NOT SIP VINEGAR ON THEM. Shall we say that vinegar is beneficial to the teeth, &mdash; but it is written, As vinegar to the teeth, and as smoke to the eyes?<a id="k111a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; There is no difficulty: the one refers to vinegar of fruit;<a id="k111a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; the other to acid. Alternatively, both refer to acid: one means where there is a wound; the other, where there is no wound.<a id="k111a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; If there is a wound it heals; if there is no wound it loosens [the teeth in the gums].
</p><p>
	HE MUST NOT SIP VINEGAR THROUGH THEM. But it was taught, He must not sip and eject, yet he may sip and swallow? &mdash; Said Abaye, When we learnt our Mishnah we too learnt of sipping and ejecting. Raba said, You may even say [that it refers to] sipping and swallowing: the one holds good before the dipping, the other after the dipping.<a id="k111a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; But let us say, Since it is permitted before the dipping, it is permitted after the dipping too,<a id="k111a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; for we know that Raba accepts this argument.<a id="k111a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; For Raba said: There is nothing which is permitted on the Sabbath and forbidden on the Day of Atonement:<a id="k111a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; since it is permitted on the Sabbath, it is permitted on the Day of Atonement too? He retracted from the present statement.<a id="k111a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; How do you know that he retracted from, this statement: perhaps he retracted from the other? &mdash;  You cannot think so, For it was taught: All who are obliged to perform tebillah may do so in the normal way, both on the ninth of Ab and on the Day of Atonement.<a id="k111a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF ONES LOINS PAIN HIM, etc. R. Abba b. Zabda said in Rab's name: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Simeon. Shall we say that Rab holds with R. Simeon?<a id="k111a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely R. Simeon son of R. Hiyya said in Rab's name: The stopper of the brewing vat<a id="k111a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k111b_1:" For thereby the moisture which it previously absorbed is wrung out, and this is forbidden. But it is unintentional, whereas R. Simeon holds that such is permitted, v. <i>supra</i> 75a."
,k111b_2:" V. p. 357, II. 8."
,k111b_3:" Viz., that whatever is unintentional is forbidden."
,k111b_4:" Lit., 'men'."
,k111b_5:" I.e., one of our great scholars."
,k111b_6:" Yet it is permitted to all because a thing cannot be permitted to one and forbidden to another."
,k111b_7:" Where it is evident that it is applied as a remedy."
,k111b_8:" Tying knots is a principal labour, <i>supra</i> 73a."
,k111b_9:" Rash: a ring was inserted through the camel's nose (this ring was of cord, and had to be knotted after passing through the nose &mdash; R. Han., and the same appears from the Gemara) and when it was to be tethered a long rope was tied thereto. The reference is to the knot that is made in tying this long rope."
,k111b_10:" Rashi: a ring at the head of the ship, through which a rope was passed and tied when the ship was moored. Jast. translates: the loop which they made when attaching the sail to the rigging."
,k111b_11:" Only a permanent knot entails guilt, and these are naturally untied when the camel or the ship moves on."
,k111b_12:" Which are permanent."
,k111b_13:" Or, loop, which, however, is strongly fastened."
,k111b_14:" Hence it does not involve guilt."
,k111b_15:" An ordinary knot must be quite loose if it can be untied with one hand."
,k111b_16:" Nevertheless they are forbidden. The Gemara explains which are meant."
,k111b_17:" Rashi. Jast.: the cords of the breast bandage."
,k111b_18:" All these are tied and untied daily, and therefore are not permanent."
,k111b_19:" I.e., across the stable entrance. "
}

txt:
<p>
may not be forced into [the bung-hole] on a Festival!<a id="k111b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There even R. Simeon agrees, For Abaye and Raba both maintain: R. Simeon agrees in the case of 'cut off his head but let him not die'.<a id="k111b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; But R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in Rab's name: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Judah,<a id="k111b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; while R. Hanan b. Ammi said in Samuel's name: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Simeon. Further, R. Hiyya b. Abin recited it without [intermediary] scholars:<a id="k111b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab said: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Judah; while Samuel ruled: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Simeon? &mdash; Rather said Raba, I and a lion of the company,<a id="k111b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; viz., R. Hiyya b. Abin, explained it: [Rab said:] The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Simeon, but not on account of his view. What is meant by 'The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Simeon, but not on account of his view?' Shall we say, 'The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Simeon', that it is permitted; 'but not through his reason for R. Simeon holds [that] it heals,<a id="k111b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas Rab holds that it does not heal? Does then Rab hold that it does not heal? But surely, since he [the Tanna] states, ROYAL CHILDREN MAY ANOINT THEIR WOUNDS WITH ROSE OIL, it follows that [all agree] that it does heal? But 'the <i>halachah</i> is as R. Simeon', that it is permitted; 'but not through his reason': for whereas R. Simeon holds that in spite of its being rare it is permitted, Rab holds: Only if it is common [is it permitted], but not if it is rare,<a id="k111b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and in Rab's place rose oil was common.
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_xv">CHAPTER XV</A>
      </H2>	
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. Now, THESE ARE THE KNOTS WHICH ENTAIL CULPABILITY:<a id="k111b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; CAMEL-DRIVERS' KNOTS AND SAILORS' KNOTS. AND JUST AS ONE IS GUILTY FOR TYING THEM, SO IS HE GUILTY FOR UNTYING THEM. R. MEIR SAID: ANY KNOT WHICH ONE CAN UNTIE WITH ONE HAND ENTAILS NO GUILT.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What are CAMEL-DRIVERS' KNOTS AND SAILORS' KNOTS? Shall we say, the knot which is tied through the nose ring<a id="k111b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and the knot which is tied through the ship's ring,<a id="k111b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; but these are non-permanent knots?<a id="k111b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather it means the knot of the nose ring itself and of the ship's ring itself.<a id="k111b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. MEIR SAID: ANY KNOT, etc. R. Ahadbuy the brother of Mar Aha asked: What of a slip-knot<a id="k111b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; on R. Meir's view: is R. Meir's reason because it can be untied with one hand, and this too can be untied;<a id="k111b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; or perhaps R. Meir's reason is that it is not well-fastened,<a id="k111b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas this is well-fastened? The question stands over.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. YOU HAVE SOME KNOTS WHICH DO NOT ENTAIL GUILT LIKE FOR CAMEL-DRIVERS' KNOTS AND SAILORS' KNOTS.<a id="k111b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; A WOMAN MAY TIE UP THE OPENING OF HER CHEMISE, THE RIBBONS OF HER HAIR-NET AND OF HER GIRDLE,<a id="k111b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; THE LACES OF HER SHOES OR SANDALS, PITCHERS OF WINE AND OIL, AND THE MEAT POT.<a id="k111b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; R. ELEAZAR B. JACOB SAID: ONE MAY TIE [A ROPE] IN FRONT OF AN ANIMAL,<a id="k111b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; THAT IT SHOULD NOT GO OUT.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. This is self-contradictory: you say, YOU HAVE SOME KNOTS WHICH DO NOT ENTAIL GUILT LIKE FOR CAMEL-DRIVERS' KNOTS AND SAILORS' KNOTS; thus there is indeed no guilt, but there is a prohibition. Then he [the Tanna] teaches: A WOMAN MAY TIE UP THE OPENING OF HER CHEMISE, [which means] even at the very outset? &mdash; This is what he says: YOU HAVE SOME KNOTS WHICH DO NOT ENTAIL GUILT LIKE FOR CAMEL-DRIVERS' KNOTS AND SAILORS' KNOTS, and which are they?
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k115a_1:" Lit., 'grief of the soul'. It would be very vexing if the breaking of the Fast had to be delayed whilst these are prepared (Baal Ha-Ma'or V. Marginal Gloss.; Rashi explains it differently)"
,k115a_2:" Before the time of minhah."
,k115a_3:" Such letters afford examples of early Rabbinic Responsa."
,k115a_4:" E.g., the Torah, Prophets, and Writings."
,k115a_5:" In this connection 'may' is the equivalent of 'must', and similarly in the Gemara."
,k115a_6:" By being moved from one domain to another on the Sabbath. V. next Mishnah."
,k115a_7:" The reference is to public readings. There was (and is) public reading from the Prophets but not from the Writings (Hagiographa). Rashi quotes another explanation: even private individuals did not read the Writings (on the Sabbath), because public lectures were given on that day, which left no time for private reading."
,k115a_8:" If they become unfit for use. V. p. 429, n. 5."
,k115a_9:" The public lectures would be neglected. For a general discussion on the manner, etc. of these lectures v. Zunz, G. V. Ch. 20."
,k115a_10:" The Aramaic translation of the Pentateuch and other portions of the Bible are called Targum &mdash; the translation par excellence. But v. Kaplan, <i>op. cit</i>. pp. 283 seq."
,k115a_11:" publicly; v. Meg. 8b."
,k115a_12:" It disgraces them if they are allowed to be burnt like something worthless."
,k115a_13:" On your hypothesis."
,k115a_14:" Obviously if they have sufficient sanctity to be saved on the Sabbath they must not be simply thrown away when no longer fit for use."
,k115a_15:" Or, Coptic."
,k115a_16:" [H] so Jast.: perhaps the reference is to Hebrew in transliteration."
,k115a_17:" Of Elam, south of Assyria."
,k115a_18:" A title of scholars most frequently applied to disciples of R. Judah ha-Nasi and his contemporaries, but also to some of his predecessors (as here), and sometimes to the first Amoraim (Jast.). V. Naz., Sonc. ed., p. 64, n. 1."
,k115a_19:" This shows that a <i>Targum </i>of Job existed already in the middle of the first century C.E. This is not identical with the extant Targum, which on internal evidence must have been composed later; v. J.E. art. Targum, Vol. XII, p. 62; Zunz, G. V. 64 seq."
,k115a_20:" Lit., 'the course (of stones)'."
,k115a_21:" The spread of words inimical to Judaism, both through the rise of Christianity and false claimants to the Messiahship, caused the Rabbis to frown upon books other than those admitted to the Holy Scriptures, even such as were not actually inimical thereto. &mdash; Weiss, Dor, I, 212, 236."
,k115a_22:" A mixture of lime and sand was used, but not mortar, which is made of earth and water."
,k115a_23:" The objection to writing down the <i>Targum </i>was probably due to the fear that it might in time be regarded as sacred. V. also Kaplan, <i>op. cit</i>., p. 285."
,k115a_24:" Sc. whether they may be rescued from a fire. "
}

txt:
<p>
the trimming of vegetables is permitted. Nuts may be cracked and pomegranates scraped from the [time of] minhah and onwards, on account of one's vexation.<a id="k115a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; The household of Rab Judah trimmed cabbage. Rabbah's household scraped pumpkins. Seeing that they were doing this [too] early,<a id="k115a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; he said to them, A letter has come from the west in R. Johanan's name [to the elect] that this is forbidden.<a id="k115a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_xvi">CHAPTER XVI</A>
      </H2>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. ALL SACRED WRITINGS<a id="k115a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; MAY<a id="k115a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; BE SAVED FROM A FIRE,<a id="k115a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; WHETHER WE READ THEM OR NOT;<a id="k115a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; AND EVEN IF THEY ARE WRITTEN IN ANY LANGUAGE, THEY MUST BE HIDDEN.<a id="k115a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; AND WHY DO WE NOT READ [CERTAIN OF THE SACRED WRITINGS]? BECAUSE OF THE NEGLECT OF THE <I>BETH HAMIDRASH</I>.<a id="k115a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. It was stated: If they are written in Targum<a id="k115a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; or in any [other] language, &mdash; R. Huna said: They must not be saved from a fire; while R. Hisda ruled: They may be saved from a fire. On the view that it is permissible to read them,<a id="k115a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; all agree that they must be saved. They differ only according to the view that they may not be read. R. Huna says: We may not save [them], since they may not be read. R. Hisda says: We must save [them], because of the disgrace to Holy Writings.<a id="k115a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; We learnt: ALL SACRED WRITINGS MAY BE SAVED FROM THE FIRE, WHETHER WE READ THEM OR NOT, and even if they are written in any language. Surely WHETHER WE READ THEM refers to the Prophets, whilst OR NOT refers to the Writings, AND EVEN IF THEY ARE WRITTEN IN ANY LANGUAGE, though they may not be read [publicly], yet he [the Tanna] teaches that they MAY BE SAVED, which refutes R. Huna? &mdash; R. Huna can answer you: Is that logical? Consider the second clause: THEY MUST BE HIDDEN: seeing that they must be saved,<a id="k115a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; need hiding be mentioned?<a id="k115a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; But R. Huna explains it in accordance with his view, while R. Hisda explains it according to his. R. Huna explains it in accordance with his view. WHETHER WE READ THEM, [i.e.] the Prophets; OR NOT, [i.e.,] the Writings. That is only if they are written in the Holy Tongue [Hebrew], but if they are written in any [other] language, we may not save them, yet even so they must be hidden. R. Hisda explains it according to his view: WHETHER WE READ THEM, [i.e.,] the Prophets, OR NOT, [i.e.,] the Writings; EVEN IF THEY ARE WRITTEN IN ANY LANGUAGE, we must still save them. And this is what he states: And [even] their worm-eaten [material] MUST BE HIDDEN.
</p><p>
	An objection is raised: If they are written in <i>Targum </i>or in any [other] language, they may be saved from the fire: this refutes R. Huna? &mdash; R. Huna answers you: This Tanna holds, They may be read. Come and hear: If they are written in Egyptian,<a id="k115a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Median, a trans[-Euphratean]<a id="k115a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Aramaic, Elamitic,<a id="k115a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; or Greek, though they may not be read, they may be saved from a fire: this refutes R. Huna? &mdash; R. Huna can answer you: It is [a controversy of] Tannaim. For it was taught: If they are written in <i>Targum </i>or in any language, they may be saved from a fire. R. Jose said: They may not be saved from a fire. Said R. Jose: It once happened that my father Halafta visited R. Gamaliel Berabbi<a id="k115a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; at Tiberias and found him sitting at the table of Johanan b. Nizuf with the <i>Targum </i>of the Book of Job in his hand<a id="k115a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; which he was reading. Said he to him, 'I remember that R. Gamaliel, your grandfather, was standing on a high eminence on the Temple Mount, when the Book of Job in a Targumic version was brought before him, whereupon he said to the builder, "Bury it under the bricks."20 He [R. Gamaliel II] too gave orders, and they hid it.'<a id="k115a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jose son of R. Judah said: They overturned a tub of mortar upon it. Said Rabbi: There are two objections to this: Firstly, how came mortar on the Temple Mount?<a id="k115a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Moreover, is it then permitted to destroy them with one's own hands? For they must be put in a neglected place to decay of their own accord.<a id="k115a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; Which Tannaim [differ on this question]?<a id="k115a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k115b_1:" And the question whether they may be saved depends on whether they may be read."
,k115b_2:" Lit., 'in their place'."
,k115b_3:" Since should fire break out they may not be saved (Rashi)."
,k115b_4:" Lit., 'this language'."
,k115b_5:" V. p. 217, n. 7."
,k115b_6:" A red paint."
,k115b_7:" Vitriol used as an ingredient of shoe-black and of ink (Jast.)."
,k115b_8:" Holy writings written in other languages."
,k115b_9:" Then I am wrong."
,k115b_10:" Comprising the Bible &mdash; i.e., the Torah, Prophets and Hagiographa."
,k115b_11:" The Book of Esther."
,k115b_12:" The modern square Hebrew characters, which superseded the older Hebrew, viz., Syriac or Samaritan form. V. Meg., Sonc. ed., p. 47 n. 4 and Sanh., Sonc., ed. p. 120, n. 4."
,k115b_13:" Ri: this is only in respect of saving them from a fire. Other books even if not written on a scroll and in ink must be saved, whereas for a Megillah these conditions are necessary."
,k115b_14:" I.e., the whole Scroll is effaced and eighty-five clear letters cannot be found in it. This is the minimum for a Scroll to retain its sanctity."
,k115b_15:" Num. X, 35-36. That contains eighty-five letters, and as stated <i>infra</i> it is designated a separate 'Book'."
,k115b_16:" If it is written separately upon a piece of parchment, and one or more of its letters are effaced."
,k115b_17:" I.e., if the Biblical passages which are in Aramaic in the original are written in Hebrew, as practically the whole of the Pentateuch (mikra &mdash; lit., 'reading') is."
,k115b_18:" Samaritan script. V. p. 66, n. 9."
,k115b_19:" Gen. XXXI, 47 q.v."
,k115b_20:" I.e., if the Scroll contains eighty-five uneffaced letters including yegar sahadutha, it must be saved."
,k115b_21:" Because 'can be gathered' implies that they are scattered."
,k115b_22:" It contains complete words scattered about which total to eighty-five letters. They differ where all the eighty-five letters are scattered, the Scroll containing no complete words at all."
,k115b_23:" I.e., at the beginning and at the end. &mdash; In the Scrolls the section is preceded and followed by a reversed nun, which distinguishes and divorces it from the adjoining passages. "
}

txt:
<p>
Shall we say the first Tanna and R. Jose, &mdash; but perhaps they differ in this: one Master holds, It is permitted to read them; while the other holds, It is not permitted to read them?<a id="k115b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather [they are] R. Jose and the Tanna [who taught the law] about the Egyptian [script].
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: Benedictions and amulets, though they contain letters of the [Divine] Name and many passages of the Torah, must not be rescued from a fire but must be burnt where they lie,<a id="k115b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; they together with their Names. Hence it was said, They who write down Benedictions are as though they burnt a Torah.<a id="k115b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; It happened that one was once writing in Sidon. R. Ishmael was informed thereof, and he went to question him [about it]. As he was ascending the ladder, he [the writer] became aware of him, [so] he took a sheaf of benedictions and plunged them into a bowl of water. In these words<a id="k115b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; did R. Ishmael speak to him: The punishment for the latter [deed] is greater than for the former.
</p><p>
	The Resh Galutha<a id="k115b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; asked Rabbah son of R. Huna: If they are written with paint [dye], sikra,<a id="k115b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; gum ink, or calcanthum,<a id="k115b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; in Hebrew, may they be rescued from a fire or not? This is asked whether on the view that we may save<a id="k115b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; or that we may not save. It is asked on the view that we may not save: that may be only if they are written in <i>Targum </i>or any [other] language; but here that they are written in Hebrew, we may rescue [them]. Or perhaps even on the view that we may save [them], that is only when they are written in ink, which is lasting; but here, since it [the writing] is not permanent, [we may] not [rescue them]? &mdash; We may not save [them], answered he. But R. Hamnuna recited, We may save [them]? &mdash; If it was taught, it was taught, replied he.<a id="k115b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Where was it taught? &mdash; Said R. Ashi, Even as it was taught: The only difference between the [other] Books<a id="k115b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and the Megillah<a id="k115b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; is that the Books can be written in any language, whereas a Megillah must be written in Assyrian,<a id="k115b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; on a Scroll, and in ink.<a id="k115b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Huna b. Halub asked R. Nahman: A Scroll of the Law in which eighty-five letters cannot be gathered,<a id="k115b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; such as the section, And it came to pass when the Ark set forward [etc.],<a id="k115b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; may it be saved from a fire or not? &mdash; Said he, Then ask about the section, 'and it came to pass, etc.,'itself!<a id="k115b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If the section, 'And it came to pass, etc.,' is defective [through effacing], I have no problem, for since it contains the Divine Name, even if it does not contain eighty-five letters we must rescue it. My only problem is about a Scroll of the Law wherein [this number] cannot be gathered: what then? We may not save it, he answered.
</p><p>
	He refuted him: If <i>Targum </i>is written as Mikra,<a id="k115b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; or Mikra is written in <i>Targum </i>or in Hebrew characters,<a id="k115b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; they must be saved from a fire, and the <i>Targum </i>in Ezra, Daniel and the Torah [the Pentateuch] go without saying. Now, what is the <i>Targum </i>in the Torah? [The words], Yegar sahadutha;<a id="k115b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and though it does not contain eighty-five letters [it must be saved]? &mdash; That was taught in respect of completing [the number].<a id="k115b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The scholars asked: These eighty-five letters, [must they be] together or [even] scattered? R. Huna said: [They must be] together; R. Hisda said: Even scattered. An objection is raised: If a Scroll of the Law is decayed, if eighty-five letters can be gathered therein, such as the section, 'and it came to pass when the ark set forward etc.,' we must save it; if not, we may not save it. This refutes R. Huna?<a id="k115b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Hisda expounded it on the basis of R. Huna's [ruling as referring] to words.<a id="k115b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: 'And it came to pass when the ark set forward that Moses said, [etc.]': for this section the Holy One, blessed be He, provided signs above and below,<a id="k115b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; to teach
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k122a_1:" Small ones. But heavy ones generally have an appointed place and may not be moved."
,k122a_2:" For carrying people."
,k122a_3:" V. MS.M."
,k122a_4:" Left in the charge of Gentiles."
,k122a_5:" To prevent the Gentiles from tampering with it. Normally two seals are required."
,k122a_6:" In A.Z. 31a, that for wine only one seal is required."
,k122a_7:" Which would prevent the Gentile from tampering with the wine."
,k122a_8:" From a pit in the street."
,k122a_9:" Rashi: a gangway from a large ship to dry land."
,k122a_10:" Even when the Gentile draws it for his own use."
,k122a_11:" Whilst ostensibly drawing it for himself."
,k122a_12:" That is analogous to a lamp &mdash; the same stairway suffices for many as for one."
,k122a_13:" As animal fodder."
,k122a_14:" I.e., on grass attached to the soil, and we do not fear that he may thereby come to cut grass for his animal."
,k122a_15:" Fodder stored away for later use; this may not be handled on the Sabbath as mukzeh (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>); hence its designation."
,k122a_16:" Lest he take it and feed the animal. But grass cut on the Sabbath is also mukzeh and may not be handled, since it was not fit for handling detached before the Sabbath."
,k122a_17:" Barring its way to elsewhere and so making it go on to the detached grass; but he does not actually lead the animal himself; then it is permitted."
,k122a_18:" Since he travelled with R. Gamaliel in the boat."
,k122a_19:" Then the Gentile certainly did not make it for him."
,k122a_20:" He needed the gangway for himself, and there is no extra work even if he had R. Gamaliel in mind. But one may cut more grass on the Jew's account."
,k122a_21:" After the Sabbath, because it was heated primarily for Gentiles."
,k122a_22:" After the Sabbath, so as not to benefit from the heating of the water on the Sabbath. Now, the water had to be heated for the Gentiles in any case, and there is no real difference between heating for one or for many; further, it was not heated in the Jews' presence, yet one must not benefit from it. This contradicts both Abaye and Raba."
,k122a_23:" Hence it is regarded as specifically for Jews."
,k122a_24:" Having been lit on the Sabbath."
,k122a_25:" This contradicts Raba. "
}

txt:
<p>
Such as those of your father's house, he replied.<a id="k122a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Abba b. Kahana also said in R. Hanina's name: The litters<a id="k122a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; of Rabbi's household may be handled on the Sabbath. R. Zera asked him: [Does that mean] those that can be moved with one hand, or [even] with two hands? Such as those of your father's house, replied he.
</p><p>
	R. Abba b. Kahana also said: R. Hanina permitted Rabbis household to drink wine [carried]<a id="k122a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; in gentile coaches<a id="k122a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [sealed] with one seal,<a id="k122a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and I do not know whether it is because he agrees with R. Eliezer<a id="k122a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; or because of the [Gentile's] fear of the Nasi's household.<a id="k122a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A GENTILE LIGHTS A LAMP, AN ISRAELITE MAY MAKE USE OF ITS LIGHT; BUT IF [HE DOES IT] FOR THE SAKE OF THE ISRAELITE, IT IS FORBIDDEN. IF HE DRAWS WATER<a id="k122a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; TO GIVE HIS OWN ANIMAL, TO DRINK, AN ISRAELITE MAY WATER [HIS] AFTER HIM; BUT IF [HE DRAWS IT] FOR THE ISRAELITES SAKE, IT IS FORBIDDEN. IF A GENTILE MAKES A STAIRWAY TO DESCEND BY IT,<a id="k122a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; AN ISRAELITE MAY DESCEND AFTER HIM; BUT IF ON THE ISRAELITES ACCOUNT, IT IS FORBIDDEN. IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT R. GAMALIEL AND THE ELDERS WERE TRAVELING IN A SHIP, WHEN A GENTILE MADE A STAIRWAY FOR GOING DOWN, AND R. GAMALIEL, AND THE ELDERS DESCENDED BY IT.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Now these are [all] necessary. For if we were informed [about] a lamp, that is because a lamp for one is a lamp for a hundred; but as for water, [I might say] let us forbid it,<a id="k122a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; lest he come to increase [the quantity drawn] on the Israelite's account.<a id="k122a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the need of [the ruling about] a stairway?<a id="k122a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; He tells us the story of R. Gamaliel and the elders.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: if a Gentile gathers herbs,<a id="k122a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; an Israelite may feed [his cattle therewith] after him, but if [he gathers] on the Israelite's account, it is forbidden. If he draws water to give his cattle to drink, an Israelite may water [his] after him, but if on the Israelite's account, it is forbidden. When is that? If he does not know him; but if he knows him it is forbidden. But that is not so? For R. Huna said in R. Hanina's name: A man may stand his cattle on grass on the Sabbath,<a id="k122a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; but not on mukzeh<a id="k122a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; on the Sabbath!<a id="k122a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It means that he stands in front of it [the animal],<a id="k122a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and so it goes [there] and eats.
</p><p>
	The Master said: 'When is that? If he does not know him; but if he knows him, it is forbidden.' But R. Gamaliel [is a case where] he knew him?<a id="k122a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said Abaye: It was not [made] in his presence.<a id="k122a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: You may even say that it was in his presence: 'a lamp for one is a lamp for a hundred.'<a id="k122a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; An objection is raised: R. Gamaliel said to them, 'Since he did not make it in our presence, let us go down by it?' &mdash; Say: 'Since he made it, let us go down by it.' 
</p><p>
	Come and hear: If a city inhabited by Israelites and Gentiles contains baths where there is bathing on the Sabbath, if the majority are Gentiles, one [an Israelite] may bathe therein immediately;<a id="k122a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; if the majority are Israelites, one must walt until hot water could be heated.<a id="k122a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There, when they heat, they do so with a view to the majority.<a id="k122a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: If a lamp is burning at a banqueting party:<a id="k122a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; if the majority are Gentiles, one may make use of its light; if the majority are Israelites, it is forbidden; if half and half, it is forbidden?<a id="k122a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There too, when they light it,
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k122b_1:" MS.M. To Abitoran."
,k122b_2:" So as not to benefit from it."
,k122b_3:" Tosaf. reads: ALL UTENSILS WHICH MAY, etc., for in fact there are many that may not be handled."
,k122b_4:" Those that have doors or lids, e.g., a chest or coffer."
,k122b_5:" v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> The doors of a house, if detached, may not be handled on the Sabbath, because they are not parts of utensils which stand 'prepared' for handling. But the doors of utensils are like the utensils themselves."
,k122b_6:" Out of the barrel."
,k122b_7:" Lit., 'hand-needle'."
,k122b_8:" If the key is lost."
,k122b_9:" This is now the assumed meaning and implication of the Mishnah."
,k122b_10:" Lit., 'father'. If they became detached on the Sabbath since they were fit to handle at the beginning of the Sabbath, when they were part of the whole, they remain so for the whole Sabbath."
,k122b_11:" For when the Sabbath commenced they were not part of the utensil."
,k122b_12:" Lit., 'tower' or 'turret' &mdash; a large box or chest."
,k122b_13:" I.e., it is like fitting or removing a house door, which constitutes building and demolishing; v. <i>supra</i> 73a."
,k122b_14:" Thus removing and refitting should be the same."
,k122b_15:" Thus only one law is stated; the doors of a chest, box, and coffer, if detached (before the Sabbath), may not be refitted."
,k122b_16:" Nailing or screwing it on, which is certainly labour; hence he must not put it back at all."
,k122b_17:" For a permitted labour. I.e., since the normal function of a smith's hammer is to perform labour forbidden on the Sabbath, it may not be handled even for a permitted purpose."
,k122b_18:" Surely not! "
}

txt:
<p>
they do so with a view to the majority.
</p><p>
	Samuel visited the house of Abin of Toran.<a id="k122b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; A Gentile came and lit a lamp, [whereupon] Samuel turned his face away.<a id="k122b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; On seeing that he [the Gentile] had brought a document and was reading it, he observed, 'He has lit it for himself'; [sol he [too] [Samuel] turned his face to the lamp.
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_xvii">CHAPTER XVII</A>
      </H2>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. ALL UTENSILS MAY<a id="k122b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; BE HANDLED ON THE SABBATH AND THEIR DOORS<a id="k122b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; WITH THEM, EVEN IF THEY ARE DETACHED, FOR THEY ARE NOT LIKE THE DOORS OF A HOUSE, WHICH ARE NOT OF MUKAN.<a id="k122b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; A MAN MAY TAKE A HAMMER TO SPLIT NUTS, A CHOPPER TO CUT [A ROUND OF] PRESSED FIGS, A SAW FOR SAWING CHEESE, A SPADE TO SCOOP DRIED FIGS,<a id="k122b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; A WINNOWING SHOVEL AND A PITCHFORK TO PLACE [FOOD] UPON IT FOR A CHILD, A REED OR A WHORL TO STICK [FOOD], A SMALL NEEDLE<a id="k122b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; TO REMOVE A THORN, AND A SACK [NEEDLE] TO OPEN A DOOR THEREWITH.<a id="k122b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. ALL UTENSILS MAY BE HANDLED, &hellip; EVEN IF THEY ARE DETACHED on the Sabbath,<a id="k122b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; while it goes without saying [if detached] on a weekday;<a id="k122b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; on the contrary, on the Sabbath they stand 'prepared' in virtue of their origin;<a id="k122b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; [whereas if detached] on a weekday, they do not stand 'prepared' in virtue of their origin?<a id="k122b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Abaye, This is its meaning: ALL UTENSILS MAY BE HANDLED ON THE SABBATH, THEIR DOORS WITH THEM, EVEN IF THEY ARE DETACHED on a weekday, they may be handled on the Sabbath. 
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: The door of a box, chest, or coffer<a id="k122b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; may be removed, but not replaced; that of a hen-roost may neither be removed nor replaced. As for that of a hen-roost, it is well! he holds that since they [the hen-roosts] are attached to the ground, [the interdict of] building applies to the ground and that of demolishing applies to the ground;<a id="k122b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; but as for that of a box, chest, or coffer, what is his opinion? If he holds, [The interdict of] building applies to utensils, then that of demolishing [too] applies to utensils; whilst if there is no [prohibition of] building in respect to utensils, there is no [prohibition of] demolishing in respect to utensils [either]?<a id="k122b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said Abaye: In truth he holds: There is [the prohibition of] building in the case of utensils, and there is [that of] demolishing in respect of utensils, but he means, Those that were removed [may not be replaced].<a id="k122b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Raba to him, There are two objections to this: one, since he teaches that they may be removed; and two, how [explain] 'but not replaced?' &mdash; Rather said Raba: He holds, [The interdict of] building does not apply to utensils, and the interdict of demolishing does not 'apply to utensils, yet it is a preventive measure, lest he fix it firmly.<a id="k122b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A MAN MAY TAKE A HAMMER, etc. Rab Judah said: [This means,] a nut hammer to split nuts therewith, but not a smith's [hammer]: he holds, An article whose function is a forbidden labour is forbidden [even] when required for itself.<a id="k122b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Rabbah to him: If so, when the second clause teaches, A WINNOWING SHOVEL AND A PITCH-FORK, TO PLACE [FOOD] UPON IT FOR A CHILD, are a winnowing shovel and a pitch-fork set aside specially for a child?<a id="k122b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather said Rabbah: [it means] a smith's hammer to split nuts therewith; he holds,
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k126a_1:" For this purpose before the Sabbath."
,k126a_2:" Before the Sabbath, i.e., explain the Mishnah stringently, instead of leniently."
,k126a_3:" Lit., 'a bolt that is dragged'. I.e., a door-bolt, fastened to the door, but one end thereof drags on the floor."
,k126a_4:" 'Country' is employed technically to denote all places except the Temple. &mdash; Since it is fastened to the door, it is as though built thereto, and therefore the prohibition of handling it is only a Rabbinical one, which was imposed in the country but not in the Temple."
,k126a_5:" It is not fastened at all, but when removed from the sockets it is simply placed on the ground."
,k126a_6:" Requiring both that it be fastened and suspended."
,k126a_7:" Whereas R. Judah will agree with the Rabbis. From this passage we see that all agree that it must be tied."
,k126a_8:" I.e., sets aside."
,k126a_9:" I.e., since it has been devoted to this purpose."
,k126a_10:" It may be used for opening and shutting. R. Abba rules in accordance with this. "
}

txt:
<p>
Whether it is fastened or not, providing that it was prepared.<a id="k126a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Jeremiah to him, But let the Master say, Whether it is suspended or not, providing that it is fastened;<a id="k126a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; for Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: Just as there is a controversy here, so is there a controversy in respect of a dragging bolt.<a id="k126a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; For we learnt: With a dragging bolt, one may lock [the door] in the Temple, but not in the country;<a id="k126a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; but one that is laid apart [on the ground]<a id="k126a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; is forbidden in both places. R. Judah said: That which is laid apart [is permitted] in the Temple; and that which is dragged, in the country. Now it was taught: Which is a dragging bolt wherewith we may close (a door] in the Temple but not in the country? That which is fastened (to the door] and suspended &mdash; one end reaching the ground. R. Judah said: Such is permitted even in the country. But which is forbidden in the country? That which is neither fastened nor suspended &mdash; but which one removes and places in a corner. Further, R. Joshua b. Abba said in 'Ulla's name: Who is the Tanna of 'a dragging bolt?'<a id="k126a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; It is R. Eleazar!<a id="k126a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Said he to him, I hold with the following Tanna. For it was taught: If a private individual prepares<a id="k126a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; a cane for opening and shutting [a door] therewith: if it is tied and suspended to the door, he may open and shut [it] therewith; if it is not tied and suspended may not open and shut [it] therewith. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel ruled: If it is prepared<a id="k126a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; even if it is not fastened.<a id="k126a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Judah b. Shilath said in R. Assi's name in R. Johanan's name: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. Now, did R. Johanan say thus? Surely we learnt: All lids of vessels
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k126b_1:" I.e., the lids themselves must be fit for use as vessels. But how can a cane rank as a utensil?"
,k126b_2:" E.g., if the cane may be used for stirring olives in the vat."
,k126b_3:" V. p. 226, n. 1."
,k126b_4:" They may be handled without tying, though they are certainly not utensils."
,k126b_5:" That if it is prepared it need not be tied."
,k126b_6:" Holding that they must have the character of a utensil."
,k126b_7:" Many of the Rabbis were tradesmen or workers; e.g., R. Johanan the cobbler; R. Papa, who was a brewer; Hillel at one time a wood-cutter."
,k126b_8:" V. p. 217, 11. 7."
,k126b_9:" V. Mishnah <i>infra</i> 157a. The reference there is to a cloth that is not fastened and suspended, and yet we may close a skylight with it."
,k126b_10:" You assume that that proves the <i>halachah</i> is so, for otherwise you could simply answer that it represents the Rabbis' view only and is not a final ruling."
,k126b_11:" And there R. Eliezer's view is stated."
,k126b_12:" In the Mishnah <i>infra</i> 157 it is not merely a theoretical ruling but bears on actual practice. Therefore one may assume that it states the final ruling, and this refutes R. Isaac."
,k126b_13:" E.g., the lid or cover of a pit built in the ground. When they have a handle they are obviously not part of the pit and are meant to be put on and taken off. But otherwise they seem to be there permanently: hence placing them there is like building, and removing them is like demolishing."
,k126b_14:" Lest they be confused with the lid of ground. buildings."
,k126b_15:" V. p. 620, n. 8 for its construction."
,k126b_16:" Caused by lack of room for the disciples."
,k126b_17:" Explained <i>infra</i>."
,k126b_18:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k126b_19:" The first tithe belonged to the Levite; a tenth thereof, called <i>terumah</i> ('septs ration'), was given to the priest."
,k126b_20:" The second tithe was to be eaten by an Israelite owner in Jerusalem. Both it and hekdesh, q.v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>, could be redeemed, whereby they became like ordinary produce, save in a few respects, and then consumed. (Hekdesh, if an animal dedicated as a sacrifice, might be redeemed only if it received a blemish.)"
,k126b_21:" Var lec.: for the poor."
,k126b_22:" Jast.: a plant similar to colocasia, with edible leaves and root, and bearing beans. It is classified with onions and garlic."
,k126b_23:" Which some wealthy people bred."
,k126b_24:" Or, stubble."
,k126b_25:" This is the reason of the others too which may not be moved, viz., because they cannot be used even as animal fodder."
,k126b_26:" If the entire store consists of five, only four may be removed, but not all, lest depressions in the ground are revealed which may be levelled on the Sabbath."
,k126b_27:" <i>Var. lec</i>. omit: 'Some there are&nbsp;&hellip; small store'."
,k126b_28:" It cannot mean that the whole store must not be cleared away, since on the present interpretation that is already implied in the first clause."
,k126b_29:" If he had not already started using it for food, either for himself or for his animals, before the Sabbath, it is mukzeh and must not be touched. "
}

txt:
<p>
which have a handle on the Sabbath. Whereon R. Judah b. Shila said in R. Assi's name in R. Johanan's name: Providing that they have the character of utensils.<a id="k126b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; And should you answer, Here too [it means] where it ranks as a utensil,<a id="k126b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; does then R. Simeon b. Gamaliel require it to have the character of a utensil? Surely it was taught: As for the dried branches of a palm tree which one cut down for fuel and then changed his mind, [intending them for sitting thereon], he must tie them together.<a id="k126b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: He need not tie them together!<a id="k126b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Johanan agrees with him in one<a id="k126b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and disagrees with him in the other.<a id="k126b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Isaac the smith<a id="k126b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; lectured at the entrance of the Resh Galutha:<a id="k126b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Eliezer. R. Amram objected: And from their words we learn that we may close (a skylight], measure [a mikweh], and tie [a temporary knot] on the Sabbath!<a id="k126b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said Abaye to him, What is your view: because it is taught anonymously?<a id="k126b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; [But the Mishnah concerning] a dragging bolt is also anonymous!<a id="k126b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Yet even so an actual incident is weightier.<a id="k126b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. ALL LIDS OF UTENSILS WHICH HAVE A HANDLE MAY BE HANDLED ON THE SABBATH. SAID R. JOSE, WHEN IS THAT SAID? IN THE CASE OF LIDS OF GROUND [BUILDINGS],<a id="k126b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT THE LIDS OF UTENSILS MAY IN ANY CASE BE HANDLED ON THE SABBATH.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Judah b. Shila said in R. Assi's name in R. Johanan's name: Provided that they have the character of a utensil. All agree: Covers of ground [buildings may be handled] only if they have a handle but not otherwise; covers of utensils, even if they have no handle. Where do they differ? In respect of utensils joined to the ground: one Master holds: We forbid (them] preventively,<a id="k126b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; while the other Master holds, We do not forbid preventively. Another version: Where do they differ? In respect of an oven cover:<a id="k126b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; one Master likens it to the cover of a ground [building], while the other Master likens it to the cover of utensils.
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_xviii">CHAPTER XVIII</A>
      </H2>	
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. ONE MAY CLEAR AWAY EVEN FOUR OR FIVE BASKETS OF STRAW OR PRODUCE [GRAIN] TO MAKE ROOM FOR GUESTS OR ON ACCOUNT OF THE NEGLECT OF THE <I>BETH HAMIDRASH</I>,<a id="k126b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT NOT THE STORE.<a id="k126b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; ONE MAY CLEAR AWAY CLEAN <I>TERUMAH</I>, DEM'AI,<a id="k126b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; THE FIRST TITHE WHOSE <I>TERUMAH</I> HAS BEEN SEPARATED,<a id="k126b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; REDEEMED SECOND TITHE AND HEKDESH,<a id="k126b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; AND DRY LUPINES, BECAUSE IT IS FOOD FOR GOATS.<a id="k126b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT [ONE MAY] NOT [CLEAR AWAY] <I>TEBEL</I>,<a id="k126b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; THE FIRST TITHE WHEREOF <I>TERUMAH</I> HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN, UNREDEEMED SECOND TITHE OR HEKDESH, LOF<a id="k126b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; OR MUSTARD. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL PERMITS [IT] IN THE CASE OF LOF, BECAUSE IT IS FOOD FOR RAVENS.<a id="k126b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; AS FOR BUNDLES OF STRAW,<a id="k126b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; TWIGS, OR YOUNG SHOOTS, IF THEY WERE PREPARED AS ANIMAL FODDER, THEY MAY BE MOVED; IF NOT, THEY MAY NOT BE MOVED.<a id="k126b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Seeing that five may be cleared away, need four be stated? &mdash; Said R. Hisda: [It means] four out of five.<a id="k126b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; Some there are who state, Four of a small store,<a id="k126b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; and five of a large store. And what does BUT NOT THE STORE mean?<a id="k126b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; That one must not commence [dealing] with a store for the first time;<a id="k126b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; and which [Tanna] rules [thus]? It is R. Judah, who accepts [the interdict of] mukzeh. But Samuel said: [It means] four or five
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k130a_1:" A knife for circumcision."
,k130a_2:" That all may see it."
,k130a_3:" When circumcision is forbidden by the State, as during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes before the Maccabean revolt; v. 1 Macc. I, 48, 60, 11, 46. It was again forbidden during the Hadrianic persecution; cf. Mek. Yithro, Ba-Hodesh, VI; Graetz, Geschichte IV, 154."
,k130a_4:" For a circumcision knife. Thus R. Eliezer permits not only circumcision but even its preparatory adjuncts, though these could have been prepared before the Sabbath."
,k130a_5:" For requiring the knife to be brought uncovered."
,k130a_6:" One must show how precious is circumcision that he even desecrates the Sabbath on its account."
,k130a_7:" That would otherwise attach to the bringer, that he was unlawfully desecrating the Sabbath."
,k130a_8:" The emphatic repetition shows that it must not be hidden on any account."
,k130a_9:" 'It was the practice' implies that this is not a mere theoretical ruling but an actual account of what happened in the past. As R. Eliezer died before the Hadrianic wars, this must refer to the days of the persecution by Antiochus. &mdash; Weiss, Dor, II, p. 131. n. I."
,k130a_10:" There is only one, as obviously he cannot be counted."
,k130a_11:" In truth it may be he and another, nevertheless there are two who know the purpose of his carrying. and they are referred to as witnesses, since two in general can testify. Yet two independent witnesses may not be required, since there is no actual lawsuit."
,k130a_12:" For infringing the dietary laws."
,k130a_13:" Deut. XIV, 21."
,k130a_14:" Ibid. 22 &mdash; these laws are stated successively."
,k130a_15:" In respect of circumcision."
,k130a_16:" Never prematurely."
,k130a_17:" Rome."
,k130a_18:" Forbidding it; v. p. 649, n. 3."
,k130a_19:" Ps. CXIX, 162. This is understood to refer to circumcision, which is a single 'word', i.e., command, which preceded the bulk of Mosaic legislation (this dating back to Abraham, Gen. XVII, 10), and which the Jew, in virtue of being circumcised, ceaselessly performs."
,k130a_20:" Lit., 'quarrelling'."
,k130a_21:" Num. XI, 10."
,k130a_22:" viz., because they were now interdicted in marriage."
,k130a_23:" Lit., 'in which they (the parties concerned) throw no discord'."
,k130a_24:" Cf. p. 649, n. 3. Antiochus demanded idol worship too; later, Caligula made a similar demand; v. Graetz, History (Eng. trans.) Vol. II, pp. 188 seqq.; cf. also Weiss, Dor, II, p. 5."
,k130a_25:" V. Weiss, <i>op. cit</i>., p. 134."
,k130a_26:" Ps. LXVIII, 14."
,k130a_27:" Cf. also <i>supra</i> 49a and notes a.l."
,k130a_28:" For which no 'erub (q.v. Glos) had been provided. It is normally forbidden to carry through such by Rabbinical law. "
}

txt:
<p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_xix">CHAPTER XIX</A>
      </H2>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. R. ELIEZER SAID: IF ONE DID NOT BRING AN INSTRUMENT ON THE EVE OF THE SABBATH,<a id="k130a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; HE MUST BRING IT ON THE SABBATH UNCOVERED;<a id="k130a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT IN [TIMES OF] DANGER<a id="k130a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; HE HIDES IT ON THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES. R. ELIEZER SAID FURTHER: ONE MAY CUT TIMBER TO MAKE CHARCOAL FOR MANUFACTURING IRON.<a id="k130a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; R. AKIBA STATED A GENERAL PRINCIPLE: ANY [MANNER OF] WORK WHICH COULD BE PERFORMED ON SABBATH EVE DOES NOT SUPERSEDE THE SABBATH; BUT THAT WHICH COULD NOT BE PERFORMED ON SABBATH EVE DOES SUPERSEDE THE SABBATH.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. The scholars asked: Is R. Eliezer's reason<a id="k130a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; out of love for the precept<a id="k130a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; or perhaps it is because of suspicions?<a id="k130a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the practical difference? Whether it may be brought covered on the testimony of witnesses. If you say it is out of love for the precept, it must be uncovered and not hidden. But if you say it is because of suspicions it is well even if hidden: what then? It was stated, R. Levi said: R. Eliezer ruled thus only out of love for the precept. It was taught likewise: He must bring it uncovered, and he must not bring it covered: this is R. Eliezer's opinion.<a id="k130a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ashi said: Our Mishnah too proves this, because it states, BUT IN TIMES OF DANGER HE HIDES IT ON THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES; thus in times of danger only, but not when there is no danger. This proves that it is out of love for the precept: this proves it.
</p><p>
	Another [Baraitha] taught: He brings it uncovered, but he must not bring it covered: this is R. Eliezer's view. R. Judah said in R. Eliezer's name: In times of danger it was the practice to bring it hidden on the testimony of witnesses.<a id="k130a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; The scholars asked: The witnesses which he mentions, [does it mean] he and another one, or perhaps he and another two? &mdash;  Come and hear: BUT IN [TIMES OF] DANGER HE HIDES IT ON THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES: if you agree to say he and two [others], it is well; but if you say he and another, what witnesses [are there]?<a id="k130a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Such as are eligible to testify elsewhere.<a id="k130a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. ELIEZER SAID FURTHER [etc.]. Our Rabbis taught: In R. Eliezer's locality they used to cut timber to make charcoal for making iron on the Sabbath. In the locality of R. Jose the Galilean they used to eat flesh of fowl with milk. Levi visited the home of Joseph the fowler [and] was offered the head of a peacock in milk, [which] he did not eat. When he came before Rabbi he asked him, Why did you not place them under the ban?<a id="k130a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; It was the locality of R. Judah b. Bathyra, replied he, and I thought, Perhaps he has lectured to them in accordance with R. Jose the Galilean. For we learnt: R. Jose the Galilean said: It is said, Ye shall not eat any <i>nebelah</i>,<a id="k130a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is said, Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk:<a id="k130a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; [this teaches,] that which is forbidden on the score of <i>nebelah</i> may not be seethed in milk. Now since a fowl is prohibited when <i>nebelah</i>, you might think that one must not seethe it in milk; therefore it is stated, 'in its mother's milk', hence a fowl is excluded, since it has no mother's milk.
</p><p>
	R. Isaac said: There was one town in Palestine where they followed R. Eliezer,<a id="k130a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and they died there at the [proper] time,<a id="k130a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Moreover, the wicked State<a id="k130a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; once promulgated a decree against Israel concerning circumcision,<a id="k130a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; yet did not decree [it] against that town.
</p><p>
	It was taught, R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Every precept which they accepted with joy, e.g., circumcision, as it is written, I rejoice at thy word, as one that findeth great spoil,<a id="k130a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; they still observe with joy. While every precept which they accepted with displeasure,<a id="k130a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; e.g., the forbidden degrees of consanguinity, as it is written, And Moses heard the people weeping throughout their families,<a id="k130a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; [i.e.,] on account of the affairs of their families,<a id="k130a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; they still perform them with strife, for there is no marriage settlement which does not contain a quarrel.<a id="k130a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was taught, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Every precept for which Israel submitted to death at the time of the royal decree, e.g., idolatry and circumcision,<a id="k130a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; is still held firmly in their minds. Whereas every precept for which Israel did not submit to death at the time of the royal decree, e.g., tefillin, is still weak in their hands.<a id="k130a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; For R. Jannai said: Tefillin demand a pure body, like Elisha-the-man-of-the-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. And why is he called 'the man-of-the-wings'? Because the wicked State once proclaimed a decree against Israel that whoever donned tefillin should have his brains pierced through; yet Elisha put them on and went out into the streets. A quaestor saw him: he fled before him, and the latter gave pursuit. As he overtook him, he [Elisha] removed them from his head and held them in his hand, 'What is that in your hand?' he demanded, 'The wings of a dove,' was his reply. He stretched out his hand and the wings of a dove were found therein. Hence he is called 'Elisha-the-man-of-the-wings.' And why did he tell him the wings of a dove rather than that of other birds? Because the Congregation of Israel is likened to a dove, as it is said, as the wings of a dove covered with silver, and her pinions with yellow gold:<a id="k130a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; just as a dove is protected by its wings, so with the Israelites, their precepts protect them.<a id="k130a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Abba b. R. adda said in R. Isaac's name: they once forgot to bring a knife on Sabbath eve, so they brought it on the Sabbath through roofs and courtyards,<a id="k130a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k130b_1:" It is a general principle (<i>infra</i> 133a) that where a positive command and a negative command are in question, both should be fulfilled wherever possible; hence it might be argued that R. Eliezer too agrees that it should not be carried through the street, since there is an alternative (Tosaf.). Yet it may be that since R. Eliezer's ruling is largely in order to emphasize the great esteem in which the precept is held (<i>supra</i> a), the Talmud felt that he would require it to be carried through the streets."
,k130b_2:" Karpifoth; v. <i>supra</i> 7a."
,k130b_3:" Carrying from one to another is permitted."
,k130b_4:" I.e., which were there from the beginning of the Sabbath, v. 'Er. 91a."
,k130b_5:" I.e., which were in the house at the beginning of the Sabbath. &mdash; Here the knife belonged to the former category (Tosaf.)."
,k130b_6:" By means of an 'erub; v. <i>supra</i> 23a."
,k130b_7:" Sc. utensils which were there at the commencement of the Sabbath."
,k130b_8:" Not from a house into the courtyard or from one courtyard into another, but in that courtyard itself."
,k130b_9:" This is the technical term in respect of an alley, whereby it all ranks as a single and private domain for its residents."
,k130b_10:" I.e., the residents of the houses which open into it put it to private use."
,k130b_11:" So Rashi and Tosaf. on the strength of a statement in J. Sheb. IX, end; this does not mean that he actually belonged to the School of Shammai, but generally adopted their views (v. Weiss, Dor, II, p. 83, n. 2), which were always disregarded in favour of Beth Hillel's. Rashi suggests another meaning: he was under a ban (v. B.M. 59b)."
,k130b_12:" I.e., you recalled it. [Aliter: 'In the rapid course (of your study) your tradition escaped you', i.e., R. Oshaia's statement. V. Strashun]."
,k130b_13:" That open into the alley."
,k130b_14:" Which give on the courtyards. I.e., all the houses served by the same courtyard are combined by means of an 'erub, so that they may carry to and fro between the houses and the courtyard belonging to same; but the courtyards themselves have not been made common partners in the alley."
,k130b_15:" Sc. utensils which were in the alley at the beginning of the Sabbath."
,k130b_16:" Of Be Hozae. V. p. 234, n. 3."
,k130b_17:" Lit., 'torn away' from their original designation."
,k130b_18:" I.e., they are now part of the houses and not courtyards at all. "
}

txt:
<p>
[this being] against the will of R. Eliezer. R. Joseph demurred: [You say] 'against the will of R. Eliezer'! on the contrary, it is R. Eliezer' who permits it even through the street;<a id="k130b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; but only with the consent of the Rabbis, who forbid [it to be carried] through the street yet permit it through roofs, courtyards, and enclosures,<a id="k130b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; yet is this permitted? Surely it was taught: Just as one may not bring it through the street, so may one not bring it through roofs, through enclosures, or through courtyards? &mdash; Said R. Ashi: It was not with the consent of R. Eliezer and his opponent[s], but with the consent of R. Simeon. For we learnt, R. Simeon said: Roofs, enclosures and courtyards are all one domain<a id="k130b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; in respect of utensils which spent the Sabbath therein,<a id="k130b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; but not in respect of utensils which rested in the house.<a id="k130b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Zera asked R. Assi: In the case of an alley in which they [its residents] have not become partners,<a id="k130b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; what about carrying in the whole of it?<a id="k130b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; do we say it is like a courtyard: just as a courtyard, even if an 'erub has not been made, it is permitted to carry in the whole of it,<a id="k130b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; so this too, though they have not become partners in it,<a id="k130b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; it is permitted to carry in the whole of it; or perhaps it is unlike a courtyard; for a courtyard has four walls [partitions], whereas this has not four walls; alternatively, a courtyard has tenants,<a id="k130b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas this has no tenants? He was silent and said nothing to him. On a subsequent occasion he [R. Zera] found him [R. Assi] sitting and stating: 'R. Simeon b. Lakish said in the name of R. Judah the prince: They once forgot to bring a knife on Sabbath eve, so they brought it on the Sabbath. Now this matter was difficult for the Sages [to understand]: how could they abandon the opinion of the Sages and act as R. Eliezer: firstly, since R. Eliezer was [a follower] of Beth Shammai;<a id="k130b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and further, [where an individual and many [are in dispute], the <i>halachah</i> is as the many? Whereupon R. Oshaia said: I asked R. Judah the circumciser, and he told me, It was an alley wherein they [its residents] had not become partners, and they brought it [the knife] from one end to the other. Said he to him: Do you then hold that in the case of an alley in which they had not become partners, it is permitted to carry in the whole of it? Yes, he replied.' Said he [R. Zera] to him [R. Assi], But I once asked [it of] you and you did not answer me: perhaps in the rapid course [of your review] your tradition sped [back] to you?<a id="k130b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Yes, he replied; in the course of my review my tradition sped [back] to me.
</p><p>
	It was stated, R. Zera said in Rab's name: In the case of an alley in which no partnership had been made, one may not carry therein save within four cubits. Abaye observed, R. Zera stated this law but did not explain it, until Rabbah b. Abbuha came and explained it. For R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name in Rab's name: In the case of an alley in which no partnership has been made, if the courtyards<a id="k130b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; are combined with the houses,<a id="k130b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; one may not carry therein [the alley] save within four cubits; [but] if the courtyards are not combined with the houses, one may carry over the whole of it.<a id="k130b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hanina Hoza'ah<a id="k130b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; said to Rabbah: Why does it differ when the courtyards are combined with the houses? [presumably] because the courtyards have been transformed<a id="k130b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and are become houses,<a id="k130b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab being consistent with his view; for Rab said: An alley does not become permitted [for carrying] through a stake and a beam unless
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k137a_1:" The <i>halachah</i> midrash on Leviticus, in which this passage occurs."
,k137a_2:" This principle was laid down by R. Johanan; v. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 567, n. 1. &mdash; Thus R. Judah does not regard him as a male in this respect."
,k137a_3:" The waters of lustration by placing the ashes therein; v. Num. XIX, 17."
,k137a_4:" That an hermaphrodite is considered a male."
,k137a_5:" Gen. X VII, 10: 'every' is an extension, and teaches the inclusion of an hermaphrodite."
,k137a_6:" Lit., 'forgets'."
,k137a_7:" For unwittingly desecrating the Sabbath. For since circumcision is obligatory from the eighth day only, this is not circumcision, but the mere inflicting of a wound, which entails culpability."
,k137a_8:" For though he has actually fulfilled a precept, nevertheless circumcision after the proper time does not supersede the Sabbath."
,k137a_9:" He erred through the fulfilment of a precept, viz., because he was occupied with the circumcision of the second, which actually was to be done that day; he also did fulfil a precept by circumcising the first, and R. Joshua holds that in such a case one is not culpable."
,k137a_10:" In the first clause of the Mishnah, as our text."
,k137a_11:" The obligations to all sin-offerings are learnt from the unwitting offence of idolatry, which serves as a model; v. Num. XV. 29-30 (v. 30 is understood to refer to deliberate idolatry, and shows that the preceding verses refer to all unwitting offences which are similar thereto)."
,k137a_12:" He is anxious to carry out the obligation which rests on him, and this preoccupation excuses his error. Rab Judah accordingly reads the Mishnah quite differently, and in accordance with the present view."
,k137a_13:" Surely not, v. p. 688, n. 4."
,k137a_14:" There is no infant left for whom the Sabbath must be violated. There was therefore no preoccupation with a precept and the error consequently was inexcusable, hence he is culpable."
,k137a_15:" As it may have been night already, and circumcision must not take place before the eighth."
,k137a_16:" Sc. the following Sunday week."
,k137a_17:" The following Monday week."
,k137a_18:" In Palestine all Festivals are of one day's duration, in accordance with Scripture, save New Year, which is of two days. &mdash; In the last three cases the infant cannot be circumcised on the following Friday, in case it is the seventh day, nor on the Sabbath or Festival, in case Friday was the eighth day, and circumcision after its proper time does not supersede them."
,k137a_19:" Lit., 'from time to time'. Must we wait seven whole days to the hour, or can we circumcise any time on the seventh day?"
,k137a_20:" E.g., we do not wait eight full days to the hour for a normal circumcision, but perform it any time on the eighth day."
,k137a_21:" If he is a priest and was thus inadequately circumcised, v. Yeb. 70a."
,k137a_22:" So that though the circumcision was correctly performed the foreskin nevertheless looks as though it was uncircumcised. "
}

txt:
<p>
And an anonymous [statement in the] Sifra<a id="k137a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; is according to R. Judah.<a id="k137a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman b. Isaac said: We too learnt likewise: All are eligible to sanctify,<a id="k137a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; save a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor. R. Judah admits a minor, but invalidates a woman and an hermaphrodite. This proves it &mdash; And why is circumcision different?<a id="k137a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Because it is written, every male among you shall be circumcised.<a id="k137a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; 
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN HAS TWO INFANTS, ONE FOR CIRCUMCISION AFTER THE SABBATH AND THE OTHER FOR CIRCUMCISION ON THE SABBATH, AND HE ERRS<a id="k137a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; AND CIRCUMCISES THE ONE BELONGING TO AFTER THE SABBATH ON THE SABBATH, HE IS CULPABLE.<a id="k137a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [IF HE HAS] ONE FOR CIRCUMCISION ON THE EVE OF THE SABBATH AND ANOTHER FOR CIRCUMCISION ON THE SABBATH, AND HE ERRS AND CIRCUMCISES THE ONE BELONGING TO THE EVE OF THE SABBATH ON THE SABBATH, &mdash; R. ELIEZER HOLDS [HIM] LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING;<a id="k137a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT R. JOSHUA EXEMPTS [HIM].<a id="k137a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Huna recited: He is culpable;<a id="k137a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab Judah recited: He is not culpable. 'R. Huna recited: He is culpable'; because it was taught, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: R. Eliezer and R. Joshua did not differ concerning a man who has two infants, one for circumcision on the Sabbath and another for circumcision after the Sabbath, and he errs and circumcises the one belonging to after the Sabbath on the Sabbath, that he is culpable. About what do they disagree? About him, who has two infants, one for circumcision on the eve of the Sabbath and another for circumcision on the Sabbath, and he errs and circumcises the one belonging to the eve of the Sabbath on the Sabbath, R. Eliezer declaring [him] liable to a sin-offering, while R. Joshua exempts [him]. Now, both learn it from nought but idolatry:<a id="k137a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Eliezer holds, it is like idolatry: just as idolatry, the Divine Law decreed, Do not engage [therein], and if one engages [therein] he is culpable, so here too it is not different. But R. Joshua [argues]: there there is no precept [fulfilled], whereas here there is a precept. 
</p><p>
	'Rab Judah recited; He is not culpable.' For it was taught, R. Meir said: R. Eliezer and R. Joshua did not differ concerning a man who has two infants, one for circumcision on the eve of the Sabbath and another for circumcision on the Sabbath, and he errs and circumcises the one belonging to the eve of the Sabbath on the Sabbath, that he is not culpable. About what do they disagree? About him who has two infants, one for circumcision after the Sabbath and another for circumcision on the Sabbath, and he errs and circumcises the one belonging to after the Sabbath on the Sabbath, R. Eliezer declaring [him] liable to a sin-offering, while R. Joshua exempts him. Now, both learn it from nought save idolatry: R. Eliezer holds, It is like idolatry: just as idolatry, the Divine Law decreed, Do not engage [therein], and if one engages [therein] he is culpable, so here too it is not different &mdash; But R. Joshua [argues:] There he is not preoccupied with a precept, whereas here he is preoccupied with a precept.<a id="k137a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hiyya taught, R. Meir used to say: R. Eliezer and R. Joshua did not differ concerning him who has two infants, one for circumcision on the eve of the Sabbath and one for circumcision on the Sabbath, and he errs and circumcises the one belonging to the eve of the Sabbath on the Sabbath, that he is culpable. About what, do they disagree? About a man who has two infants, one for circumcision after the Sabbath and another for circumcision on the Sabbath, and he errs and circumcises the one belonging to after the Sabbath on the Sabbath, R. Eliezer declaring [him] liable to a sin-offering, while R. Joshua exempts him. Now if R. Joshua exempts him, in the second clause, though he does not fulfil a precept, shall he declare him culpable in the first clause, where he does fulfil a Precept!<a id="k137a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; The School of R. Jannai said: The first clause is, e.g., where the [infant] belonging to the Sabbath was previously circumcised on the eve of the Sabbath, so that the Sabbath does not stand to be superseded;<a id="k137a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; but in the second clause the Sabbath stands to be superseded. Said R. Ashi to R. Kahana: [But] in the first clause too the Sabbath stands to be superseded in connection with infants in general? &mdash; Nevertheless as far as this man [is concerned] it does not stand to be superseded.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. AN INFANT IS TO BE CIRCUMCISED ON THE EIGHTH, NINTH, TENTH, ELEVENTH, AND TWELFTH [DAYS], NEITHER EARLIER NOR LATER. HOW SO? IN THE NORMAL COURSE, IT IS ON THE EIGHTH; IF HE IS BORN AT TWILIGHT, ON THE NINTH;<a id="k137a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; AT TWILIGHT ON SABBATH EVE, ON THE TENTH;<a id="k137a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; IF A FESTIVAL FOLLOWS THE SABBATH, ON THE ELEVENTH;<a id="k137a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; IF THE TWO DAYS OF NEW YEAR [FOLLOW THE SABBATH, ON THE TWELFTH.<a id="k137a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; AN INFANT WHO IS ILL IS NOT CIRCUMCISED UNTIL HE RECOVERS.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Samuel said: When his temperature subsides [to normal], we allow him full seven days for his [complete] recovery. The scholars asked: Do we require twenty-four hours' days?<a id="k137a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Come and hear: For Luda taught: The day of his recovery is like the day of his birth. Surely that means, just as with the day of his birth, we do not require a twenty-four hours' day,<a id="k137a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; so with the day of his recovery, we do not require a twenty-four hours' day? &mdash; No: the day of his recovery is stronger than the day of his birth, for whereas with the day of his birth we do not require a twenty-four hours' day, with the day of his recovery we do require a twenty-four hours' day.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. THESE ARE THE SHREDS WHICH INVALIDATE CIRCUMCISION: FLESH THAT COVERS THE GREATER PART OF THE CORONA; AND HE MUST NOT PARTAKE OF <I>TERUMAH</I>.<a id="k137a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; AND IF HE IS FLESHY,<a id="k137a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; HE MUST REPAIR IT FOR APPEARANCES SAKE.
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k137b_1:" I.e., the corona, by splitting the membrane and pulling it down. &mdash; He did not perform the peri'ah. V. <i>supra</i> 133a."
,k137b_2:" To cause his bowels to function."
,k137b_3:" Lit., 'he appears and does not appear'. Samuel maintains that unless it is fully visible he must be circumcised, whereas the Baraitha teaches that only where it is quite invisible is recircumcision required."
,k137b_4:" Rashi refers this to Isaac; Tosaf. to Abraham."
,k137b_5:" Jer. XXXIII, 25."
,k137b_6:" The emphasis on the extreme importance of circumcision was probably meant to counteract the early Christian teaching, which abrogated circumcision entirely in order to attract converts; v. Weiss, Dor, II, 9. It is perhaps noteworthy that in the present passage it is precisely in connection with proselytes and slaves that this is so much emphasized."
,k137b_7:" When a strainer is 'suspended', i.e., set over the vessel which receives the liquid, a 'tent' is technically made, in that the strainer covers the vessel like the top of a tent cover and protects that which is beneath it. R. Eliezer permits this on Festivals but not on the Sabbath. Again, when the liquid, e.g., wine, is poured through the strainer, the lees are separated from the wine; nevertheless he does not regard this as 'selecting' (v. <i>supra</i> 73a) and permits it on the Sabbath. A cloth strainer is probably meant; v. T.A. II, p. 243."
,k137b_8:" As he does permit it in the Mishnah."
,k137b_9:" This means that R. Eliezer forbids even adding to a temporary tent."
,k137b_10:" V. p. 281, n. 8."
,k137b_11:" The suspending of a strainer falls within this category."
,k137b_12:" For he permits it even in the latter case."
,k137b_13:" Surely not. Here too it is not a real building and is forbidden by Rabbinical law only. "
}

txt:
<p>
IF ONE CIRCUMCISES BUT DOES NOT UNCOVER THE CIRCUMCISION,<a id="k137b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; IT IS AS THOUGH HE HAS NOT CIRCUMCISED.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Abina said in the name of R. Jeremiah b. Abba in Rab's name: [This means,] the flesh that covers the greater part of the height of the corona.
</p><p>
	AND IF HE IS FLESHY, etc. Samuel said: If an infant['s membrum] is overgrown with flesh, we examine him: as long as he appears circumcised when he forces himself, it is unnecessary to recircumcise him; but if not he must be recircumcised. In a Baraitha it was taught: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: If an infant['s membrum] is overgrown with flesh, we examine him: if he does not appear circumcised when he forces himself,<a id="k137b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; he must be recircumcised: otherwise he need not be recircumcised. Wherein do they differ? &mdash; They differ where it is only partially visible.<a id="k137b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF ONE CIRCUMCISES BUT DOES NOT UNCOVER THE CIRCUMCISION. Our Rabbis taught: He who circumcises must recite: '&hellip; Who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments, and hast commanded us concerning circumcision.' The father of the infant recites, '&hellip; Who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments and hast commanded us to lead him into the covenant of our father Abraham.' The bystanders exclaim, 'Even as he has entered the covenant, so may he enter into the Torah, the marriage canopy, and good deeds.' And he who pronounces the benediction recites: '&hellip; Who hast sanctified the beloved one<a id="k137b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; from the womb; He set a statute in his flesh, and his offsprings he sealed with the sign of the holy covenant. Therefore as a reward for this, O living God Who art our portion, give command to save the beloved of our flesh from the pit, for the sake of Thy covenant which Thou hast set in our flesh. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, Who makest the covenant. He who circumcises proselytes says, 'Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, Who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments and hast commanded us concerning circumcision.' He who pronounces the benediction recites, '&hellip; Who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments and hast commanded us to circumcise proselytes and to cause the drops of the blood of the covenant to flow from them, since but for the blood of the covenant Heaven and earth would not endure, as it is said, If not my covenant by day and by night, I had not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth.<a id="k137b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Blessed art Thou, O Lord, Who makest the covenant.' He who circumcises slaves recites: '&hellip; Who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments and hast commanded us concerning circumcision. While he who pronounces the benediction recites: '&hellip; Who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments and hast commanded us to cause the drops of the blood of the covenant to flow from them, since but for the blood of the covenant the ordinances of heaven and earth would not endure, as it is said, If not my covenant by day and by night, I had not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, Who makest the covenant.'<a id="k137b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_xx">CHAPTER XX</A>
      </H2>

</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. R. ELIEZER SAID: ONE MAY SUSPEND A STRAINER ON FESTIVALS, AND POUR [WINE] THROUGH A SUSPENDED [STRAINER] ON THE SABBATH.<a id="k137b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT THE SAGES RULE: ONE MAY NOT SUSPEND A STRAINER ON FESTIVALS, NOR POUR [WINE] THROUGH A SUSPENDED [STRAINER] ON THE SABBATH, BUT WE MAY POUR [IT] THROUGH A SUSPENDED [STRAINER] ON FESTIVALS.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Seeing that R. Eliezer [holds] that we may not [even] add to a temporary tent, can it be permitted to make [one] in the first place?<a id="k137b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; What is this allusion? For we learnt: As for the stopper of a skylight, &mdash; R. Eliezer said: When it is fastened and suspended, one may close [the skylight] with it; if not, one may not close [the skylight] with it. But the Sages maintain: In both cases you may close [the skylight] with it. Whereon Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: All agree that a temporary tent may not be made on Festivals, whilst on the Sabbath it goes without saying. They differ only in respect of adding [to a tent]; R. Eliezer maintaining. One may not add on a Festival, whilst on the Sabbath it goes without saying; whereas the Sages rule: One may add on the Sabbath, whilst it is superfluous to speak of Festivals!<a id="k137b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Eliezer agrees with R. Judah. For it was taught: The only difference between Festivals and the Sabbath is in respect of food for consumption.<a id="k137b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Judah permits the preliminary preparations of food for consumption too.<a id="k137b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; But say that we know R. Judah [to rule thus] of preparations which could not be done on the eve of the Festival; do you know him [to rule thus] of preparations which could be done on the eve of the Festival? &mdash;  R. Eliezer's [ruling] goes further than R. Judah's.<a id="k137b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	BUT THE SAGES RULE, '[etc.]. The scholars asked: What if one does suspend [it]? &mdash; R. Joseph said: If one suspends [it] he is liable to a sin-offering. Said Abaye to him: If so, if one hangs a pitcher on a peg. is he too liable?<a id="k137b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k141a_1:" Hence the cow will eat after the ass."
,k141a_2:" It eats fodder even when it contains thorns and thistles."
,k141a_3:" Spurning thorns and thistles."
,k141a_4:" V. <i>supra</i> 50a for notes."
,k141a_5:" The two boards of the press fitted on to four perforated rods: the upper board was pressed down and pegs were inserted in the holes to keep it there. The press may be undone by withdrawing these pegs, because the clothes are required for the Sabbath."
,k141a_6:" As the clothes will be wanted during the week, but not on the Sabbath."
,k141a_7:" This was screwed down very tightly, and undoing it would resemble taking a utensil to pieces."
,k141a_8:" V. <i>supra</i> 123a for notes."
,k141a_9:" Be rab may mean either the academy founded by Rab, or scholars in general, v. Weiss, Dor, III, 158."
,k141a_10:" Lit., 'from the side'."
,k141a_11:" Cf. <i>supra</i> 43b, p 201, n. 1,"
,k141a_12:" Asheri in Bez. I, 21 reads: R. Huna."
,k141a_13:" Because then it looks like grinding."
,k141a_14:" From usual, which is in a mill or a mortar."
,k141a_15:" I.e., the part of his body that is not in the water."
,k141a_16:" The water upon him."
,k141a_17:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k141a_18:" Lit., 'goes down'."
,k141a_19:" His weight makes the water spurt that distance."
,k141a_20:" Sc. the addition of clay to the wall."
,k141a_21:" Lit., 'a field labourer'. I.e., surely none but the ignorant would think of building in such a manner."
,k141a_22:" Lying on the ground."
,k141a_23:" At the entrance to an alley. whereby carrying therein is permitted; v. p. 30, n. 2."
,k141a_24:" 'Without the entrance, where it is public ground."
,k141a_25:" Text as emended by BaH."
,k141a_26:" In the latter case he looks as though he desires to wash the garment, though it is not actual washing."
,k141a_27:" So Wilna Gaon. "
}

txt:
<p>
which drops saliva.<a id="k141a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; And when it is taught, 'One may take [fodder] from before an animal that is not fastidious', it refers to an ass, which is not particular about what it eats;<a id="k141a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; 'and put [it] before an animal that is fastidious,' to a cow, which is particular about what it eats.<a id="k141a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. ONE MUST NOT MOVE STRAW [LYING] UPON A BED WITH HIS HAND, YET HE MAY MOVE IT WITH HIS BODY. BUT IF IT IS FODDER FOR ANIMALS, OR A PILLOW OR A SHEET WAS UPON IT BEFORE NIGHTFALL, HE MAY MOVE IT WITH HIS HAND.<a id="k141a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; ONE MAY UNDO A HOUSEHOLDER'S CLOTHES PRESS,<a id="k141a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT NOT FORCE IT DOWN.<a id="k141a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT A LAUNDERER'S [PRESS] MAY NOT BE TOUCHED.<a id="k141a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; R. JUDAH SAID: IF IT WAS UNDONE BEFORE THE SABBATH, ONE MAY UNFASTEN THE WHOLE AND REMOVE IT.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Nahman said: A radish, if it is the right way up, it is permitted; if it is reversed, it is forbidden.<a id="k141a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Adda b. Abba said, The scholars<a id="k141a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; said, We learnt [a Mishnah] in disagreement with R. Nahman: ONE MUST NOT MOVE STRAW [LYING] UPON A BED WITH HIS HAND, YET HE MAY MOVE IT WITH HIS BODY. BUT IF IT IS FODDER FOR ANIMALS, OR A PILLOW ON A SHEET WAS UPON IT BEFORE NIGHTFALL, HE MAY MOVE IT WITH HIS HAND: this proves, indirect<a id="k141a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; handling is not designated handling;<a id="k141a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; this proves it.
</p><p>
	Rab Judah<a id="k141a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; said: To crush peppergrains one by one with a knife-handle is permitted; in twos, it is forbidden.<a id="k141a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: Since he does it in a different way,<a id="k141a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; crushing even many [is permitted] too.
</p><p>
	Rab Judah also said: If one bathes in water, he should first dry himself<a id="k141a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and then ascend, lest he come to carry<a id="k141a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; four cubits in a <i>karmelith</i>.<a id="k141a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; If so, when he enters<a id="k141a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; too, his force propels the water four cubits,<a id="k141a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; which is forbidden? &mdash; They did not prohibit one's force in a <i>karmelith</i>.
</p><p>
	Abaye &mdash; others state, Rab Judah &mdash; said: One may scrape off the clay from his foot on to the ground, but not on to a wall. Said Raba, Why not on to a wall? because It looks like building?<a id="k141a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; but it is ignorant building?<a id="k141a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather said Raba: He may scrape it off on to a wall but not on to the ground, lest he come to level holes. It was stated, Mar son of Rabina said: Both are forbidden; R. Papa said: Both are permitted. According to Mar son of Rabina, whereon shall he scrape it? He scrapes it on a plank.<a id="k141a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba said: A man should not sit on the top of a stake,<a id="k141a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; lest an article roll away from him<a id="k141a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; and he come to fetch it.
</p><p>
	Raba also said: One must not bend sideways a cask [which is standing] on the ground,<a id="k141a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; lest he come to level hollows.
</p><p>
	Raba also said: One must not squeeze a cloth stopper into the mouth of a jug, lest he come to wring [it] out.
</p><p>
	R. Kahana said: As for the clay [mire] on one's garment, he may rub off from the inside but not from the outside.<a id="k141a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; An objection is raised: One may scrape off the clay from his shoes with the back of a knife, and that which is on one's garment he may scrape off with [even]<a id="k141a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; his finger nail, providing that he does not rub it. Surely that means that he must not rub it at all? &mdash; No: he must not rub it from the outside but only from the inside.
</p><p>
	R. Abbahu said in R. Eleazar's name in R. Jannai's name: A new shoe may be scraped, but not an old one.
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k141b_1:" Because the oil incidentally softens the leather, which is forbidden."
,k141b_2:" Of transgression."
,k141b_3:" When he puts his oiled foot in the shoe or sandal his purpose is to polish the leather."
,k141b_4:" To soften the leather or make it more pliable."
,k141b_5:" Of oil rubbed on to the foot."
,k141b_6:" Lest it fall off, and he come to carry it."
,k141b_7:" Rashi. Jast.: 'a flappy (outworn) shoe' &mdash; either because she may be laughed at and so she will take it off' (Rashi), or it fall off, and she come to carry it."
,k141b_8:" She is particular about the fit, and if it is not exact, she may remove and carry it. 'New' means never worn at all."
,k141b_9:" Lit., 'while it was yet day Friday.'"
,k141b_10:" 'Clean' and 'unclean' mean not susceptible and susceptible to uncleanness respectively. R. Eliezer holds that as long as it is on the last it is not a completely finished article, whereas only such can become unclean. Since it is not a finished article, it may not be handled on the Sabbath. The view of the Rabbis is the reverse."
,k141b_11:" V. notes <i>supra</i> 123b."
,k141b_12:" For the function of the last is a forbidden one, and in removing the shoe one must necessarily handle the last, though he does not require the use of the last itself, and according to Abaye that is forbidden."
,k141b_13:" So that the last is not handled at all."
,k141b_14:" The Baraitha which makes a distinction between where it is loose or not"
,k141b_15:" Though R. Eliezer holds that as long as it is on the last it is not completely finished (v. <i>supra</i>) and therefore may not be handled, that is only if it is tightly fitted on it, so that there is some difficulty in removing it. But if it is loose and comes off easily he admits that it is finished; hence it ranks as an article, is susceptible to defilement, and may be handled on the Sabbath."
,k141b_16:" Although the stone or the unclean <i>terumah</i> by itself may not be handled as mukzeh."
,k141b_17:" Lit., 'take up'."
,k141b_18:" If one part of <i>terumah</i> is accidentally mixed with a hundred parts of hullin it is neutralized and the mixture is permitted to non-priests. Nevertheless, since it does contain some <i>terumah</i>, though it cannot be distinguished from the rest, one part must be removed, and R. Judah permits this on the Sabbath."
,k141b_19:" From a private into a public domain."
,k141b_20:" V. <i>supra</i> 94a."
,k141b_21:" Since the bed is required for him."
,k141b_22:" V. <i>supra</i> 30a; carrying out a dead child comes under this category, <i>supra</i> 94b."
,k141b_23:" This proves that the man is not regarded as himself holding the stone, which would be forbidden. Hence by analogy he does not carry out the purse suspended around the child's neck; why then is he culpable on its account?"
,k141b_24:" If he does not take him up he may sicken with pining, though it will not actually endanger him: hence since the father does not actually handle the stone himself he is permitted to take him up. "
}

txt:
<p>
With what does one scrape it? &mdash; Said R. Abbahu: With the back of a knife. A certain old man said to him, Delete your [teaching] on account of what R. Hiyya taught: One must not scrape either a new shoe or all old one, nor must he rub his foot with oil while it is in the shoe or sandal;<a id="k141b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; but one may rub his foot with oil and place it in his shoe or sandal; he may also oil his whole body and roll himself on a leather spread without fear.<a id="k141b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hisda said: They learnt this only [if his intention is] to polish it;<a id="k141b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; but [if it is] to dress it,<a id="k141b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; it is forbidden. 'To dress it'? surely that is obvious? Moreover, does any one permit it [if he desires] to polish it? &mdash; Rather if stated, It was thus stated: R. Hisda said: They learnt this only of a quantity [sufficient merely] to polish it; but [if] the quantity<a id="k141b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [is sufficient] to dress it, it is forbidden. 
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: A small[-footed] man must not go out with the shoe of a large[-footed] man,<a id="k141b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; but he may go out with [too] large a shirt. A woman must not go out with a gaping shoe,<a id="k141b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; nor may she perform <i>halizah</i> therewith; yet if she does perform <i>halizah</i> therewith, the <i>halizah</i> is valid. And one must not go out with a new shoe: of what shoe did they rule this? Of a woman's shoe.<a id="k141b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Bar Kappara taught: They learnt [this] only where she had not gone out therein one hour before nightfall;<a id="k141b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; but if she went out therein on the eve of the Sabbath, it is permitted.
</p><p>
	One [Baraitha] taught: A shoe may be removed from its last; while another taught: It may not be removed. There is no difficulty: one is [according to] R. Eliezer, the other [according to] the Rabbis. For we learnt: If a shoe is on the last, &mdash; R. Eliezer declares it clean, while the Sages declare it is unclean.<a id="k141b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; This is well according to Raba, who maintained: It is permitted [to handle] an article whose function is for a forbidden purpose, whether it is required itself or for its place: then it is correct. But on Abaye's view that it may be [handled] for itself, but it is forbidden [to handle it] when its place is required,<a id="k141b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; what can be said?<a id="k141b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; We treat here of one [a shoe] that is loose [on the last].<a id="k141b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; For it was taught, R. Judah said: If it is loose. it is permitted [to remove it]. The reason [then why it is permitted] is because it is loose. But if it is not loose it is not [permitted]? This is well on Abaye's view that an article whose function is for a forbidden purpose may be [handled] when required for itself, but not when its place [only] is required: then it is correct. But according to Raba, who maintains, it is permitted [to handle it] both when required for itself or when its place is required, what can be said: [for] why particularly a loose [shoe], &mdash; even if not loose too it is thus? That<a id="k141b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; represents R. Judah's view in R. Eliezer's name. For it was taught: R. Judah said in R. Eliezer's name: If it is loose, it is permitted.<a id="k141b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_xxi">CHAPTER XXI</A>
      </H2>

</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A MAN MAY TAKE UP HIS SON WHILE HE HAS A STONE IN HIS HAND OR A BASKET WITH A STONE IN IT; AND UNCLEAN <I>TERUMAH</I> MAY BE HANDLED TOGETHER WITH CLEAN [<I>TERUMAH</I>] OR WITH HULLIN.<a id="k141b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; R. JUDAH SAID: ONE MAY ALSO REMOVE<a id="k141b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; THE ADMIXTURE [OF <I>TERUMAH</I> IN HULLIN] WHEN ONE [PART IS NEUTRALIZED] IN A HUNDRED [PARTS].<a id="k141b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Raba said: If one carries out<a id="k141b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; a live child with a purse hanging around its neck, he is culpable on account of the purse; a dead child with a purse hanging around its neck, he is not culpable. 'A live child with a purse hanging around its neck, he is culpable on account of the purse. But let him be culpable on account of the child? &mdash; Raba agrees with R. Nathan, who maintained, A living [person] carries himself.<a id="k141b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; But let the purse be counted as nought in relation to the child? Did we not learn, [If one carries out] a living person in a bed, he is not culpable, even in respect of the bed, because the bed is subsidiary to him? &mdash; A bed is accounted as nought in relation to a living person,<a id="k141b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; but a purse is not accounted as nought in relation to the child.
</p><p>
	'A dead child with a purse hanging around its neck, he is not culpable.' But let him be culpable on account of the child? Raba agrees with R. Simeon, who maintained: One is not culpable on account of a labour unrequired per se.<a id="k141b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	We learnt: A MAN MAY TAKE UP HIS SON WHILE HE HAS A STONE IN HIS HAND?<a id="k141b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The School of R. Jannai said: This refers to a child who pines for his father.<a id="k141b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; If so,
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k143a_1:" If left until the evening after the Festival."
,k143a_2:" Intending them for cats, and therefore they are mukan (q.v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>)."
,k143a_3:" For wood in a shed is generally meant for fuel, not to be used as a utensil,"
,k143a_4:" That Raba accepts the interdict of mukzeh, in accordance with R. Judah."
,k143a_5:" By hand, though they are not even fit for a dog &mdash; dry and hard bones are referred to for Beth Shammai do not accept the interdict of mukzeh."
,k143a_6:" But the bones and nutshells may not be handled, Beth Hillel accepting the interdict of mukzeh."
,k143a_7:" For fear of wringing out the absorbed moisture."
,k143a_8:" This is omitted in some versions."
,k143a_9:" When dry."
,k143a_10:" Being neither a wooden utensil, a garment, a sack, nor metal, and only these can become unclean."
,k143a_11:" R. Judah accepts the interdict of mukzeh; R. Simeon does not. Hence the views ascribed to Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel respectively in our Mishnah must be reversed."
,k143a_12:" Lit., 'by hand'."
,k143a_13:" Rashi: since the Mishnah states, ONE MAY REMOVE, implying that they are removed by hand, and must not be thrown away. Tosaf. rejects this deduction: moreover, it appears from Ber. 52b that 'may be destroyed' is the correct reading. Accordingly, Tosaf. reads there: &hellip; may be wantonly destroyed, the deduction being from the statement, BECAUSE THEY ARE FOOD FOR ANIMALS, which may be destroyed."
,k143a_14:" For on Judah's view it is mukzeh, since it was together with the edible portion before the Sabbath when it was not mukan for animals."
,k143a_15:" The unintentional act is that in holding it water is wrung out."
,k143a_16:" V. p. 357, n. 8."
,k143a_17:" These were of an inferior quality and only fit for cattle."
,k143a_18:" Lit., 'their mother'. Sc. the date itself, v. n. 8, the case here being the reverse."
,k143a_19:" Because the dates themselves were fit for human beings."
,k143a_20:" Similar to the cases given <i>supra</i> 142b."
,k143a_21:" V. p. 149, n. 6. SH=SHemuel (Samuel). R=Rabbah; N=R. Huna; S=R. AShi, SH=SHesheth, P=R. Papa; Z=R. Zechariah."
,k143a_22:" <i>Supra</i> 50b."
,k143a_23:" He collected all the kernels in front of him; the quantity made them repulsive and he could treat them as a pot of excrements, which may be removed."
,k143a_24:" Surely not. Thus he disagrees with R. Huna."
,k143a_25:" Upon which he reclined while eating. "
}

txt:
<p>
There, since they would putrefy,<a id="k143a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; his mind was [set] upon them from the previous day.<a id="k143a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; 
</p><p>
	Logic too indicates that Raba agrees with R. Judah. For Raba lectured: A woman must not enter a wood-shed to take thence a wood poker;<a id="k143a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and if a wood poker is broken [on a Festival], it may not be used as fuel on the Festival, because we may heat with utensils but not with fragments of utensils. This proves it.<a id="k143a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. BETH SHAMMAI SAY: ONE MAY REMOVE BONES AND [NUT]SHELLS FROM THE TABLE;<a id="k143a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT BETH HILLEL RULE: ONE MUST TAKE AWAY THE WHOLE BOARD AND SHAKE IT.<a id="k143a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; ONE MAY REMOVE FROM THE TABLE CRUMBS LESS THAN THE SIZE OF AN OLIVE AND THE PANICLES OF BEANS AND LENTILS, BECAUSE THEY ARE FOOD FOR ANIMALS. AS FOR A SPONGE, IF IT HAS A LEATHERN HANDLE, ONE MAY WIPE [THE BOARD] WITH IT; IF NOT, ONE MAY NOT WIPE [THE BOARD] WITH IT.<a id="k143a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [THE SAGES MAINTAIN]:<a id="k143a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; IN EITHER CASE IT MAY BE HANDLED ON THE SABBATH<a id="k143a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; AND IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO DEFILEMENT.<a id="k143a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Nahman said: As for us, we have no other [view] but that Beth Shammai agrees with R. Judah, and Beth Hillel with R. Simeon.<a id="k143a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	ONE MAY REMOVE CRUMBS FROM THE TABLE. This supports R. Johanan. For R. Johanan said: Crumbs less than an olive in size may not be wantonly<a id="k143a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; destroyed.<a id="k143a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	PANICLES OF BEANS. Who is the authority? [Apparently] R. Simeon, who rejects [the interdict of] mukzeh?<a id="k143a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Then consider the final clause: AS FOR A SPONGE, IF IT HAS A LEATHERN HANDLE, ONE MAY WIPE [THE BOARD] WITH IT; IF NOT, ONE MAY NOT WIPE WITH IT: this agrees with R. Judah, who maintains, That which is unintentional is forbidden?<a id="k143a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Here even R. Simeon agrees, for Abaye and Raba both maintained: R. Simeon admits in a case of 'cut off his head but let him not die.'<a id="k143a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The kernels of Syrian dates<a id="k143a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; may be handled, since they are fit [for cattle] on account of their parent source,<a id="k143a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; but those of Persian [dates] are forbidden.<a id="k143a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Samuel handled them in virtue of [a piece of] bread.<a id="k143a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; (Mnemonic: <i>SHaRNaS SHaPaZ</i>.)<a id="k143a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Samuel is consistent with his view, for Samuel said: One may carry out all his requirements with bread.<a id="k143a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbah handled them in virtue of a bowl [flask] of water. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua made them as a pot of excrements.<a id="k143a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Ashi to Amemar: But may we make a pot of excrements at the outset?<a id="k143a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Shesheth threw them away [spat them out] with his tongue. R. Papa threw them behind the couch.<a id="k143a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; It was said of R. Zechariah b. Eucolos that he would turn his face to the back of the couch and throw them away.
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k143b_1:" On the Sabbath."
,k143b_2:" Lit., 'food'."
,k143b_3:" I.e., he must not absorb the spilt wine in a sponge, lest he wring it out (into a vessel), which is forbidden."
,k143b_4:" This is forbidden under threshing, v. <i>supra</i> 73a."
,k143b_5:" E.g., dates which are intended for eating."
,k143b_6:" E.g., dates intended for honey."
,k143b_7:" This is the reading <i>supra</i> 19b, R. Eleazar b. Shammua' being the Tanna that is meant &mdash; Rashi ibid; v. BaH. Cur. edd. R. Eliezer."
,k143b_8:" With his hands, which he then wipes on the edge of a vessel so that the oil runs unto it."
,k143b_9:" This implies that he may collect only what he intends eating there and then. Tosaf. however, favours the deletion of 'and eat it'."
,k143b_10:" If they exude their liquid he does not mind, or is even pleased."
,k143b_11:" Probably: if you think carefully about it you will find the answer yourself."
,k143b_12:" Which were not usually pressed for juice."
,k143b_13:" Ri. (v. Tosaf. a.l.) Rashi translates; if oil oozes out of olives, etc. &mdash; of its own accord."
,k143b_14:" To the house for storing. 'Then' is added on the Ri's explanation. Rashi: he had (previously) carried in."
,k143b_15:" Lit., 'wine'."
,k143b_16:" I.e., if it falls on a food-stuff it makes it liable to defilement, cf. p. 45, n. 1, likewise, it is defiled itself if it comes into contact with a dead sherez (q.v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>)- Rashi, Maim. and Asheri in Maksh. VI, 8."
,k143b_17:" Cf. p. 45, n. 1."
,k143b_18:" For the power of rendering food susceptible to uncleanness depends upon whether the fluid is regarded as a liquid or not. Hence since cows milk is more widely used as a liquid than woman's milk, its power in this respect cannot be less than that of the latter."
,k143b_19:" In the same sense as in p. 727, n. 7."
,k143b_20:" Likewise in the same sense; Nid. 55b. "
}

txt:
<p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_xxii">CHAPTER XXII</A>
      </H2>

</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A CASK [OF WINE] IS BROKEN,<a id="k143b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; ONE MAY SAVE THEREOF THE REQUIREMENTS<a id="k143b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; FOR THREE MEALS, AND HE [THE OWNER] CAN SAY TO OTHERS, 'COME AND SAVE FOR YOURSELVES', PROVIDED THAT HE DOES NOT SPONGE IT UP.<a id="k143b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; FRUIT MAY NOT BE SQUEEZED IN ORDER TO EXPRESS THEIR JUICES:<a id="k143b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; IF THEY EXUDE OF THEIR OWN ACCORD THEY ARE PROHIBITED. R. JUDAH SAID: IF [THEY STAND] AS EATABLES,<a id="k143b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; THAT WHICH EXUDES FROM THEM IS PERMITTED; BUT IF FOR LIQUIDS,<a id="k143b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; THAT WHICH EXUDES FROM THEM IS PROHIBITED. IF HONEYCOMBS ARE CRUSHED ON THE EVE OF THE SABBATH AND IT [THE HONEY] EXUDES SPONTANEOUSLY, IT IS FORBIDDEN; BUT R. ELEAZAR<a id="k143b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; PERMITS IT.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. A Tanna taught: One must not sponge up wine nor dab up oil,<a id="k143b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; so that he should not act as he does during the week.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: If one's produce is scattered in his courtyard, he may collect a little at a time and eat it,<a id="k143b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; but not into a basket or a tub, so that he should not act as he does during the week. 
</p><p>
	FRUIT MAY NOT BE SQUEEZED, [etc.]. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: R. Judah agreed with the Sages in respect to olives and grapes. What is the reason? Since they are [normally] for expressing, he puts his mind to them.<a id="k143b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; But 'Ulla said in Rab's name: R. Judah disagreed in respect of olives and grapes too. While R. Johanan said: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Judah in the case of other produce, but the <i>halachah</i> is not as R. Judah in the case of olives and grapes. Rabbah said in Rab Judah's name in Samuel's name: R. Judah agreed with the Sages in respect of olives and grapes, while the Sages agreed with R. Judah in respect of other produce. Said R. Jeremiah to R. Abba: Then wherein do they differ? When you find it [I will tell you,] he replied.<a id="k143b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman b. Isaac said: It is reasonable that they differ in the case of mulberries and pomegranates.<a id="k143b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; For it was taught: If one draws off oil from olives, or wine from grapes,<a id="k143b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and [then] carries them in,<a id="k143b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; whether as eatables or for their liquids, that which exudes from them is forbidden. If one draws fluid out of mulberries or juice<a id="k143b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; out of pomegranates, and [then] carries them in, as eatables, that which exudes from them is permitted; [if he carries them in] for their liquid or without specifying [their purpose], that which exudes from them is forbidden: the words of R. Judah. But the Sages maintain: Whether for eating or for drinking, that which exudes from them is forbidden.
</p><p>
	Now, does R. Judah hold that if it [the purpose] is unspecified, it [the exuding liquid] is forbidden? But surely we learnt: A woman's milk defiles,<a id="k143b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [whether it flows] with or without [the woman's] desire; a cow's milk defiles only [when it flows] with [its owner's] desire.<a id="k143b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Akiba, It [the reverse] follows a minori: if woman's milk, which is set apart for infants only, defiles [whether it flows] with or without [her] desire, then cow's milk, which is set apart for both infants and adults, surely defiles [whether it flows] with or without [the owner's] desire.<a id="k143b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; [Said they to him]: If a woman's milk is unclean<a id="k143b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; without [her] desire, that may be because the blood of her wound is unclean;<a id="k143b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; shall cow's milk be unclean
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k148a_1:" He held that this is the correct reading of the Mishnah."
,k148a_2:" Rashi: take his coat until he comes."
,k148a_3:" They are both of our district."
,k148a_4:" Otherwise we would have remained in error."
,k148a_5:" Lit., 'his hand changed' &mdash; from its place."
,k148a_6:" He manipulated his hand in various ways and asked of each whether it was permitted on the Sabbath."
,k148a_7:" Lit., 'was healed'."
,k148a_8:" Which shows that the text may be corrupt. and so the same may apply to the present quotation."
,k148a_9:" Will you apply the same argument to all?"
,k148a_10:" You cannot assume that the text is corrupt here too."
,k148a_11:" This is explained in the Gemara."
,k148a_12:" If one forgot to buy an animal before the Sabbath, he leaves his cloak as a pledge with a vendor on the Sabbath, and takes an animal, but must not actually buy it then, fixing its price."
,k148a_13:" Both mean 'lend me', the first implying for a considerable time, the second for a short period (Rashi). &mdash; The Mishnah forbids the use of the first term. [Tosaf.: in the first case the object itself passes into the possession of the borrower; in the second, the borrower enjoys only right of use in the object while the object itself remains the possession of the lender. V. Tosaf. a.l., Kid. 47b and Rappaport J. Das Darlehen pp. 29ff.]"
,k148a_14:" He expects to remember it in any case."
,k148a_15:" He allows him to keep it for a long time, though the request was only hash'ileni."
,k148a_16:" Thinking that the borrower may keep it a long time."
,k148a_17:" So as not to do them in the same way as during the week, even where they are permitted. "
}

txt:
<p>
The <i>halachah</i> is that one may reset a fracture.<a id="k148a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbah b. Bar Hanah visited Pumbeditha. He did not attend Rab Judah's session, [so] he sent Adda the waiter to him and said, 'Go and seize him.'<a id="k148a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; So he went and seized him. When he [Rabbah] appeared, he found him [Rab Judah] lecturing, One may not reset a fracture. Said he to him, Thus did R. Hana of Bagdad say in Samuel's name: The <i>halachah</i> is that one may reset a fracture. Said he to him, Surely Hana is one of ours and Samuel is one of ours,<a id="k148a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; yet I have not heard this; did I then not summon you justly?<a id="k148a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF ONE'S HAND IS DISLOCATED, etc. R. Awia was sitting before R. Joseph. when his hand became dislocated.<a id="k148a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; How is it thus? asked he. It is forbidden. And how is it thus?<a id="k148a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; It is forbidden. In the meantime his hand reset itself.<a id="k148a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Said he to him, what is your question? Surely we learnt, IF ONE'S HAND OR FOOT IS DISLOCATED HE MUST NOT AGITATE IT VIOLENTLY IN COLD WATER, BUT MAY BATHE IT IN THE USUAL WAY, AND IF IT HEALS, IT HEALS. But did we not learn: ONE MAY NOT RESET A FRACTURE, he retorted, yet R. Hana of Bagdad said in Samuel's name, The <i>halachah</i> is that one may reset a fracture.<a id="k148a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Will you weave all in one web?<a id="k148a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; he replied; where it was stated it was stated, but where it was not stated it was not stated.<a id="k148a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_xxiii">CHAPTER XXIII</A>
      </H2>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A MAN MAY BORROW PITCHERS OF WINE AND PITCHERS OF OIL FROM HIS NEIGHBOUR, PROVIDED HE DOES NOT SAY TO HIM, 'LEND [THEM] [HALWENI] TO ME';<a id="k148a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; AND SIMILARLY A WOMAN [MAY BORROW] LOAVES FROM HER NEIGHBOUR. IF HE DOES NOT TRUST HIM HE LEAVES HIS CLOAK WITH HIM [AS A PLEDGE] AND MAKES A RECKONING WITH HIM AFTER THE SABBATH. IN THE SAME WAY, IF THE EVE OF PASSOVER IN JERUSALEM FALLS ON A SABBATH, ONE LEAVES HIS CLOAK WITH HIM [THE VENDOR] AND RECEIVES HIS PASCHAL LAMB<a id="k148a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; AND MAKES A RECKONING WITH HIM AFTER THE FESTIVAL.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>Raba son of R. Hanan asked Abaye: Wherein does halweni differ from hash'ileni?<a id="k148a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; In the case of hash'ileni, he replied, he [the lender] will not come to write it down;<a id="k148a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas [if he says] halweni he will come to write it down. But since on weekdays it sometimes happens that one wishes to say halweni but says hash'ileni, yet he is not particular<a id="k148a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and comes to write it down, so on the Sabbath too he may come to write it down?<a id="k148a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; On the Sabbath, he replied since the Rabbis permitted hash'ileni only, but not halweni, the matter is distinguishable and he will not come to write.
</p><p>
	Raba son of R. Hanan said to Abaye: Consider! The Rabbis said, 'Regarding all actions on Festivals, as far as it is possible to vary, we vary them;<a id="k148a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; then the women who fill their pitchers on Festivals, why do they not vary [their way of doing it]? Because it is impossible. How should they do it: shall those who [usually] draw [water] with a large pitcher [now] draw [it] with a small pitcher? then they increase the amount of walking! Shall those who [usually] draw [water] with, a small pitcher [now] draw it with a large one? then they increase the burden.
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k148b_1:" With a permanent knot, which is forbidden."
,k148b_2:" The former two in grief the third in joy."
,k148b_3:" V. <i>supra</i> 141a."
,k148b_4:" V. BaH."
,k148b_5:" Both cases mentioned here are Rabbinical."
,k148b_6:" The fast must begin before the Day of Atonement actually commences, and this is deduced from Scripture; v. Yoma 81b."
,k148b_7:" V. B.M. 75a."
,k148b_8:" If the price of the loaf is fixed (and our Mishnah refers to such) even Hillel agrees, because if it advances the lender will make an allowance when it is returned."
,k148b_9:" In a court of Law."
,k148b_10:" Alfasi and Asheri read: Raba."
,k148b_11:" This refers to New Year following the seventh year, debts contracted during which are void (v. Deut. XV, 1, 2). The months consist of either thirty or twenty-nine days; in the former case the following month is celebrated with two days as New Moon, the first of which is the last day of the previous month. Now if a butcher kills a cow and divides it among his customers on credit on the first New Year's day following the seventh year: if the previous month, Elul, consisted of thirty days, this New Year's Day was really the last day of Elul, i.e., of the seventh year, and therefore the debt cannot be claimed. But if Elul consisted of twenty-nine days, this New Year's Day is the first of the eighth year, hence the debt can be claimed. &mdash; New Year, of course, is a Festival."
,k148b_12:" Sc. a debt contracted on any Festival."
,k148b_13:" Sc. the last day of Elul, in spite of the fact that it was celebrated as New Year."
,k148b_14:" Surely not! The year of release does not actually cancel debts but merely deprives the creditor of his right to exact them."
,k148b_15:" E. V. 'manner'."
,k148b_16:" Deut. XV, 2.I.e., the creditor must inform the debtor of the release."
,k148b_17:" From anyone who borrowed from him on a Festival."
,k148b_18:" <i>Var. lec</i>.: Raba."
,k148b_19:" Rashi: after the Festival he would take an article from the debtor and then detain it."
,k148b_20:" I.e., when the eve of Passover falls on the Sabbath."
,k148b_21:" An animal must be formally sanctified before it may be offered as a sacrifice. This may not be done on Sabbaths or Festivals, but since two animals are actually offered on those days respectively they may be sanctified too, if that was not done previously."
,k148b_22:" And of course he would have to sanctify it on the same day."
,k148b_23:" Those who participate in the sacrifice must formally enrol themselves as members to share in that particular animal (v. Ex. Xli, 4). Thus the payment is merely for a share in an animal which is already consecrated."
,k148b_24:" Because it is regarded as transacting business, v. Bez. 27b."
,k148b_25:" I.e., the shepherd sanctifies it on the festival even on his behalf."
,k148b_26:" l.e., when he receives it."
,k148b_27:" l.e. the Rabbis held it more fitting that the owner too should sanctify the animal, but actually that has already been done."
,k148b_28:" Heb. [H]. This is the technical term for a vow to give one's own or another person's 'valuation' to the Temple. V. Lev. XXVII, 1ff"
,k148b_29:" Heb. [H], i.e. renounce an object by dedicating it absolutely for priestly use; v. Lev. XXVII, 28f."
,k148b_30:" E.g., the Passover sacrifice and Festive offerings. Such may be sanctified on the Sabbath and Festivals, as otherwise the obligation must remain unfulfilled."
,k148b_31:" Which portion of the food shall belong to each."
,k148b_32:" The portions must be alike in size, not one larger and one smaller, so that the first drawn by lot shall receive the largest, etc."
,k148b_33:" This is explained in the Gemara. "
}

txt:
<p>
Shall one spread a cloth? then he may come to wring it out. Shall one cover it with a lid? it [the string wherewith it is tied] may break and he will come to knot it.<a id="k148b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Therefore it is impossible.
</p><p>
	Raba son of R. Hanan also said to Abaye: We learnt, One must not clap [the hands], beat [the breast], or dance<a id="k148b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; on Festivals. Yet we see that they do it, and do not rebuke them in any way? &mdash; Then on your reasoning, when Rabbah said: A man should not sit on the top of a stake, lest an article roll away from him and he come to fetch it,<a id="k148b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; yet we see [women]<a id="k148b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; who carry pitchers and sit at the entrance of alleys, and we do not rebuke them? But leave Israel: better that they should [sin] in ignorance than deliberately. Now, he understood from this that that [principle] holds good only in respect of Rabbinical [enactments] but not Scriptural laws.<a id="k148b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Yet that is not so: there is no difference between a Rabbinical and a Scriptural law. For lo! the addition to the Day of Atonement is Scriptural,<a id="k148b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; yet we see them [women] eat and drink until it is dark and do not rebuke them.
</p><p>
	AND SIMILARLY A WOMAN [MAY BORROW] LOAVES FROM HER NEIGHBOUR, [etc.] Only on the Sabbath is it forbidden, but on weekdays it is well. Shall we say that our Mishnah does not agree with Hillel, for we learnt: And thus Hillel used to say: A woman must not lend a loaf to her neighbour without first valuing it, lest wheat advances and they [the lender and the borrower] come to [transgress the prohibition of] usury?<a id="k148b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; You may even say [that it agrees with] Hillel: the one is in a place where its value is fixed; the other, where its value is not fixed.<a id="k148b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF HE DOES NOT TRUST HIM. It was stated: As for a loan made on a Festival, &mdash; R. Joseph said: It cannot be claimed;<a id="k148b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; whilst Rabbah<a id="k148b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; said: It can be claimed. 'R. Joseph said: It cannot be claimed', for if you say that it can be claimed, he [the lender] will come to record it. 'Rabbah said: It can be claimed', for if you say that it cannot, he will not lend him, and so he will come to abstain from the joy of the Festival.
</p><p>
	We learnt: IF HE DOES NOT TRUST HIM, HE LEAVES HIS CLOAK WITH HIM: now, it is well if you say that it cannot be claimed, therefore he must leave his cloak with him and make a reckoning with him after the Sabbath. But if you say that it can be claimed, why must he leave his cloak with him: let him, lend it and then [re-]claim it? &mdash; He says, I do not wish to stand at court and before judges.
</p><p>
	R. Idi b. Abin objected: If one kills a cow and apportions it on New Year, [then] if the month was prolonged it cancels [the debt]; but if not, it does not cancel the debt.<a id="k148b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; But if it cannot be claimed,<a id="k148b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; what does it cancel! &mdash; There it is different, because it is [retrospectively] revealed that it was a weekday.<a id="k148b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Come and hear [a refutation] from the second clause: 'but if not, it does not cancel the debt'. Now, it is well if you say that it can be claimed, hence he teaches [that] it does not cancel [the debt]; but if you say that it cannot be claimed, then what is meant by 'it does not cancel [the debt]'? &mdash; That if he [the debtor] pays him, he accepts it: whence it follows that the first clause means that [even] if he pays him he must not accept!<a id="k148b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In the first clause he must tell him, 'l release it,' while in the second he need not say, 'l release it'. As we learnt: If one repays a debt in the seventh year he [the creditor] must tell him, 'I release it;' but if he [the debtor] replies, '[I repay] even so,' he may accept it from him, for it is said, And this is the word<a id="k148b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; of the release.<a id="k148b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Awia used to take a pledge.<a id="k148b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbah<a id="k148b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; b. 'Ulla had recourse to an artifice.<a id="k148b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IN THE SAME WAY, IF THE EVE OF PASSOVER, etc. R. Johanan said: One may sanctify his Passover sacrifice on the Sabbath<a id="k148b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; and his Festival sacrifice on the Festival.<a id="k148b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Shall we say that we can support him: IN THE SAME WAY, IF THE EVE OF PASSOVER IN JERUSALEM FALLS ON A SABBATH, ONE LEAVES HIS CLOAK WITH HIM AND RECEIVES HIS PASCHAL LAMB, AND MAKES A RECKONING WITH HIM AFTER THE FESTIVAL?<a id="k148b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [No.] We treat here of one who assigns shares to others together with himself in his Passover sacrifice,<a id="k148b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; so that it stands sanctified from before. But we learnt: One may not enrol [to share] in an animal on the Festival in the first place?<a id="k148b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Here it is different: since he is a habitue of his, it is as though he had enrolled for it beforehand. But R. Oshaia taught: 'A man can go to a shepherd to whom he is accustomed to go and he gives him a sheep for his Passover sacrifice, and he sanctifies it and fulfils his obligation therewith? &mdash; There too, since he is accustomed to go to him, he [the shepherd] does indeed sanctify it beforehand.<a id="k148b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; But he states, 'he sanctifies it'?<a id="k148b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This sanctification is a Rabbinical preferment.<a id="k148b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; But did R. Johanan say thus? Surely R. Johanan said: The <i>halachah</i> is [always] as an anonymous Mishnah, whereas we learnt: One may not sanctify, vow a 'valuation',<a id="k148b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; devote,<a id="k148b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; or separate terumoth and tithes: all these were said of Festivals, and how much more so of the Sabbath! &mdash; There is no difficulty: One refers to obligatory offerings for which there is a fixed time;<a id="k148b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; the other refers to obligations for which there is no fixed time.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A MAN MAY COUNT HIS GUESTS AND HIS DAINTY PORTIONS BY WORD OF MOUTH, BUT NOT FROM WRITING. A MAN MAY CAST LOTS WITH HIS SONS AND THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD FOR THE TABLE,<a id="k148b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; PROVIDED THAT HE DOES NOT INTEND TO OFFSET A LARGE PORTION AGAINST A SMALL ONE.<a id="k148b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; AND [PRIESTS] MAY CAST LOTS FOR SACRIFICES ON FESTIVALS, BUT NOT FOR THE PORTIONS.<a id="k148b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k153a_1:" If it arouses widespread grief he must have been a good man who earned the enjoyment of the future world."
,k153a_2:" When it is pronounced. But if he felt certain that a funeral lament for a good man is spontaneously fervent and deep, what need of exhortation?"
,k153a_3:" Lit., 'warmed'."
,k153a_4:" Rashi: because of his outspokenness, v. Hul. 127a."
,k153a_5:" Isa. XXX, 21. I.e., if one hears a voice proclaiming thus after his death, he has earned the world to come."
,k153a_6:" <i>Var. lec</i>. our teachers."
,k153a_7:" Eccl. XII, 5."
,k153a_8:" In Galilee the professional mourners walked in front of the bier, in Judah behind."
,k153a_9:" A similar thought is expressed in the Book of Ben Sira, V, 8."
,k153a_10:" Eccl. IX, 8."
,k153a_11:" The summons to enter may come at any moment."
,k153a_12:" Lit., 'trouble'."
,k153a_13:" Their punishment would not be so great."
,k153a_14:" Isa. LXV, 13f."
,k153a_15:" The Sabbath commences."
,k153a_16:" V. <i>supra</i> 17b."
,k153a_17:" Of the first town where he arrives."
,k153a_18:" Whereby they are fastened to the saddle."
,k153a_19:" Though that is tantamount to instructing the Gentile to carry it for him, which is forbidden."
,k153a_20:" Lit., 'it was established to the Rabbis'."
,k153a_21:" Finds are rare."
,k153a_22:" In preference."
,k153a_23:" V. Ex. XX, 10"
,k153a_24:" These three are frequently linked together as being the same in law."
,k153a_25:" I.e., separated by him. "
}

txt:
<p>
and the soul ascends but descends nevermore.
</p><p>
	Rab Judah son of R. Samuel b. Shila said in Rab's name: From the funeral eulogy pronounced over a man it may be known whether the future world is his or not.<a id="k153a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; But that is not so? for Rab said to R. Samuel b. Shilath, 'Be fervent in my funeral eulogy. for I will be standing there'?<a id="k153a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is no difficulty: in the one case a fervent lament is pronounced and one is deeply moved,<a id="k153a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; in the other a fervent lament is pronounced and one is not moved. Abaye asked Rabbah: 'You, for instance, whom the whole of the Pumbeditheans hate,<a id="k153a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; who will arouse lamentation for you?' 'You and Rabbah b. R. Hanan will suffice,' he replied.
</p><p>
	R. Eleazar asked Rab: Which man has earned [enjoyment of] the future world? Said he to him, And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it,' when, ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left.<a id="k153a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hanina said: He with whom his teachers are pleased.<a id="k153a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And the mourners go about the streets.<a id="k153a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; The Galileans said: Perform actions [which shall be lamented] in front of thy bier; the Judaeans said: Perform actions [to be lamented] behind thy bier. But they do not differ: each [spoke] in accordance with [the usage in] his locality.<a id="k153a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	We learnt elsewhere, R. Eliezer said: Repent one day before your death.<a id="k153a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; His disciples asked him, Does then one know on what day he will die? Then all the more reason that he repent to-day, he replied, lest he die to-morrow, and thus his whole life is spent in repentance. And Solomon too said in his wisdom, Let thy garments be always white; and let not thy head lack ointment.<a id="k153a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan b. Zakkai said: This may be compared to a king who summoned his servants to a banquet without appointing a time. The wise ones adorned themselves and sat at the door of the palace. ['for,'] said they. 'is anything lacking in a royal palace?'<a id="k153a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; The fools went about their work, saying, 'can there be a banquet without preparations'?<a id="k153a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Suddenly the king desired [the presence of] his servants: the wise entered adorned, while the fools entered soiled. The king rejoiced at the wise but was angry with the fools. 'Those who adorned themselves for the banquet,' ordered he, 'let them sit, eat and drink. But those who did not adorn themselves for the banquet, let them stand and watch.' R. Meir's son-in-law said in R. Meir's name: Then they too would [merely] look as being in attendance.<a id="k153a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; But both sit, the former eating and the latter hungering, the former drinking and the latter thirsting, for it is said, Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, my servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry: behold, my servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty: [behold, my servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be ashamed:] behold, my servants shall sing for joy of heart, but ye shall cry for sorrow of heart.<a id="k153a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Another, interpretation: 'Let thy garments be always white' &mdash; this refers to fringes; 'and let not thy head lack ointment' &mdash; to tefillin.
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_xxiv">CHAPTER XXIV</A>
      </H2>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF DARKNESS FALLS UPON A PERSON ON A ROAD,<a id="k153a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; HE ENTRUSTS HIS PURSE TO A GENTILE;<a id="k153a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT IF THERE IS NO GENTILE WITH HIM, HE PLACES IT ON THE ASS. WHEN HE REACHES THE OUTERMOST COURTYARD<a id="k153a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; HE REMOVES THE OBJECTS WHICH MAY BE HANDLED ON THE SABBATH, WHILST AS FOR THOSE WHICH MAY NOT BE HANDLED ON THE SABBATH, HE UNTIES THE CORDS<a id="k153a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THE SACKS FALL OFF AUTOMATICALLY.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Why did the Rabbis permit him to entrust his purse to a Gentile?<a id="k153a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The Rabbis knew for certain<a id="k153a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; that no man will restrain himself where his money is concerned; if you do not permit it to him, he will come to carry it four cubits in public ground.
</p><p>
	Raba said: His purse only, but not something found. That is obvious, [for] we learnt HIS PURSE? &mdash; You might say, The same law applies even to a find, and why does he mention HIS PURSE &mdash; as a natural course:<a id="k153a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; therefore he informs us [that it is not so]. Yet we said this only where it did not come into his possession [before the Sabbath], but if it came into his possession, it is the same as his purse. Others state, Raba asked: What about a find that came into his possession [before nightfall]? since it came into this possession, it is the same as his purse; or perhaps since he had no trouble over it, it is not the same as his purse? The question stands over.
</p><p>
	IF THERE IS NO GENTILE WITH HIM, [etc.]. The reason is that there is no Gentile with him, but if there is a Gentile with him he must give it to him:<a id="k153a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; what is the reason? &mdash; As for an ass, you are under an obligation that it should rest;<a id="k153a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; but as for a Gentile, you are under no obligation [to ensure] that he should rest.
</p><p>
	[If there is] an ass, and a deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor:<a id="k153a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; he must place it on the ass and not give it to the deaf-mute, imbecile or minor. What is the reason? The latter are human beings whereas the former is not. [In the case of] a deaf-mute and an imbecile: [he must give it] to the imbecile; [in the case of] an imbecile and a minor &mdash; to the imbecile. The scholars asked: What of a deaf-mute and a minor? On R. Eliezer's view there is no questions for it was taught: R. Isaac said in R. Eliezer's name: The <i>terumah</i> of a deaf-mute<a id="k153a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k153b_1:" Whether his action is valid or not, as his mind may have been clear. On that view a minor stands lower, and the purse must certainly be given to the minor."
,k153b_2:" Without having been previously authorized."
,k153b_3:" Thus he is at least potentially an adult of intelligence."
,k153b_4:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 194, n. 5."
,k153b_5:" Prov. XXV, 2."
,k153b_6:" When they entered the upper chambers of Hezekiah b. Garon for the eighteen enactments, v. <i>supra</i> 13b and p. 54, n. 1."
,k153b_7:" They did well in enacting so many preventive laws, thereby safeguarding Israel from transgression."
,k153b_8:" Or, they just levelled the measure. I.e., they imposed so many prohibitions as to defeat their own object, for by a reaction Israel would be more likely to sin now than hitherto. &mdash; This is mentioned here be cause the entrusting of one's purse to a Gentile was one of those eighteen laws."
,k153b_9:" Though full it is still capable of receiving more."
,k153b_10:" Lit., 'it spews forth' &mdash; some of the honey itself."
,k153b_11:" Ex. XX, 10."
,k153b_12:" If one places a burden on a man while he is walking he is not culpable, because there is no 'removal' in a technical sense; v. <i>supra</i> 3a. Hence it does not constitute labour, and therefore the same applies here too."
,k153b_13:" And when she recommences there is 'removal', and when she stops again there is 'depositing', which together constitute 'work'."
,k153b_14:" For if a man carries an article four cubits in public ground, even if he picks it up while walking, he is culpable. Consequently one must not put a burden upon another person while walking, though there is no culpability."
,k153b_15:" V. p. 188, n. 2."
,k153b_16:" In theory only. In actual practice the death penalty was restricted by so many conditions as to be non-existent in all but cases of murder (cf. Herzog. Main Institutions of Jewish Law, Vol. I, Introduction, XXI)."
,k153b_17:" Num. XV, 29f, q.v. The latter refers to idolatry."
,k153b_18:" In Sanh. 66a the reading is: <i>kareth</i>."
,k153b_19:" Tehum, pl. tehumin, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k153b_20:" Who regards the prohibition as Biblical, v. Sot. 36b."
,k153b_21:" V. <i>supra</i> 70a. "
}

txt:
<p>
does not revert to hullin, because it is doubtful.<a id="k153b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; The question is on the Rabbis' view. For we learnt: Five must not separate <i>terumah</i>, and if they do their separation is not valid. And these are they: a deaf-mute, imbecile, minor, one who separates <i>terumah</i> on [produce] that is not his,<a id="k153b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and a Gentile who separates <i>terumah</i> on an Israelite's [produce] even with [the latter's] permission, his separation is not valid. What then? must he give it to the deaf-mute, seeing that the minor will arrive at understanding;<a id="k153b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; or perhaps he must give it to the minor, because a deaf-mute may be confused with an intelligent adult? &mdash; Some rule: He must give it to the deaf-mute; others maintain; he must entrust it to the minor.
</p><p>
	What if neither a Gentile, an ass, a deaf-mute, an imbecile nor a minor is there? &mdash; R. Isaac said: There was yet another [expedient], but the Sages did not wish to reveal it. What was the other [expedient]? &mdash; One may carry it in stretches of less than four cubits at a time.<a id="k153b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Why were the Sages unwilling to reveal it? Because, It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.<a id="k153b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Yet what glory of God is there here? &mdash; Lest one come to carry it four cubits in public ground.
</p><p>
	It was taught, R. Eliezer said: On that day<a id="k153b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; they overfilled the measure;<a id="k153b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joshua said: On that day they made the measure deficient.<a id="k153b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; It was taught, As an illustration, what does this resemble on R. Eliezer's view? A basket full of cucumbers and gourds: a man puts mustard [grain] therein and it holds it.<a id="k153b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; As an illustration, what does this resemble on R. Joshua's view? A tub full of honey: if one puts pomegranates and nuts therein, it [the tub] overflows.<a id="k153b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The Master said: 'If there is no Gentile with him, he places it on his ass'. But he [thereby] leads a [laden] ass, whereas Scripture saith, [In it] thou shalt not do any work, [thou&nbsp;&hellip; nor thy cattle]?<a id="k153b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Adda b. Ahabah: He places it upon her while she is walking.<a id="k153b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; But it is impossible that she shall not stop for the calls of Nature,<a id="k153b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and so there is removing and depositing? &mdash; When she is walking he places it upon her, and when she stops he removes it from her. If so, [the same may be done] even [to] his neighbour too? &mdash; R. Papa answered: Where one is liable to a sin-offering in his own case, in the case of his neighbour though he is not culpable nevertheless it is forbidden;<a id="k153b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and wherever in the case of one's neighbour he is not culpable though it is forbidden, in the case of one's ass it is permitted at the outset.
</p><p>
	R. Adda b. Ahabah said: If one's bundle is lying on his shoulder, he must run with it until he arrives home. He may only run, but not walk leisurely. What is the reason? &mdash; Since he has nothing to mark a distinction, he will come to perform removing and depositing. Yet after all, when he arrives at the house it is impossible that he shall not stop for a moment, and so he carries it from public to private ground? &mdash; He throws it in a 'back-handed manner.'<a id="k153b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rami b. Hama said: If one leads a laden ass on the Sabbath unwittingly, he is liable to a sin-offering; if deliberately, he is liable to stoning.<a id="k153b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the reason? Said Rabbah, because Scripture said, Thou shalt not do any work, &mdash; thou, &hellip; &mdash; nor thy cattle: his cattle is assimilated to himself. Just as when he [himself does work], if unwittingly, he is liable to a sin-offering: if deliberately, he is liable to stoning: so [when he works with] his cattle too, if unwittingly, he is liable to a sin-offering; if deliberately, he is liable to stoning. Raba observed, There are two objections to this. Firstly, because it is written, Ye shall have one law for him that doeth aught unwittingly&nbsp;&hellip; But the soul that doeth aught with a high hand, [etc.]:<a id="k153b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; all laws are assimilated to idolatry: just as in the case of idolatry, he personally performs an action, so here too [one does not incur a sin-offering] unless he personally performs work. Moreover, we learnt: He who desecrates the Sabbath [is stoned], provided that it is an offence punished by stoning<a id="k153b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; if deliberate, and by a sin-offering if unwitting. Hence it follows that there is an offence for which if done unwittingly one does not incur a sin-offering, nor stoning if deliberate: and what is that? Surely leading a laden ass? &mdash; No: [the violation of] tehumin,<a id="k153b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; in accordance with R. Akiba's view,<a id="k153b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; or kindling, in accordance with R. Jose s view.<a id="k153b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k3a_1:" E.g., if the man without extends his hand and places an article into the hand of the man within, the latter commits no action at all, being passive throughout, and, as far as the Sabbath is concerned, he does nothing forbidden."
,k3a_2:" Why these are not counted as separate actions, as explained in n. 4."
,k3a_3:" V. <i>infra</i> 106b end and 107a."
,k3a_4:" V. <i>infra</i> 107a."
,k3a_5:" Stretching out one's hand with an article from a private to a public domain or vice versa may involve a sin-offering, viz., by depositing the said article in the new domain. But acceptance can never lead to this (Riba)."
,k3a_6:" Lev. IV, 27."
,k3a_7:" Lit., 'it was cast forth'."
,k3a_8:" Of scholars &mdash; i.e., it was generally ruled."
,k3a_9:" Lit., 'uprooting'."
,k3a_10:" For, as stated in the Mishnah, if an article is placed in one's hand and he withdraws it, he is exempt."
,k3a_11:" Hence the article upon his body is likewise at rest, and he effects its removal,"
,k3a_12:" On the ground: hence he does not actually remove the article from its place. "
}

txt:
<p>
he does not teach what involves no liability and is [also] permitted.<a id="k3a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; But the last clause, where no liability is involved, yet it is forbidden, is indeed difficult.<a id="k3a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; (But is there in the whole [of the laws relating to] Sabbath [an action described as involving] no liability [yet] permitted: did not Samuel say: Everything [taught as] involving no liability on the Sabbath, involves [indeed] no liability, yet it is forbidden, save these three, which involve no liability and are [also] permitted: [viz.,] the capture of a deer,<a id="k3a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; the capture of a snake, and the manipulation of an abscess?<a id="k3a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Samuel desires to say this only of exemptions where an act is performed; but as for exemptions where no act [at all] is done, [of such] there are many?)
</p><p>
	Yet still there are twelve? &mdash; Non-liable acts whereby one can come to the liability of a sin-offering are counted; those whereby one cannot come to the liability of a sin-offering are not counted.<a id="k3a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'BOTH ARE EXEMPT?' But between them a [complete] action is performed! &mdash; It was taught: [And if anyone] of the common people sin unwittingly, in doing [any of the things etc.]:<a id="k3a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; only he who performs the whole of it [a forbidden action], but not he who performs a portion thereof. [Hence] if a single person performs it, he is liable; if two perform it, they are exempt. It was stated likewise: R. Hiyya b. Gamada said: It emanated<a id="k3a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; from the mouth of the company<a id="k3a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and they said: 'In doing': if a single person performs it, he is liable: if two perform it, they are exempt.
</p><p>
	Rab asked Rabbi: If one's neighbour loads him with food and drink, and he carries them without, what is the law? Is the removing<a id="k3a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; of one's body like the removing of an article from its place, and so he is liable; or perhaps it is not so? He replied: He is liable, and it is not like his hand.<a id="k3a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the reason? &mdash; His body is at rest<a id="k3a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas his hand is not at rest.<a id="k3a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k3b_1:" Lit., 'he would have given you an answer which is not an answer.'"
,k3b_2:" I.e., before sunset on Friday."
,k3b_3:" As explained above."
,k3b_4:" If a man stands in one and stretches out his hand into the other, the hand is not accounted the same as his body, to have the legal status of the domain in which the body is."
,k3b_5:" For the Mishnah states that if the Master takes an article from the poor man's hand stretched within he is exempt."
,k3b_6:" If the poor man takes an object from it, he is not liable."
,k3b_7:" V. <i>infra</i> 6a. A <i>karmelith</i> is part of a public domain which is but little frequented, therefore regarded as neither public nor private ground; by Rabbinical law one may not carry from a <i>karmelith</i> to a public or a private domain, or vice versa. Now, as we have seen, when one stretches out his hand into another domain, it does not enjoy the body's status. Yet does it occupy the intermediate status of a <i>karmelith</i>, and since it holds an object, its owner shall be forbidden to withdraw it until the termination of the Sabbath?"
,k3b_8:" V. <i>infra</i> 100a. If the hand is within ten handbreadths from the ground it is in a public domain, and therefore the Rabbis ordered that he must not withdraw it. But if it is above, it is in a place of non-liability; hence he is not penalized."
,k3b_9:" Lit. 'it' sc. his hand. They did not compel him to keep his hands stretched out till the termination of the Sabbath."
,k3b_10:" Since he does not perform a complete forbidden act on the Sabbath."
,k3b_11:" This reversed answer."
,k3b_12:" Lit.,'sticks a loaf to (the wall of) an oven.'"
,k3b_13:" If it remains in the oven until baked he incurs a sin-offering for baking on the Sabbath. On the other hand, it is Rabbinically forbidden to remove bread from the oven on the Sabbath. How is it here?"
,k3b_14:" Since the reverse answer is not given, we see that the Rabbis do not abrogate their interdict even when it leads to a liability to a sin-offering."
,k3b_15:" To reconcile the two Baraithas."
,k3b_16:" V. n. 1."
,k3b_17:" Thus this has no bearing on R. Bibi b. Abaye's problem. "
}

txt:
<p>
Said R. Hiyya to Rab: Son of illustrious ancestors! Have I not told you that when Rabbi is engaged on one Tractate you must not question him about another, lest he be not conversant with it. For if Rabbi were not a great man, you would have put him to shame, for he might have answered you incorrectly.<a id="k3b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Still, he has now answered you correctly, for it was taught: If one was laden with food and drink while it was yet day,<a id="k3b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and he carries them out after dark, he is culpable, because it is not like his hand.<a id="k3b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye said: I am certain that a man's hand is neither like a public nor like a private domain:<a id="k3b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; it is not like a public domain [this follows] from the poor man's hand;<a id="k3b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; it is not like a private domain &mdash; [this follows] from the hand of the master of the house.<a id="k3b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye propounded: Can a man's hand become as a <i>karmelith</i>:<a id="k3b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; did the Rabbis penalize him not to draw it back to himself, or not? &mdash; Come and hear: If one's hand is filled with fruit and he stretches it without &mdash; one [Baraitha] taught: He may not draw it back; another taught: He may draw it back. Surely they differ in this: one Master holds that it [the hand] is like a <i>karmelith</i>, and the other holds that it is not? [No.] All agree that it is like a <i>karmelith</i>, yet there is no difficulty: the one [refers to a case where it is] below ten [handbreadths], and the other [where it is] above ten [handbreadths].<a id="k3b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Alternatively, both [Baraithas refer] to [a hand) below ten, and [hold that] it is not like a <i>karmelith</i>, yet there is no difficulty: one [speaks of a case] while it is yet day; the other, when it is already dark [the Sabbath has commenced]. [If he stretches out his hand] while it is yet day, the Rabbis did not punish him;<a id="k3b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; if after sunset, the Rabbis punished it. On the contrary, the logic is the reverse: [if he stretches out his hand] by day, so that if he throws it [the article] away he does not come to the liability of a sin-offering,<a id="k3b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; let the Rabbis penalize him; but if [he does it] after nightfall, so that if he throws it away he incurs the liability of a sin-offering, the Rabbis should not punish him. Now, since we do not answer thus,<a id="k3b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; you may solve R. Bibi b. Abaye's [problem]. For R. Bibi b. Abaye asked: If a person places a loaf in an oven,<a id="k3b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; do the Rabbis permit him to remove it before he incurs the liability of a sin-offering, or not?<a id="k3b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Now you may deduce that they do not permit it!<a id="k3b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; That is no difficulty, and indeed solves it! Alternatively, you cannot solve it, after all: [and reply thus],<a id="k3b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; The one Baraitha refers to an unwitting, the other to a deliberate act. Where it is unwitting, the Rabbis did not punish him<a id="k3b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; for it; where it is deliberate, they punished.<a id="k3b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Another alternative: both [Baraithas] refer to an unwitting act, but here they differ as to whether they [the Rabbis] punished an unwitting [offender] on account of a deliberate one: one Master holds that they did punish an unwitting [offender] on account of a deliberate one; the other, that they did not punish an unwitting [offender] on account of a deliberate one. Another alternative: after all, they did not punish [the one on account of the other], yet there is no difficulty. The one [Baraitha] means into the same courtyard;
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k4a_1:" When one stands in a courtyard, which is private ground, and stretches his laden hand into the street, he may withdraw it into the same courtyard, but not into an adjoining one and drop the article there."
,k4a_2:" I.e., into the street."
,k4a_3:" A jesting remark: then I will tell you the difference."
,k4a_4:" If he stretches out his hand into the street he wants to remove the produce from that courtyard. Hence he may draw it back into the same, when his intention remains unfulfilled, but not into an adjoining courtyard, whereby his intention would be carried out."
,k4a_5:" Before it was completely baked, that it was the Sabbath, or that baking on the Sabbath is forbidden."
,k4a_6:" Being unaware of anything wrong, he does not come to ask."
,k4a_7:" Before it was baked."
,k4a_8:" Which is the penalty for the deliberate desecration of the Sabbath, and not 'before he incurs the liability of a sin-offering'?"
,k4a_9:" Can one be told to infringe the minor injunction of removing bread from an oven in order to save his neighbour from the greater transgression of baking on the Sabbath?"
,k4a_10:" From this it is obvious that R. Bibi's original question was merely whether he is permitted to remove it or not. 'Before he incurs etc.,' was a later addition, which R. Ashi emends. The same assumption must be made in similar cases. V. Kaplan, Redaction of the Talmud, Ch. XIII."
,k4a_11:" Removal from one domain and depositing in the other necessitates in each case that the object shall rest upon a place four handbreadths square."
,k4a_12:" A person's hand does not fulfil this condition."
,k4a_13:" Hence when it crosses public ground it is as though it rested there, and so liability is incurred. "
}

txt:
<p>
the other, into a different courtyard.<a id="k4a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Even as Raba asked R. Nahman: If a person holds a handful of produce in his hand and he extends it without,<a id="k4a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; may he withdraw it into the same courtyard? He replied, It is permitted. And what about another courtyard? Said he to him, It is forbidden. And what is the difference? &mdash; When you measure out a measure of salt for it!<a id="k4a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; There his intention is not carried out; here his intention is carried out.<a id="k4a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[To revert to] the main text: 'R. Bibi b. Abaye propounded: If one places a loaf of bread in an oven, do they permit him to remove it before he incurs the liability of a sin-offering or not?' R. Aha b. Abaye said to Rabina: What are the circumstances? Shall we say [that he did it] unwittingly and he did remind himself;<a id="k4a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; then whom are they to permit?<a id="k4a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence it must surely mean that he did afterwards become aware thereof,<a id="k4a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; but then would he be liable? Surely we learnt: All who are liable to sin-offerings are liable only if the beginning and end [of the forbidden action] are unwitting. On the other hand, if his problem refers to a deliberate action, he should have asked [whether he may remove it] before he comes to an interdict involving stoning!<a id="k4a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; R. Shila said: After all, it means unwittingly; and [as to the question] 'whom are they to permit?', [the reply is], Others. R. Shesheth demurred: Is then a person told, 'Sin, in order that your neighbour may gain thereby?'<a id="k4a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather, said R. Ashi, after all it refers to a deliberate act; but say [in the problem], before he comes to an interdict involving stoning.<a id="k4a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Aba son of Raba recited it explicitly: R. Bibi b. Abaye said: If one places a loaf in an oven, he is permitted to remove it before he comes to an interdict involving stoning.
</p><p>
	IF THE POOR MAN STRETCHES OUT HIS HAND. Why is he liable? Surely removal and depositing must be from [and into] a place four [handbreadths] square,<a id="k4a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; which is absent here?<a id="k4a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said Rabbah: The author of this [Mishnah], is R. Akiba, who maintains: We do not require a place four by four. For we learnt: If one throws [an article] from one private domain to another and public ground lies between: R. Akiba holds him liable; but the Sages hold him not liable. R. Akiba holds: We say, An object intercepted by [air] is as though it rested there;<a id="k4a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; While the Rabbis maintain: We do not say, An object intercepted by [air] is as though it rested there. Shall we say that Rabbah is certain that they differ as to whether an object intercepted is considered at rest,
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k4b_1:" For the space above ten does not rank as public ground."
,k4b_2:" If one reaches over an object from private to private ground across public ground, even if it is above ten handbreadths, he is liable."
,k4b_3:" <i>Var. lec</i>.: &hellip; he solved it. Granted that R. Akiba holds, An object intercepted is as at rest, yet perhaps (etc., continuing text as in next paragraph)."
,k4b_4:" This objection reverts to Rabbah's answer that our Mishnah agrees with R. Akiba."
,k4b_5:" In the street."
,k4b_6:" A bracket moulding, or anything which projects from the wall of a house; both the house and the projection are private ground."
,k4b_7:" Lit.,'whatever (size) it is'. I.e., very small, less than four square."
,k4b_8:" Which is a projection of the tree."
,k4b_9:" Hence it is private ground, and therefore liability is incurred. &mdash; The tree as a whole is regarded, and so we have 'a place four by four.'"
,k4b_10:" When the object enters the air space in a private domain, there is 'carrying in' from public to private ground; when it leaves it and re-enters the public domain, there is 'carrying out' from private to public ground. Since the man's act has caused both, he is liable twice over. "
}

txt:
<p>
and when it [crosses the public domain] within ten handbreadths [of the ground]?<a id="k4b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; But surely Rabbah asked a question thereon. For Rabbah propounded: Do they disagree when it is below ten, and they differ in this: R. Akiba holds, An object intercepted is as through it rested, while the Rabbis hold that it is not as though it rested; but above ten all agree that he is not liable, all holding that we do not derive throwing from reaching across?<a id="k4b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Or perhaps they disagree when it is above ten, and they differ in this: R. Akiba holds, We derive throwing from reaching across, while the Rabbis hold, We do not learn throwing from reaching across; but below ten all agree that he is liable. What is the reason? We say that an object intercepted is as though it rested? &mdash; That is no difficulty: after propounding, he solved it that R. Akiba holds that an object intercepted is as though it rested.<a id="k4b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But perhaps he [R. Akiba] does not require depositing [on a place four handbreadths square], yet he may require removal [from such a place]?<a id="k4b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather, said R. Joseph, the author of this [Mishnah] is Rabbi. Which [ruling of] Rabbi [intimates this]? Shall we say, This [ruling of] Rabbi: If one throws [an object]<a id="k4b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and it comes to rest upon a projection,<a id="k4b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; of a small size,<a id="k4b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbi holds him liable; the Sages exempt him? [But] surely there, as we will state below, it is in accordance with Abaye. For Abaye said: The reference here is to a tree standing in private ground while its branch inclines to the street, and one throws [an article] and it comes to rest upon the branch,<a id="k4b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbi holding, We say, cast the branch after its trunk;<a id="k4b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; but the Rabbis maintain; We do not rule, Cast the branch after its stock? &mdash; Rather it is this [ruling of] Rabbi. For it was taught: If one throws [an article] from public to public ground, and private ground lies between: Rabbi holds him liable; but the Sages exempt him. Now, Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: Rabbi imposed a twofold liability, one on account of carrying out and one on account of carrying in:<a id="k4b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; this proves that neither removal nor depositing requires a place four by four. But surely it was stated thereon, Rab and Samuel both assert,
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k5a_1:" Of articles &mdash; i.e., it is accounted as though lacking air space entirely, and immediately an object enters therein, we regard it as lying on the ground."
,k5a_2:" It is stated <i>infra</i> 49b and 96b that the definition of what constitutes forbidden work on the Sabbath is dependent on the work that was done in connection with the Tabernacle in the wilderness. Carrying was necessary, and so carrying an article four cubits is work. But there it was done under the open sky; hence Rab's dictum, and the same applies here. By 'banners of the wilderness' is meant the whole disposition and encampment of the Israelites, and they did not have any covered-in public ground."
,k5a_3:" In Hor. 13b 'others' is identified with R. Meir."
,k5a_4:" If A throws an article in the street to B, and B catches it while standing in his place, A is liable, because he is regarded as having both removed and deposited it. But if B moves away and catches it, A did not effect its deposit, since it does not lie where it would have done on account of his throw."
,k5a_5:" Why then should he be liable in respect of carrying out?"
,k5a_6:" For it ranks as private ground, v. <i>infra</i> 101a."
,k5a_7:" Then it ranks as private ground."
,k5a_8:" Then it is public ground."
,k5a_9:" Explanation of R. Abba."
,k5a_10:" Everything within three handbreadths is regarded as the ground itself on the principle of labud (v. Glos), and thus the hand becomes a place four square."
,k5a_11:" And he would have to be sitting for his hand to be so low."
,k5a_12:" Surely he does not state a law which requires all these conditions. He should rather have taught: If the poor man spreads out his garment, etc."
,k5a_13:" From Palestine to Babylon. Rabin and R. Dimi were two Palestinian amoraim who travelled between the Palestinian and the Babylonian academies to transmit the teachings of one to the other."
,k5a_14:" If one intentionally deposits an article in his neighbour's hand, or takes an article into his own, in each case he accounts the hand as a resting place, i.e., an area four square."
,k5a_15:" I.e., when it merely chances to alight on a man's hand."
,k5a_16:" V. <i>supra</i> 5a notes."
,k5a_17:" On what grounds should be he exempted: did he not remove it from one place and deposit it in another?"
,k5a_18:" The throw is one manifestation of his force: the catch arrests that force and is in the nature of a counter act; hence they may be regarded as performed by two people, which involves no liability."
,k5a_19:" In which case the Mishnah declares him exempt."
,k5a_20:" Actively. This is assumed to mean that he intercepts the flow of rain, beating it with one hand into the other."
,k5a_21:" The side of a wall &mdash; it being assumed that an ordinary vertical one is meant &mdash; affords no resting place for the rain, whereas removal must be from a place where it can stay."
,k5a_22:" Rashal reads: Rabbah. "
}

txt:
<p>
Rabbi imposed liability only in the case of a covered-in private domain, for we say that a house is as though it were full,<a id="k5a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; but not in one which is uncovered. And should you answer, Here too [in our Mishnah it speaks of] it as covered, [I might retort] that is well of a covered private ground, but is one liable for a covered public ground? Did not R. Samuel b. Judah say in the name of R. Abba in the name of R. Huna in Rab's name: If one carries an article four cubits in covered public ground, he is not liable, because it is not like the banners of the wilderness?<a id="k5a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rather, said R. Zera, the authority of this is the 'others.'<a id="k5a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; For it was taught: Others say: If he stands still in his place and catches it, he [the thrower] is liable; if he moves from his place and catches it, he [the thrower] is exempt.<a id="k5a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [Now it states], 'If he stands in his place and catches it, he [the thrower] is liable', &mdash; but surely there must be depositing on an area four [handbreadths square], which is absent! Hence this proves that we [i.e., 'others'] do not require a place four by four. Yet perhaps only depositing [on such an area] is not required, but removal [from such] may be necessary? And even in respect to depositing too: perhaps it means that he spread out his garment and caught it, so that there is also depositing [on such an area]? &mdash; Said R. Zera: Our Mishnah also means that he removes it [the article] from a basket and places it in a basket, so that there is depositing too [in a place four square]. But HIS HAND is stated? &mdash; Learn: a basket in HIS HAND. Now, that is well of a basket in a private domain; but a basket in public ground ranks as a private domain?<a id="k5a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Must we then say that it does not agree with R. Jose son of R. Judah? For it was taught: R. Jose son of R. Judah said: If one fixes a rod in the street, at the top of which is a basket, [and] throws [an article] and it comes to rest upon it, he is liable.<a id="k5a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; For if it agrees with R. Jose son of R. Judah, WHERE THE MASTER OF THE HOUSE STRETCHES HIS HAND WITHOUT AND PLACES [AN OBJECT] IN THE POOR MAN'S HAND, why is he LIABLE? Surely he [merely] carries it from private ground to private ground! &mdash; You may even say [that it agrees with] R. Jose son of R. Judah: There it is above ten [handbreadths];<a id="k5a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; here it is below ten.<a id="k5a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; This<a id="k5a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; presented a difficulty to R. Abbahu: Is then 'a basket in his hand' taught: surely HIS HAND [alone] is stated! Rather, said R. Abbahu, it means that he lowered his hand to within three handbreadths [of the ground] and accepted it.<a id="k5a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; But HE STANDS is taught!<a id="k5a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It refers to one who bends down. Alternatively, [he is standing] in a pit; another alternative: this refers to a dwarf. Raba demurred: Does the Tanna trouble to inform us of all these!<a id="k5a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather, said Raba, A man's hand is accounted to him as [an area) four by four. And thus too, when Rabin came,<a id="k5a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; he said in R. Johanan's name: A man's hand is accounted to him as [an area] four by four.
</p><p>
	R. Abin said in the name of R. Elai in R. Johanan's name: If one throws an article and it alights on his neighbour's hand, he is liable. What does he inform us? [that] a man's hand is accounted to him as [an area] four by four! But surely R. Johanan already stated it once? &mdash; You might argue. That is only when he himself accounts his hand such,<a id="k5a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; but where he does not account his hand as such,<a id="k5a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; I might say [that it is] not [so]. Therefore we are informed [otherwise].
</p><p>
	R. Abin said in R. Elai's name in the name of R. Johanan: If he [the recipient stands still in his place and catches it, [the thrower] is liable; if he moves from his place and catches it, he [the thrower] is exempt. It was taught likewise: Others say: If he stands still in his place and catches it, he [the thrower] is liable; if he moves from his place and catches it, he [the thrower] is exempt.<a id="k5a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan propounded: What if he throws an article and himself moves from his place, and catches it? What is his problem?<a id="k5a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said R. Ada b. Ahaba: His problem concerns two forces in the same man: are two forces in the same man accounted as the action of one man, hence he is liable, or perhaps they count as the action of two men?<a id="k5a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; The question stands over.
</p><p>
	R. Abin said in R. Johanan's name: If he puts his hand into his neighbour's courtyard and receives [some] rain, and then withdraws it, he is liable. R. Zera demurred: What does it matter whether his neighbour loads him<a id="k5a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; or Heaven loads him; he himself did not effect removal? &mdash; Do not say, he [passively] receives rain, but, he catches it up.<a id="k5a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; But removal must be from a place four [square], which is absent? &mdash; Said R. Hiyya son of R. Huna: E.g., he catches it up [as it rebounds] from the wall. But even on the wall, it does not rest there?<a id="k5a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is as Raba<a id="k5a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; said [elsewhere], It refers to a sloping wall; so here too it refers to a sloping wall. Now, where was Raba's [dictum] said? &mdash; In connection with the following. For we learnt:
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k5b_1:" Into a public domain skirting it."
,k5b_2:" This refers, e.g., to a threshold three handbreadths above the ground and four handbreadths square, This constitutes a <i>karmelith</i> (v. p. 6, n. 7), and even if it entirely falls out of his hand it is only Rabbinically prohibited to carry it back; hence here that he retains one end there is not even that."
,k5b_3:" Which is a private domain. In the East all roofs were flat and put to use; T.A. I, p. 33."
,k5b_4:" Because only the first ten handbreadths above the street surface count as public ground."
,k5b_5:" He must not draw it back, since it has entered public ground, so he reverses it, because it is degrading for a scroll to lie open with its writing upward."
,k5b_6:" Hence he should be permitted to roll it back."
,k5b_7:" V.'Er., Sonc. ed., p. 697 and notes."
,k5b_8:" It does not stay even on a sloping wall."
,k5b_9:" The article must be removed from a place where it may be regarded as naturally at rest, e.g., a stone lying on the ground."
,k5b_10:" And if one picks it up and carries it without, he is not liable."
,k5b_11:" And he lifts up both and carries them out."
,k5b_12:" In the vessel."
,k5b_13:" Both of <i>terumah</i>."
,k5b_14:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> He renders <i>terumah</i> (q.v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) unfit for food."
,k5b_15:" And both become unfit. Thus in respect to the Sabbath too: the Rabbis hold that the oil is not at rest upon the wine, whereas R. Johanan b. Nuri holds that the oil is at rest upon the wine. The same applies to oil floating upon water: wine is mentioned on account of the quotation, as there is no <i>terumah</i> of water."
,k5b_16:" From private to public ground."
,k5b_17:" And then goes in or out; this alone constitutes removal. He was laden in the first place to carry the stuff from one part of a private domain to another, and if he goes out instead it is not removal, since when the food was moved at first there was no intention of carrying from a private to a public domain; v. <i>supra</i> 3a."
,k5b_18:" But if he stops merely to rearrange the burden, it is all part of his walking."
,k5b_19:" One is liable for carrying an article four cubits over public ground, providing that he himself removes it from the first spot and deposits it on the other. Now, if he stops to rest within the four cubits, that constitutes depositing, and when he restarts there is a fresh removal; consequently, the article was carried four cubits with a single removal and deposit, and so he is exempt. But if he stops to rearrange the burden, it is still part of the first removal; therefore he is liable. Hence if he stops to rest after walking four cubits, he is regarded as depositing the article there, and is liable. But if he stops to rearrange his burden, he is still engaged in walking, and should another relieve him of it before he stops to rest, both are exempt."
,k5b_20:" Viz., to carry it without, and so he is not liable."
,k5b_21:" R. Johanan did not teach both, but amoraim reporting his words gave different versions of what he did state."
,k5b_22:" The shop is private ground, the open space is public ground, and the colonnade ranks as a <i>karmelith</i>, being occupied by stall holders and not frequented as a public thoroughfare."
,k5b_23:" When he walks through the colonnade it is as though he stood there. Hence he performs two separate actions: (i) carrying an object from private ground to a <i>karmelith</i>; (ii) carrying an object from a <i>karmelith</i> to public ground. Neither of these imposes liability."
,k5b_24:" In Scripture, by analogy with the Tabernacle (v. p. 11, n. 2) we find liability only for direct transference from private to public ground. "
}

txt:
<p>
If he is reading a scroll on a threshold, and it rolls out of his hand,<a id="k5b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; he may rewind it to himself.<a id="k5b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; If one is reading on the top of a roof,<a id="k5b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and the scroll rolls out of his hand, &mdash; before it comes within ten handbreadths [of the ground] he may wind it back himself;<a id="k5b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; if it comes within ten handbreadths, he must turn the written side inwards.<a id="k5b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, we pondered thereon: why must he turn the written side inwards, surely it did not come to rest?<a id="k5b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and Raba answered: This refers to a sloping wall.<a id="k5b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Yet may it not be urged that Raba said this [only] of a scroll, whose nature it is to rest [where it falls]; but is it the nature of water to rest?<a id="k5b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather, said Raba, [R. Johanan spoke of a case] where he collected [the rain] from the top of a [water] hole. 'A hole'! But then it is obvious? &mdash; You might argue, Water upon water is not at rest;<a id="k5b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [therefore] he [R. Johanan] informs us [that it is].
</p><p>
	Now Raba follows his opinion. For Raba said: Water [lying] upon water, that is its [natural] rest; a nut upon water, that is not its [natural] rest.<a id="k5b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba propounded: If a nut [lies] in a vessel, and the vessel floats on water,<a id="k5b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; do we regard the nut, which is at rest,<a id="k5b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; or the vessel, which is not at rest, since it is unstable? The question stands over.
</p><p>
	In respect to oil floating upon wine R. Johanan b. Nuri and the Rabbis differ. For we learnt: If oil is floating upon wine<a id="k5b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and a tebul yom<a id="k5b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; touches the oil, he disqualifies the oil only. R. Johanan b. Nuri said: Both are attached to each other.<a id="k5b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Abin said in R. Elai's name in the name of R. Johanan: If one is laden with food and drink and goes in and out all day,<a id="k5b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; he is liable only when he stands still.<a id="k5b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Abaye: Providing that he stands still to rest.<a id="k5b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; How do you know it? &mdash; Because a Master said: Within four cubits, if he stops to rest, he is exempt; to shoulder his burden, he is liable. Beyond four cubits, if he stops to rest, he is liable; to rearrange his burden, he is exempt.<a id="k5b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; What does he [R. Johanan] inform us &mdash; that the original removal was not for this purpose?<a id="k5b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; But R. Johanan stated it once. For R. Safra said in R. Ammi's name in R. Johanan's name: If one is carrying articles from corner to corner [in private ground] and then changes his mind and carries them out, he is exempt, because his original removal was not for this purpose? &mdash; It is dependent on Amoraim: one stated it in the former version; the other stated it in the latter version.<a id="k5b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: If one carries [an article] from a shop to an open space via a colonnade,<a id="k5b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; he is liable; but Ben 'Azzai holds him not liable. As for Ben 'Azzai, it is well: he holds that walking is like standing.<a id="k5b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; But according to the Rabbis, granted that they hold that walking is not like standing, yet where do we find liability for such a case?<a id="k5b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said R. Safra in the name of R. Ammi in R. Johanan's name:
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k6a_1:" Lit., 'from the beginning of four to the end of four'."
,k6a_2:" To whom the limit of four cubits terminates at this particular spot."
,k6a_3:" E.g., if the wall of a private courtyard fronting on the street is broken through, the place of the wall is called the sides of the street. In 'Er. 94b (quoted below) it is disputed whether this is private or public ground; yet when one carries an object into the street through the breach he is certainly liable."
,k6a_4:" b. Jacob is omitted in 'Er. 94b and Keth. 31a."
,k6a_5:" Rashi: stakes against which vehicles rub to protect the wall."
,k6a_6:" And yet if one carries through the breach into the street he is liable."
,k6a_7:" The case of the colonnade."
,k6a_8:" From a shop to an open place through a colonnade: he is then liable."
,k6a_9:" Even if they are in a public thoroughfare. A house, of course, is also private ground."
,k6a_10:" Jast.: a camp."
,k6a_11:" Or, an open place."
,k6a_12:" i.e., open at both ends into streets."
,k6a_13:" If he was not formally warned."
,k6a_14:" If formally warned."
,k6a_15:" The former, because they are not for the general passage of the multitude; the latter, because they are not enclosed. It should be observed that 'public ground' does not mean any ground that is open to the public, but that which is actually frequented by the masses."
,k6a_16:" Lit., 'carry and give,' across a distance of four or more cubits."
,k6a_17:" I.e., a courtyard into which many houses open and which itself abuts on the street. The inhabitants of these houses own the courtyard in common and must pass through it into the street."
,k6a_18:" These too are provided with courtyards through which the inhabitants pass into the streets."
,k6a_19:" For 'erub v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> If the separate householders make an 'erub, e.g., each contributing a little flour for baking a large loaf, all the houses and the courtyard into which they open are counted as one domain, and carrying between them is permitted. Again, if all the courtyards are thus joined by an 'erub, carrying is permitted between the courtyards themselves and between them and the blind alley on which they abut."
,k6a_20:" This is less than four handbreadths square, and is a place of non-liability, i.e., not a separate domain at all, but counted with public or private ground indifferently."
,k6a_21:" This is a Rabbinical measure, lest one treat the Sabbath lightly and carry direct between public or private ground."
,k6a_22:" Like the trench or wall mentioned above. it is private ground, yet not part of the house, and carrying between the two is prohibited."
,k6a_23:" The emphasis suggests that only that is private ground."
,k6a_24:" Facing each other. "
}

txt:
<p>
Compare it to one who carries an article in the street: there, surely, though he is not liable as long as he holds it and proceeds, yet when he lays it down he is liable; so here too, it is not different. How compare! there, wherever he puts it down it is a place of liability; but here, if he deposits it in the colonnade, it is a place of non-liability? Rather compare it to one who carries an article [in the street] exactly four [cubits].<a id="k6a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; There, surely, though he is exempt if he deposits it within the four cubits, yet when he deposits it at the end of the four cubits he is liable; so here too, it is not different. How compare? There it is a place of exemption [only] as far as this man is concerned, but to all others<a id="k6a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; it is a place of liability; but here it is a place of exemption for all? Rather compare it to one who carries [an object] from private to public ground through the sides of the street:<a id="k6a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; there, surely, though he is exempt if he lays it down in the sides of the street, yet when he lays it down in the street [itself] he is liable; so here too it is not different.
</p><p>
	R. Papa demurred thereto: that is well according to the Rabbis, who maintain that the sides of the street are not regarded as the street; but according to R. Eliezer [b. Jacob],<a id="k6a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; who rules that the sides of the street are regarded as the street, what can be said? &mdash; Said R. Aha son of R. Ika to him: Granted that you know R. Eliezer [b. Jacob] to rule that the sides of the street are regarded as the street where there is no fencing;<a id="k6a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; but do you know him [to rule thus] where there is fencing?<a id="k6a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence it<a id="k6a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; is analogous to this.
</p><p>
	R. Johanan said: Yet Ben 'Azzai agrees in the case of one who throws.<a id="k6a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; It was taught likewise: If one carries [an object] from a shop to an open place through a colonnade, he is liable, whether he carries [it] out or carries [it] in; or whether he reaches it across or throws it. Ben 'Azzai said: If he carries it out or in, he is exempt; if he reaches it across or throws it, he is liable.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: There are four domains in respect to the Sabbath; private ground, public ground, <i>karmelith</i>, and a place of non-liability. And what is private ground? A trench ten [handbreadths] deep and four wide, and likewise a wall ten [handbreadths] high and four broad, &mdash; that is absolute private ground.<a id="k6a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; And what is public ground? A highroad,<a id="k6a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; a great public square,<a id="k6a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and open alleys,<a id="k6a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; that is absolute public ground. One may not carry out from this private to this public ground, nor carry in from this public to this private ground; and if one does carry out or in, unwitting, he is liable to a sin-offering; if deliberately, he is punished by <i>kareth</i><a id="k6a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; or stoned.<a id="k6a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; But the sea, a plain, a colonnade, or a <i>karmelith</i>, ranks neither as public nor as private ground:<a id="k6a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; one must not carry [objects] about<a id="k6a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; within it and if he does, he is liable; and one must not carry out [an object] thence into public ground or from the public ground into it, nor carry [an object] from it into private ground or from the private ground into it; yet if he does carry out or in, he is not liable. As to courtyards with many owners<a id="k6a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and blind alleys,<a id="k6a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; if an 'erub is made, they are permitted; if an 'erub is not made, they are forbidden.<a id="k6a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; A man standing on a threshold<a id="k6a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; may take [an object] from the master of the house, or give [it] to him, and may take [an object] from the poor man or give [it] to him; providing however that he does not take from the master of the house and give to the poor man or from the poor man and give it to the master of the house;<a id="k6a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; and if he does take and give, the three are exempt. Others state, A threshold serves as two domains: if the door is open, it is as within; if shut, it is as without. But if the threshold is ten [handbreadths] high and four broad, it is a separate domain.<a id="k6a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The Master said: 'That is [absolute] private ground.' What does this exclude?<a id="k6a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It excludes the following [view] of R. Judah. For it was taught: Even more than this did R. Judah say: If one owns two houses on the opposite sides of the street,<a id="k6a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; he can place
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k6b_1:" Of one of the houses."
,k6b_2:" R. Judah holds that two partitions facing each other render the space between private ground by Biblical law. The outside walls of the houses are two such partitions, while the two are added to mark out this particular space and distinguish it from the rest of the street."
,k6b_3:" V. 'Er., Sonc. ed., p. 32 notes."
,k6b_4:" Forbidding it as a precautionary measure, lest one carry in public ground too."
,k6b_5:" An object from other public ground into this."
,k6b_6:" That liability is incurred, because by Biblical law two partitions constitute private ground,"
,k6b_7:" A well ten handbreadths deep and four broad in a public highway is private ground, as stated above; consequently, if one draws water and places it at the side, he desecrates the Sabbath. Therefore the Rabbis enacted that it should be surrounded by boards, even at some distance, and placed at intervals, providing that there is not a gap of more than ten cubits between any two; this renders the whole private ground, as though it were entirely enclosed. But R. Judah maintains that if the actual road taken by travellers lies between these boards, it destroys its character as private ground and makes it public ground in spite of the boards, and therefore it must be diverted. The emphasis in our Baraitha &mdash; that is public ground &mdash; is to reject this view of R. Judah."
,k6b_8:" When it is not frequented."
,k6b_9:" [H] Rashi: When a scholar heard a new law which had no authoritative tradition behind it and was thus rejected by the schools, he committed it to writing for fear that he might forget it, and kept it secret. Weiss, Dor, II, 189 thinks that the scroll contained views which R. Juda ha-Nasi had desired to exclude from his authoritative compilation, and therefore it was kept concealed. &mdash; On these lines a very considerable portion of the Baraitha would have had to be kept secret! Kaplan, Redaction of the Talmud, p. 277 suggests that the concealed scroll contained laws which were unsuited for unrestricted publicity. He also suggests that the phrase may not mean 'concealed' but written in a 'concealed', i.e. esoteric style. But there is nothing particularly esoteric about the style of the law quoted here. V. also Levi, Worterbuch s.v."
,k6b_10:" Since they are all stated separately,"
,k6b_11:" I.e., he is unaware throughout that these are forbidden on the Sabbath."
,k6b_12:" In summer it is not sown, hence a few may pass through it, yet not many will trouble to leave the highway. Hence carrying therein is permitted. With respect to uncleanness, it is a general principle that if a doubt arises in a strictly private place, a stringent ruling is given, and the article or person concerned is unclean; if it arises in a public i.e., not a strictly private place, we are lenient. Hence, since the plain is not strictly private, it ranks as public ground."
,k6b_13:" Since it is sown, no stranger enters therein."
,k6b_14:" And as the main purpose of that Mishnah is to draw a distinction between the Sabbath and uncleanness, that is sufficient, without pointing out that it is a <i>karmelith</i>. "
}

txt:
<p>
a board or a beam at each side<a id="k6b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and carry between them.<a id="k6b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Said they to him: A street cannot be made fit [for carrying] by an 'erub in this way.<a id="k6b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; And why is it called 'absolute' [public ground]? &mdash; You might argue, The Rabbis differ from R. Judah, [maintaining] that it is not private ground only in respect of carrying [therein]:<a id="k6b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; but in respect of throwing<a id="k6b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; they agree with R. Judah:<a id="k6b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; hence we are informed [otherwise].
</p><p>
	The Master said: 'That is [absolute] public ground.' What does this exclude? &mdash; It excludes R. Judah's other [ruling]. For we learnt: R. Judah said: If the public thoroughfare interposes between them, it must be removed to the side; but the Sages maintain: It is unnecessary.<a id="k6b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; And why is it called 'absolute?' &mdash; Because the first clause states 'absolute', the second does likewise. Now, let the desert too be enumerated, for it was taught: What is public ground? A high-road, a great open space, open alleys and the desert? &mdash; Said Abaye, There is no difficulty: The latter means when the Israelites dwelt in the desert; the former refers to our own days.<a id="k6b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The Master said: 'If one carries out or in, unwittingly, he is liable to a sin-offering; if deliberately, he is punished by <i>kareth</i> or stoned.' 'Unwittingly, he is liable to a sin-offering': but it is obvious? &mdash; It is necessary [to state] 'If deliberately, he is punished by <i>kareth</i> or stoned.' But that too is obvious? &mdash; We are informed the following, in agreement with Rab. For Rab said, I found a secret scroll of the school of R. Hiyya<a id="k6b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; wherein it is written, Issi b. Judah said: There are thirty-nine principal labours, but one is liable only [for] one. Yet that is not so? for we learnt: The principal labours are forty less one: and we pondered thereon, Why state the number?<a id="k6b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; And R. Johanan answered: [To teach] that if one performs all of them in one state of unawareness,<a id="k6b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; he is liable for each separately! Rather, say thus: for one of these he is not liable; and so we are informed here that this one [sc. carrying] is of those about which there is no doubt.
</p><p>
	The Master said: 'But the sea, a plain, a colonnade, and a <i>karmelith</i> rank neither as public nor as private ground.' But is a plain neither private nor public ground? Surely we learnt: A plain: in summer it is private ground in respect to the Sabbath and public ground in respect to uncleanness;<a id="k6b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; in winter it is private ground in both respects!<a id="k6b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said 'Ulla: After all it is a <i>karmelith</i>; yet why is it called private ground? Because it is not public ground.<a id="k6b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ashi said:
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k7a_1:" i.e., it is enclosed by a fence, wall, etc. Though the Rabbis treat it as a <i>karmelith</i> in so far that carrying therein is forbidden, it is nevertheless private ground by Biblical law, and carrying between it and public ground involves liability. It is in that sense that the Mishnah designates it a private domain."
,k7a_2:" <i>Se'ah</i> is primarily a measure of capacity; by transference it is used as a surface measure on the basis that two se'ahs' seed require an area of five thousand square cubits."
,k7a_3:" V. Rashi: Aliter: which is not enclosed for living purposes."
,k7a_4:" 1 <i>kor</i> = 6 <i>se'ahs</i>."
,k7a_5:" An enclosed place is private ground by Biblical law, whatever its size. Now, if it is attached to a dwelling (or enclosed for living purposes), e.g., a house stood in a field and then the field, upon which one of the doors of the house opens, was enclosed, it remains private ground by Rabbinical law too. But if it is not connected with a house, it is private ground only up to the area of two se'ahs; beyond that one may not carry therein by Rabbinical law. Since, however, it is private ground by Biblical law, if one throws an article into it from public ground he is liable, and to this the Mishnah quoted refers when it states that a plain is private ground."
,k7a_6:" Viz., that the Mishnah means that it is a <i>karmelith</i>, because he prefers to explain it in accordance with 'Ulla's other dictum."
,k7a_7:" That being so, why does he not accept 'Ulla's explanation?"
,k7a_8:" Which is definitely not a <i>karmelith</i>."
,k7a_9:" V. p. 12, n. 9."
,k7a_10:" At which stood a house the front of which the owner had thrown open to the public."
,k7a_11:" When the street is very crowded."
,k7a_12:" Pillars were erected in public squares or markets, upon which traders hung their wares."
,k7a_13:" Lit., 'directly'. On account of the numerous pillars, which were not always in a straight line."
,k7a_14:" Which is even less convenient. &mdash; The balcony was used as a stand for traders' stalls."
,k7a_15:" In his opinion."
,k7a_16:" Across a distance of at least four cubits."
,k7a_17:" When an article lies in the street and is less than ten handbreadths high and four square it is a place of non-liability; but that is only in respect of what can be put to a well-defined, natural use; e.g., the top of a low wall or of a brick, upon which articles may be placed. But the side of a wall or a brick can only give accidental service, as in the example, and in that case everything less than ten handbreadths high is as the street itself, and so when one throws an article and after traversing four cubits it cleaves to the side of the brick, it is as though it fell in the street, and he is liable. But the top, which, as explained by Abaye and Raba, is three handbreadths high, constitutes a separate domain &mdash; a place of non-liability."
,k7a_18:" Then it is not part of the street; v. preceding note. [Whether the surface area of the brick has to be four square handbreadths v. Tosaf. a.l.]."
,k7a_19:" Rank as a separate domain, because people avoid stepping on them."
,k7a_20:" People wearing thick shoes may step upon the former; but dung is avoided."
,k7a_21:" V. P. 12, n. 9."
,k7a_22:" If it is, it is not a <i>karmelith</i> but a place of non-liability."
,k7a_23:" Lit., 'takes hold'."
,k7a_24:" I.e., an enclosed space less than two se'ahs in area and not attached to a house (v. p. 21, n. 7) is a <i>karmelith</i> only if its fencing is ten handbreadths high."
,k7a_25:" The roof is ten high, and therefore private ground."
,k7a_26:" Since it is unfit for a dwelling, its walls are disregarded and it ranks not as a private domain but as a <i>karmelith</i> (R. Han.). This is the reverse of our hypothesis."
,k7a_27:" If its top is more than ten handbreadths above ground level it is not a <i>karmelith</i>."
,k7a_28:" Or, man of long teeth."
,k7a_29:" Lit., 'be'."
,k7a_30:" A rod is generally less than four handbreadths square. "
}

txt:
<p>
E.g., when it has barriers,<a id="k7a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and [this is] in accordance with the following dictum of 'Ulla in R. Johanan's name: An enclosure more than two se'ahs [in area]<a id="k7a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; which is not enclosed in attachment to a dwelling place,<a id="k7a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; even if it is a <i>kor</i> or two <i>kor</i> [in area],<a id="k7a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; if one throws [an article] therein [from public ground] he is liable. What is the reason? It is a partitioned area, but it lacks inhabitants.<a id="k7a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, as for R. Ashi, it is well that he does not explain it as 'Ulla;<a id="k7a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; but why does 'Ulla not explain it in accordance with his own dictum? &mdash; He answers you: if it has barriers, is it called a plain: [surely] it is an enclosure! And R. Ashi?<a id="k7a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; 'Private ground' is taught.<a id="k7a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'And a <i>karmelith</i>.' Are then all these [sea, plain and colonnade] too not <i>karmelith</i>? &mdash; When R. Dimi came,<a id="k7a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; he said in the name of R. Johanan: This is necessary only in respect of a corner near a street:<a id="k7a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; though the masses sometimes press and overflow therein,<a id="k7a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; yet since it is inconvenient for [general] use, it ranks as a <i>karmelith</i>.
</p><p>
	When R. Dimi came, he said in R. Johanan's name: [The place] between the pillars<a id="k7a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; is treated as a <i>karmelith</i>. What is the reason? Though the general public walk through there, since they cannot proceed with ease,<a id="k7a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; it is as a <i>karmelith</i>. R. Zera said in Rab Judah's name: The balcony in front of the pillars is treated as a <i>karmelith</i>. Now, he who stated thus of [the ground] between the pillars, &mdash; how much more so the balcony!<a id="k7a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; But he who mentions the balcony-only the balcony [ranks as a <i>karmelith</i>], because it is inconvenient for [general] use, but not [the ground] between the pillars, which is convenient for [general] use.<a id="k7a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Another version: but [the place] between the pillars, through which the public occasionally walk, is as public ground.
</p><p>
	Rabbah b. Shila said in R. Hisda's name: If a brick is standing upright in the street, and one throws [an article]<a id="k7a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and it adheres to its side, he is liable; on top, he is not liable.<a id="k7a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye and Raba both state: Providing that it is three handbreadths high, so that the public do not step on it;<a id="k7a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; but thorns and shrubs, even if not three [handbreadths] high.<a id="k7a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Hiyya b. Rab maintained: Even thorns and shrubs, but not dung.<a id="k7a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ashi ruled: Even dung.
</p><p>
	Rabbah, of the school of R. Shila, said: When R. Dimi came,<a id="k7a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; he said in the name of R. Johanan: No <i>karmelith</i> can be less than four [handbreadths square].<a id="k7a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; And R. Shesheth said: And it extends<a id="k7a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; up to ten. What is meant by, 'and it extends up to ten?' Shall we say that only if there is a partition ten [handbreadths high] is it a <i>karmelith</i>, not otherwise;<a id="k7a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; but is it not? Surely R. Gidal said in the name of R. Hiyya b. Joseph in Rab's name: In the case of a house, the inside of which is not ten [hand breadths in height] but its covering makes it up to ten, it is permitted to carry on the roof over the whole [area];<a id="k7a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; but within, one may carry only four cubits!<a id="k7a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; But what is meant by 'and it extends up to ten?' That only up to ten is it a <i>karmelith</i>, but not higher.<a id="k7a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; And even as Samuel said to Rab Judah, Keen scholar!<a id="k7a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; In matters concerning the Sabbath do not consider<a id="k7a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; aught above ten. In what respect? Shall we say, that there is no private ground above ten? Surely R. Hisda said: If one fixes a rod in private ground<a id="k7a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; and throws [an article from the street] and it alights on the top, even if it is a hundred cubits high, he is liable, because private ground extends up to heaven!
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k7b_1:" I.e., anything above ten handbreadths from ground level is not treated as public ground."
,k7b_2:" He is not liable."
,k7b_3:" And since it traverses four cubits, he is liable. &mdash; Why then need Samuel state it?"
,k7b_4:" I.e., he lowers the level of four square handbreadths of the ground."
,k7b_5:" Cavities in a wall bounding private ground rank as private ground. Here, the lowered portion is true private ground, and the rest is regarded as cavities in an imaginary wall surrounding it."
,k7b_6:" I.e., in a wall fronting a street."
,k7b_7:" But constitute a separate domain. If four handbreadths square, they are a <i>karmelith</i>; if less, a place of non-liability."
,k7b_8:" V- <i>supra</i> 7a, notes, it is there accounted as a <i>karmelith</i>."
,k7b_9:" Mishnah, <i>infra</i> 100a."
,k7b_10:" Since it must rebound at least slightly, the final distance is less than the four cubits that is the least for which a penalty is incurred."
,k7b_11:" Which sticks."
,k7b_12:" Lit., 'come again'. Even if they do not rebound."
,k7b_13:" Which, if four handbreadths square, is private ground."
,k7b_14:" I.e., less than four square."
,k7b_15:" Where the wall is thick enough, we regard the small cavity as enlarged to four square, and liability is incurred."
,k7b_16:" And since the Mishnah under discussion is anonymous, it reflects R. Meir's view; v. Sanh. 86a."
,k7b_17:" That depositing upon a place four handbreadths square is not required. "
}

txt:
<p>
But [if it means] that there is no public ground above ten,<a id="k7b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; it is our Mishnah! For we learnt: If one throws [an article] four cubits on to a wall above ten handbreadths, it is as though he throws it into the air;<a id="k7b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; if below ten, it is as though he throws it on to the ground.<a id="k7b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence he must refer to a <i>karmelith</i>, [teaching] that there is no <i>karmelith</i> above ten. And [R. Dimi and R. Shesheth inform us that] the Rabbis treated it with the leniencies of both private and public ground. 'With the leniencies of private ground': that only if [it measures] four [handbreadths square] is it a <i>karmelith</i>, but if not it is simply a place of non-liability. 'With the leniencies of public ground': only up to ten is it a <i>karmelith</i>, but above ten it is not a <i>karmelith</i>.
</p><p>
	[To revert to] the main text: 'R. Gidal said in the name of R. Hiyya b. Joseph in Rab's name: In the case of a house, the inside of which is not ten [handbreadths in height] but its covering makes it up to ten, it is permitted to carry on the roof thereof over the whole [area]; but within, one may carry only four cubits.' Said Abaye: But if one digs out four square [handbreadths]<a id="k7b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and makes it up to ten, carrying over the whole is permitted. What is the reason? [The rest] is [as] cavities of a private domain, and such are [themselves] a private domain.<a id="k7b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; For it was stated: The cavities of a private domain constitute private ground. As to the cavities of a public domain,<a id="k7b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Abaye said: They are as public ground; Raba said: They are not as public ground.<a id="k7b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Raba to Abaye: According to you who maintains that the cavities of public ground are as public ground, wherein does it differ from what R. Dimi, when he came, said in the name of R. Johanan: 'This is necessary only in respect of a corner near to the street',<a id="k7b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; yet let it be as cavities of a public domain? &mdash; There the use thereof is inconvenient; here the use thereof is convenient.
</p><p>
	We learnt: If one throws an article four cubits on to a wall, above ten handbreadths, it is as though he throws it into the air; if below ten, it is as though he throws it on to the ground.<a id="k7b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Now we discussed this: why 'as though he throws it on the ground'; surely it does not rest [there]?<a id="k7b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; And R. Johanan answered: This refers to a juicy cake of figs.<a id="k7b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; But if you maintain that the cavities of public ground are as public ground, why relate it to a juicy cake of figs; relate it to a splinter or any article and it is a case where it alighted in a cavity? &mdash; Sometimes he answered him, A splinter or any other article are different, because they fall back;<a id="k7b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; sometimes he answered him: The reference must be to a wall not possessing a cavity. &mdash; How do you know it? &mdash; Because the first clause states: If one throws above ten handbreadths, it is as though he throws it into the air. Now if you imagine that this refers to a wall with a cavity, why is it as though he throws It into the air; surely it came to rest in the cavity?<a id="k7b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; And should you answer, Our Mishnah [refers to a cavity] that is not four square, &mdash; surely did not Rab Judah say in R. Hiyya's name: If one throws [an article] above ten handbreadths and it goes and alights in a cavity of any size,<a id="k7b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; we come to a controversy of R. Meir and the Rabbis, R. Meir holding, We [imaginarily] hollow it out to complete it,<a id="k7b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; while the Rabbis maintain, We do not hollow it out to complete it.<a id="k7b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence it surely follows that the reference is to a wall without a cavity. This proves it.
</p><p>
	[To revert to] the main text: R. Hisda said: If one fixes a rod in private ground and throws [an article from the street] and it alights on the top, even if it is a hundred cubits high, he is liable, because private ground extends up to heaven'. Shall we say that R. Hisda holds with Rabbi?<a id="k7b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; For it was taught: If one throws [an object] and it alights upon a projection of whatever size; Rabbi holds him liable; the Sages exempt him!
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k8a_1:" V. <i>supra</i> 4b for notes."
,k8a_2:" Jast.: a large round vessel, receptacle of grain, water, etc."
,k8a_3:" A circle with a diameter of six is the least (roughly) in which a square of four can be inscribed. Now, as stated above (6a), an object four square is a separate domain itself, and no liability is incurred for throwing one domain into another."
,k8a_4:" Since it is ten handbreadths high, it is impossible that the top and bottom canes of the circumference shall be absolutely even and straight, and so something must project above ten from ground level, which is a place of non-liability, not public ground. But in order to incur liability the whole of the article thrown must rest in public ground."
,k8a_5:" Where it was less than six handbreadths broad (Rashi)."
,k8a_6:" It is a principle that the walls of an object are regarded as extending beyond its opening down to the ground itself as soon as that opening comes within a shade less than three handbreadths from the ground. V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> s.v. labud. Hence, when this overturned bin, which is a shade more than seven in height (and certainly if less), enters within just under three handbreadths from the ground and is regarded as already resting on the ground, the whole is within ten from the ground, and therefore he is liable. But if it is slightly taller than this it is partly above ten; hence there is no liability."
,k8a_7:" I.e., to enable it to be used as a receptacle, and not to create an imaginary extension downwards."
,k8a_8:" it being of the exact height to facilitate this."
,k8a_9:" And it is therefore part of the street."
,k8a_10:" It is too low for the latter purpose."
,k8a_11:" And since it is thus put to public use, it is part of the thoroughfare."
,k8a_12:" Nine deep."
,k8a_13:" It can only be used with difficulty; therefore it is not part of the street."
,k8a_14:" As such it is private ground; v. <i>supra</i> fol. 6a."
,k8a_15:" sc. o n nine handbreadths. "
}

txt:
<p>
 &mdash; Said Abaye: In the case of private ground none differ, agreeing with R. Hisda. But here the reference is to a tree standing in private ground, while a branch inclines to the street, and one throws [an article] and it alights on the branch: Rabbi holds, We say, Cast the branch after its trunk; but the Rabbis maintain, We do not say, Cast the branch after its trunk.<a id="k8a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye said: If one throws a bin<a id="k8a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; into the street, [even] if it is ten [handbreadths] high but not six broad, he is liable; if six broad, he is exempt.<a id="k8a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: Even if it is not six broad, he is [still] exempt. What is the reason? It is impossible for a piece of cane not to project above ten.<a id="k8a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; If he overturns it,<a id="k8a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; mouth downwards, [and throws it], then if it is a shade more than seven [in height] he is liable; if seven and a half, he is exempt.<a id="k8a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ashi said: Even if it is seven and a half, he is liable. What is the reason? The walls are made for their contents.<a id="k8a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'Ulla said: If there is a column nine [handbreadths high] in the street, and the public rest and rearrange their burdens thereon,<a id="k8a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and one throws [an object] and it alights upon it, he is liable. What is the reason? If it is less than three, the multitude step upon it;<a id="k8a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; from three to nine, they neither walk upon it nor arrange their burdens upon it;<a id="k8a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; nine, they certainly re-arrange their burdens upon it.<a id="k8a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye asked R. Joseph: What of a pit?<a id="k8a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He replied: The same holds good of a pit. Raba said: It does not hold good of a pit. What is the reason? Service through difficulty is not designated service.<a id="k8a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Adda b. Mattenah raised an objection before Raba: If one's basket is lying in the street, ten [handbreadths] high and four broad,<a id="k8a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; one may not move an object] from it into the street or from the street into it; but if less, one may carry; and the same applies to a pit. Surely that refers to the second clause?<a id="k8a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No: to the first clause.
</p><p>
	He raised an objection:
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


