# snc

lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k134b_1:" Gen. XXXIV, 25. This shows that the third day is a dangerous period, and therefore the infant may be bathed even on the Sabbath."
,k134b_2:" One who is born prematurely, and he may be an eight months' child. The Rabbis held that such could not possibly live, and therefore the Sabbath might not be violated for his circumcision."
,k134b_3:" Which implies in the normal manner, sc. in a bath."
,k134b_4:" Sprinkling is not bathing."
,k134b_5:" Surely this is a proof that the third day is dangerous."
,k134b_6:" The verse quoted, q.v., treats of the former."
,k134b_7:" Permitting the infant to be bathed on the first day, which was a Sabbath, in the usual way."
,k134b_8:" Sc. Rab Judah and Rabbah b. Abbuha. I.e., 'why did I interfere and disregard it?' He regarded his illness as a punishment."
,k134b_9:" V.p. 12, n. 9."
,k134b_10:" Whereas according to the present interpretation the first Tanna permits even sprinkling on the first day only, but not on the third."
,k134b_11:" Rab refers to the latter, while R. Joseph assumed that the Mishnah refers to the former."
,k134b_12:" Hence the Mishnah must certainly refer to water heated on the Sabbath."
,k134b_13:" V.p. 12, n. 9."
,k134b_14:" One may pour too much on the rag and then wring it out, which is forbidden."
,k134b_15:" These are not intended for healing but merely as a protection."
,k134b_16:" A dry rag too is a fragment, and it is permitted."
,k134b_17:" These heal and are forbidden."
,k134b_18:" Which do not heal (Rashi). 11. Han. reverses it."
,k134b_19:" Lev. XII, 3; 'day' includes the Sabbath, <i>supra</i> 132a."
,k134b_20:" I.e., who is certainly subject to the obligation. "
}

txt:
<p>
<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. WE MAY BATHE THE INFANT BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE CIRCUMCISION, AND SPRINKLE [WARM WATER] OVER HIM BY HAND BUT NOT WITH A VESSEL. R. ELEAZAR B. 'AZARIAH SAID: WE MAY BATHE AN INFANT ON THE THIRD DAY [OF CIRCUMCISION] WHICH FALLS ON THE SABBATH, BECAUSE IT IS SAID, AND IT CAME TO PASS ON THE THIRD DAY, WHEN THEY WERE SORE.<a id="k134b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; AS FOR ONE WHO IS DOUBTFUL,<a id="k134b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; AND AN HERMAPHRODITE, WE MAY NOT DESECRATE THE SABBATH ON THEIR ACCOUNT; BUT R. JUDAH PERMITS [IT] IN THE CASE OF AN HERMAPHRODITE.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. But you say in the first clause, WE MAY BATHE?<a id="k134b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rab Judah and Rabbah b. Abbuha both said: He [the Tanna] teaches how [it is to be done]. [Thus:] WE MAY BATHE THE INFANT BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE CIRCUMCISION. How? WE SPRINKLE [WARM WATER] OVER HIM BY HAND, BUT NOT WITH A VESSEL. Raba objected: But he states, WE MAY BATHE?<a id="k134b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather said Raba, He teaches thus: WE MAY BATHE THE INFANT BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER CIRCUMCISION on the first day in the normal manner; but on the third day which falls on the Sabbath, WE SPRINKLE [WARM WATER] OVER HIM BY HAND BUT NOT WITH A VESSEL. R. ELEAZAR B. AZARIAH SAID: WE MAY BATHE AN INFANT ON THE THIRD DAY WHICH FALLS ON THE SABBATH, BECAUSE IT IS SAID, AND IT CAME TO PASS ON THE THIRD DAY, WHEN THEY WERE SORE. It was taught in accordance with Raba: We may bathe the infant before and after the circumcision on the first day in the normal manner, but on the third day which falls on the Sabbath we besprinkle him by hand. R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah said: We may bathe an infant on the third day which falls on the Sabbath, and though there is no proof, there is an allusion thereto, for it is said, 'And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore'. And when they sprinkle, they sprinkle neither with a glass nor with a dish nor with a vessel, but only by hand &mdash; this agrees with the first Tanna. Why [does he say,] though there is no proof, there is an allusion thereto?<a id="k134b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Because an adult's flesh does not heal quickly, whereas an infant's does.<a id="k134b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A certain [person] came before Raba, [and] he gave him a ruling in accordance with his view.<a id="k134b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [Then] Raba fell ill. Said he: What business did I have with the interpretation of the older scholars?<a id="k134b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [Thereupon] the Rabbis said to Raba: But it was taught in accordance with the Master? Our Mishnah supports them, he replied. How so? Since it states, R. ELEAZAR B. 'AZARIAH SAID: WE MAY BATHE THE INFANT ON THE THIRD DAY WHICH FALLS ON THE SABBATH. It is well if you assume that the first Tanna means [that] we may [merely] sprinkle: hence R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah says to him, We may bathe. But if you explain that the first Tanna means, We may bathe on the first day and sprinkle on the third day, then [instead of] this [statement], R. ELEAZAR B. AZARIAH SAID: WE MAY SPRINKLE, 'WE MAY ALSO SPRINKLE [ON THE THIRD DAY]' is required.
</p><p>
	When R. Dimi came,<a id="k134b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; he said in R. Eleazar's name: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah. In the West [Palestine] they pondered thereon: is the bathing of the whole body [permitted], or [only] the bathing of the membrum? Said one of the Rabbis, named R. Jacob, it is logical [that it means] the bathing of the whole body. For should you think, the bathing of the membrum, is this worse [less important] than hot water on a wound? For Rab said, One does not withhold hot water and oil from a wound on the Sabbath.<a id="k134b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph demurred: And do you not admit a distinction between hot water heated on the Sabbath and hot water heated on the eve of the Sabbath?<a id="k134b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; To this R. Dimi demurred: And whence [does it follow] that they differ here in respect of hot water heated on the Sabbath? Perhaps they differ in respect of hot water heated on the eve of the Sabbath? &mdash; Said Abaye, I wanted to answer him, but R. Joseph anticipated [me] and answered him: Because it is a danger for him.<a id="k134b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; It was stated likewise: When Rabin came,<a id="k134b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; he said in R. Abbahu's name in R. Eleazar's name &mdash; others state, R. Abbahu said in R. Johanan's name: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah in respect of both hot water heated on the Sabbath and hot water heated on the eve of the Sabbath, whether for the bathing of the whole body or for the bathing of the membrum, because it is dangerous for him.
</p><p>
	[To turn to] the main text: 'Rab said: One does not withhold hot water and oil from a wound on the Sabbath. But Samuel said: One must place it outside the wound, and it flows down on to the wound'. An objection is raised: One may not put oil and hot water on a rag to apply it to a wound on the Sabbath? &mdash; There it is on account of wringing out.<a id="k134b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Come and hear: One may not pour hot water and oil on a rag which is on a wound on the Sabbath? &mdash; There too it is because of wringing out. It was taught in accordance with Samuel: One may not apply hot water and oil to a wound on the Sabbath, but one may put it outside the wound, and it flows down on to the wound.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: One may apply dry wadding or a dry sponge to a wound<a id="k134b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; but not a dry reed or dry rags [of cloth]. [The rulings on] rags are contradictory?<a id="k134b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; There is no difficulty: the one treats of new [rags];<a id="k134b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; the other of old.<a id="k134b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye observed: This proves that rags heal.
</p><p>
	ONE WHO IS DOUBTFUL, AND AN HERMAPHRODITE, etc. Our Rabbis taught, [And in the eighth day the flesh of] his foreskin [shall be circumcised]:<a id="k134b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; 'his foreskin', [the foreskin of] one who is certain<a id="k134b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; supersedes the Sabbath,
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k135a_1:" On Friday, and it is not known whether it was then Friday or the Sabbath."
,k135a_2:" I.e., the foreskin which seems absent is pressed to the membrum."
,k135a_3:" For the various cases of doubt are enumerated in detail."
,k135a_4:" I.e., one born after seven months of pregnancy."
,k135a_5:" The Rabbis held that such could not possibly live; hence there is no point in desecrating the Sabbath by circumcising him."
,k135a_6:" To herself, if she is not eased of her milk."
,k135a_7:" Who taught that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel disagree about a child who is born circumcised; the <i>halachah</i> then naturally being as Beth Hillel."
,k135a_8:" That they might cause a few drops of the covenant blood to flow. It was the Sabbath, and they all refused."
,k135a_9:" Eventually he performed the operation himself unskillfully, with that result."
,k135a_10:" There is no element of doubt at all, and therefore it must be done even on the Sabbath."
,k135a_11:" It is only because of this doubt that some drops of blood must be made to flow."
,k135a_12:" Even in Beth Hillel's opinion. Hence Beth Hillel must hold that it is certainly a suppressed foreskin."
,k135a_13:" Surely that is of no interest, since the halacha is as Beth Hillel."
,k135a_14:" Thus: the first Tanna maintains that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel agree that we may not desecrate the Sabbath; hence their controversy must refer to weekdays, Beth Hillel holding that no blood-flow at all is required, whereupon R. Eleazar ha-Kappar stated that this is incorrect, there being no dispute in respect to weekdays, for even Beth Hillel necessitate a blood-flow, and they differ only in respect of the Sabbath. On this interpretation he informs us of Beth Hillel's view in respect to weekdays."
,k135a_15:" E.g., if the child is not born in the usual manner but extracted through the cesarean section; or if a Gentile woman gives birth and becomes a proselyte the following day."
,k135a_16:" But immediately."
,k135a_17:" Lev. XII, 2f. Thus the two are interdependent."
,k135a_18:" Viz., those preceding the giving of the Torah."
,k135a_19:" The law of defilement being as yet non-existent."
,k135a_20:" In accordance with God's command to Abraham; v. Gen. XVII, 12. "
}

txt:
<p>
but [of] one in doubt does not supersede the Sabbath; 'his foreskin' [of] one who is certain supersedes the Sabbath, but an hermaphrodite does not supersede the Sabbath. R. Judah maintained: An hermaphrodite supersedes the Sabbath and there is the penalty of <i>kareth</i>. 'His foreskin': [of] one who is certain supersedes the Sabbath, but [of] one born at twilight<a id="k135a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; does not supersede the Sabbath; his foreskin: one who is certain supersedes the Sabbath, but one who is born circumcised does not supersede the Sabbath, for Beth Shammai maintain: One must cause a few drops of the covenant blood to flow from him, while Beth Hillel rule: It is unnecessary. R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel did not differ concerning him who is born circumcised that you must cause a few drops of the covenant blood to flow from him, because it is a suppressed foreskin:<a id="k135a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; about what do they differ? about a proselyte who was converted when [already] circumcised: there Beth Shammai maintain: One must cause a few drops of the covenant blood to flow from him; whereas Beth Hillel rule: One need not cause a few drops of the covenant blood to flow from him.
</p><p>
	The Master said: 'But [of] one that is doubtful does not supersede the Sabbath.' What does this include?<a id="k135a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It includes the following which was taught by our Rabbis: For a seven-months' infant<a id="k135a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; one may desecrate the Sabbath, but for an eight-months' infant one may not desecrate the Sabbath.<a id="k135a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; For one in doubt whether the is a seven-months' or an eight-months' infant, one may not desecrate the Sabbath. An eight-months' infant is like a stone and may not be handled, but his mother bends [over] and suckles him because of the danger.<a id="k135a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was stated: Rab said: The <i>halachah</i> is as the first Tanna;<a id="k135a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; while Samuel said: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Simeon b. Eleazar. A circumcised child was born to R. Adda b. Ahabah. He took him to thirteen circumcisers,<a id="k135a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; until he mutilated him privily.<a id="k135a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; I deserve it for transgressing Rab's [ruling], said he. Said R. Nahman to him, And did you not violate Samuel's [ruling]? Samuel ruled this only of weekdays, but did he rule this of the Sabbath? &mdash; He [R. Adda b. Ahabah] held that it is definitely a suppressed foreskin.<a id="k135a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; For it was stated: Rabbah said: We suspect that it may be a suppressed foreskin;<a id="k135a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph said: It is certainly a suppressed foreskin.
</p><p>
	R. Joseph said: Whence do I know it? Because it was taught, R. Eliezer ha-Kappar said: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel do not disagree concerning him who is born circumcised, that one must cause a few drops of the covenant blood to flow from him. Concerning what do they differ? As to whether the Sabbath is desecrated on his account: Beth Shammai maintain, We desecrate the Sabbath on his account; while Beth Hillel rule: We must not desecrate the Sabbath on his account. Does it then not follow that the first Tanna holds, We desecrate the Sabbath for him?<a id="k135a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; But perhaps the first Tanna maintains that all agree that we may not desecrate the Sabbath for him? &mdash; If so, R. Eliezer ha-Kappar comes to teach us Beth Shammai's view!<a id="k135a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; But perhaps he means this: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel did not disagree in this matter!<a id="k135a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; 
</p><p>
	R. Assi said: He whose mother is defiled through confinement must be circumcised at eight [days], but he whose mother is not defiled through confinement<a id="k135a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; is not circumcised on the eighth day,<a id="k135a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; because it is said, If a woman conceive seed, and bear a man child, then she shall be unclean, etc. &hellip; And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.<a id="k135a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Abaye to him, Let the early generations<a id="k135a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; prove [the reverse], where the mother was not defiled through confinement,<a id="k135a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; yet circumcision was of the eighth day!<a id="k135a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The Torah was given, replied he,
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k135b_1:" Viz., that the two are interdependent."
,k135b_2:" Two skins on top of each other. Or, two separate membra."
,k135b_3:" The infant who must be circumcised on the eighth day must be circumcised even on the Sabbath, since that is deduced from (eighth) day (<i>supra</i> 132a); but where the eighth day is necessary the Sabbath may not be desecrated."
,k135b_4:" Of purchase, even if he is not eight days old yet."
,k135b_5:" [Probably R. Hama the father of R. Oshaia, v. Hyman, Toledoth II p. 456]."
,k135b_6:" By this rite she enters the Jewish household as slave, becoming liable to all duties enjoined upon a Jewish woman. V. next note."
,k135b_7:" These laws centre on Gen. XVII, 12, 13: And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed (v. 12). He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised (v. 13). Whereas v. 12 specifies circumcision for the eighth day, v. 13 does not, which implies at the earliest possible moment. Now it is logical that v. 12 refers to a slave who is as like as possible to a full Jew, that being the implication of 'among you', intimating those that are similar to you. viz., one born in his master's house after he was purchased. i.e., his mother was bearing him when she was bought; whilst v. 13 applies to a slave who is unlike a full Jew, vi., he was already born before he was bought. R. Hama draws this distinction: If his mother has a ritual bath, whereby she formally becomes a Jewish-owned slave in that she is bound to observe all the laws incumbent upon Jewesses in general, so that her confinement renders her unclean just like a Jewess, and then she gives birth, the infant is circumcised on the eighth day. But otherwise the infant is not like a Jewish-born child, and is circumcised on the first day. But the first Tanna ignores this distinction: thus R. Assi's ruling is a matter of controversy between the first Tanna and R. Hama."
,k135b_8:" Maharam deletes this."
,k135b_9:" Both of these refer to a slave who conceived in her master's house, so that the infant is not 'bought with money'."
,k135b_10:" Since the latter does not own the mother, the child is not like a Jewish-born infant, and therefore he is circumcised on the first day."
,k135b_11:" As already stated <i>supra</i>."
,k135b_12:" Since he rejects the distinction based on when the mother had her ritual bath, one born in the house is certainly similar to a Jew."
,k135b_13:" Even if he buys her from a Jew, and she has already had her ritual bath and is subject to the uncleanness of confinement, the child is nevertheless unlike a Jewish child, since his owner has no share in the mother."
,k135b_14:" V. B.B. 136a; the mother is the principal, while the child is the usufruct. On the latter view he is like a Jewish-born child"
,k135b_15:" There her child is certainly unlike a Jewish-born one."
,k135b_16:" Lit., 'tarries'."
,k135b_17:" A nonviable, premature birth."
,k135b_18:" Num. XVIII, 16. Since he must then be redeemed, it follows that he is viable."
,k135b_19:" Lev. XXII, 27. "
}

txt:
<p>
and then a new law was decreed.<a id="k135b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; But that is not so? for it was stated: If one is extracted through the cesarean section, or has two foreskins,<a id="k135b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Huna and R. Hiyya b. Rab [differ thereon]: one maintains, We desecrate the Sabbath for them; whilst the other holds, We do not desecrate the Sabbath for them. Thus, they differ only concerning the desecration of the Sabbath for them, but we certainly circumcise them on the eighth day? &mdash; One is dependent on the other.<a id="k135b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	This is a controversy of Tannaim: [For it was taught], There is [a slave] born in his [master's] house who is circumcised on the first [day], and there is one born in his [master's] house who is circumcised on the eighth [day]; there is [a slave] bought with money who is circumcised on the first [day], and there is [a slave] bought with money who is circumcised on the eighth day. 'There is [a slave] bought with money who is circumcised on the first [day], and there is [a slave] bought with money who is circumcised on the eighth day.' How so? If one purchases a pregnant female slave and then she gives birth, that [the infant] is an acquired slave who is circumcised at eight days &mdash; If one purchases a female slave together with her infant child, that is a slave bought with money who is circumcised on the first day.<a id="k135b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; 'And there is [a slave] born in [his] master's house who is circumcised on the eighth day' &mdash; How so? If one purchases a female slave and she conceives in his house and gives birth, that is [a slave] born in his [master's] house who is circumcised at eight days. R &mdash; Hama said:<a id="k135b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; If she gives birth and then has a ritual bath,<a id="k135b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; that is [a slave] born in his [master's] house who is circumcised on the first day; if she has a ritual bath and then gives birth, that is [a slave] born in his [master's] house who is circumcised at eight days. But the first Tanna allows no distinction between one who [first] has a ritual bath and then gives birth and one who gives birth and then has a ritual bath, so that though his mother is not defiled through her confinement he is circumcised on the eighth day.<a id="k135b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said:<a id="k135b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; As for R. Hama, it is well: we find [a slave] born in his [master's] house who is circumcised on the first day, and one who is circumcised on the eighth day; one bought with money who is circumcised on the first day, and one bought with money who is circumcised on the eighth day. [Thus:] if she gives birth and then has a ritual bath, that is [a slave] born in his [master's] house who is circumcised on the first day; if she has a ritual bath and then gives birth, that is [a slave] born in the house who is circumcised on the eighth [day].<a id="k135b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; 'One bought with money who is circumcised on the eighth [day]': e.g., if one purchases a pregnant female slave and she has a ritual bath and then gives birth; 'one bought with money who is circumcised on the first day': e.g., where one buys a [pregnant] female slave and another buys her unborn child.<a id="k135b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; But according to the first Tanna, as for all [others] it is well: they are conceivable.<a id="k135b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; But how can [a slave] born in the house be found who is circumcised on the first day?<a id="k135b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said R. Jeremiah: In the case of one who buys a female slave for her unborn child.<a id="k135b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; This is satisfactory on the view that a title to the usufruct is not as a title to the principal; but on the view that a title to the usufruct is as a title to the principal, what can be said?<a id="k135b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said R. Mesharsheya: [It is possible] where one buys a female slave on condition that he will not subject her to a ritual bath.<a id="k135b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was taught, R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Any human being who lives<a id="k135b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; thirty days is not a nefel,<a id="k135b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; because it is said, And those that are to be redeemed of them from a month old shalt thou redeem.<a id="k135b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; An animal [which lives] eight days is not a nefel, for it is said, and from the eighth day and henceforth it shall be accepted for an oblation, etc.<a id="k135b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; This implies that if it [an infant] does not last [so long], it is doubtful;
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k136a_1:" On the eighth day which falls on the Sabbath, seeing that he may be non-viable, in which case there is really no obligation to circumcise him at all,"
,k136a_2:" Which cannot be regarded as the inflicting of a wound (this is the form of labour to which circumcision belongs). since the infant is already as dead."
,k136a_3:" V. <i>supra</i> 135a."
,k136a_4:" <i>Supra</i> 130a; but here the Sabbath may not be violated for the preliminaries."
,k136a_5:" Sc. whether a non-viable infant is so completely regarded as dead that the infliction of a wound on it is merely flesh cutting."
,k136a_6:" Lev. XI, 39."
,k136a_7:" I.e., a calf born in, the eighth month of bearing instead of in the usual ninth."
,k136a_8:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k136a_9:" For even if ritually slaughtered, it may not be eaten, since it was non-viable (v. p. 679, n. 5; the same applies to animals), and therefore it is the same as though it had died of itself."
,k136a_10:" Therefore <i>shechitah</i> renders it clean, just as in the case of any other animal that is permitted as food. "
,k136a_11:" According to the first Tanna <i>shechitah</i> should make it fit for food, but not according to the others."
,k136a_12:" An animal suffering with some disease or illness on account of which it may not be eaten after <i>shechitah</i>. It too is regarded as technically dead."
,k136a_13:" This is deduced by the Rabbis from the present verse."
,k136a_14:" Before it contracted that disease."
,k136a_15:" Lit., 'the womb'."
,k136a_16:" An animal born at nine months belongs to the species where <i>shechitah</i> counts, though this particular one is an exception. But no eight-months' animal is rendered fit for food by <i>shechitah</i>."
,k136a_17:" <i>Supra</i> 135b bottom,"
,k136a_18:" The question is whether they permit a young animal to be eaten before it is eight days old."
,k136a_19:" Though it is only one day old."
,k136a_20:" Then it is definitely viable."
,k136a_21:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> The reference is to a firstling born blemished on a festival. A firstling might not be eaten before it received a blemish and we are taught there that this animal is mukan and may be eaten on the day of its birth. V. Bez. 26b."
,k136a_22:" Cf. <i>supra</i> 106b."
,k136a_23:" I.e., if the infant dies through an external cause before thirty, days, we assume that it was viable. Hence if he was an only child and survived his father, no matter by how short a time, his mother is free from Levirate marriage (v. Deut. XXV, 5), since his father did have a son. Similarly in the case of an animal, if slaughtered before it is eight days old it may be eaten, because we assume that it was viable,"
,k136a_24:" I.e., it dies naturally within thirty days, having shown very little vitality."
,k136a_25:" V.p. 685, n. 12."
,k136a_26:" I.e., the third which its mother had calved. Aliter: (a) a third-grown calf; (b) a calf in its third year."
,k136a_27:" When it would have been eight days old."
,k136a_28:" Though it was slaughtered."
,k136a_29:" Hence the attitude of R. Papa and R. Huna b. R. Joshua."
,k136a_30:" I.e., he performed the ritual mourning rites which are obligatory upon a bereaved father."
,k136a_31:" Lit., 'throat-ticklers'; Jast.: Which friends send to mourners &mdash; i.e., you should not mourn for him, seeing that he was non-viable."
,k136a_32:" I.e., his child died within thirty days from birth."
,k136a_33:" V. <i>supra</i> n. 13; the same case is referred to here."
,k136a_34:" At a later date, thinking that the child had freed her from the levirate obligation. "
}

txt:
<p>
how then can we circumcise him?<a id="k136a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said R. Adda b. Ahabah: We circumcise him in either case: if he is viable, the is rightly circumcised; whilst if not, one [merely] cuts flesh.<a id="k136a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Then as to what was taught, If there is doubt whether he is a seven-months' [infant] or an eight-months', we must not desecrate the Sabbath on his account:<a id="k136a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; why so? let us circumcise him in either case: if he is viable, he is rightly circumcised; if not, you [merely] cut flesh? &mdash; Mar the son of Rabina said: R. Nehumi b. Zechariah and I explained it: We do indeed circumcise him; this [teaching] is required only in respect of the preliminaries of circumcision, this being in accordance with R. Eliezer.<a id="k136a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye said, This is dependent on Tannaim:<a id="k136a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; And if any beast, of which ye may eat, die: [he that toucheth the carcase thereof shall be unclean until the even];<a id="k136a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; this is to include an eight-months' [animal],<a id="k136a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [teaching] that <i>shechitah</i><a id="k136a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; does not render it clean.<a id="k136a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jose son of R. Judah and R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon maintain: It is <i>shechitah</i> does render it clean. Surely they differ in this: one Master holds, It is a living creature;<a id="k136a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; whilst the other Master holds, It is [technically] dead? &mdash; Said Raba: If so, instead of disputing on the matter of uncleanness and cleanness, let them dispute on the question of consumption.<a id="k136a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather [say then] all hold that it is [technically] dead, but R. Jose son of R. Judah and R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon argue, it is as a <i>terefah</i>:<a id="k136a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; a <i>terefah</i>, though indeed it is dead, does not <i>shechitah</i> render it clean?<a id="k136a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; So here too it is not different. But the Rabbis [reason]: it is unlike a <i>terefah</i>, for a <i>terefah</i> had a period of fitness,<a id="k136a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas this one enjoyed no period of fitness. And should you object, what can be said about a <i>terefah</i> from birth?<a id="k136a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; There <i>shechitah</i> is efficacious for its kind, whereas here <i>shechitah</i> is not efficacious for its kind.<a id="k136a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The scholars asked: Do the Rabbis disagree with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel<a id="k136a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; or not?<a id="k136a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Should you answer [that] they differ, is the <i>halachah</i> as he or not? &mdash; Come and hear: If a calf is born on a festival, one may slaughter it on a festival!<a id="k136a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; What case do we treat of here? Where we know for certain that its months [of bearing] were complete.<a id="k136a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Come and hear: And they agree that if it is born together with its blemish, it is mukan!<a id="k136a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Here too [it is said] where its months [of bearing] were complete. Come and hear: For Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: The <i>halachah</i>, is as R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. 'The <i>halachah</i> [is thus]' implies that they [the Rabbis] disagree.<a id="k136a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; This proves it.
</p><p>
	Abaye said: If it falls from a roof or is devoured by a lion, all hold that it was viable.<a id="k136a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; When do they differ? if it yawns and dies.<a id="k136a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; One Master holds: It was viable; whilst the other Master holds: it was [technically] dead. What is the practical difference? Whether it frees the mother from Levirate marriage.<a id="k136a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'If it falls from a roof or is devoured by a lion, all hold that it was viable.' But surely R. Papa and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua visited the house of R. Iddi b. Abin's son, who prepared a third-born calf<a id="k136a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; for them on its seventh day [from birth], whereupon they said to him, 'Had you waited with it until evening<a id="k136a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; we would have eaten thereof: now we will not eat thereof'!<a id="k136a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rather [say thus:] If it yawns and dies, all agree that it was dead [non-viable]; they differ where it falls from a roof or is devoured by a lion, one Master holding that it was viable; the other Master, that it was dead.<a id="k136a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A child was born to the son of R. Dimi b. Joseph, [and] it died within thirty days. [Thereupon] he sat and mourned for it.<a id="k136a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; Said his father to him, 'Do you wish to eat dainties?'<a id="k136a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; 'I know for certain that its months [of pregnancy] were complete.' R. Ashi visited R. Kahana: a mishap befell him within the thirty days.<a id="k136a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; Seeing him sitting and mourning for it, he said to him, 'Does the Master not agree with what Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Simeon b. Gamaliel?' &mdash; 'I know for certain that its months were complete,' replied he.
</p><p>
	It was stated: If it died within thirty days,<a id="k136a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; and she [the mother] arose and was betrothed,<a id="k136a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rabina said in Raba's name:
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k136b_1:" I.e., if her second husband is an Israelite, i.e., not a priest, and may marry a <i>haluzah</i> (q.v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>). &mdash; Betrothal was the first stage of marriage, and binding like marriage; v. Kid., Sonc. ed., p. 1, n. 9."
,k136b_2:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>: for the child may have been non-viable."
,k136b_3:" Who may not marry a <i>haluzah</i>."
,k136b_4:" But may assume that her child was viable, relying on the majority of births, and therefore she has no levirate obligation."
,k136b_5:" In Yeb. 36b the reading is: R. Mesharsheya."
,k136b_6:" Ruling that she need not perform <i>halizah</i> if she is a priest's wife."
,k136b_7:" Without <i>halizah</i>, thus disregarding the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel."
,k136b_8:" 'Arakin, &mdash; vows whereby one offers his own or another person's 'valuation,' to the Temple. The valuations were fixed and dependent on the age and sex of the person concerned, v. Lev. XXVII, 1ff"
,k136b_9:" Lev. XXVII, 3."
,k136b_10:" One whose genitals are hidden or undeveloped, so that his sex is doubtful. In Bek. 42a the Talmud deletes '<i>tumtum</i>' from this passage."
,k136b_11:" Ibid. 4. "
}

txt:
<p>
If she is an Israelite's wife,<a id="k136b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; she must perform <i>halizah</i>;<a id="k136b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; but if she is a priest's wife,<a id="k136b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; she does not perform <i>halizah</i>.<a id="k136b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; But R. Sherabia<a id="k136b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; ruled in Raba's name: Both the one and the other must perform <i>halizah</i>. Rabina said to R. Sherabia: In the evening Raba did rule thus, but the [following] morning he retracted.<a id="k136b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; You would permit her,<a id="k136b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; he retorted: would that you permitted forbidden fat!
</p><p>
	R. JUDAH PERMITS, etc. R. Shizbi said in R. Hisda's name: Not in respect of everything did R. Judah rule [that] an hermaphrodite is a male; for if you do say thus, in the case of vows of valuation<a id="k136b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; let him be subject to valuation &mdash; And how do we know that he is not subject to 'valuation'? Because it was taught: '[And thy estimation shall be of] the male [from twenty years old, etc.]:<a id="k136b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; but not a <i>tumtum</i><a id="k136b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; or an hermaphrodite. You might think that he does not come within the valuation of a man, yet he does come within the valuation of a woman; therefore it is stated,&nbsp;&hellip; the male&nbsp;&hellip; and if it be a female:<a id="k136b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; a certain male, a certain female, but not a <i>tumtum</i> or a hermaphrodite'. &mdash; 
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k138a_1:" Gud is a broad leather bag into which wine or milk was poured. It was stretched out at night tent-wise for the liquid to cool in the night air."
,k138a_2:" Rashi: whose top is a handbreadth in width. Alfasi and Maim.: whose top is less than a handbreadth in width."
,k138a_3:" Jast. Tosaf.: a framework over which the leather seat was stretched; this is like the making of a tent."
,k138a_4:" If they have fallen. The covers or tops of these are permanently spread, so no 'tent' is made."
,k138a_5:" This was a kind of ornamental headdress containing a picture of Jerusalem; v. <i>supra</i> 59b."
,k138a_6:" Abaye's reasoning is difficult to follow unless he means that R. Eliezer was altogether ignorant of R. Meir's view (Tosaf. and marginal Gloss.)."
,k138a_7:" A deliberate offence is not punishable unless the transgressor is previously warned that his proposed action is forbidden on such and such a score; in the case of the violation of the Sabbath he must be advised under what category of labour his action is prohibited. The selection here is in regard to the straining of wine."
,k138a_8:" He is warned that straining is tantamount to selecting."
,k138a_9:" V. <i>supra</i> 73a for these two labours."
,k138a_10:" Tent-wise over a pole. the ends being fastened to the ground, so that the whole forms a tent under which he can lie (R. Han.)."
,k138a_11:" Because the top or roof of this improvised tent is less than a handbreadth in width."
,k138a_12:" The sheet was already on the pole from before the Sabbath, and a thread or cord was attached thereto by means of which it might be pulled down. When it is pulled down one merely adds to a temporary or improvised tent, and this Baraitha permits it-."
,k138a_13:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 695, n. 6."
,k138a_14:" Inhabitants of Carmania, a province of the ancient Persian empire, with the capital Carmana. Others: a frame used by vendors of linen garments. On both translations the frameworks were such that they were taken apart and then set up; this constitutes a forbidden labour."
,k138a_15:" I.e., one about which a cord was wound, and which he permits in this passage."
,k138a_16:" V. p. 695, n. 8."
,k138a_17:" Which shows that they may be taken apart &mdash; he was speaking of the Sabbath &mdash; and in the same way they may be set up"
,k138a_18:" It is not a 'tent', since it has no roof. "
}

txt:
<p>
Rather said Abaye: It is [forbidden] by Rabbinical law, in order that one should not act in the very way he acts on weekdays.
</p><p>
	Abaye collected some general principles of Baraithas, and he recited: One must not stretch out a leather bag,<a id="k138a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; a strainer, a canopy,<a id="k138a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; or a camp chair;<a id="k138a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and if he does he is not culpable. but it is forbidden. One must not make a permanent tent, and if he does he is liable to a sin-offering. But a bed, chair, three-legged stool, and a footstool may be set up at the very outset.<a id="k138a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	NOR POUR [WINE] THROUGH A SUSPENDED (STRAINER] ON THE SABBATH. The scholars asked: What if one does strain [wine]? &mdash; R. Kahana said: If one strains he incurs a sin-offering. R. Shesheth demurred: Is there aught for which the Rabbis impose a sin-offering whereas R. Eliezer permits it at the very outset? To this R. Joseph demurred: Why not? Surely there is a 'golden city',<a id="k138a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; where R. Meir imposes a sin-offering. while R. Eliezer gives permission at the very outset. What is this? For it was taught: A woman must not go out with a 'golden city', and if she does go out, she is liable to a sin-offering: this is R. Meir's view: but the Sages rule: She may not go out [with it]. yet if she goes out she is not culpable. R. Eliezer maintained: A woman may go out with a 'golden city' at the very outset! &mdash; Said Abaye to him, Do you think that R. Eliezer refers to R. Meir, who rules that she is liable to a sin-offering? He refers to the Rabbis, who maintain that there is no culpability. though it is forbidden; whereupon he said to them, It is permitted at the very outset.<a id="k138a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	On what grounds is he warned?<a id="k138a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rabbah said: On the grounds of selecting;<a id="k138a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Zera said: On the score of sifting.<a id="k138a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbah said, Reason supports my view: What is usual in selecting? One takes the edible matter and leaves the refuse, so here too he takes the edible [the wine] and leaves the refuse. R. Zera said, Reason supports my view: what is usual in sifting? The refuse [remains] on top whilst the edible matter [falls] below, so here too, &mdash; the refuse [remains] on top whilst the edible matter [drops] below.
</p><p>
	Rami b. Ezekiel recited: One must not spread a doubled-over sheet;<a id="k138a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; yet if he does he is not culpable,<a id="k138a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; but it is forbidden. If a thread or a cord was wound about it,<a id="k138a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; it may be spread at the very outset. R. Kahana asked Rab: What about a canopy?<a id="k138a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; A bed too is forbidden. What about a bed? A canopy too is permitted, he replied. What about a canopy and a bed? A canopy is forbidden, replied he, while a bed is permitted. Yet there are no contradictions: when he said, A bed too is forbidden, [he meant one] like that used by the Carmanians.<a id="k138a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; When he said to him, A canopy too is permitted, [he referred to] one like Rami b. Ezekiel['s].<a id="k138a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; A canopy is forbidden while a bed is permitted refers to one like ours.<a id="k138a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph said: I saw the canopy beds of R. Huna's house stretched out at night and thrown down in the morning.<a id="k138a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab said in R. Hiyya's name: A [door] curtain may be hung up and taken down.<a id="k138a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; And Samuel said in R. Hiyya's name:
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k138b_1:" v. p. 696. n. 6; also T.A. II, p. 457. n. 311, where it is understood as a sedan chair or litter."
,k138b_2:" It being spread over a very narrow pole."
,k138b_3:" Hence it is forbidden. By 'its slope' is meant the distance at the base from the vertical. Obviously such is unfit for use, and Rashi observes that a bridal bed was not for sleeping. This is unsatisfactory, and Tosaf. suggests other interpretations but rejects them too as equally unsatisfactory. V. 'Er. 102a (Sonc. ed., p. 709. n. 15)."
,k138b_4:" Jast.: A felt cap with a shade in front."
,k138b_5:" It may not be worn on the Sabbath, as it technically forms a tent."
,k138b_6:" He winds it about his head so as to protrude this distance."
,k138b_7:" Read with Asheri, is it too forbidden'?"
,k138b_8:" Rashi: In the latter case a peaked cap is forbidden, not as a 'tent' but lest the wind blow it off and he come to carry it."
,k138b_9:" V. p. 695. n. 5."
,k138b_10:" The interdict <i>supra</i> a is only where it is unprovided with thongs or straps."
,k138b_11:" Rashi: two men do not stretch it well; but one person is forced to tie one end to a stake, stretch it, and then tie the other end to another stake, whereby it becomes a tent. Rashi however is dissatisfied with this explanation and states that he does not understand it, nor are other commentators more satisfactory."
,k138b_12:" The shafts are the four feet upon which it stands."
,k138b_13:" Which is labour. But the first view is that it can stand well enough with one shaft missing to make this fear unlikely."
,k138b_14:" Deut. XXVIII, 59."
,k138b_15:" Isa. XXIX, 14."
,k138b_16:" Whither R. Johanan b. Zakkai transported or founded an academy after the destruction of the second Temple. Vineyard' is a metaphor for the academy, because the scholars sat in rows like vines, J. Ber. IV, 1. The time referred to here is probably that of the Hadrianic persecutions."
,k138b_17:" Amos VIII, 11f"
,k138b_18:" The designated time of redemption, when the Messiah will appear. Tosaf. finds the analogy for this interpretation in Ezra I."
,k138b_19:" Lit., 'understand'."
,k138b_20:" Lev. XI, 34. Surely the Written Law will be available."
,k138b_21:" V. p. 55. n. 6."
,k138b_22:" Sherez, which defiles utensils and food."
,k138b_23:" The sherez touches the oven, which in turn touches the bread, The Rabbis could not imagine complete forgetfulness even of the Mishnah."
,k138b_24:" For immediately the sherez enters the air space of the oven, even before it actually touches it, it defiles, hence one should regard the sherez as though completely filling it."
,k138b_25:" But if the sherez were regarded as completely filling the oven, utensils therein too should be unclean, as though they touched the sherez, for direct contact therewith does defile them. Thus in the future it will be doubtful whose view, R. Adda b. Ahabah's or Raba's, is correct."
,k138b_26:" Deut. XXXI, 21. "
}

txt:
<p>
A bridal bed may be set up and it may be dismantled.<a id="k138b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Shesheth son of R. Idi said: That was said only where its roof is not a handbreadth [in width],<a id="k138b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; but if its roof is a handbreadth, it is forbidden. And even if the roof is not a handbreadth, this was said only where there is not [the width of] a handbreadth within three [handbreadths] from the top; but if there is a handbreadth within three from the top. it is forbidden. And this is said only if its slope is less than a handbreadth, but if its slope is a hand breadth, the slopes of tents are as tents.<a id="k138b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; And it was said only if it does not descend a handbreadth below the bed; but if it descends a handbreadth below the bed, it is forbidden.
</p><p>
	R. Shesheth son of R. Idi also said: A peaked cap<a id="k138b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; is permitted. But it was stated: a peaked cap is forbidden? &mdash; There is no difficulty: in the one case it is a handbreadth [in size];<a id="k138b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; in the other it is not a handbreadth. If so, if one lets his cloak protrude a handbreadth,<a id="k138b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; is he too culpable?<a id="k138b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rather [say] there is no difficulty: here it is tightly fitted [on his head]; there it is not tightly fitted.<a id="k138b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rami b. Ezekiel sent to R. Huna: Tell us, pray. those well-favoured dicta which you told us [formerly] in Rab's name, two about the Sabbath and one about Torah. He sent [back] to him: As to what was taught, It is permitted to stretch the leather bag<a id="k138b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; by its thongs,<a id="k138b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab said: They learnt this only of two men; but [if done] by one man, it is forbidden.<a id="k138b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye said: But a canopy. even [if stretched] by ten men, is forbidden, [for] it is impossible that it shall not be somewhat stretched.
</p><p>
	What is the other [dictum]? If one of the shafts of a stove falls off, it [the stove] may be handled; if both [fall off], it may not be handled,<a id="k138b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab said: Even if one [falls out] it is forbidden, lest he [re]fix it.<a id="k138b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'[And one about] Torah': for Rab said: The Torah is destined to be forgotten in Israel, because it is said, Then the Lord will make thy plagues wonderful:<a id="k138b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; now, I do not know what this wonder is, but when it is said, Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a wonderful work among this people, even a wonderful work and a wonder [and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish],<a id="k138b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; it follows that this wonder refers to Torah.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: When our Masters entered the vineyard at Yabneh,<a id="k138b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; they said, The Torah is destined to be forgotten in Israel, as it is said, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord. And it is said, And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east; they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.<a id="k138b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; 'The word of the Lord' means <i>halachah</i>,' 'the word of the Lord' means 'The End';<a id="k138b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; 'the word of the Lord' means prophecy. And what does 'they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord' mean? Said they, A woman is destined to take a loaf of <i>terumah</i> and go about in the synagogues and academies to know whether it is unclean or clean, and none will know<a id="k138b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; whether it is clean or unclean. But that is explicitly stated, All food which may be eaten [...shall be unclean]?<a id="k138b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather to know whether it is a first degree or a second degree [of uncleanness],<a id="k138b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; and none will know. But that too is a Mishnah. For we learnt: If a [dead] creeping thing<a id="k138b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; is found in an oven, the bread within it is a second, because the oven is a first?<a id="k138b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; They will be in doubt over what R. Adda b. Ahabah asked Raba: Let us regard this oven as though it were filled with uncleanness,<a id="k138b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; and let the bread be a first? He replied, We do not say. Let us regard this oven as though it were filled with uncleanness. For it was taught: You might think that all utensils become unclean in the air space of an earthen vessel: therefore it is stated, whatsoever is in it shall be unclean &hellip; all food therein which may be eaten: food and liquids become unclean in the air space of an earthen vessel.<a id="k138b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; It was taught. R. Simeon b. Yohai said: Heaven forfend that the Torah be forgotten in Israel, for it is said, for it shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their seed.<a id="k138b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; Then how do I interpret, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it? They will not find
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k139a_1:" I.e., an absolute and definite ruling. completely intelligible and not subject to controversy."
,k139a_2:" Lit., 'in one place'. I.e., in any of the places whither they shall wander (Maharsha)."
,k139a_3:" Mic. III, 9-11."
,k139a_4:" This phrase is now liturgical."
,k139a_5:" Lit., 'which is in their hand'."
,k139a_6:" Ibid. 12."
,k139a_7:" Isa. I, 25f."
,k139a_8:" I.e., through the exercise of righteousness."
,k139a_9:" Isa. I, 27."
,k139a_10:" The Guebres, who caused the Jews much suffering under the Sassanians, cf. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p 504, n. 6."
,k139a_11:" [H] (Pers. Wezirpat, a ruler, Funk, Schwarz, Festschrift, p. 432) the name of a class of oppressive Persian officers.]"
,k139a_12:" Deriving [H] from [H], great, haughty."
,k139a_13:" Zeph. III, 15."
,k139a_14:" MS.O.: Simlai."
,k139a_15:" Isa. XIV, 5."
,k139a_16:" They support their underlings in evil; or, support them in their refusal to summon the defendant to court or to enforce the court verdict unless they are well-paid for it (Rashi)."
,k139a_17:" I.e., unfit judges appointed by the scholars of their family."
,k139a_18:" [H]. Probably laws concerning communal matters, the imposts of levies for communal and charitable purposes v. Herzog, The Main Institutions of Jewish Law. Vol. 1, XXIII."
,k139a_19:" Rashi: the judges being appointed in reliance that these scholars would guide them in law, whereas they subsequently act of their own accord in many cases."
,k139a_20:" Isa. LIX, 3."
,k139a_21:" Who record verdicts falsely."
,k139a_22:" Rashi: who instruct the litigants how to plead. V, Aboth, Sonc. ed., p. 6, n, 1."
,k139a_23:" Gen. XLIX, 26. E.V.: 'of him that was separate from his brethren'. A nazirite is forbidden wine, Num. VI, 2-3."
,k139a_24:" Gen. XLIII, 34."
,k139a_25:" R. Melai: why does he omit the brothers?"
,k139a_26:" Lit., 'no drunkenness'. During the period of separation."
,k139a_27:" On the part of the brothers."
,k139a_28:" Ex. IV, 14 &mdash; the reference is to Aaron."
,k139a_29:" Caskar, the chief town in the Mesene region. on the right bank of the old Tigris; directly opposite, on the left bank, lay Wasit, and the two are to some extent identified; v. Obermeyer. pp. 91-3."
,k139a_30:" Does it infringe the prohibition against divers plants being sown together? v. Deut. XXII, 9."
,k139a_31:" What arrangements are permissible for handling him, the funeral, etc."
,k139a_32:" Who permits its spreading when it is furnished with cords, v. <i>supra</i> 138a."
,k139a_33:" They would go still further."
,k139a_34:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k139a_35:" Lit., 'the land' par excellence."
,k139a_36:" V. Halevy. Doroth, I, 3, p. 137 ([H])."
,k139a_37:" A small coin."
,k139a_38:" He agreed with Rab, nevertheless he did it in an unusual manner, so as not to encourage laxity."
,k139a_39:" Though the second is only a Rabbinical institution."
,k139a_40:" A town near Tiberias. "
}

txt:
<p>
a clear <i>halachah</i> or a clear Mishnah<a id="k139a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; in any place.<a id="k139a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was taught. R. Jose b. Elisha said: If you see a generation overwhelmed by many troubles, go forth and examine the judges of Israel, for all retribution that comes to the world comes only on account of the Judges of Israel, as it is said, Hear this, I pray you ye heads of the house of Jacob, and rulers of the house of Israel, that abhor judgment, and pervert all equity. They build up Zion with blood and Jerusalem with iniquity. The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money; yet will they lean upon the Lord, etc.<a id="k139a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; They are wicked, but they place their confidence in Him Who decreed, and the world came into existence.<a id="k139a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, will bring three punishments upon them answering to the three sins which they cultivate,<a id="k139a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; as it is said, Therefore shall Zion for your sake be ploughed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest.<a id="k139a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; And the Holy One, blessed be He, will not cause His Divine presence to rest upon Israel until the wicked judges and officers cease out of Israel, for it is said, And I will turn my hand upon thee, and thoroughly purge away thy dross, and will take away all thy tin. And I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning, etc.<a id="k139a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'Ulla said: Jerusalem shall be redeemed only by righteousness,<a id="k139a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; as it is written, Zion shall be redeemed with judgement, and her converts with righteousness.<a id="k139a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Papa said: When the haughty cease to exist [in Israel], the magi<a id="k139a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; shall cease [among the Persians]. When the judges cease to exist [in Israel], the chiliarchi<a id="k139a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; shall cease. 'When the haughty cease to exist [in Israel], the magi shall cease [among the Persians]'; as it is written, And I will surely purge away thy haughty ones.<a id="k139a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; When the judges cease to exist [in Israel], the chiliarchi shall cease, as it is written, The Lord hath taken away thy judgements, he hath cast out thine enemy.<a id="k139a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Melai<a id="k139a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; said in the name of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon: What is meant by the verse, The Lord hath broken the staff of the wicked, the sceptre of the rulers?<a id="k139a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; 'The Lord hath broken the staff of the wicked' refers to the judges who become a staff for their sheriffs;<a id="k139a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; 'the sceptre of the rulers' refers to the scholars in the families of the judges.<a id="k139a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Mar Zutra said: This refers to the scholars who teach the laws of the public<a id="k139a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; to ignorant judges.<a id="k139a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Eleazar b. Melai said in the name of Resh Lakish: What is meant by the verse, For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue muttereth wickedness?<a id="k139a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; 'For your hands are defiled with blood': this refers to the judges: 'and your fingers with iniquity', to the judges' scribes;<a id="k139a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; 'your lips have spoken lies' to the advocates of the judges;<a id="k139a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; 'your tongue muttereth wickedness' &mdash; to the litigants. 
</p><p>
	R. Melai also said in the name of R. Isaac of Magdala: From the day that Joseph departed from his brothers he did not taste wine, for it is written, [The blessings of thy father...shall be on the head of Joseph]. And on the crown of the head of him who was a nazirite [since his departure] from his brethren.<a id="k139a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jose b. R. Hanina said: They too did not taste wine, for it is written, And they drank, and drank largely with him:<a id="k139a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; which implies [that they did] not [drink] until then. And the other?<a id="k139a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There was no extensive drinking,<a id="k139a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; yet there was [moderate] drinking.<a id="k139a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Melai also said: As a reward for, and when he seeth thee, he shall be glad in his heart,<a id="k139a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; he was privileged to wear the breastplate of judgment upon his heart.
</p><p>
	The citizens of Bashkar<a id="k139a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; sent [a question] to Levi: What about [setting up] a canopy [on the Sabbath]; what about cuscuta in a vineyard?<a id="k139a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; what about a dead man on a Festival?<a id="k139a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; By the time he [the messenger] arrived [at Levi's home] Levi had died. Said Samuel to R. Menashia, If you are wise, send them [an answer]. [So] he sent [word] to them: 'As for a canopy, we have examined it from all aspects and do not find any aspect by which it can be permitted'. But let him send them [a permissive ruling] in accordance with Rami b. Ezekiel?<a id="k139a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; [He did not do this] because they were not learned in the law.<a id="k139a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Cuscuta in a vineyard is a [forbidden] mixture'. But let him send them [a reply] in accordance with R. Tarfon. For it was taught: As for cuscuta, R. Tarfon maintains: It is not kil'ayim<a id="k139a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; in a vineyard; while the Sages rule: It is kil'ayim in a vineyard. And it is an established principle: The view of him, who is lenient in respect to Palestine,<a id="k139a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; is <i>halachah</i> without Palestine? &mdash; [Likewise] because they were not learnt in the law. Rab announced: He who wishes to sow cuscuta in a vineyard, let him sow.<a id="k139a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Amram the pious would ban [a person] for this. R. Mesharsheya would give a <i>perutah</i><a id="k139a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; to a Gentile child to sow it for him.<a id="k139a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; Then let him give it to an Israelite child? &mdash; He would come to adhere [to this practice when he grew up]. Then let him give it to an adult Gentile? &hellip; He might come to substitute an Israelite for him.
</p><p>
	As for a corpse. he sent [word to them]: Neither Jews nor Syrians [non-Jews] may occupy themselves with a corpse, neither on the first day of a Festival nor on the second.<a id="k139a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; But that is not so? For R. Judah b. Shilath said in R. Assi's name: Such a case happened in the synagogue of Ma'on<a id="k139a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; on a Festival near the Sabbath,
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k139b_1:" I.e., whether the Festival fell on Friday on which day the death occurred, so that it had to be buried on the same day, or whether it fell on Sunday and the death occurred on the Sabbath, so that the burial could not be delayed any longer."
,k139b_2:" Of a person who died on a Sabbath which was followed by a Festival."
,k139b_3:" An egg laid on the first day of any Festival except New Year may be eaten on the second day too. But in respect to a corpse New Year is the same as other Festivals."
,k139b_4:" Of transgression."
,k139b_5:" The garment has fringes. but since they are not in accordance with the law they are regarded not as part thereof but as a burden which entails a sin offering. Thus here too, since the normal function of the cords is to spread the sheet, not to tie it round a person, they constitute a burden."
,k139b_6:" <i>Var. lec</i>.: R. Abin."
,k139b_7:" Lit., to suspend pomegranates therein, but he suspends lees therein."
,k139b_8:" For some time."
,k139b_9:" I.e., the intermediate days of Passover and Tabernacles, which enjoy semi-sanctity, being treated as profane in some respects and as holy in others."
,k139b_10:" Of the law."
,k139b_11:" The evasion is not obvious, for a person who sees him brew beer does not know that he has sufficient already for the festival."
,k139b_12:" That he is evading the law, unless he actually puts pomegranates in it, since its usual function is to strain them."
,k139b_13:" Jast. R. Han.: a head of garlic."
,k139b_14:" But actually it was to prevent the wine from running out, and thus he repaired the barrel, as it were."
,k139b_15:" For even if he did these without an artifice he would only violate a Rabbinical, not a Scriptural interdict."
,k139b_16:" Without an artifice &mdash; hence he does nothing wrong."
,k139b_17:" Rashi: the strainer contains mustard, and when the egg is poured upon it the yolk passes through and the white remains on top. R. Halevi (quoted by Rash): the egg is strained into a dish, not into mustard, but a mustard strainer is specified in order that the action on the Sabbath, though permitted, shall be done differently from what it is on weekdays."
,k139b_18:" V. Gemara <i>infra</i>."
,k139b_19:" Larger than a goblet ([H]) but smaller than a barrel ([H])."
,k139b_20:" Of transgression."
,k139b_21:" Though the liquid is turbid through the stirring."
,k139b_22:" All wine is turbid then and drunk thus; hence it is not made fit for drinking (which would be forbidden on the Sabbath) by being put through the strainer."
,k139b_23:" The cloth must be taut and not form a hollow"
,k139b_24:" Which receives the wine. Otherwise it forms a 'tent', v. p. 694, n. 1. "
,k139b_25:" In the latter case a 'tent' is made."
,k139b_26:" I.e., a jug used for taking wine out of a cask; the chips act as a strainer."
,k139b_27:" So as to leave the sediment behind."
,k139b_28:" V. p. 35, n. 5."
,k139b_29:" The last drops percolating through the dregs left behind in the first vessel, which shows that their purpose was to strain the wine."
,k139b_30:" He was a beer brewer (B.M. 65b) and could afford to throw away the little wine left at the bottom together with the chips, thus leaving nothing at all there to show their real motive. "
}

txt:
<p>
though I do not know whether it preceded or followed it,<a id="k139b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and when they went before R. Johanan, he said to them: Let Gentiles occupy themselves with him [the dead]. Raba too said: As for a corpse,<a id="k139b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; on the first day of Festivals Gentiles should occupy themselves with him; on the second day of Festivals Israelites may occupy themselves with him, and even on the second day of New Year, which is not so in the case of an egg?<a id="k139b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [Here too] because they were not learned in the law.
</p><p>
	R. Abin b. R. Huna said in R. Hama b. Guria's name: A man may wrap himself in a canopy sheet and [tie it] with its cords to go out into the street on the Sabbath without fear.<a id="k139b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; How does this differ from R. Huna's [dictum]. for R. Huna said in Rab's name: If one goes out on the Sabbath wearing a garment not provided with [proper] fringes as required by law, he is liable to a sin-offering?<a id="k139b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Fringes are important in relation to the cloak, hence they are not merged [therein]; these are not of [separate] importance, and [so] are accounted as nought.
</p><p>
	Rabbah<a id="k139b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; son of R. Huna said: A man may employ an artifice in connection with a strainer on a festival, suspending it for pomegranates yet straining lees therein.<a id="k139b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Ashi: Provided he does place pomegranates in it.<a id="k139b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; How does it differ from what was taught: One may brew beer on the [intermediate days of a] Festival<a id="k139b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; when it is required for the Festival, but if not required for the Festival it is forbidden: [this applies to] both barley beer and date beer. Though one has old [beer]. he may practise an evasion<a id="k139b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and drink of the new? &mdash; There the matter is not evident;<a id="k139b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; here the matter is evident.<a id="k139b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The scholars said to R. Ashi: See, sir, a Rabbinical disciple. whose name is R. Huna b. Hiwan &mdash; others State, R. Huna b. Hilwon &mdash; who took peel of garlic,<a id="k139b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; placed it in the bung hole of a barrel, and asserted, 'My intention is to put it away [here].'<a id="k139b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; He also went and dozed in a ferry and thus crossed to the other side and looked after his fruit, asserting, 'My intention was to sleep.' Said he to them, You speak of an artifice: it is an artifice [in connection with] a Rabbinical [interdict].<a id="k139b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and a disciple of the Rabbis will not come to do this at the very outset.<a id="k139b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; 
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. WATER MAY BE POURED OVER LEES IN ORDER TO CLARIFY THEM, AND WINE MAY BE STRAINED THROUGH CLOTHS AND THROUGH A BASKET MADE OF PALM TWIGS; AND AN EGG MAY BE PASSED THROUGH A MUSTARD STRAINER;<a id="k139b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; AND ENOMLIN<a id="k139b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; MAY BE PREPARED ON THE SABBATH. R. JUDAH SAID: ON THE SABBATH [IT MAY ONLY BE MADE] IN A GOBLET; ON FESTIVALS, IN A LAGIN;<a id="k139b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; AND ON THE INTERMEDIATE DAYS OF FESTIVALS IN A BARREL. R. ZADOK SAID: IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE [NUMBER OF] GUESTS.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Ze'iri said: One may pour clear wine and clear water into a strainer on the Sabbath without fear,<a id="k139b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; but not turbid [liquids]. An objection is raised: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: One may stir up a barrel of wine, [i.e..] the wine and the lees, and pour it into a strainer on the Sabbath without fear!<a id="k139b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Ze'iri explained it: They learnt this of the season of the wine pressing.<a id="k139b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	WINE MAY BE STRAINED THROUGH CLOTHS. R. Shimi b. Hiyya said: Provided that one does not make a hollow.<a id="k139b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	AND THROUGH A BASKET MADE OF PALM TWIGS. R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in Rab's name: Provided he does not lift it [the basket] a handbreadth from the bottom of the vessel.<a id="k139b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab said: [Spreading] a rag over half a cask [to cover it] is permitted; over the whole cask, is forbidden.<a id="k139b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Papa said: A man must not stuff chips into the mouth of a cask jug.<a id="k139b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; because it looks like a strainer. R. Papa's household poured wine slowly from one vessel to another.<a id="k139b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Aha of Difti<a id="k139b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; objected: But there is the residue?<a id="k139b_29"><sup>29</sup></a> &mdash; The residue had no value in R. Papa's household.<a id="k139b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>
</p><p>
	AN EGG MAY BE PASSED THROUGH A MUSTARD STRAINER. R. Jacob Karhah recited:
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k140a_1:" Sc. when the yolk is poured into a stew; but actually both the yolk and the white are fit for food, and therefore this is not an act of 'selecting' (v. Mishnah 73a)."
,k140a_2:" In water."
,k140a_3:" He regards the latter as the usual way. and therefore it is forbidden on the Sabbath."
,k140a_4:" v. p. 316, n. 3."
,k140a_5:" A kind of cress or pepperwort (Lepidum sativum) Jast."
,k140a_6:" Jast.: ammi, Bishop's weed. Rashi: mint."
,k140a_7:" Hence it partakes somewhat of the nature of a medicine, and therefore it is forbidden."
,k140a_8:" A second glass would inevitably have killed me but for a miracle, which would be ultimately debited to my account."
,k140a_9:" Jast. assa foetida, an umbelliferous plant used as a resin in leaves, for a spice and for medicinal purposes."
,k140a_10:" To be drunk medicinally."
,k140a_11:" I.e.. pour water over them to make the refuse float up so that it can be removed."
,k140a_12:" By hand, likewise to remove the refuse."
,k140a_13:" And the refuse may fall through."
,k140a_14:" Probably an open-work basket is meant which may act somewhat as a sieve. Though sifting is forbidden, these are permitted, because even if the refuse does fall through it is only incidental."
,k140a_15:" Though some chaff may fall through. this is unintentional, the Mishnah agreeing with R. Simeon that whatever is unintentional is permitted."
,k140a_16:" V. p. 279. n. 11."
,k140a_17:" The Hebrew is the same for dissolves and soaks."
,k140a_18:" Surely not."
,k140a_19:" That you do not accept me as a greater authority on the Mishnah than yourself."
,k140a_20:" Lit., 'heaviness of heart'."
,k140a_21:" To ask whether he might take it on Sabbath."
,k140a_22:" Of transgression."
,k140a_23:" Lit., 'it was not in his hand'."
,k140a_24:" If the hiltith is dissolved before the Sabbath."
,k140a_25:" Lit., 'Supporting himself."
,k140a_26:" He was an old man."
,k140a_27:" When it is starched. The rubbing softens it and makes it whiter."
,k140a_28:" Lit., 'to beget whiteness'."
,k140a_29:" Or, turban."
,k140a_30:" One is more particular about a scarf. "
}

txt:
<p>
Because it is only done for colouring.<a id="k140a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was stated: If mustard grain is kneaded on Sabbath eve, &mdash; on the morrow, Rab said: One must crush [dissolve] it<a id="k140a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; 'with a utensil, but not by hand.<a id="k140a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Samuel to him: 'By hand'! Does one then crush it every day by hand &mdash; is it asses' food? Rather said Samuel: He must crush it by hand, but not with a utensil. It was stated, R. Eleazar said: Both the one and the other are forbidden; while R. Johanan ruled: Both the one and the other are permitted. Abaye and Raba both say: The <i>halachah</i> is not as R. Johanan. R. Johanan [subsequently] adopted R. Eleazar's thesis, while R. Eleazar adopted Samuel's thesis. Abaye and Raba both said [then]: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Johanan.
</p><p>
	Abaye's mother<a id="k140a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; prepared [it] for him, but he would not eat [it]. Ze'iri's wife prepared [some] for R. Hiyya b. Ashi, but he would not eat [it]. Said she to him, 'I prepared it for your teacher [Ze'iri] and he ate, whilst you do not eat!'
</p><p>
	Raba b. Shaba said: I was standing before Rabina and I stirred [the mustard] for him with the smooth [inner] part of the garlic, and he ate it.
</p><p>
	Mar Zutra said: The law is not as all these opinions. but as the following which was stated; If mustard is kneaded on the eve of the Sabbath, on the morrow one may crush [dissolve] it both by hand or with a utensil; he may pour honey in it, yet he must not beat it up but may mix them. If cress was chopped up on the eve of the Sabbath, on the morrow one may put oil and vinegar into it and add ammitha<a id="k140a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; thereto; and he must not beat then, up but may mix them. If garlic was crushed on the eve of the Sabbath, on the morrow one may put beans and grits therein, yet he must not pound them, but may mix them, and one may add ammitha to it. What is ammitha? &mdash; Ninya,<a id="k140a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye observed: This proves that ninya is good for [seasoning] cress.
</p><p>
	AND ENOMLIN MAY BE PREPARED ON THE SABBATH. Our Rabbis taught: Enomlin may be prepared on the Sabbath but aluntith may not be prepared on the Sabbath. What is enomlin and what is aluntith? &mdash; Enomlin is [a mixture of] wine, honey, and pepper. Aluntith is [a mixture of] old wine, clear water and balsam, which is prepared as a cooling [draught] in the baths.<a id="k140a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph said: I Once entered the baths after Mar 'Ukba; on leaving I was offered a cup of [such] wine, and I experienced [a cooling sensation] from the hair of my head [right] down to my toe nails; and had I drunk another glass I would have been afraid lest it be deducted from my merits in the future world.<a id="k140a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; But Mar 'Ukba drank it every day? Mar 'Ukba was different, because he was accustomed to it.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. HILTITH<a id="k140a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; MUST NOT BE DISSOLVED IN WARM WATER,<a id="k140a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT IT MAY BE PUT INTO VINEGAR; AND ONE MUST NOT CAUSE LEEKS TO FLOAT,<a id="k140a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; NOR RUB THEM;<a id="k140a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT THEY MAY BE PUT INTO A SIEVE<a id="k140a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; OR A BASKET.<a id="k140a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; STUBBLE MAY NOT BE SIFTED THROUGH A SIEVE, NOR PLACED ON AN EMINENCE, FOR THE CHAFF TO DROP DOWN; BUT ONE MAY TAKE IT UP IN A SIEVE AND PUT IT INTO THE MANGER.<a id="k140a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. The scholars asked: What if one does dissolve [it]? R. Adda of Naresh<a id="k140a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; maintained before R. Joseph: If one dissolves [it] he is liable to a sin-offering. Said Abaye to him: If so, if one soaks<a id="k140a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; raw meat in water, is he too liable?<a id="k140a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather said Abaye: It is a Rabbinical [prohibition], that one should not act as he does during the week. R. Johanan asked R. Jannai: May hiltith be dissolved in cold water? It is forbidden. replied he. But we learnt: HILTITH MUST NOT BE DISSOLVED IN WARM WATER, implying that it is permitted in cold water? If so,<a id="k140a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; what is the difference between you and me? Our Mishnah is [the opinion of] an individual. For it was taught: Hiltith may be dissolved neither in warm nor in cold water; R. Jose said: In warm water it is forbidden; in cold it is permitted.
</p><p>
	What is it made for? [As a remedy] for asthma.<a id="k140a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Aha b.Joseph suffered with asthma. He went to Mar 'Ukba, [who] advised him, 'Go and drink three [gold <i>denar</i>] weights of hiltith on three days.' He went and drank it on Thursday and Friday. The following morning he went and asked [about it] in the <i>Beth Hamidrash</i>.<a id="k140a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Said they to him, The school of R. Adda-others state, the school of Mar son of R. Adda recited: One may drink a <i>kab</i> or two <i>kabs</i> without fear.<a id="k140a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; About drinking, said he, I do not ask.<a id="k140a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; My question is, What about dissolving it?<a id="k140a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hiyya b. Abin observed to them: This case happened to me, and I went and consulted R. Adda b. Ahabah. but he could not inform me. [So] I went and asked R. Huna, and he answered me, Thus did Rab say: He may dissolve [it] in cold water and place it in the sun. Is this [only] according to him who permits [dissolving]? [No.] It is even according to him who forbids [it]: that is only if one had not drunk at all; but here, since he had drunk [it] on Thursday and Friday, if he would not drink it on the Sabbath he would be endangered.
</p><p>
	R. Aha b. Joseph was walking along, leaning<a id="k140a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; on the shoulder of R. Nahman b. Isaac, his sister's son. When we reach R. Safra's house, lead me in, he requested.<a id="k140a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; When they arrived [there] he led him in. How about rubbing [the stiffness out of] linen [washing]?<a id="k140a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; asked he; is his intention to soften the linen, and it is permitted, or perhaps his intention is to make it whiter,<a id="k140a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; which is forbidden? &mdash; His intention is to soften it, replied he, and it is permitted. When he went out he [R. Nahman] enquired, What did you ask him? I asked him, What about rubbing linen on the Sabbath, replied he, and he answered me, It is permitted. But let the Master inquire about a scarf?<a id="k140a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; I do not ask about a scarf, because I asked it of R. Huna and he decided it' for me. Then let the Master solve this from a scarf? &mdash;  There it looks like making it whiter,<a id="k140a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; but here it does not look like making it whiter.
</p><p>
	R. Hisda said: As for linen,
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k140b_1:" Linen was hung up on a cane passing through the sleeves to dry. A cane must not be handled on the Sabbath, being regarded as mukzeh, as it stands to be used as fuel."
,k140b_2:" For it is then a utensil, which may be handled."
,k140b_3:" Lit., 'a suspender of meat' &mdash; i.e., a hook. Tosaf. and Jast."
,k140b_4:" The first was more like a utensil than the second."
,k140b_5:" Because he is incited to impure thoughts."
,k140b_6:" I.e., the additional length is extra value &mdash; presumably the price was not increased."
,k140b_7:" For fuel."
,k140b_8:" Or, I would eat vegetables neither when rich nor when poor."
,k140b_9:" Which are more nutritious."
,k140b_10:" Eat a little now and a little later, as at no time will he have enough."
,k140b_11:" To distribute it among the guests at a meal."
,k140b_12:" MS.M. deletes the two intervening passages."
,k140b_13:" Deut. XX, 19. I.e., it is wasteful extravagance."
,k140b_14:" Was his attitude influenced by the fact that he was a beer brewer?"
,k140b_15:" To consume better food and drink is beneficial, not wasteful."
,k140b_16:" The scum thickens it into a semblance of oil."
,k140b_17:" A canal in the Bagdad region; Obermeyer, p. 239."
,k140b_18:" Lit., 'whiten'."
,k140b_19:" Jast. Rashi: the upper class &mdash; its wearer is fit to be a member of the upper classes &mdash; a play on words, of course."
,k140b_20:" Being hard, it injures the texture."
,k140b_21:" The keeper of the boarding house where he stays."
,k140b_22:" A euphemism for semen."
,k140b_23:" You may eat too much."
,k140b_24:" Because of their odour."
,k140b_25:" Because of their laxative properties."
,k140b_26:" Even in their absence."
,k140b_27:" I.e., 'who is it' but in the feminine, not the masculine form."
,k140b_28:" With curiosity, to know what he was holding."
,k140b_29:" To prove the folly of curiosity (Jast. s.v.[H], which 'Aruch reads instead of [H])."
,k140b_30:" Which continues, BUT THEY MAY BE PUT INTO A SIEVE."
,k140b_31:" I.e., one must not handle it for any purpose on the Sabbath."
,k140b_32:" If it contains chips, etc., they may render the straw repulsive and cause the animal to go off its feed."
,k140b_33:" Which is ordinarily fed on pasture. &mdash; R. Han. and Jast. Rashi translates: one may move aside the straw, if there is much, lest the animal tread it into the dung."
,k140b_34:" Because the second will eat it, and therefore it is not unnecessary handling."
,k140b_35:" Sc. fodder in a manger and straw lying in front of an animal."
,k140b_36:" Thus they disagree with both clauses."
,k140b_37:" I.e., a small low fenced enclosure on the ground. The Rabbis forbid it lest one comes to level up holes in the ground."
,k140b_38:" I.e., a real manger. "
}

txt:
<p>
to draw it away from the cane is permitted; to draw out the cane from it is forbidden.<a id="k140b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: But if it is a weaver's implement, it is permitted.<a id="k140b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hisda said: A bunch of vegetables, if fit as food for animals, may be handled; if not, it is forbidden.
</p><p>
	R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in Rab's name: A meat hook<a id="k140b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; is permitted [to be handled]; a fish [hook] is forbidden.<a id="k140b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Kattina said: He who stands in the middle of a [marital] bed is as though he stood on a woman's stomach.<a id="k140b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; But this is incorrect.
</p><p>
	R. Hisda also said: When a scholar buys vegetables, let him buy long ones, for one bunch is like another [in thickness], and so the length [comes] of itself.<a id="k140b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hisda also said: When a scholar buys canes,<a id="k140b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; let him buy long ones; one load is like another, so the length [comes] of itself.
</p><p>
	R. Hisda also said: When a scholar has but little bread, let him not eat vegetables, because it whets [the appetite]. R. Hisda also said: I ate vegetables neither when poor nor when rich.<a id="k140b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; When poor, because it whets [the appetite]; when rich, because I say, Where the vegetables are to enter, let fish and meat enter!<a id="k140b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hisda also said: If a scholar has but little bread he should not divide [his meal].<a id="k140b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hisda also said: If a scholar has but little bread he should break [bread].<a id="k140b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the reason? Because he does not do it generously.<a id="k140b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hisda also said: Formerly I would not break [bread] until I had passed my hand through the whole of my wallet and found there as much as I needed.
</p><p>
	R. Hisda also said: When one can eat barley bread but eats wheaten bread he violates, thou shalt not destroy.<a id="k140b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Papa said: When one can drink beer but drinks wine, he violates, thou shalt not destroy.<a id="k140b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; But this is incorrect: Thou shalt not destroy, as applied to one's own person, stands higher.<a id="k140b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hisda also said: When a scholar has no oil, let him wash with pit water.<a id="k140b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hisda also said: If a scholar buys raw meat he should buy the neck, because it contains three kinds of meat.
</p><p>
	R. Hisda also said: When a scholar buys linen [underwear], he should buy it from the Nehar Abba<a id="k140b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and wash<a id="k140b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; it every thirty days, and I guarantee that it will relieve him [from buying another] for a full year. What does kitonitha [underwear] mean? Kitta na'ah [fine flax].<a id="k140b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hisda also said: A scholar should not sit upon a new mat, because it destroys the garments.<a id="k140b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hisda also said: A scholar should not send his garments to his host<a id="k140b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; for washing, for this is not in good taste, lest he see something<a id="k140b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; and he come to despise him.
</p><p>
	R. Hisda advised his daughters: Act modestly before your husbands: do not eat bread before your husbands,<a id="k140b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; do not eat greens at night,<a id="k140b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; do not eat dates at night nor drink beer at night,<a id="k140b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; and do not ease yourselves where your husbands do,<a id="k140b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; and when someone calls at the door, do not say 'who is he' but 'who is she?'<a id="k140b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; He [R. Hisda] held a jewel in one hand and a [valueless] seed grain in the other; the pearl he showed them but the seed grain he did not show them until they were suffering,<a id="k140b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; and then he showed it to them.<a id="k140b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</p><p>
	ONE MUST NOT CAUSE LEEKS TO FLOAT. Our Mishnah<a id="k140b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; does not agree with the following Tanna. For it was taught, R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: One must not look at the sieve at all.<a id="k140b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. ONE MAY SWEEP OUT [THE MANGER] FOR A STALL OX,<a id="k140b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; AND MOVE [THE REMNANTS] ASIDE FOR THE SAKE OF A GRAZING ANIMAL:<a id="k140b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; THIS IS R. DOSA'S VIEW, BUT THE SAGES FORBID IT. ONE MAY TAKE [FODDER] FROM ONE ANIMAL AND PLACE IT BEFORE ANOTHER ANIMAL ON THE SABBATH.<a id="k140b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. The scholars asked: Do the Rabbis disagree with the first clause, or with the second, or with both? &mdash;  Come and hear: For it was taught, But the Sages maintain: Both the one and the other<a id="k140b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; must not be moved on a side.<a id="k140b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hisda said: They differ in respect of a ground manger,<a id="k140b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; but all agree that a manger which is a vessel<a id="k140b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; is permitted. But is there any opinion that a ground manger is permitted: surely one levels the holes? &mdash; Rather if stated, it was thus stated: R. Hisda said: They differ in respect of a vessel manger, but all hold that a ground manger is forbidden.
</p><p>
	ONE MAY TAKE [FODDER] FROM ONE ANIMAL [etc.]. One [Baraitha] taught: One may take [fodder] from before an animal that is fastidious and place [it] before an animal that is not fastidious; while another taught: One may take [fodder] from before an animal that is not fastidious and place [it] before an animal that is fastidious. Abaye observed: Both [Baraithas hold] that one may take from an ass [to put] before an ox, but not from an ox [and place it] before an ass. Now, when it is taught, 'One may take from before an animal that is fastidious', it refers to an ass, which does not drop saliva [into its food]; 'and place [it] before an animal that is not fastidious', to a cow,
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k142a_1:" I.e., the man is wearing them."
,k142a_2:" If the person carried were holding, not wearing them."
,k142a_3:" This is analogous to Raba's dictum, for a purse 'suspended from a child's neck is not in the position of being worn."
,k142a_4:" V. p. 213, n. 4."
,k142a_5:" 'So that the basket serves as a stand for a permitted thing."
,k142a_6:" And replace it in the basket. Why did they permit to carry the stone?"
,k142a_7:" If thrown on the ground, e.g., figs and grapes."
,k142a_8:" Until the stone lies at a side, when it can be thrown out without affecting the produce."
,k142a_9:" By filling up the gap."
,k142a_10:" And there is no reason for handling the unclean."
,k142a_11:" I.e., he wishes to eat the <i>terumah</i>. Therefore if the clean <i>terumah</i> is on top he can simply take it and leave the rest."
,k142a_12:" He needs the place where the utensil containing it is standing: therefore he must remove them &mdash; Sc. the clean and the unclean &mdash; together, whatever their position."
,k142a_13:" So that he has to explain the Mishnah as referring to when the unclean <i>terumah</i> is on top."
,k142a_14:" Sc. the Mishnah <i>infra</i> b."
,k142a_15:" For use. This should be preventively forbidden out of consideration for that which is made fit by means of labour."
,k142a_16:" Since one part is to be removed, it is as though the <i>terumah</i> therein lay separate and distinct, and therefore the whole mixture is fit for use in any case."
,k142a_17:" Se'ahs of hullin."
,k142a_18:" I.e., into another pile of produce."
,k142a_19:" Sc. as though it were all <i>terumah</i> and therefore it can only be neutralized by a hundred times its quantity. Thus he regards the <i>terumah</i> as distinct."
,k142a_20:" E.g., if a <i>se'ah</i> of <i>terumah</i> falls into nine se'ahs of hullin in the first place, and then a <i>se'ah</i> of the mixture falls into another heap of produce, this second <i>se'ah</i> is regarded as containing one tenth of a <i>se'ah</i> of <i>terumah</i> only, and if the second pile contains ten se'ahs it neutralizes it."
,k142a_21:" As in our Mishnah, where this view would result in greater lenience."
,k142a_22:" Hence it is neutralized, but that one <i>se'ah</i> of the whole must be removed."
,k142a_23:" Since here are now two se'ahs of <i>terumah</i> in one hundred of hullin."
,k142a_24:" It is now assumed that his reason is because he regards the first <i>se'ah</i> as lying distinct and apart, and therefore the second <i>se'ah</i> alone is counted, and that too is neutralized."
,k142a_25:" Hence on the contrary, instead of regarding the <i>terumah</i> as a thing apart, he maintains that it becomes entirely one with the hullin."
,k142a_26:" I.e., he may decide to remove a <i>se'ah</i> from one side of the pile and then, without actually removing it, eat from the other. Thus the removing is not essential. "
}

txt:
<p>
why particularly a stone? the same applies to a <i>denar</i>! Why did Raba say: They learnt only a stone, but a <i>denar</i> is forbidden? &mdash; In the case of a stone, if it falls down the father will not come to fetch it, [but] with a <i>denar</i>, if it falls down the father will come to fetch it. It was taught in accordance with Raba: If one carries out his garments folded up and lying on his shoulder, or his sandals or his rings in his hands, he is liable; but if he was wearing them, he is not culpable. If one carries out a person with his garments' upon him, with his sandals on his feet and his rings on his hands,<a id="k142a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; he is not culpable. Hence if he carried them as they are<a id="k142a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; he would be culpable.<a id="k142a_3"><sup>3</sup></a> 
</p><p>
	A BASKET WITH A STONE IN IT: yet why? let the basket be [regarded as] a stand for a forbidden article?<a id="k142a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in R. Johanan's name: We treat here of a basket full of produce.<a id="k142a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Then let the produce be thrown out, and let the stone be thrown out, and then we can collect [the produce] by hand?<a id="k142a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; As R. Elai said [elsewhere] in Rab's name: The reference is to fruit which becomes soiled, so here too [we treat] of fruit which becomes soiled.<a id="k142a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Then let one shake it [the basket] about?<a id="k142a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said R. Hiyya b. Ashi in Raba's name: We treat here of a broken basket, so that the stone itself becomes a wall for the basket.<a id="k142a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[UNCLEAN] <I>TERUMAH</I> MAY BE HANDLED, etc. R. Hisda said: They learnt [this] only where the clean [<i>terumah</i>] is underneath and the unclean is on top; but if the clean [<i>terumah</i>] is on top and the unclean underneath, one must take the clean and leave the unclean.<a id="k142a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; But if the clean is underneath too, let him throw off [the unclean] and take it? &mdash; Said R. Elai in Rab's name: We treat of fruit which becomes soiled. An objection is raised: One may handle unclean <i>terumah</i> together with clean <i>terumah</i> or with hullin, whether the clean is on top and the unclean is below, or the unclean is on top and the clean is underneath; this refutes R. Hisda? &mdash; R. Hisda answers you: Our Mishnah [means that] it is required for itself;<a id="k142a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; the Baraitha is where its place is required.<a id="k142a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; What compels R. Hisda to interpret our Mishnah as meaning that it is required for itself?<a id="k142a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said Raba, Our Mishnah, by deduction, supports him. For the second clause<a id="k142a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; states: If money is lying on a cushion, one shakes the cushion, and it falls off. Whereon Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: They learnt this only if it [the cushion] is required for itself; but if its place is required, one removes it while it [the money] is upon it. And since the second clause means that it is required for itself, the first clause too means that it is required for itself.
</p><p>
	R. JUDAH SAID: ONE MAY ALSO REMOVE, etc. Yet why? surely he makes it fit?<a id="k142a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Judah agrees with R. Eliezer, who maintains: The <i>terumah</i> lies as a [separate] entity.<a id="k142a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; For we learnt: If a <i>se'ah</i> of <i>terumah</i> falls into less than a hundred,<a id="k142a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and thus they become a [forbidden] mixture, and then some of the mixture falls elsewhere,<a id="k142a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Eliezer said: It creates a [forbidden] mixture as though it were certain <i>terumah</i>,<a id="k142a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; but the Sages maintain: The mixture creates a [forbidden] mixture only in proportion.<a id="k142a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; [But] say that you know him [to rule thus] with stringency; do you know him [to rule thus] with lenience?<a id="k142a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rather [reply thus]: He [R. Judah] rules as R. Simeon, as we learnt: If a <i>se'ah</i> of <i>terumah</i> falls into a hundred,<a id="k142a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; and one has no time to remove [it] until another falls in, it is [all] forbidden;<a id="k142a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; but R. Simeon permits it.<a id="k142a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; Yet how [does this follow]? Perhaps there they differ in this: viz., the first Tanna holds: Though they fell in consecutively it is as though they fell in simultaneously, so that each falls into fifty; whereas R. Simeon holds: The first is neutralized in the hundred, and this one is neutralized in a hundred and one?<a id="k142a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rather [reply thus]: He [R. Judah] rules as R. Simeon b. Eleazar. For it was taught, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: One may cast his eyes at one side and eat from the other.<a id="k142a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; Yet does he agree with him?
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k142b_1:" One hundred and one is stated inclusively."
,k142b_2:" Thus R. Judah insists on actual removal."
,k142b_3:" He agrees with R. Simeon b. Eleazar but adds that since mere intention suffices to make the mixture fit, one can also remove the <i>se'ah</i> on the Sabbath."
,k142b_4:" When he wishes to draw the contents."
,k142b_5:" And the falling stone might cause damage."
,k142b_6:" E.g., secretion, spittle, etc."
,k142b_7:" But not with water, which is forbidden as washing."
,k142b_8:" Which is not such as is washed with water."
,k142b_9:" As here: one must not handle the stone, a forbidden article, but the whole cask, which is a permitted object, even though the stone lies upon it."
,k142b_10:" Leaving the non-edible beans in the bowl."
,k142b_11:" I.e., he can remove the non-edible beans, if he wishes."
,k142b_12:" Then Beth Hillel permit the latter to be picked out, because it is less trouble."
,k142b_13:" For there is more trouble in lifting out the whole cask than in simply removing the stone."
,k142b_14:" Eventually he must lift out the cask and tilt it in order to obtain the wine at the very bottom; hence there is no more trouble in lifting it out now."
,k142b_15:" Before the Sabbath."
,k142b_16:" V. p. 35, n. 5."
,k142b_17:" Less than four cubits at a time, since carrying in a street is forbidden; or, within a barrier formed by a chain of persons, v. 'Er. 43b."
,k142b_18:" V. <i>supra</i> 30b."
,k142b_19:" To handle the latter in virtue of the former."
,k142b_20:" Killed, raw and unsalted."
,k142b_21:" Said sarcastically."
,k142b_22:" Who sets an example."
,k142b_23:" Hence I may hand]e them in any case, and I place the ladle there merely because I do not wish to encourage laxity of observance."
,k142b_24:" Which used to be eaten in his days."
,k142b_25:" Though it would still be fit for dogs; thus fitness for dogs does not permit handling by humans."
,k142b_26:" Who holds the view expressed in the preceding note; v. Bez. 6b."
,k142b_27:" It was a festival."
,k142b_28:" Thus he permitted him to handle it, though unfit for human beings just then, entrails not being eaten on Festivals: nevertheless on the previous day, before the festival commenced, they would have been fit for human beings too. "
}

txt:
<p>
surely he disagrees? For it was taught, R. Judah said: One removes the admixture [of <i>terumah</i> in hullin] when one part [is neutralized] in a hundred and one parts;<a id="k142b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: One casts his eyes at one side and eats from the other?<a id="k142b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Judah's [ruling] goes beyond R. Simeon b. Eleazar's.<a id="k142b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; 
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A STONE IS ON THE MOUTH OF A CASK [OF WINE], ONE TILTS IT ON A SIDE AND IT FALLS OFF.<a id="k142b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; IF IT [THE CASK] IS [STANDING] AMONG [OTHER] CASKS,<a id="k142b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; HE LIFTS IT OUT, TILTS IT ON A SIDE, AND IT FALLS OFF. IF MONEY IS LYING ON A CUSHION, ONE SHAKES THE CUSHION, AND IT FALLS OFF. IF DIRT<a id="k142b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; IS UPON IT, ONE WIPES IT OFF WITH A RAG;<a id="k142b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; IF IT IS OF LEATHER,<a id="k142b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; WATER IS POURED OVER IT UNTIL IT DISAPPEARS.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Huna said in Rab's name: They learnt this only where one forgot [it there], but if he placed [it there]. it [the cask] becomes a stand for a forbidden article.
</p><p>
	IF IT IS [STANDING] AMONG [OTHER] CASKS, etc. Which Tanna holds that wherever there is something permitted and something forbidden, one must occupy oneself with what is permitted, not with what is forbidden?<a id="k142b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in R. Johanan's name, It is R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. For we learnt: If one selects beans on a festival, Beth Shammai maintain: He must select the edible [beans] and eat them;<a id="k142b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas Beth Hillel rule: He may select in the usual way<a id="k142b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; into his lap or into a plate. Now it was taught, R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: When was this said? When the edible exceeds the non-edible;<a id="k142b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; but if the non-edible exceeds the edible, all agree that he must select the edible. But here it is analogous to where the edible exceeds the non-edible?<a id="k142b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Since he cannot take [the whole of] the wine, should he desire it, unless he lifts it up, it is analogous to where the non-edible exceeds the edible.<a id="k142b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF IT IS [STANDING] AMONG THE CASKS, HE LIFTS IT OUT. It was taught, R. Jose said: If the cask is lying among a store [of casks], or if glassware is lying under it, he lifts it out elsewhere, tilts it on a side, so that it falls off, takes thereof what he requires, and replaces it.
</p><p>
	IF MONEY IS LYING ON A CUSHION: R. Hiyya b. Ashi said: They learnt this only where one forgot [it there]; but if he placed [it there],<a id="k142b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; it [the cushion] became a stand for a forbidden article. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said: They learnt this only when it is required for itself; but if its place is required, one may remove it [the cushion] while they [the coins] are yet upon it. And thus did Hiyya b. Rab of Difti<a id="k142b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; recite: They learnt this only when it is required for itself; but if its place is required, one may move it while they are yet upon it.
</p><p>
	IF MONEY IS LYING ON A CUSHION, ONE SHAKES, etc. R. Oshaia said: If one forgets a purse in a courtyard, he places a loaf or a child thereon and moves it. R. Isaac said: If one forgets a brick in a courtyard, he places a loaf or a child thereon and moves it. R. Judah b. Shila said in R. Assi's name: They once forgot a saddlebag full of money in the street, and went and consulted R. Johanan and he told them, Place a loaf or a child thereon and move it.<a id="k142b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Mar Zutra said: The law is as all these rulings, where one forgets. R. Ashi said: Even if one forgets, this is still not [permitted], and they permitted [the expedient of] a loaf or a child only in connection with a corpse.<a id="k142b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye placed a ladle on a pile of sheaves;<a id="k142b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba placed a knife on a young dove<a id="k142b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; and handled it. Said R. Joseph: How keen are the rulings of children!<a id="k142b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; assume that the Rabbis ruled thus when one forgets: but was it said [that it is permitted] at the very outset? Abaye retorted: But that I am a person of importance,<a id="k142b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; would I need a ladle on sheaves: surely they are fit for reclining thereon.<a id="k142b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba retorted: But that I am a person of importance, would I need a knife on a young dove? surely it is fit for me as raw meat.<a id="k142b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; Thus the reason is because it is fit as raw meat; but if it were not fit as raw meat it might not [be handled]:<a id="k142b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; shall we say that Raba agrees with R. Judah?<a id="k142b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; But surely Raba said to his servant, Roast me a duck<a id="k142b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; and throw its entrails to a cat?<a id="k142b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k144a_1:" A cow, or if one draws off a woman's milk."
,k144a_2:" Not because the milk is required, but because its presence in the animal or woman may be injurious to them."
,k144a_3:" I.e., from his explicit statements we understand that he is pleased therewith. &mdash; It may be observed that where fruit is kept for its juice, its exuding is regarded as in conformity with the owner's desire, whether he actually wanted it just then or not."
,k144a_4:" In which case it is clean, because it is not regarded as a liquid. This must at least represent the view of R. Judah, whose range of liquids is more restricted than that of the Rabbis."
,k144a_5:" And since according to R. Judah it is not a liquid in respect of defilement, when it exudes on the Sabbath it should be permitted. This is the point of the difficulty."
,k144a_6:" Sc. the liquid that exudes. Thus 'baskets' is intentionally stated here, for the juice runs out through the holes."
,k144a_7:" Hence it certainly does not exude with his desire. But if the fruit is in other utensils which conserve the liquid, it is regarded as exuding with his desire even where he said nothing. "
,k144a_8:" Excluding mulberries and pomegranates. "
}

txt:
<p>
without [the owner's] desire, though the blood of its wound is clean? I am more stringent in the case of milk than in the case of blood, replied he, because if one milks<a id="k144a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; as a remedy<a id="k144a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; it [the milk] is unclean, whereas if one lets blood as a remedy it is clean. Said they to him: Let baskets of olives and grapes prove it, for the liquid that exudes from them with [their owner's] desire is unclean; without [their owner's] desire, is clean. Now does not 'with desire' mean that he [the owner] is pleased therewith;<a id="k144a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; whilst 'without [his] desire' means that it [the purpose] is unspecified?<a id="k144a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Now if olives and grapes, which stand to be pressed, yet where [the juice exudes] without desire it is nothing: how much more so mulberries and pomegranates, which do not stand to be pressed?<a id="k144a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No: 'with desire' means that it is unexpressed, whilst 'without desire means that he [the owner] revealed his mind, saying, 'It does not please me An alternative answer is: baskets of olives and grapes are different, [for] since it stands to be wasted,<a id="k144a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; he [the owner] indeed renounces it beforehand.<a id="k144a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	We have [thus] found that R. Judah agrees with the Rabbis in the case of olives and grapes. How do we know that the Rabbis agree with R. Judah in the case of other fruits?<a id="k144a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Because it was taught: One may express
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k144b_1:" Because their juice is not normally expressed, and therefore that is not akin to threshing, which is the reason of the prohibition in the case of other fruits."
,k144b_2:" On weekdays, which shows that pomegranates are intended for this."
,k144b_3:" Surely not."
,k144b_4:" For the same logic holds good on their view too."
,k144b_5:" Of course not. The practice of this household is merely quoted, but he himself could give no ruling."
,k144b_6:" Who forbids with pomegranates."
,k144b_7:" That the <i>halachah</i> should be decided by his practice."
,k144b_8:" Lit., 'sanctified'. Viz., the grapes, on account of the mixture of plants; Deut. XXII, 9."
,k144b_9:" I.e., a plant which is wanted and valuable, which excludes thorns."
,k144b_10:" Thus Arabian practice decides the law, and the same is true here."
,k144b_11:" Lit., 'mind'."
,k144b_12:" For R. Nahman's ruling that one may not press pomegranate.."
,k144b_13:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k144b_14:" The water is stained red and no longer looks like water."
,k144b_15:" Hence their juice should be of no account."
,k144b_16:" Sc. the juices."
,k144b_17:" Which can invalidate a mikweh."
,k144b_18:" Viz., the juice of pomegranates. Rashi: R. Nahman accordingly explains the Baraitha thus: &mdash; One may squeeze plums, etc., not for their juice, since this would automatically give the juice a value of its own as a liquid, which in turn prohibits squeezing, but in order to improve the taste of the fruit. But not pomegranates. even to improve the fruit, for since some, as the house of Menasia b. Menahem, squeeze it for the sake of the juice, should you permit the former the latter too may be done. This does not apply to plums etc. which no-one squeezes for the sake of their juice."
,k144b_19:" Yet no value is assigned thereto and the juice is not a liquid."
,k144b_20:" A fluid given off by olives before the actual oil is expressed. It is in fact a kind of diluted oil."
,k144b_21:" V. Mik. VII, 4."
,k144b_22:" To invalidate a mikweh."
,k144b_23:" When the olives are first loaded in the press, but before they are actually pressed."
,k144b_24:" It does not render food insusceptible to defilement; v. p. 45, n. 1."
,k144b_25:" Jast.: a bale of loose texture containing the olive pulp to be pressed. This fluid denotes a further stage than the previous."
,k144b_26:" Since both admit that the first fluid is clean, while that which oozes from the olive pulp is unclean, in respect of what do they disagree?"
,k144b_27:" That is why the serial fluid makes the mikweh unfit; accordingly that ruling agrees with all."
,k144b_28:" Of food, for obviously the juice will not be drunk separately but is meant to season the food; as such it remains a food, i.e., a solid, itself."
,k144b_29:" As it may then be drunk separately, notwithstanding that one does not generally drink from a plate."
,k144b_30:" Lit., 'comes into'."
,k144b_31:" A <i>zab</i> defiles everything through hesset (v. p. 395, n. 1); here too he exercises hesset on the milk."
,k144b_32:" To defilement, for no foodstuff can be unclean unless a liquid has previously fallen upon it (v. p. 45, n. 1). &mdash; The law is stated generally- which implies that it is so even if he milks it into a pot of food."
,k144b_33:" The milker smears the first drop around the nipple, to facilitate the flow. This drop of course counts as a liquid, and all the subsequent milk is touched thereby. "
}

txt:
<p>
plums, quinces and sorb-apples,<a id="k144b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; but not pomegranates, and [indeed] the household of Menasia b. Menahem used to express pomegranates.<a id="k144b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; And how do you know that this is the [ruling of] the Rabbis: perhaps it is R. Judah['s view]? &mdash;  Even granted that it is R. Judah['s]: when have you heard R. Judah [to permit the juice], when it exudes of itself: have you heard him [to rule that] we may express it at the very outset?<a id="k144b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; But what you must answer is since they are not intended for pressing, [it is permitted] even at the outset; consequently even if it is assumed to be the ruling of the Rabbis, since they are not intended for pressing [it is permitted] at the very outset. Hence it follows that this [agrees with] the Rabbis [too].<a id="k144b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; This proves it.
</p><p>
	'The household of Menasia b. Menahem used to express pomegranates.' R. Nahman said: The <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with the household of Menasia b. Menahem. Said Raba to R. Nahman: Was then Menasia b. Menahem a Tanna?<a id="k144b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; And should you say [that you mean], The <i>halachah</i> is as this Tanna<a id="k144b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; because he agrees with the [practice of] Menasia b. Menahem: just because he agrees with Menasia b. Menahem, the <i>halachah</i> is as he! Does Menasia b. Menahem represent the majority of people?<a id="k144b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Yes. For we learnt: If one maintains thorns in a vineyard, &mdash; R. Eleazar said: They are forbidden;<a id="k144b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; but the Sages maintained: Only that the like of which is [normally] kept<a id="k144b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; creates an interdict. Now R. Hanina said: What is R. Eleazar's reason? Because in Arabia the thorns of fields are kept for the camels.<a id="k144b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; How compare! Arabia is a [whole] region, but here his practice<a id="k144b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; counts as nought in relation to that of all [other] people! &mdash; Rather this is the reason,<a id="k144b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; as R. Hisda. For R. Hisda said: If beets are expressed and [the juice] poured into a mikweh,<a id="k144b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; it renders the mikweh unfit on account of changed appearance.<a id="k144b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; But these are not normally expressed?<a id="k144b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; What you must then answer is that since he assigned value thereto,<a id="k144b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; it ranks as liquid;<a id="k144b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; so here too, since one assigns a value thereto, it ranks as a liquid.<a id="k144b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Papa said: The reason is that it is something wherewith a mikweh may not be made in the first place, and everything wherewith a mikweh may not be made in the first place renders a mikweh unfit through changed appearance.<a id="k144b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	We learnt elsewhere: If wine, vinegar, or secretion [of olives]<a id="k144b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; falls therein [a mikweh] and changes its appearance, it is unfit.<a id="k144b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Which Tanna holds that secretion [of olives] is a liquid?<a id="k144b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said Abaye, It is R. Jacob. For it was taught, R. Jacob said: The secretion is as a liquid, and why did they [the Sages] rule, The secretion which exudes at the beginning<a id="k144b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; is clean?<a id="k144b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; Because one does not desire to keep it. R. Simeon said: Secretion is not as a liquid, and why did they rule, The secretion that exudes from the bale made up for the press<a id="k144b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; is unclean? Because it cannot but contain particles of diluted oil. Wherein do they differ?<a id="k144b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; They differ in respect to what oozes after [the olives have been subject to their own] pressure. Raba said: The reason is because it is something whereof a mikweh may not be made, and such renders a mikweh unfit through change of colour.<a id="k144b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: One may squeeze out a cluster of grapes into a pot,<a id="k144b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; but not into a plate.<a id="k144b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hisda observed: From our master's words we may learn [that] one may milk a goat into a pot [of food], but not into a plate. This proves that he holds: a liquid that unites with<a id="k144b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; a [solid] foodstuff is [accounted] a foodstuff. Rami b. Hama objected: If a <i>zab</i> milks a goat, the milk is unclean.<a id="k144b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; But if you say, A liquid that unites with a [solid] foodstuff is a foodstuff, whereby did it become susceptible?<a id="k144b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; As R. Johanan said [elsewhere], By the drop [of milk] smeared on the nipple: so here too by the drop smeared on the nipple.<a id="k144b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabina objected: If a person unclean through a corpse squeezes out olives or grapes
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k145a_1:" This person defiles food, and in turn the food, if not less than the size of an egg in quantity, defiles liquids. Here the man does not touch the expressed juice. Now from the very first drop that issues the residue is less than the necessary minimum, and therefore it cannot defile the liquid that follows. V. Toh. III, 3; v. Pes., Sonc. ed., p. 153, n. 2."
,k145a_2:" Presumably the flour was kneaded with eggs, which do not render it susceptible, and the first Tanna teaches that the grape juice does not do so either."
,k145a_3:" So cur, edd., which Rashi and Tosaf. support. Wilna Gaon states that the reading of the Geonim, as well as that of Alfasi, is: is a foodstuff."
,k145a_4:" For the heat of the oven will dry it up."
,k145a_5:" Rashi: to soften them."
,k145a_6:" To defilement through the liquid that oozes out because he is pleased with it, since the olives are softened thereby, v. p. 45, nn. 1, 4."
,k145a_7:" When very hard they cannot take salt, and therefore he desires to soften them slightly, but not so much that the juice oozes out; hence he is not pleased therewith."
,k145a_8:" Lit., 'have arrived'."
,k145a_9:" Whether they are soft enough for the oil to be easily expressed."
,k145a_10:" The liquid which oozes out of course is lost."
,k145a_11:" And similarly do the Tannaim of the former Baraitha differ on the same question."
,k145a_12:" Who discuss the smoothing of dough."
,k145a_13:" But the question of waste does not enter here, because this liquid serves a definite purpose. giving the dough a brighter colour."
,k145a_14:" Because it is a foodstuff, not a drink, and the squeezing merely separate. its composite parts, viz., the brine from the flesh."
,k145a_15:" I.e., raw vegetables, preserved or pickled in wine or vinegar."
,k145a_16:" I.e., he wishes to eat them, and they bear too much moisture at present."
,k145a_17:" He actually wishes to drink its fluid."
,k145a_18:" Now the squeezing of boiled preserves is like that of a fish for its brine. Thus Samuel is self-contradictory."
,k145a_19:" Job XIX, 27. That Rab is the authority for the reported ruling."
,k145a_20:" Pentateuchal law."
,k145a_21:" Lit., 'from the mouth'. "
}

txt:
<p>
exactly as much as an egg [in quantity] it is clean.<a id="k145a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence if more than an egg [in quantity] it [the juice] is unclean; but if you say, A liquid that unites with a [solid] foodstuff is a foodstuff, whereby did it become susceptible? He raised the objection and he himself answered it: It refers to squeezing out into a plate.
</p><p>
	R. Jeremiah said, This is dependent on Tannaim: If one smooths [the surface of dough] with grapes [grape juice], it does not become susceptible [to defilement];<a id="k145a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Judah maintained: It is made susceptible, Do they not differ in this: one Master holds, A liquid that unites with a [solid] foodstuff is a foodstuff, while the other Master holds that it is not a foodstuff? &mdash; Said R. Papa. All hold, A liquid that unites with a foodstuff is not a foodstuff,<a id="k145a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; but here they differ in respect of a liquid that will eventually be destroyed:<a id="k145a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; one Master holds, It is [accounted] a liquid; while the other Master holds, It is not a liquid. And [they differ] in the [same] controversy as that of these Tannaim. For it was taught: If one splits olives<a id="k145a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; with unclean hands, they are rendered susceptible;<a id="k145a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; if in order to salt them,<a id="k145a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; they are not rendered susceptible; if in order to know whether the olives are ripe<a id="k145a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; for gathering<a id="k145a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; or not, they do not become susceptible; R. Judah said: They do become susceptible. Now, surely they differ in this, viz., one Master holds: A liquid that stands to be destroyed<a id="k145a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; is [accounted] a liquid, while the other Master holds that it is not a liquid!<a id="k145a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; Said R. Huna the son of R. Joshua: These [latter] Tannaim [indeed] differ in respect of a liquid that stands to be destroyed, while the former Tannaim<a id="k145a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; differ in respect of liquid whose purpose is to polish [the dough].<a id="k145a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Zera said in R. Hiyya b. Ashi's name in Rab's name: A man may squeeze a bunch of grapes into a pot [of food], but not into a plate; but [one may squeeze] a fish for its brine even into a plate.<a id="k145a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, R. Dimi sat and stated this ruling. Said Abaye to R. Dimi, You recite it in Rab's name, hence it presents no difficulty to you; [but] we recite it in Samuel's name, so it presents a difficulty to us. Did Samuel say, '[One may squeeze] a fish for its brine even into a plate'? Surely it was stated: If one presses out [pickled] preserves,<a id="k145a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rab said: If for their own sake,<a id="k145a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; it is permitted; if for their fluid,<a id="k145a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; he is not culpable, nevertheless it is forbidden. But with boiled preserves, whether for their own sake or for their fluid, it is permitted. While Samuel ruled: Both with [pickled] preserves and boiled preserves, if for their own sake, it is permitted; if for their fluid, he is not culpable, yet it is forbidden!<a id="k145a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; By God! replied he, 'Mine eyes have beheld, and not a stranger':<a id="k145a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; I heard it from R. Jeremiah's mouth, and R. Jeremiah from R. Zera, and R. Zera from R. Hiyya b. Ashi, and R. Hiyya b. Ashi from Rab.
</p><p>
	To turn to [the main] text: 'If one presses out [pickled] preserves, &mdash; Rab said: If for their own sake, it is permitted; if for their fluid, he is not culpable, nevertheless it is forbidden. But with boiled preserves, whether for their own sake or for their fluid, it is permitted. While Samuel ruled: Both with [pickled] preserves and boiled preserves, if for their own sake, it is permitted; if for their fluid, he is not culpable, yet it is forbidden. R. Johanan said: Both with [pickled] and boiled preserves, if for their own sake, it is permitted; if for their fluid, he is liable to a sin-offering'. An objection is raised: One may squeeze [pickled] preserves on the Sabbath for the requirements of the Sabbath, but not against the termination of the Sabbath; but one must not express olives and grapes, and if he does, he is liable to a sin-offering: this is a difficulty according to Rab, Samuel, and R. Johanan? &mdash; Rab reconciles it with his view, Samuel with his, and R. Johanan with his. 'Rab reconciles it with his view': One may squeeze [pickled] preserves on the Sabbath for the requirements of the Sabbath, but not against the termination of the Sabbath. When is this said? when it is [done] for their own sake; but if for their fluid, he is not culpable, yet it is forbidden; while [as for] boiled preserves, whether [done] for their own sake or for their fluid, it is permitted. But one must not express olives and grapes, and if he does he is liable to a sin-offering. 'Samuel explains it according to his view': One may squeeze [pickled] preserves on the Sabbath for the requirements of the Sabbath, [and] the same applies to boiled preserves. When is this said? When it is for their own sakes; but if for their fluid, he is not culpable, yet it is forbidden. And one must not express olives and grapes, and if he does, he is liable to a sin-offering. 'R. Johanan explains it according to his view': One may squeeze [pickled] preserves for the requirements of the Sabbath, but not against the termination of the Sabbath. This applies to both [pickled] and boiled preserves. When is that said? When it is for their own sake; but he must not squeeze them for their fluid, and if he does, it is as though he squeezed olives and grapes, and he is liable to a sin-offering. 
</p><p>
	R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in Rab's name: By the words of the Torah<a id="k145a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; one is culpable for the treading out of olives and grapes alone. And the School of Menasseh taught likewise: By the words of the Torah one is culpable for the treading out of olives and grapes alone. And a witness [attesting] what he heard from<a id="k145a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; another witness is valid
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k145b_1:" He is valid to attest a man's death, so that his wife may remarry v. Yeb. 90b."
,k145b_2:" A firstling of animals may not be eaten until it receives a blemish accidentally, which must be proved by witnesses."
,k145b_3:" A woman is a valid witness only in certain matters, which includes a firstling's blemish, and in these hearsay too is admissible."
,k145b_4:" Said in a critical spirit."
,k145b_5:" Lit., 'in his hand'."
,k145b_6:" What purpose does this Baraitha serve? The, same principle is expressed in our Mishnah by R. Eleazar, and he merely tells us that it is also R. Simeon's view."
,k145b_7:" Lit., 'at the end'."
,k145b_8:" <i>Var. lec</i>. omits this."
,k145b_9:" A kind of tunny-fish."
,k145b_10:" V. <i>supra</i> 39a top for notes."
,k145b_11:" Is put into hot water and then steeped again."
,k145b_12:" Which he boiled and kept many days in hot water until they dissolved; then he ate them as a remedy."
,k145b_13:" I.e., in the third year."
,k145b_14:" I was moved to expectorate, so sickly was it."
,k145b_15:" He disliked it so much."
,k145b_16:" The disparagement of the Babylonian delicacy gave him offence."
,k145b_17:" The old salted fish etc."
,k145b_18:" Since it completes their preparation it is the equivalent of boiling."
,k145b_19:" Fatter than the Palestinian ones."
,k145b_20:" And live drably during the rest of the year, therefore they appreciate the festivals all the more."
,k145b_21:" Lit., 'they are not sons of (i.e., they do not possess) the Torah'. &mdash; Hence they have nothing else but dress to distinguish them."
,k145b_22:" Prov. VII, 4."
,k145b_23:" Jer. XLVIII, 11. The verse is quoted to show the adverse physical effects of exile."
,k145b_24:" Ibid. IX, 9 (E.V. 10)."
,k145b_25:" I.e., [H] = 2; [H] = 5; [H] = 40; [H] = 5. Thus he translates: the fowl of the heavens is fled for fifty-two (years). Of course, the fifty-two years of desolation are based on historical figures (Meg. 11b), and this verse is merely quoted as a support or hint. (Tosaf.)."
,k145b_26:" The highest eminence in Palestine (Zeb. 54b). According to Josephus (Ant. VIII, 7, 3) it was sixty stadia south of Jerusalem, and it supplied the city with water. The mikweh used by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement, which was situated above the Water Gate, was also drawn thence (Yoma 31a). &mdash; Thus as the water flowed from Babylonia it carried along the fish which had migrated from Palestine."
,k145b_27:" The whole discussion was probably a mere jeu d'espirit as a relaxation after serious study."
,k145b_28:" Hos. II, 13."
,k145b_29:" Isa. I, 14."
,k145b_30:" V. p. 16, n. 6. They were quartered on the Jews and naturally hindered the joy of the festival."
,k145b_31:" [H] lit., 'cane bearer', but MS.O. reads: [H], a general. For [H] Jast. suggests that [H] (= comites, members of the imperial cabinet) should be read. [H] = rod bearers, i.e., centurions."
,k145b_32:" i.e., they hail from Palestine."
,k145b_33:" There I must make myself known and distinguished through dress. &mdash; This is certainly a more charitable explanation than the previous."
,k145b_34:" Isa. XXVII, 6."
,k145b_35:" This is in support of R. Johanan's estimate of the Babylonian scholars. "
}

txt:
<p>
in evidence concerning a woman alone.<a id="k145b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; The scholars asked: What about a witness [attesting] what he heard from another witness in evidence relating to a firstling?<a id="k145b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Ammi forbids [the admission of his testimony]; while R. Assi permits it. Said R. Ammi to R. Ashi, But the School of Menasseh taught: A witness testifying what he heard from another witness is valid in testimony concerning a woman alone? &mdash; Say: Only in testimony for which a woman is valid.<a id="k145b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Yemar recognized as fit a witness [testifying] from the mouth of another witness in respect to a firstling, [whereupon] Meremar called him 'Yemar who permits firstlings.'<a id="k145b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Yet the law is, A witness [testifying] from the mouth of another witness is valid in respect to firstlings.
</p><p>
	HONEYCOMBS. When R. Oshaia came from Nehardea, he came and brought a Baraitha with him:<a id="k145b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; If one crushes olives and grapes on the eve of the Sabbath, and they [their juices] ooze out of themselves, they are forbidden; but R. Eleazar and R. Simeon permit them. R. Joseph observed. Does he come to inform us of another person?<a id="k145b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said Abaye to him, He comes to tell us much. For if [we learnt] from our Mishnah [alone], I would argue, Only there [is it thus], since it [the honey] was a [solid] foodstuff originally and is now a foodstuff; but here that they [the grapes, etc.] were originally a foodstuff but now<a id="k145b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; a fluid, I would say, It is not so. Hence he informs us [otherwise].
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. WHATEVER WAS PUT INTO HOT WATER BEFORE THE SABBATH MAY BE STEEPED [AGAIN] IN HOT WATER ON THE SABBATH; BUT WHATEVER WAS NOT PUT INTO HOT WATER BEFORE THE SABBATH MAY [ONLY] BE RINSED WITH HOT WATER ON THE SABBATH, EXCEPT OLD SALTED [PICKLED] FISH, [SMALL SALTED FISH],<a id="k145b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THE COLIAS OF THE SPANIARDS,<a id="k145b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; BECAUSE THEIR RINSING COMPLETES THEIR PREPARATION.<a id="k145b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What, for example?<a id="k145b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Safra said: E.g., R. Abba's fowl[s].<a id="k145b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Safra also said: I once paid a visit there [Palestine] and ate thereof, and but for R. Abba who made me drink wine of three foliages<a id="k145b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; I would have been in danger.<a id="k145b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan expectorated at [the mention of] Babylonian kutah.<a id="k145b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Joseph: Then we [Babylonians] should expectorate at R. Abba's fowl!<a id="k145b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Moreover, R. Gaza has related, I once paid a visit there [in Palestine] and prepared some Babylonian kutah, and all the invalids of the West [Palestine] asked me for it.
</p><p>
	WHATEVER WAS NOT PUT INTO HOT WATER, etc. What if one does rinse [them]?<a id="k145b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph said: If one rinses them, he incurs a sin-offering. Mar the son of Rabina said, We too learnt thus: EXCEPT OLD SALTED [PICKLED] FISH, AND THE COLIAS OF THE SPANIARDS, BECAUSE THEIR RINSING COMPLETES THEIR PREPARATION: this proves it.<a id="k145b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hiyya b. Abba and R. Assi were sitting before R. Johanan, while R. Johanan was sitting and dozing. Now, R. Hiyya b. Abba asked R. Assi, Why are the fowls in Babylonia fat?<a id="k145b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Go to the wilderness of Gaza, replied he, and I will show you fatter ones. Why are the festivals in Babylon [so] joyous? Because they [its inhabitants] are poor.<a id="k145b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Why are the scholars in Babylonia distinguished [in dress]? Because they are not well learned.<a id="k145b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Why are idolaters lustful? Because they eat abominable and creeping things. R. Johanan awoke thereat [and] said to them, Children! did I not this teach you: Say unto wisdom, Thou art my sister:<a id="k145b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; if the matter is as clear to thee as that thy sister is interdicted to thee, say it; but if not do not say it? Said they to him, Then let the Master tell us some of these? Why are the fowls of Babylonia fat? Because they were not sent into exile, as it is said, Moab hath been at ease from his youth, and he hath settled on his lees...neither hath he gone into capacity: [therefore his taste remaineth in him, and his scent is not changed].<a id="k145b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; And how do we know that they suffered exile here [in Palestine]? Because it was taught, R. Judah said: For fifty-two years no man passed through Judea, as it is said, For the mountains will I take up a weeping and wailing, and for the pastures of the wilderness a lamentation, because they are burned up, so that none passeth through...both the fowl of the heavens and the beast [behemah] are fled, they are gone:<a id="k145b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; the numerical value of behemah is fifty-two.<a id="k145b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jacob said in R. Johanan's name: They all returned save the colias of the Spaniards. For Rab said: The water courses of Babylonia carry back the water to the fountain of Etam;<a id="k145b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; but these [colias], since their spine is not firm, could not go up.<a id="k145b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Why are the festivals in Babylonia joyous? Because they were not subject to that curse, whereof it is written, I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feasts, her new moons, her Sabbaths, and all her solemn assemblies,'<a id="k145b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is written, Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me.<a id="k145b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; What does 'they are a trouble unto me' mean? &mdash; Said R. Eleazar: The Holy One, blessed be He, saith, Not enough is it for Israel that they sin before Me, but that they trouble Me to know which evil decree I am to bring upon them. R. Isaac said: There is no single festival when troops did not come to Sepphoris.<a id="k145b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hanina said: There is no single festival when there did not come to Tiberias a general with his suite and centurions.<a id="k145b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Why are the scholars of Babylonia distinguished [in dress]? Because they are not in their [original] homes,<a id="k145b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; as People say, In my own town my name [is sufficient]; away from home, my dress.<a id="k145b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; In days to come shall Jacob take root, Israel shall blossom [yaziz] and bud [ufarah].<a id="k145b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph recited, This refers to scholars in Babylonia who wreathe blossoms [ziziz] and flowers [perahim] around the Torah.<a id="k145b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Why are idolaters lustful? Because they did not stand at Mount Sinai. For when
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k146a_1:" Cf. II Esdras IV, 30."
,k146a_2:" The idea is that the serpent infected Eve (i.e., the human race) with lust, from which, however, those who accept the moral teachings of the Torah are freed. Cf. B.B. 16a: The Holy One, blessed be He, created the evil passions, but He also created the Torah as their antidote. Thus this passage does not teach the doctrine of 'Original Sin', which Judaism rejects; v. Hertz, Genesis, pp. 59-60, 'Jewish view on the \"Fall of Man,\"'. V. also Weiss, Dor, II, p. 9."
,k146a_3:" On mazzal v. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 629, n. 10."
,k146a_4:" Deut. XXIX, 14f. The teachings of Judaism and its spiritual ennoblement were freely meant for all mankind."
,k146a_5:" Even before the Revelation at Sinai."
,k146a_6:" i.e., a proper opening for the cask; this constitutes a labour."
,k146a_7:" If it is tightly fitted in the cask, so that wine etc., may be poured out through the perforation, R. Han. regards the bung as the whole cover fitted into the top of the cask."
,k146a_8:" This is explained in the Gemara."
,k146a_9:" And one wishes to close the holes."
,k146a_10:" I.e., he spreads it, which is forbidden."
,k146a_11:" v. p. 600, n. 5."
,k146a_12:" If the raisins are pressed together, a knife must be handled for cutting them out, and at the same time the barrel may be broken open with it. But if they are loose, so that a knife or axe is not required, it may not be handled merely for breaking the cask open."
,k146a_13:" Of violating the Sabbath."
,k146a_14:" That a utensil may be handled only for its normal use."
,k146a_15:" Unripe dates and raisins were packed in wrappers made of plaited palm branches, to ripen. If the wrapper is tied with a cord one may untie it, unravel its strands, or cut it."
,k146a_16:" I.e., by forcing it between the splices."
,k146a_17:" Lit., 'a good eye' &mdash; i.e., to widen the opening so that the wine may flow freely, not niggardly but he does not mean to make a permanent opening."
,k146a_18:" By withdrawing the bung, when the wine would flow no less freely."
,k146a_19:" There the Rabbis permit it, because it is unusual to make an opening there, but rather the whole bung is removed."
,k146a_20:" As an opening is sometimes made there in preference to withdrawing the stopper from the top, lest dust etc., fall in. 'Side' and 'top' both refer to the bung or lid, viz., the side of the bung and the top of the bung, hut not to the sides of the cask itself."
,k146a_21:" Not the bung."
,k146a_22:" In a vessel."
,k146a_23:" I.e., enlarge an existing hole."
,k146a_24:" Which became stopped up."
,k146a_25:" [H] may mean both effected and improved. &mdash; By enlarging the hole he completes its work."
,k146a_26:" By Pentateuchal law."
,k146a_27:" Sc. the hole under discussion, as the wine is not poured into the barrel through it."
,k146a_28:" V. <i>supra</i> 102b. "
}

txt:
<p>
the serpent came upon Eve he injected a lust into her:<a id="k146a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [as for] the Israelites who stood at Mount Sinai, their lustfulness departed; the idolaters, who did not stand at Mount Sinai, their lustfulness did not depart.<a id="k146a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Aha son of Raba asked R. Ashi. What about proselytes? Though they were not present, their guiding stars<a id="k146a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; were present, as it is written, [Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath], but with him that standeth here with us this day before the Lord our God, and also with him that is not here with us this day.<a id="k146a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Now he differs from R. Abba b. Kahana, for R. Abba b. Kahana said: Until three generations the lustful [strain] did not disappear from our Patriarchs: Abraham begat Ishmael, Isaac begat Esau, [but] Jacob begat the twelve tribes in whom there was no taint whatsoever.<a id="k146a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. ONE MAY BREAK OPEN A CASK IN ORDER TO EAT RAISINS THEREOF, PROVIDED THAT HE DOES NOT DESIGN MAKING A UTENSIL;<a id="k146a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; AND ONE MAY NOT PERFORATE THE BUNG OF A CASK:<a id="k146a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; THIS IS R. JUDAH'S RULING; BUT THE SAGES PERMIT IT. AND ONE MUST NOT PIERCE IT AT THE SIDE THEREOF,<a id="k146a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; WHILE IF IT IS PERFORATED<a id="k146a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; ONE MUST NOT PLACE WAX UPON IT, BECAUSE HE CRUSHES IT.<a id="k146a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; R. JUDAH SAID: [SUCH] AN INCIDENT CAME BEFORE R. JOHANAN B. ZAKKAI IN ARAB<a id="k146a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; AND HE SAID, I FEAR ON HIS ACCOUNT [THAT HE MAY BE LIABLE] TO A SIN-OFFERING.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Oshaia said: They learnt this only of pressed [raisins]; but not when they are loose [apart].<a id="k146a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; 'But not if they are loose [apart]'? An objection is raised: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: One may bring a cask of wine, strike off its head with a sword, and place it before guests on the Sabbath, and he need have no fear!<a id="k146a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; That is [according to] the Rabbis: our Mishnah is [according to] R. Nehemiah.<a id="k146a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, what compels R. Oshaia to establish our Mishnah as agreeing with R. Nehemiah, so that it refers to pressed [raisins]; let him explain it as referring to loose [raisins] and [in agreement with] the Rabbis? &mdash; Said Raba, Our Mishnah presents a difficulty to him: why particularly teach 'RAISINS: let him [the Tanna] teach 'fruit?' Hence it follows thence that the reference is to pressed [raisins].
</p><p>
	One [Baraitha] taught: One may untie, unravel, or cut through the wicker wrappers of raisins and dates.<a id="k146a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Another was taught: One may untie, but not unravel or cut. There is no difficulty: one agrees with the Rabbis; the other with R. Nehemiah. For it was taught, R. Nehemiah said: Even a spoon, even a robe, and even a knife may be handled only when required for their [usual] function.
</p><p>
	R. Shesheth was asked: What about piercing a cask with a spit<a id="k146a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; on the Sabbath? does he intend [making] an opening, so it is forbidden, or perhaps his intention is to be generous<a id="k146a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is permitted? &mdash; He intends [making] an opening, replied he, and it is forbidden. An objection is raised: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: One may bring a cask of wine and strike off its head with a sword? &mdash; There his intention is certainly to be generous: but here, if he really means to be generous &mdash; let him open it.<a id="k146a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	ONE MAY NOT PERFORATE THE BUNG, etc. R. Huna said: The controversy is [in respect of a hole] at the top;<a id="k146a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; but all agree that it is forbidden at the side,<a id="k146a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; and thus he teaches, ONE MUST NOT PIERCE IT AT THE SIDE THEREOF. But R. Hisda maintained: The controversy is in [respect of a hole] at the side, but all agree that it is permitted on the top, and as to what he teaches, ONE MUST NOT PIERCE IT AT THE SIDE THEREOF, there it refers to the cask itself.<a id="k146a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: One may not pierce a new hole<a id="k146a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; on the Sabbath, but if one comes to add,<a id="k146a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; he may add; but some say, One may not add. But they all agree that one may pierce an old hole<a id="k146a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; at the very outset. Now as to the first Tanna, wherein does it differ from [boring] a new hole, which may not [be done]? [Presumably] because an opening is [thereby] effected! Then in adding too an opening is improved (effected]?<a id="k146a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said Rabbah: By the words of the Torah<a id="k146a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; every opening which is not made for putting in and taking out is not an opening, and it was the Rabbis who forbade it<a id="k146a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; on account of [the ventilation of] a hen-coop, which is made to permit the fresh air to enter and the fumes to pass out.<a id="k146a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence 'if one comes to add, he may add': [for] in a hen-coop one will certainly not come to add,
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k146b_1:" One does not make the ventilation hole too large for fear of insects, worms, etc., entering."
,k146b_2:" I.e., the hole was closed up for that purpose. The closing is done quite feebly, and there is no real work in reopening it."
,k146b_3:" To reopen it, because it was firmly closed and its re-opening is tantamount to making a new hole."
,k146b_4:" What is the general rule which determines its purpose?"
,k146b_5:" That the wine should not drip out."
,k146b_6:" There it has to bear the weight of all the wine and so must be strengthened."
,k146b_7:" If a number of houses open into a common courtyard and their owners wish to divide it, each to have his own privately, each receives four cubits along the breadth of the courtyard for every door to his house that gives upon it, and the rest is shared equally. Now, if one of the doors had been walled up, but without its frame being broken through, its owner can still claim the four cubits for it; but if the frame was first broken through and then it was closed up, it ceases to count as a door, and the four cubits are lost. V. B.B. 12a."
,k146b_8:" If a room containing a corpse is closed, i.e., the door is walled up, the defilement of the corpse does not extend beyond it. But if the door-frame was first broken and then walled up, so that no aperture at all is visible, the house is regarded as a grave and defiles everything around it to a distance of four cubits. &mdash; Thus an opening must be absolutely closed before it ceases to count as such, and the same applies to the cask."
,k146b_9:" I.e., into a barrel, as a pipe."
,k146b_10:" To the required size of the hole."
,k146b_11:" Sc. a fitted tube which had fallen out."
,k146b_12:" It had not been tested in the hole to see whether it fits exactly."
,k146b_13:" From the bottle, where it serves as a pipe."
,k146b_14:" Surely he does not permit the making of a tube!"
,k146b_15:" Rab forbids thick semi-solid oil to be spread over the hole, while Samuel permits it."
,k146b_16:" The spreading of wax too may be regarded as permissible if one is allowed to spread oil."
,k146b_17:" Rashi. Others: = [H], the head of the family (in Ta'an. 10a)."
,k146b_18:" One may not shape a myrtle leaf into a funnel or pipe and insert it into the mouth of a bottle or cask."
,k146b_19:" V. p. 35, n. 5."
,k146b_20:" There are plenty of leaves, so that there is no fear that one may pluck it, hence it is permitted (Wilna Gaon); but the first reason still holds good. R. Han. explains it thus: All agree that one may not make a funnel and insert it in the hole of a cask, but they differ where the leaf was already lying in the hole as a funnel from before the Sabbath. According to R. Yemar it is still forbidden to pour wine through it, lest he make a funnel, but according to R. Ashi it is permitted, since there is no fear of plucking a leaf from the tree."
,k146b_21:" Which are folded together and used as a pillow or bolster."
,k146b_22:" Rab forbids a person to wrap them about himself and walk through the streets, thus wearing them as a garment, while Samuel permits it."
,k146b_23:" They give warmth and therefore may certainly be regarded as a garment."
,k146b_24:" They give no warmth and are merely a burden."
,k146b_25:" Rashi: for his disciples."
,k146b_26:" Tosaf: of medium quality, neither hard nor soft."
,k146b_27:" They were his disciple-colleagues (v. Sanh. 36b), and it was not fitting that he should enjoy a comfort which had not been provided for them."
,k146b_28:" Within the town."
,k146b_29:" Lest they suspect him of having washed them on the Sabbath."
,k146b_30:" That a dish may be placed in a pit."
,k146b_31:" He may find depressions in the floor of the pit and level them."
,k146b_32:" Which is forbidden."
,k146b_33:" V. Bez. 9a. "
}

txt:
<p>
on account of insects.<a id="k146b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Yet 'some say, One may not add': Sometimes one may not make it [the hole] [properly] in the first place, and so come to enlarge it. R. Nahman lectured on the authority of R. Johanan: The <i>halachah</i> is as 'some maintain'.
</p><p>
	But they all agree that you may pierce an old hole at the very outset! Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: They learnt this only where it was done in order to conserve [the fragrance];<a id="k146b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; but if in order to strengthen it [the cask], it is forbidden.<a id="k146b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; How is it [when it is] to conserve, and how is it [when meant] to strengthen?<a id="k146b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said R. Hisda: If it is above the [level of the] wine, its purpose is to conserve; if below the [top of the] wine, its purpose is to strengthen.<a id="k146b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbah said: [If] below the [top of the] wine, that too is to conserve. Then how is it to strengthen? &mdash; E.g. if it was pierced below the lees.<a id="k146b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye said to Rabbah, Something which supports you was taught: A closed house has four cubits; if one had broken open its door-frame, it does not receive four cubits.<a id="k146b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; A closed house [room] does not defile all around it; if he had broken through the door-frame, it defiles all around it.<a id="k146b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[The insertion of] a tube,<a id="k146b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab forbids, while Samuel permits. As for cutting it in the first place,<a id="k146b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; all agree that it is forbidden; [again], all agree that replacing it<a id="k146b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; is permitted. They differ only where it is cut but not made to measure:<a id="k146b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; he who forbids [its insertion] [holds that] we preventively prohibit [it], lest he come to cut it out in the first place; while he who permits it, [holds that] we do not preventively prohibit.
</p><p>
	This is dependent on Tannaim: One may not cut a tube on a Festival, and it is superfluous to speak of the Sabbath. If it falls out,<a id="k146b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; it may be replaced on the Sabbath, and it goes without saying on Festival[s]. While R. Josiah is lenient. To what does R. Josiah refer, Shall we say, to the first clause? Surely he prepares a utensil?<a id="k146b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Again, if to the second clause, the first Tanna too certainly permits it? Hence they must differ where it is cut but not made to measure: one Master holds, we preventively prohibit, while the other Master holds, We do not preventively prohibit. R. Shisha son of R. Idi lectured in R. Johanan's name: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Josiah. 
</p><p>
	WHILE IF IT IS PERFORATED, etc. Oil [to stop up the hole], Rab forbids, while Samuel permits.<a id="k146b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; He who forbids [holds]: We preventively prohibit on account of wax;<a id="k146b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; while he who permits [holds]: We do not preventively prohibit. R. Samuel b. Bar Hanah observed to R. Joseph: You distinctly told us in Rab's name [that with] oil [it] is permitted
</p><p>
	Tabuth the fowler<a id="k146b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; said in Samuel's name: [To shape] a myrtle leaf<a id="k146b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; is forbidden. &mdash; What is the reason? R. Yemar of Difti<a id="k146b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; said: It is a preventive measure on account of [the making of] a pipe. R. Ashi said: It is a preventive measure lest one pluck it [from the tree]. Wherein do they differ? They differ where it is [already] plucked and [others too] are lying about.<a id="k146b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[To wear] linen sheets,<a id="k146b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab forbids, while Samuel permits.<a id="k146b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Of soft ones all agree that it is permitted;<a id="k146b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; in the case of hard ones all agree that it is forbidden.<a id="k146b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; They differ in respect of medium ones: he who forbids [holds that] they look like a burden; while he who permits [holds that] they do not look like a burden. Now, this [view] of Rab was stated not explicitly but by inference. For Rab visited a certain place where he had no room.<a id="k146b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; So he went out and sat in a <i>karmelith</i>. Linen sheets were brought him,<a id="k146b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; [but] he did not sit [upon them]. He who saw this thought that it was because linen sheets are forbidden. Yet that is not so, for Rab had indeed announced [that] linen sheets are permitted, but he did not sit on them out of respect for our masters: and who are they? R. Kahana and R. Assi.<a id="k146b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A DISH MAY BE PLACED IN A PIT FOR IT TO BE GUARDED, AND WHOLESOME WATER INTO NOISOME WATER FOR IT TO BE COOLED, OR COLD WATER IN THE SUN FOR IT TO BE HEATED. IF ONE'S GARMENTS FALL INTO WATER ON THE ROAD, HE MAY WALK IN THEM WITHOUT FEAR. WHEN HE REACHES THE OUTERMOST COURTYARD<a id="k146b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; HE MAY SPREAD THEM OUT IN THE SUN, BUT NOT IN SIGHT OF THE PEOPLE.<a id="k146b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. [But] it is obvious?<a id="k146b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; You might say, Let us preventively forbid it on account of the levelling of depressions;<a id="k146b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; hence he [the Tanna] informs us [otherwise].
</p><p>
	AND WHOLESOME WATER, [etc.] It is obvious? &mdash; The second clause is required: OR COLD WATER IN THE SUN, [etc.]. That too is obvious? &mdash; You, might say, Let us preventively forbid it, lest he come to put it away in [hot] ashes;<a id="k146b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; therefore he teaches us [otherwise].
</p><p>
	IF ONE'S GARMENTS DROP, [etc.] Rab Judah said in Rab's name: Wherever the Sages forbade [aught] for appearance's sake, it is forbidden even in the innermost chambers.<a id="k146b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; We learnt: HE MAY SPREAD THEM OUT IN THE SUN, BUT NOT IN SIGHT OF THE PEOPLE? &mdash; it is [a controversy of] Tannaim. For it was taught: He may spread them out in the sun, but not in sight of the people; R. Eleazar and R. Simeon forbid it.
</p><p>
	R. Huna said:
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k147a_1:" Rashi: to free it from the dust. Tosaf.: he shakes off the dew."
,k147a_2:" As it is tantamount to washing it."
,k147a_3:" He would never put them on thus; then the dusting is tantamount to washing. But if he is not particular about the dust there is no culpability in any case."
,k147a_4:" The part which is thrown over the shoulder is considered a burden."
,k147a_5:" These were swift runners, e.g., for carrying express messages. In T.A. I, p. 603, n. 530b, it is conjectured that the [H] (scarf) was their only garment, apart from a loincloth."
,k147a_6:" Even if they are folded up and not hanging down (Wilna Gaon and 'Aruk) &mdash; though presumably they are wound round their necks in the first place."
,k147a_7:" To prevent it from falling off."
,k147a_8:" Lit., 'pouches'."
,k147a_9:" Formed by drawing up the skirts of their garments backwards and attaching it with ribbons, thus shaping it like a tube or gutter, which is the meaning of marzeb."
,k147a_10:" He gathered up his skirts in various ways and asked him whether such were permissible on the Sabbath."
,k147a_11:" Rashi: to remain so permanently. Wilna Gaon, citing Maim.: to prevent it from being torn or soiled. Jast. translates: with the intention of creasing."
,k147a_12:" After putting it on he would smooth and straighten it out to make it more becoming. This is permitted even on the Sabbath."
,k147a_13:" v. p. 12, n. 9."
,k147a_14:" For it is not wearing but carrying a burden."
,k147a_15:" As to call this a burden."
,k147a_16:" V. p. 12, n. 9."
,k147a_17:" The incident did not actually happen, but the question was asked in the academy: Rabbi thought of permitting it, but was dissuaded when told of R. Meir's (or, R. Akiba's) view."
,k147a_18:" Which had been heated."
,k147a_19:" Which was naturally hot-Tiberias possessed thermal springs."
,k147a_20:" Even if carrying is permitted, e.g..in his house or where an 'erub has been provided."
,k147a_21:" I.e., massage strongly."
,k147a_22:" With a scraper, perhaps a strigil, to invigorate the circulation."
,k147a_23:" So Jast. Heb. Kordima. MS.M. and Jer. read: [H] i.e., the clay ground (of the brickyard). Rashi translates: the name of a river."
,k147a_24:" By means of an emetic."
,k147a_25:" By manipulation."
,k147a_26:" For otherwise the Mishnah should read: one may bathe. "
}

txt:
<p>
If one shakes out his cloak<a id="k147a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; on the Sabbath, he is liable to a sin-offering.<a id="k147a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, we said this only of new ones, but in the case of old ones we have nought against it; and this is said only of black ones, but in the case of white or red ones we have nought against it; [but in any case there is no culpability] unless he is particular about them.<a id="k147a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'Ulla visited Pumbeditha. Seeing the scholars shaking their garments he observed, 'The scholars are desecrating the Sabbath.' Said Rab Judah to them, 'Shake them in his presence, [for] we are not particular at all [about the clothes].' Abaye was standing before R. Joseph. Said he to him, 'Give me my hat.' Seeing some dew upon it he hesitated to give it to him. 'Shake it and throw it off,' he directed, '[for] we are not particular at all.'
</p><p>
	R. Isaac b. Joseph said in R. Johanan's name: If one goes out on the Sabbath with a cloak folded up [and] lying on his shoulders, he is liable to a sin-offering.<a id="k147a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; It was taught likewise: Clothes vendors who go out on the Sabbath with cloaks folded up [and] lying on their shoulders are liable to a sin-offering. And they [the Sages] said this not of clothes vendors alone but of all men, but that it is the nature of merchants to go out thus. Again, if a shopkeeper goes out with coins bound up in his wrapper, he is liable to a sin-offering. And they said this not of a shopkeeper alone but of all men, but that it is a shopkeeper's nature to go out thus. And runners may go out with the scarfs on their shoulders;<a id="k147a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and they said this not of runners alone but of all men, but that it is the nature of runners to go out thus.<a id="k147a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Judah said: It once happened that Hyrcanus, son of R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, went out on the Sabbath with the scarf on his shoulder, but that a thread [thereof] was wound round his finger.<a id="k147a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; But when the matter came before the Sages they said, [It is permitted] even if a thread is not wound about one's finger. R. Nahman b. R. Hisda lectured in R. Hisda's name: The <i>halachah</i> is [that it is permissible] even if a thread is not wound about his finger.
</p><p>
	'Ulla visited the academy of Assi b. Hini [and] was asked: Is it permitted to make a marzeb on the Sabbath? Said he to them, Thus did R. Ilai say: It is forbidden to make a marzeb on the Sabbath. What is a marzeb? &mdash; Said R. Zera: The capes<a id="k147a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; worn by Babylonian women.<a id="k147a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jeremiah was sitting before R. Zera [and] asked him, How is it thus? It is forbidden, replied he. And how is it thus? It is forbidden, replied he.<a id="k147a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Papa said: Adopt this general rule: Whatever [is done] with the intention of gathering it [the skirts] up<a id="k147a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; is forbidden; whatever is for adornment is permitted. Just as R. Shisha son of R. Idi used to adorn himself with his cloak.<a id="k147a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	When R. Dimi came,<a id="k147a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; he said: On one occasion Rabbi went out into the field with the two ends of his cloak lying on his shoulder. [Thereupon] Joshua b. Ziruz, the son of R. Meir's father-in-law, said to him: Did not R. Meir declare one liable to a sin-offering in such a case?<a id="k147a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Was R. Meir so very particular?<a id="k147a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; he exclaimed.' [So] Rabbi let his cloak fall. When Rabin came,<a id="k147a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; he said: It was not Joshua b. Ziruz but Joshua b. Kapusai, R. Akiba's son-in-law. Said he: Did not R. Akiba declare one liable to a sin-offering in such a case? Was R. Akiba so very particular? he exclaimed. [So] Rabbi let his cloak fall. When R. Samuel b. R. Judah came, he said: It was stated that this [question] was asked.<a id="k147a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF ONE BATHES IN THE WATER OF A PIT<a id="k147a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; OR IN THE WATER OF TIBERIAS<a id="k147a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; AND DRIES HIMSELF EVEN WITH TEN TOWELS, HE MUST NOT FETCH THEM IN HIS HAND.<a id="k147a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT TEN MEN MAY DRY THEIR FACES, HANDS, AND FEET ON ONE TOWEL AND FETCH IT IN THEIR HANDS. ONE MAY OIL AND [LIGHTLY] MASSAGE [THE BODY]. BUT NOT KNEAD<a id="k147a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; OR SCRAPE.<a id="k147a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; YOU MUST NOT GO DOWN TO A WRESTLING GROUND,<a id="k147a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; OR INDUCE VOMITING,<a id="k147a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; OR STRAIGHTEN AN INFANT['S LIMBS],<a id="k147a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; OR SET A BROKEN BONE. IF ONE'S HAND OR FOOT IS DISLOCATED, HE MUST NOT AGITATE IT VIOLENTLY IN COLD WATER BUT MAY BATHE IT IN THE USUAL WAY, AND IF IT HEALS, IT HEALS.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. THE WATER OF A PIT is taught analogous to THE WATER OF TIBERIAS: just as the water of Tiberias is hot, so [by] the water of a pit hot [water is meant]; [and furthermore, it states] IF ONE BATHES: only if it is done, but not at the outset.<a id="k147a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k147b_1:" As opposed to an actual bath."
,k147b_2:" Even in hot water."
,k147b_3:" Should one forget himself and wish to wring it out."
,k147b_4:" Sc. of wringing it out and giving it to others. V. 'Er., Sonc. ed., p. 610 notes."
,k147b_5:" Presumably wrapped about him as a garment, or where an 'erub is provided."
,k147b_6:" All these have stated their view, and surely they furnish a reliable guide."
,k147b_7:" Near Bethlehem in Judea."
,k147b_8:" V. <i>supra</i> 7a."
,k147b_9:" V. n. 4."
,k147b_10:" Not anonymously."
,k147b_11:" So that they are brought as garments."
,k147b_12:" 'Aruch; Cur. edd. saknitha. Rashi: a large cloth covering, falling over the shoulders. Maim: a small cloth, not large enough to cover the head and the greater part of the body."
,k147b_13:" So that it should not fall off."
,k147b_14:" So that it looks like wearing apparel."
,k147b_15:" To the baths. The troops (non-Jewish) were billeted in Jewish houses (Cf. Ta'an. 21a), and the Jews had to perform such offices as bringing their bathing outfits to the baths, carrying them through the streets."
,k147b_16:" V. p. 745, n. 5."
,k147b_17:" On weekdays it was reversed."
,k147b_18:" Jast.: identical with Emmaus, a town in the plain of Judea renowned in Talmudic days for its warm springs and luxurious life."
,k147b_19:" Only twenty-one days in the year does one derive medical benefit from Diomsith, and Pentecost is included in those twenty-one days."
,k147b_20:" I.e., does the period commence with Pentecost or end with it?"
,k147b_21:" Hence Pentecost ends the period."
,k147b_22:" I.e., the healing properties of Diomsith reside in the heat of its springs."
,k147b_23:" A place in northern Israel famous for its wine. A similar statement is made in Lev. Rab. about the wine of Pelugto. near Tiberias, and probably the two are identical."
,k147b_24:" They were so much pre-occupied with these pleasures that they neglected learning and lost faith, which ultimately led to their exile and disappearance."
,k147b_25:" Sc. its inhabitants and their luxurious life."
,k147b_26:" In Talmudic days the weekly lesson of the Pentateuch was read by a number of the congregation, each of whom read a part."
,k147b_27:" Ex. XII, 2."
,k147b_28:" Their hearts were silent; or perhaps it is an unintelligible phrase. Each word differs only by one letter from the original to which in turn it bears some resemblance, and the story is quoted as an illustration of the seductive powers of Diomsith!"
,k147b_29:" Intellectual intercourse is essential if one is to retain his learning."
,k147b_30:" V. Ab. IV, 14."
,k147b_31:" If R. Nehorai was identical with R. Eleazar b. 'Arak, his statement was thus a result of personal experience."
,k147b_32:" This makes walking a labour (Jast.). Rashi: the clay of that river (v. n. on Mishnah) is slippery, and so one may fall into the water, saturate his garments, and then ring them out. R. Han.: one may easily sink into the soft mud, thus giving many people the labour of hauling him out."
,k147b_33:" By thrusting the finger down the throat."
,k147b_34:" And that is the purpose of swaddling."
,k147b_35:" If one is dislocated it may not be reset. "
}

txt:
<p>
sousing the whole body<a id="k147b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; is well [permitted] even at the very outset.<a id="k147b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Who (is the authority for this]? It is R. Simeon. For it was taught: A man must not souse the whole of his body, either with hot or with cold water: this is R. Meir's view; but R. Simeon permits it. R. Judah said: It is forbidden with hot water, but permitted with cold.
</p><p>
	AND DRIES HIMSELF EVEN WITH TEN TOWELS. The first clause informs us of the most surprising ruling, and the second clause informs us of the most surprising ruling. 'The first clause informs us of the most surprising ruling': even these, which do not contain much water, [are forbidden]; for since there is only one person, he will come to wring it out. 'And the second clause informs us of the most surprising ruling': even these, though they contain very much water [are permitted]; for since there are many, they will remind each other.<a id="k147b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: A man may dry himself with a towel and place it on the window-sill, but he must not give it to the bath attendants, because they are suspected of that thing.<a id="k147b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon said: One may dry himself with one towel and bring it home.<a id="k147b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye asked R. Joseph: What is the law? Said he to him, Lo! there is R. Simeon; lo! there is Rabbi; lo! there is Samuel; lo! there is R. Johanan.<a id="k147b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; 'R. Simeon', as we have stated. 'Rabbi': for it was taught. Rabbi said: When we learnt Torah at R. Simeon['s academy] in Tekoa,<a id="k147b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; we used to carry up oil and towels from the courtyard to the roof and from the roof to an enclosure,<a id="k147b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; until we came to the fountain where we bathed. 'Samuel': for Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: A person may dry himself with a towel and carry it home [wrapped round] his hand.<a id="k147b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; 'R. Johanan': for R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: The <i>halachah</i> is: A person may dry himself with a towel and carry it home [wrapped round] his hand. Yet did R. Johanan say thus: surely R. Johanan said, The <i>halachah</i> is as an anonymous Mishnah, whereas we learnt: AND DRIES HIMSELF EVEN WITH TEN TOWELS, HE MUST NOT FETCH THEM IN HIS HAND? &mdash; He recited this as Ben Hakinai['s view].<a id="k147b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: The bath attendants may bring women's bathing clothes to the baths, providing that they cover their heads and the greater part of their bodies in them.<a id="k147b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; As for a sabnitha,<a id="k147b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: One must tie its two bottom ends.<a id="k147b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hiyya b. Abba also said in R. Johanan's name: [That means] below the shoulders.<a id="k147b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said to the citizens of Mahoza: When you carry the apparel of the troops,<a id="k147b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; let them drop below your shoulders.<a id="k147b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	ONE MAY OIL AND LIGHTLY MASSAGE [THE BODY]. Our Rabbis taught: One may oil and massage the bowels [of an invalid] on the Sabbath, provided this is not done as on weekdays. How then shall it be done? &mdash; R. Hama son of R. Hanina said: They must first be oiled and then massaged.<a id="k147b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan said: The oiling and massaging must be done simultaneously.
</p><p>
	BUT [ONE MAY] NOT KNEAD. R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name; One may not stand on the mud of Diomsith,<a id="k147b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; because it stimulates [the body] and loosens [the bowels]. Rab Judah said in Rab's name: The complete period of Diomsith is twenty-one days, and Pentecost is included.<a id="k147b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; The scholars asked: Does Pentecost belong to this end or to that end?<a id="k147b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Come and hear: For Samuel said: All potions [medicines] [taken] between Passover and Pentecost are beneficial.<a id="k147b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Perhaps that is [only] there, where it is beneficial [only] as long as the weather is cold: but here it is on account of the heat,<a id="k147b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; [so] when the weather is warm it is [even] more beneficial.
</p><p>
	R. Helbo said: The wine of Perugitha<a id="k147b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; and the water of Diomsith cut off the Ten Tribes from Israel.<a id="k147b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Eleazar b. 'Arak visited that place. He was attracted to them,<a id="k147b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; and [in consequence] his learning vanished. When he returned, he arose to read in the Scroll [of the Torah].<a id="k147b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; He wished to read, Hahodesh hazeh lakem [This month shall be unto you, etc.],<a id="k147b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; [instead of which] he read haharesh hayah libbam.<a id="k147b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; But the scholars prayed for him, and his learning returned. And it is thus that we learnt, R. Nehorai said: Be exiled to a place of Torah, and say not that it will follow thee, for thy companions will establish it in thy possession;<a id="k147b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; and do not rely on thine own understanding.<a id="k147b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; A Tanna taught: His name was not R. Nehorai but R. Nehemiah; whilst others state, his name was R. Eleazar b. 'Arak, and why was he called R. Nehorai? Because he enlightened [manhir] the eyes of the Sages in <i>halachah</i>.<a id="k147b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>
</p><p>
	BUT [ONE MAY] NOT SCRAPE. Our Rabbis taught: One may not scrape with a strigil on the Sabbath. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: If one's feet are soiled with clay and dirt he may scrape them off in the usual way, without fear. R. Samuel b. Judah's mother made him a silver strigil.  
</p><p>
	YOU MAY NOT GO DOWN TO A WRESTLING GROUND. What is the reason? Because of sinking [in the clay soil].<a id="k147b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>
</p><p>
	ONE MAY NOT INDUCE VOMITING ON THE SABBATH. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: They learnt this only [when it Is effected] by a drug, but it may be done by hand<a id="k147b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; It was taught, R. Nehemiah said: It is forbidden even during the week, because of the waste of food.
</p><p>
	OR STRAIGHTEN AN INFANT['S LIMBS]. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: To swaddle an infant on the Sabbath is permitted. But we learnt: YOU MAY NOT STRAIGHTEN?<a id="k147b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; There it refers to the spinal vertebrae, which appears as building.<a id="k147b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>
</p><p>
	ONE MAY NOT RESET A BROKEN BONE. R. Hana of Bagdad said in Samuel's name:
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k149a_1:" He may find too many names on the list and erase some before instructing his servant to invite the guests."
,k149a_2:" Secular documents."
,k149a_3:" If the list is high up."
,k149a_4:" V. <i>supra</i> 11a. Though he could not reach the lamp to tilt it; hence the same reasoning applies here."
,k149a_5:" No one is likely to think that since he may read something written on a wall he may also read business documents."
,k149a_6:" I.e., how many guests shall be placed at the top of the table &mdash; 'within' the privileged circle &mdash; and how many at the bottom &mdash; 'without'."
,k149a_7:" Lest he see uneven locks of hair and trim them"
,k149a_8:" While he goes for a pair of scissors."
,k149a_9:" That it is the Sabbath."
,k149a_10:" Its edge being sharpened. Now the first Tanna forbids all mirrors, drawing no distinctions; whilst R. Meir does draw a distinction. That is similar to the matter just debated"
,k149a_11:" I.e., the written legend beneath a picture."
,k149a_12:" Lev. XIX, 4."
,k149a_13:" Tosaf.: the interdict is only against images (or perhaps statues &mdash; Jast.) made for idolatrous purposes, but others are permitted."
,k149a_14:" For otherwise the Tanna would simply teach, A MAN MAY CAST LOTS."
,k149a_15:" I.e., members of a company at one table, each of whom has his own provisions, and when one borrows from another, are particular to weigh, measure, or count, that the exact quantity may be returned."
,k149a_16:" On Festivals one may borrow from his neighbour. but not by weight, measure or number. Likewise, he may not use the terms 'lend' and 'repay'. for these belong to monetary transactions. When members of a company are particular with each other, they are likely to be led into a transgression of these prohibitions. "
}

txt:
<p>
<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What is the reason? &mdash; R. Bibi said: It is a preventive measure, lest he erase.<a id="k149a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye said: It is a preventive measure, lest he read.<a id="k149a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Wherein do they differ? &mdash; They differ where it is written high up on the wall: according to him who says, Lest he erase, we do not fear; but according to him who says, Lest he read [secular documents], we do fear. Now, as to him who says, 'Lest he erase', let us fear lest he read [secular documents]? Moreover, have we no fear that he may erase?<a id="k149a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely we learnt: One may not read by the light of a lamp; whereon Rabbah said: Even if it is as high as twice a man's stature, even if it is as high as [the measurement of] two ox-goads, or even as ten houses on top of each other, he must not read?<a id="k149a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rather they differ where it is written on the wall and is low down: according to him who says, 'Lest he erase', we fear; [but] according to him who says, 'Lest he read [secular documents]', we do not fear, [for] one will not confuse a wall with a document.<a id="k149a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Now, according to him who says, 'Lest he read [etc.]', let us fear lest he erase? &mdash; Rather they differ where it is engraved on a tablet or a board: on the view that it is 'lest he erase', we have no fear; but on the view that it is 'lest he read', we do fear. But according to him who says, lest he erase, let us fear lest he read [etc.]? And should you answer, a tablet or a board cannot be confused with a document, &mdash; surely it was taught: A man may count how many shall be within and how many without<a id="k149a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and how many portions he is to set before them, from writing on a wall, but not from writing on a tablet or a board. How is it meant? Shall we say that it is indeed written, wherein does one differ from the other? Hence it must surely mean that it is engraved, yet he states, 'from writing on the wall, but not from writing on a tablet or a board'? &mdash; Rather [say thus]: In truth [they differ] where it is written high up on the wall, and as for your difficulty about Rabbah's [ruling], [the ruling] of Rabbah is dependent on Tannaim. For it was taught: A man may count his guests and his dainty portions by word of mouth, but not from writing. R. Aha permits [it] from writing on the wall. How is it meant: Shall we say that it is written low down, &mdash; then let us fear lest he erase it? Hence it must surely mean that it is written high up, which proves that Rabah's [ruling] is dependent on Tannaim.
</p><p>
	Now these Tannaim are as the following: For it was taught: One must not look in a mirror on the Sabbath; R. Meir permits [one to look]<a id="k149a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; in a mirror that is fixed to the wall. Why is one fixed to the wall different? &mdash; [Presumably] because in the meanwhile<a id="k149a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; he will recollect!<a id="k149a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; then even if it is not fixed, he will recollect? &mdash; We treat here of a metal mirror, and [the reason is] in accordance with R. Nahman's [dictum] in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name. For R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: Why was it ruled that a metal mirror is forbidden? Because a man usually removes straggling hairs with it.<a id="k149a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: The writing under a painting or an image<a id="k149a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; may not be read on the Sabbath. And as for the image itself, one must not look at it even on weekdays, because it is said, Turn ye not unto idols.<a id="k149a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; How is that taught? &mdash; Said R. Hanin: [Its interpretation is,] Turn not unto that conceived in your own minds.<a id="k149a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A MAN MAY CAST LOTS WITH HIS SONS, etc. Only with his sons and household, but not with strangers:<a id="k149a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; what is the reason? As Rab Judah said in Samuel's name. For Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: The members of a company who are particular with each other<a id="k149a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; transgress [the prohibitions of] measure, weight, number, borrowing and repaying on the Festival,<a id="k149a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k149b_1:" <i>Var. lec</i>. omit 'Beth', v. <i>supra</i> 148b."
,k149b_2:" When they are not particular with each other, and one borrows and returns the same amount after its price advances, there is no usury, since neither cares whether the exact amount is returned or not. But there every change in value is scrupulously noted, and therefore if it advances there is usury. This does not refer particularly to Festivals."
,k149b_3:" Lit., 'to let them know the taste of usury', i.e., the grief and anxiety it causes."
,k149b_4:" Which this resembles."
,k149b_5:" Hos. IV, 4 (E. V. 'for thy people are as they that strive with the priest)'."
,k149b_6:" To save them from quarrelling."
,k149b_7:" 1 Kings XXII, 20ff"
,k149b_8:" This is deduced from the employment of the def. art. in Hebrew: 'and the spirit came forth', implying a particular one, viz., that of Naboth the Jezreelite, whom Ahab had turned from a living human being into a spirit &mdash; by judicial murder; v. ibid, ch. XXI."
,k149b_9:" Because he lured Ahab, to destruction, which proves the dictum of R. Jacob."
,k149b_10:" Ps. CI, 7. Though God sought to lure Ahab to his doom, He nevertheless desired it to be done by arguments drawn from true facts (Maharsha in Sanh. 89a)."
,k149b_11:" Hab. II, 16."
,k149b_12:" And the verse is interpreted in the sense that Zedekiah too is regarded as uncircumcised and not permitted to enter the precincts of the Almighty, because Nebuchadnezzar was punished on his account."
,k149b_13:" I.e., it can be so interpreted."
,k149b_14:" V. <i>infra</i> for the complete allusion."
,k149b_15:" Prov. XVII, 26."
,k149b_16:" Translating the verse thus: even the righteous, when made the cause or vehicle of punishment, is accounted evil."
,k149b_17:" Ps. V, 5 (E.V. 4)."
,k149b_18:" The word used in the Mishnah."
,k149b_19:" Which didst lay low."
,k149b_20:" Isa. XIV, 12."
,k149b_21:" The kings he had captured in battle."
,k149b_22:" Lit., 'day'."
,k149b_23:" Ibid. 18."
,k149b_24:" The ascription of pederasty to Nebuchadnezzar may be a covert allusion to the fact that the Romans were addicted to this vice; v. Weiss, Dor, II, 21."
,k149b_25:" Lit., 'found'."
,k149b_26:" Isa. XIV, 7."
,k149b_27:" I.e., before Nebuchadnezzar's death."
,k149b_28:" Ibid. Xlii, 21."
,k149b_29:" I.e., submit him to sexual abuse."
,k149b_30:" V. p. 153, n. 8."
,k149b_31:" Isa. XIV, 10. This connects [H] with [H], to rule E.V.: <i>art thou become like unto us.</i>"
,k149b_32:" Ezek. XXXII, 19."
,k149b_33:" Isa. XIV, 4. "
}

txt:
<p>
and according to Beth<a id="k149b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Hillel, usury too.<a id="k149b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; If so, the same applies to his sons and household? &mdash; As for his sons and household, this is the reason, as Rab Judah [said] in Rab's name. For Rab Judah said in Rab's name: One may lend to his sons and household on interest, in order to give them experience thereof.<a id="k149b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; If so, a large portion [set off] against a small portion [should be permitted] too? &mdash; That indeed is so, and there is a lacuna, while it is thus taught: 'A MAN MAY CAST LOTS FOR HIS SONS AND HOUSEHOLD FOR THE TABLE, even [setting] a large portion against a small portion'. What is the reason? &mdash;  As Rab Judah['s dictum] in Rab's name. Yet only for his sons and household, but not for strangers. What is the reason? &mdash; As Rab Judah['s dictum] in Samuel's name. [Further, 'setting] A LARGE PORTION AGAINST A SMALL PORTION is forbidden even on weekdays in the case of strangers'. What is the reason? &mdash; On account of gambling.<a id="k149b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	AND [PRIESTS] MAY CAST LOTS FOR, etc. What does BUT NOT FOR THE PORTIONS mean? &mdash; Said R. Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob: But [one must not cast lots] for the portions of weekday [sacrifices] on the Festivals. That is obvious? You might argue, since it is written, for thy people are like the Priests that quarrel,<a id="k149b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; even the portions of weekdays too:<a id="k149b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; therefore he informs us [that it is not so].
</p><p>
	R. Jacob son of Jacob's daughter also said: He through whom his neighbour is punished is not permitted to enter within the barrier [precincts] of the Holy One, blessed be He. How do we know this? Shall we say, because it is written, And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one said on this manner; and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him. And he said, I will go forth and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his Prophets. And he [the Lord] said, Thou shalt entice him, and shalt prevail also: go forth, and do so.<a id="k149b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Now we discussed, What spirit is meant? And R. Johanan answered: The spirit of Naboth the Jezreelite.<a id="k149b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; And what does 'go forth' mean? Said Rab, Go forth from within My precincts!<a id="k149b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; But perhaps there this is the reason, [viz.,] because it is written, He that speaketh falsehood shall not be established before mine eyes?<a id="k149b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Again, [if] it is derived from here: Thou art filled with shame for glory: drink thou also, and be as one uncircumcised, etc.;<a id="k149b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is maintained: 'Thou art filled with shame for glory' refers to Nebuchadnezzar: [whilst] 'drink thou also and be as one uncircumcised', refers to Zedekiah,<a id="k149b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; one [objection] is that the whole verse is written in reference to Nebuchadnezzar;<a id="k149b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and further, what could the righteous Zedekiah have done to him, for Rab Judah said in Rab's name: When that wicked man [Nebuchadnezzar] wished to do thus to that righteous man [Zedekiah]. etc.?<a id="k149b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather [it follows] from this: Also to punish the righteous is not good.<a id="k149b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, 'is not good' can mean nought but [that he is] evil,<a id="k149b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is written, For thou art a God that hath no pleasure in wickedness, evil shall not sojourn with thee, [which means,] Thou art righteous, therefore evil shall not sojourn in thy habitation.<a id="k149b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	How is it implied that HALASHIM<a id="k149b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; connotes lots? &mdash; Because it is written, How art thou fallen from heaven, O day star, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground thou holesh [who didst cast lots]<a id="k149b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; over the nations, etc.<a id="k149b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbah son of R. Huna said: This teaches that he [Nebuchadnezzar] cast lots over the royal chiefs<a id="k149b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; to ascertain whose turn<a id="k149b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; it was for pederasty. And it is written, All the kings of the nations, all of them, [sleep in glory. etc.].<a id="k149b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan said: That means that they rested from pederasty.<a id="k149b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Johanan also said: As long as that wicked man lived mirth was never heard<a id="k149b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; in the mouth of any living being, for it is written, the whole world is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing:<a id="k149b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; whence it follows that hitherto<a id="k149b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; there was no singing.
</p><p>
	R. Isaac also said in R. Johanan's name: One may not stand in that wicked man's palace, for it is said, and satyrs shall dance there.<a id="k149b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in Rab's name: When that wicked man [Nebuchadnezzar] wished to treat that righteous one [Zedekiah] thus,<a id="k149b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; his membrum was extended three hundred cubits and wagged in front of the whole company [of captive kings]. for it is said, Thou art filled with shame for glory: drink thou also, and be as one uncircumcised [he'orel]: the numerical value of 'orel' is three hundred.
</p><p>
	Rab Judah also said in Rab's name: When that wicked man descended to Gehenna,<a id="k149b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; all who had [previously] descended thither trembled, saying, Does he come to rule over us, or to be as weak as we [are], for it is said, Art thou also become weak as we? or art thou to rule over us?<a id="k149b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; A Heavenly Echo went forth and declared, Whom dost thou pass in beauty? go down with, and be thou laid with the uncircumcised.<a id="k149b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>
</p><p>
	How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city [madhebah] ceased.<a id="k149b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab Judah said in Rab's name: This people hath ceased, that demanded,
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k150a_1:" These interpret madhebah either as me'od habeh (count and bring) or me'od habi (belo) middah (bring much, without measure)."
,k150a_2:" Dan. IV, 36. This was said by Nebuchadnezzar when he regained sanity after having lived seven years like a wild beast."
,k150a_3:" Jer. XXVII, 6."
,k150a_4:" Lit., 'for nightfall'. I.e., one may not go as far as the tehum on the Sabbath in readiness to cross it immediately the Sabbath terminates."
,k150a_5:" Lit., 'in his hand'. Though he may not go to the tehum in the first place for this purpose, yet since he did so primarily in order to watch his field, he may take advantage of the fact and bring home produce too."
,k150a_6:" It is obvious that if he must not engage labourers his neighbours must not either."
,k150a_7:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> This is a well-known general principle, already taught in the Mishnah <i>supra</i> 121a, and it need not be repeated."
,k150a_8:" [H]. The exact meaning of the expression is not established."
,k150a_9:" Lit., 'stand with me'."
,k150a_10:" Though both understand it as a hint that he desires to engage him."
,k150a_11:" Isa. LVIII, 13, q.v."
,k150a_12:" A hint is not explicit but left to the understanding."
,k150a_13:" Deut. XXIII, 15."
,k150a_14:" For speech is not mentioned in that passage."
,k150a_15:" Ibid. E.V.: 'that he see no unclean thing in thee'."
,k150a_16:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k150a_17:" Lit., 'he states, \"it is unnecessary\"'."
,k150a_18:" Ezek. XXIII, 20. [I.e., nudity is common among them]."
,k150a_19:" Gen, IX, 23: This shows that it is indecent in all cases."
,k150a_20:" Lit., 'to teach him (the) book'."
,k150a_21:" All these involve actual speech."
,k150a_22:" Lit., 'accounts of what is it to thee'. Rashi. 'Aruch and R. Han.: accounts of guests, i.e., how many guests will be present, etc."
,k150a_23:" Rashi. Lit., 'what (cost) lies in this', Aliter: 'of no practical value'. Lit., 'of what is in it'."
,k150a_24:" I.e., I have expended or will have to expend so much or so much. "
}

txt:
<p>
Measure out [tribute] and bring it [to us]; others interpret: that demanded, Bring ever more and more, without measure.<a id="k150a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And excellent greatness was added to me:<a id="k150a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab Judah said in R. Jeremiah b. Abba's name: This teaches that he rode upon a male lion to whose head he had tied a snake [for reins]. in fulfilment of what is said, and the beasts of the field also have I given him to serve him.<a id="k150a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A MAN MUST NOT HIRE LABOURERS ON THE SABBATH, NOR INSTRUCT HIS NEIGHBOUR TO HIRE LABOURERS ON HIS BEHALF. ONE MUST NOT GO TO THE TEHUM TO AWAIT NIGHTFALL<a id="k150a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; IN ORDER TO HIRE LABOURERS OR BRING IN PRODUCE; BUT ONE MAY DO SO IN ORDER TO WATCH [HIS FIELD]. AND [THEN] HE CAN BRING [HOME] PRODUCE WITH HIM.<a id="k150a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; ABBA SAUL STATED A GENERAL PRINCIPLE: WHATEVER I HAVE A RIGHT TO INSTRUCT [THAT IT BE DONE], I AM PERMITTED TO GO TO AWAIT NIGHTFALL, FOR IT [AT THE TEHUM]. 
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Wherein does he differ from his neighbour?<a id="k150a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said R. Papa: A Gentile neighbour [is meant]. R. Ashi demurred: [Surely] an order to a Gentile is [forbidden as] a shebuth?<a id="k150a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Rather said R. Ashi: One may even say [that] an Israelite neighbour [is meant]. [Yet] he [the Tanna] informs us this: One may not say to his neighbour, 'Hire labourers for me,' but one may say to his neighbour, 'Well, we shall see<a id="k150a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; whether you join me<a id="k150a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; in the evening!'<a id="k150a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; And with whom does our Mishnah agree? With R. Joshua b. Karhah. For it was taught: One must not say to his neighbour, 'Well, we shall see whether you join me in the evening'! R. Joshua b. Karhah said: One may say to his neighbour, 'Well, we shall see whether you join me in the evening'! Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Joshua b. Karhah. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah also said in R. Johanan s name: What is R. Judah b. Karhah's reason? Because it is written, nor finding thine own pleasure nor speaking thine own words:<a id="k150a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [explicit] speech is forbidden, but thought is permitted.<a id="k150a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Aha son of R. Huna pointed out a contradiction to Raba. Did R. Johanan say: Speech is forbidden, thought is permitted, which shows that thought is not the same as speech? But surely Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: One may meditate [on learning] everywhere, except at the baths or in a privy? There it is different, because [the fulfilment of] and thy camp shall be holy<a id="k150a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; is required, which is absent.<a id="k150a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; But it is also written, that he see no indecent speech [dabar] in thee?<a id="k150a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; That is required for Rab Judah['s dictum]. For Rab Judah said: One may not recite the <i>shema'</i><a id="k150a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; in the presence of a naked heathen. Why particularly a heathen: even an Israelite too? &mdash; He proceeds to a climax:<a id="k150a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; it is superfluous to state that it is forbidden [in the presence of a naked] Israelite; but as for a heathen, Since it is written of him, whose flesh is the flesh of asses,<a id="k150a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; I might say that it is permitted therefore he tells us [otherwise]. Yet perhaps that indeed is so? Scripture saith, and they saw not their father's nakedness.<a id="k150a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Now, is speech forbidden? Surely R. Hisda and R: Hamnuna both said: Accounts in connection with religion may be calculated [discussed] on the Sabbath. And R. Eleazar said: One may determine charity [grants] to the poor on the Sabbath. Again, R. Jacob b. Idi said in R. Johanan's name: One may supervise matters of life and death and matters of communal urgency on the Sabbath, and one may go to the synagogues to attend to communal affairs on the Sabbath. Also, R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Johanan's name: One may go to theatres and circuses and basilicas to attend to communal affairs on the Sabbath. Further, the School of Manasseh taught: One may make arrangements on the Sabbath for the betrothal of young girls and the elementary education<a id="k150a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; of a child and to teach him a trade!<a id="k150a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Scripture saith, nor finding thine own affairs nor speaking thine own words: thine affairs are forbidden, the affairs of Heaven [religious matters] are permitted.
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: Unimportant accounts<a id="k150a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; and past expenditure accounts<a id="k150a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; may be calculated on the Sabbath. It was taught likewise: One may not calculate past or future accounts,<a id="k150a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; [but accounts] of unimportance
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k150b_1:" The first Baraitha states in its first clause that one must not calculate past accounts, while the second clause states that past expenditure accounts are permitted."
,k150b_2:" Then it is forbidden, for though incurred in the past, it has still to be paid."
,k150b_3:" Burgin, pl. burganim, is an isolated residence on a road, often used as a station for travellers (Jast.). If the road to the town were dotted with these stations at intervals of less than seventy cubits the journey might be made even on the Sabbath. It is therefore permitted to mention it even in the absence of such stations."
,k150b_4:" I.e., if the road lay between walls it might technically be a private domain wherein carrying is permitted."
,k150b_5:" Which may not be detached under any circumstances."
,k150b_6:" Which straw can be meant which shall not be permitted by Rab Judah's logic?"
,k150b_7:" Which may not be handled in any case, as it is mukzeh on account of its repulsiveness (v. <i>supra</i> 46a)."
,k150b_8:" E.g. to arrange for the funeral."
,k150b_9:" For the implication must be that for the same purpose where it is permitted in connection with a bride or a corpse it is forbidden in connection with another."
,k150b_10:" An overhead awning of myrtles was erected for a bride. Thus it is permitted for a bride, but not for another, since the myrtles are attached to the soil and may not be cut on the Sabbath."
,k150b_11:" Though bringing a coffin and shrouds is just the same as bringing any other article."
,k150b_12:" By analogy, another might desire to go to the tehum in order to be ready to cut out a suit, and this is forbidden."
,k150b_13:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>. and p. 333, n. 2. The difficulty is the last clause: surely he may not cut down produce before reciting habdalah?"
,k150b_14:" The 'Prayer' always refers to the 'Eighteen Benedictions', in the fourth of which a habdalah passage is inserted; v. P.B. p. 94d; Elbogen, Der Judische Gottesdienst, pp. 46f; 120f."
,k150b_15:" Habdalah originally was not a statutory addition to the Sabbath evening Prayer; <i>op. cit</i>."
,k150b_16:" A cup of wine is then obtainable in the fields. "
}

txt:
<p>
or of past expenditure may be calculated. But the following contradicts it: One may reckon up accounts that are not required, but one may not reckon up on the Sabbath accounts that are necessary. E.g., a man may say to his neighbour, 'I hired so many labourers for this field,' 'I expended so many <i>denarii</i> for this residence.' But he must not say to him, 'I have expended so much and am [yet] to expend so much'! &mdash; Then according to your reasoning, that [Baraitha] itself presents a difficulty.<a id="k150b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; But in the one case he is [still] in possession of his employee's wages;<a id="k150b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; in the other he is not in possession of his employee's wages.
</p><p>
	ONE MUST NOT GO TO THE TEHUM TO AWAIT NIGHTFALL. Our Rabbis taught: It once happened that a breach was made in the field of a pious man and he decided to fence it about, when he recalled that it was the Sabbath, so he refrained and did not repair it; thereupon a miracle was performed for him, a caper bush grew up there, whence he and his household derived their livelihood.
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: One may say to his neighbour [on the Sabbath]. 'I am going to that town to-morrow,' for if there are stations [on the road] he may go [on the Sabbath itself].<a id="k150b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; We learnt: ONE MUST NOT GO TO THE TEHUM TO AWAIT NIGHTFALL IN ORDER TO HIRE LABOURERS OR BRING IN PRODUCE. As for hiring, labourers, it is well, since one may not hire them on the Sabbath; but to fetch produce. let us say [that it is permitted], for if there were walls [partitions] there he might bring [it even on the Sabbath]?<a id="k150b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This [ruling of our Mishnah] can refer to produce attached [to the soil].<a id="k150b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; But R. Oshaia taught: One must not go to the tehum to await nightfall in order to bring straw or stubble. As for stubble, it is well: this can refer to attached; but to what can straw refer?<a id="k150b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Offensive smelling straw.<a id="k150b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: One may go to the tehum to await nightfall to attend to the affairs of a bride and the business of a corpse.<a id="k150b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Thus, only for the affairs of a bride or a corpse, but not for the business of any other. As for another [with a purpose] analogous to [that of] a bride, it is well:<a id="k150b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; this is conceivable where one desires to cut a myrtle for him.<a id="k150b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; But what can the purpose in connection with a corpse be? [Presumably] in order to bring a coffin and shrouds; yet he [the Tanna] specifies a corpse. but not another;<a id="k150b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; yet why so: let us argue that [it is permissible for another too], for if there were walls there he might bring [articles even on the Sabbath]? &mdash; In the case of a corpse too, it is conceivable where the purpose is to cut out shrouds for him.<a id="k150b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	BUT ONE MAY GO TO THE TEHUM TO AWAIT NIGHTFALL, etc. Though he did not recite habdalah?<a id="k150b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely R. Eleazar b. Antigonus said on R. Eliezer b. Jacob's authority: One is forbidden to attend to his affairs before reciting habdalah. And should you answer that he recites habdalah in the Prayer,<a id="k150b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; surely Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: He who recites habdalah in the Prayer must [also] recite it over a cup [of wine]?<a id="k150b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; And should you answer that he does recite habdalah over a cup. &mdash; [it may be asked] is a cup procurable in the fields? &mdash; R. Nathan b. Ammi explained this before Raba: They learnt this of the season of wine pressing.<a id="k150b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Abba said to R. Ashi: In the West [Palestine] we say thus: 'He who makes a distinction between holy and profane', and then we attend to our affairs. R. Ashi related: 'When I was at R. Kahana's academy he used to recite, 'Who makest a distinction between holy and profane,' and then we chopped up logs.
</p><p>
	ABBA SAUL STATED A GENERAL PRINCIPLE: WHATEVER I HAVE, etc. To what does Abba Saul refer? Shall we say that he refers to the first clause, [viz.,] ONE MUST NOT GO TO THE TEHUM TO AWAIT NIGHTFALL, IN ORDER TO HIRE LABOURERS OR BRING IN PRODUCE, &mdash; 
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k151a_1:" So that the principle is parallel to the clause upon which it is based."
,k151a_2:" It is assumed that both accept Samuel's ruling, Hence the permission given by the first Tanna to go to the end of the tehum to watch over produce would be included in Abba Saul's principle, and all other permitted cases likewise, and there is no need for the first Tanna to give a specific instance."
,k151a_3:" It is axiomatic that when a general principle is stated it is to add a case that is not explicitly taught."
,k151a_4:" Which includes calling an animal from beyond the tehum."
,k151a_5:" He may authorize him to pay a high price if he cannot buy them cheaply. but must not state the exact figures."
,k151a_6:" For playing at a Jew's funeral, which formed part of the obsequies, cf. B.M. VI, 1 and note a.l. in Sonc. ed."
,k151a_7:" I.e., within the tehum."
,k151a_8:" Either for his own use or in order to sell. &mdash; The reference is to the Sabbath."
,k151a_9:" [According to Maim. the reference is to the Israelite for whom the grave was dug. He may not, that is to say. be buried even [H] i.e., after sufficient time has elapsed after the termination of the Sabbath for the grave to be dug.]"
,k151a_10:" We must know this for certain, having seen that he had them in his house within the city."
,k151a_11:" Even if they were not in his house we may assume that they were only just without the city wall, yet within the tehum, unless we know to the contrary. Lit., 'we apprehend lest', The phrase is also used with lenient implications, v. Hag. 15a (Rashi). Normally the more stringent possibility is acted upon, but here it is the reverse, for the sake of the dead."
,k151a_12:" So text as emended by BaH."
,k151a_13:" For he might actually have made it for a Jew. [Tosaf. a.l. deletes this passage as in this Mishnah the question of doubt does not arise as explained in the Gemara <i>infra</i>.]"
,k151a_14:" V. <i>supra</i> 122a, for notes."
,k151a_15:" Which shows that in a case of doubt we are stringent, and this agrees with Rab."
,k151a_16:" In the city."
,k151a_17:" Jast.: a Roman official."
,k151a_18:" As the water may have been thus prepared after the Sabbath."
,k151a_19:" For the Gentile may have had a Jew in mind."
,k151a_20:" Aliter: in the broad open street. It is unusual for Jews to be buried there."
,k151a_21:" Sc. the Gentile's grave dug in the camp. "
}

txt:
<p>
then instead of WHATEVER I HAVE A RIGHT TO INSTRUCT [THAT IT BE DONE], I AM PERMITTED TO AWAIT NIGHTFALL, FOR IT, he should state, 'Whatever I have no right to instruct [that it be done]. I am not permitted to await nightfall for it'.<a id="k151a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Whereas if he bases himself on the second clause, BUT ONE MAY DO SO IN ORDER TO WATCH OVER HIS FIELDS, AND [THEN] HE CAN BRING [HOME] PRODUCE WITH HIM, then he should state, 'Whatever I have a right to await nightfall [at the tehum], I am permitted to instruct [that it be done]'? &mdash; In truth he refers to the second clause, but Abba Saul bases himself on the following. For Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: One may say to his neighbour, 'Watch for me over the fruit in your tehum, and I will watch for you over the fruit in my tehum.' And thus Abba Saul argues with the first Tanna: Do you not admit that one may say to his neighbour, 'Watch for me over the fruit in your tehum and I will watch for you over the fruit in my tehum?' then say, WHATEVER I HAVE A RIGHT TO INSTRUCT [THAT IT BE DONE]. I AM PERMITTED TO AWAIT NIGHTFALL FOR IT.<a id="k151a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	What does the general principle add?<a id="k151a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It adds the following, which our Rabbis taught: One may not go to the tehum to await nightfall in order to bring an animal. If it is standing without the tehum, one may call it and it comes. Abba Saul stated a general principle: Whatever I have a right to say [that it shall be done],<a id="k151a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; I am permitted to await nightfall [at the tehum] for it. And one may go to await nightfall in order to attend to the affairs of a bride or of a corpse, to bring a coffin and shrouds for him. And one may give instructions to another, 'Go to such and such a place, and if you cannot obtain them from there, bring them from elsewhere; if you cannot obtain them for a <i>maneh</i>, obtain them for two <i>manehs</i>.' R. Jose son of R. Judah said: Provided that he does not mention the exact price to him.<a id="k151a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. YOU MAY GO TO THE TEHUM AGAINST NIGHTFALL IN ORDER TO ATTEND TO THE AFFAIRS OF A BRIDE OR OF A CORPSE, TO BRING A COFFIN AND SHROUDS FOR HIM. IF A GENTILE BRINGS REED-PIPES ON THE SABBATH,<a id="k151a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; ONE MUST NOT BEWAIL AN ISRAELITE ON THEM, UNLESS THEY CAME FROM A NEAR PLACE.<a id="k151a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; IF HE [A GENTILE] MADE A COFFIN FOR HIMSELF OR DUG A GRAVE FOR HIMSELF,<a id="k151a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; AN ISRAELITE MAY BE BURIED THEREIN. BUT IF [HE MADE IT] FOR THE SAKE OF AN ISRAELITE, HE MAY NEVER BE BURIED THEREIN.<a id="k151a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What does FROM A NEAR PLACE mean? Rab said: Literally from a near place.<a id="k151a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; While Samuel said: We conjecture that they [the reed-pipes] were [just] without the [city] wall during the night.<a id="k151a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [Raba said.]<a id="k151a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; The deduction of our Mishnah supports Samuel, for it is stated: IF HE [A GENTILE] MADE A COFFIN FOR HIMSELF OR DUG A GRAVE FOR HIMSELF, AN ISRAELITE MAY BE BURIED THEREIN. This proves that it is permitted on account of a doubt;<a id="k151a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; so here too, it is permitted on account of a doubt. And we learnt in accordance with Rab [too]: A city inhabited by Israelites and Gentiles which contains baths where there is bathing on the Sabbath, if the majority are Gentiles, one [an Israelite] may bathe therein immediately; if the majority are Israelites, one must wait until hot water could be heated;<a id="k151a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; if half and half, one must wait until hot water could be heated.<a id="k151a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Judah said: In the case of a small bath, if there is there<a id="k151a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [a man of authority],<a id="k151a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; he [an Israelite] may bathe therein immediately. What is '[a man of] authority?' Said Rab Judah in the name of R. Isaac son of Rab Judah: If there is there an important personage who possesses ten slaves who heat ten kettles [of water] for him simultaneously, then if it is a small bath he [the Israelite] may bathe therein immediately.<a id="k151a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF HE [A GENTILE] MADE A COFFIN FOR HIMSELF OR DUG A GRAVE FOR HIMSELF, etc. Yet why so? here too, let him wait until it could be made?<a id="k151a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said 'Ulla: It refers to one [a grave] that stands in an [army] camp.<a id="k151a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; That is well of a grave; [but] what can be said of a coffin? Said R. Abbahu: It refers to [a coffin] that is lying on his grave.<a id="k151a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEAD MAY BE DONE; HE MAY BE ANOINTED WITH OIL AND WASHED, PROVIDED THAT NO LIMB OF HIS IS MOVED. THE PILLOW MAY BE REMOVED FROM UNDER HIM, AND HE MAY BE PLACED ON SAND, IN ORDER THAT
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k151b_1:" Until the funeral without putrefying."
,k151b_2:" Lit., 'go up' &mdash; to meet the top jaw."
,k151b_3:" v. <i>supra</i> 40b. This shows that whatever may not be handled may not be oiled."
,k151b_4:" The reason there is not because handling is forbidden, but lest he make ruts (v. p. 189, n. 3); and though that is impossible, since baths are provided with stone flooring. yet it is forbidden lest it be thought that it may likewise be done to an earth flooring. But no one will think that if a corpse may be oiled ground may be oiled too."
,k151b_5:" Eccl. Xli, 6. He translates galgal (E.V. wheel) as galal (dung)."
,k151b_6:" Mal. II, 3."
,k151b_7:" Lit., 'words of the Torah'."
,k151b_8:" Lit., 'with the departure of the soul'."
,k151b_9:" Lit., 'he sheds blood' &mdash; because he hastens death."
,k151b_10:" Ps. LXXXVIII, 6 (E.V. 5: cast off among the dead)."
,k151b_11:" V. Ber. 54b."
,k151b_12:" Gen. IX, 2."
,k151b_13:" Ps. XLIX, 14 and 21 (E.V. 20). He appears to translate: &hellip; not, he is ruled over (by wild beasts) when he appears (to them) like a beast. &mdash; This is a punishment for misdeeds."
,k151b_14:" Aliter: He who sleeps in a lonely (situated) house."
,k151b_15:" The night demon. V.J.E. art. Lilith,"
,k151b_16:" Lit., 'it is found with thee' &mdash; sc. the means."
,k151b_17:" I.e., during thy lifetime."
,k151b_18:" Eccl. XII, 1."
,k151b_19:" Deut. XV, 11; v. <i>supra</i> 63a for notes."
,k151b_20:" Ibid. 10."
,k151b_21:" Coming to all people or their descendants; Gelal is thus connected with galgal."
,k151b_22:" Lit., 'going about the doors' (of houses)."
,k151b_23:" V. p. 564, n. 6."
,k151b_24:" E.V. show."
,k151b_25:" Deut. XIII, 17."
,k151b_26:" He translates the verse thus; and he shall give, i.e. Inspire thee with mercy &mdash; towards others &mdash; then he shall have mercy upon thee."
,k151b_27:" Eccl. XII, 2."
,k151b_28:" The weeping of old age &mdash; caused by trouble and sickness &mdash; impairs or destroys the eyesight."
,k151b_29:" The eyes recover from the weakening effect of tears until one is forty years old, but not after."
,k151b_30:" An eye-salve."
,k151b_31:" Was she nothing more to you than that?"
,k151b_32:" In grief. "
}

txt:
<p>
HE MAY BE ABLE TO KEEP.<a id="k151b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; THE JAW MAY BE TIED UP, NOT IN ORDER THAT IT SHOULD CLOSE<a id="k151b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT THAT IT SHOULD NOT GO FURTHER [OPEN]. AND LIKEWISE, IF A BEAM IS BROKEN, IT MAY BE SUPPORTED BY A BENCH OR BED STAVES, NOT IN ORDER THAT IT [THE BREAK] SHOULD CLOSE UP, BUT THAT IT SHOULD GO NO FURTHER.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. But Surely Rab Judah related in Samuel's name: It once happened that a disciple of R. Meir followed him into the baths and wished to swill the ground for him, [but] he said to him, One may not swill; then he wished to oil the ground for him, but he said to him, One may not oil?<a id="k151b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Ground may be confused with ground. but a corpse cannot be confused with ground.<a id="k151b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	What does ALL add? It adds the following, which our Rabbis taught: Cooling vessels and metal vessels may be brought and placed on his [the corpse's] stomach, in order that he should not swell, and his apertures may be stopped up, in order that the air should not enter. And [thus] said Solomon too in his wisdom: 'Or ever the silver cord be snapped asunder' &mdash; this refers to the spinal cord; 'and the golden bowl be broken' &mdash; this alludes to the membrum; 'and the pitcher be broken at the fountain' &mdash; that means the stomach; 'and the wheel broken, at the cistern' &mdash; this refers to the excrements.<a id="k151b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; And thus it is said, and I will spread dung on your faces, even the dung of your feasts.<a id="k151b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Huna &mdash; others state, R. Haga- said: This refers to people who abandon study<a id="k151b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and spend all their days at feasts. R. Levi said in R. Pappi's name in R. Joshua's name: After three days [from death] the stomach bursts and it [its contents] lies cast out before his face and exclaims, 'Take what you have put in me.'
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. ONE MAY NOT CLOSE [THE EYES OF] A CORPSE ON THE SABBATH, NOR ON WEEKDAYS WHEN HE IS ABOUT TO DIE, AND HE WHO CLOSES THE EYES [OF A DYING PERSON] AT THE POINT OF DEATH<a id="k151b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; IS A MURDERER.<a id="k151b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Our Rabbis taught: He who closes [the eyes of a dying man] at the point of death is a murderer. This may be compared to a lamp that is going out: If a man places his finger upon it, it is immediately extinguished. It was taught, R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: If one desires that a dead man's eyes should close, let him blow wine into his nostrils and apply oil between his two eyelids and hold his two big toes; then they close of their own accord.
</p><p>
	It was taught, R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: For a day-old infant the Sabbath is desecrated; for David, King of Israel, dead, the Sabbath must not be desecrated. 'For a day-old infant the Sabbath is desecrated': the Torah ordered, Desecrate one Sabbath on his account so that he may keep many Sabbaths. 'For David, King of Israel, dead, the Sabbath must not be desecrated': Once man dies he is free from [all] obligations, and thus R. Johanan interpreted: Among the dead I am free:<a id="k151b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; once a man is dead he is free from religious duties. It was further taught, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: A day-old infant, alive, need not be guarded from weasels or mice, but Og, king of Bashan,<a id="k151b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; dead, needs guarding from weasels and mice, as it is said, and the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth:<a id="k151b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; as long as a man is alive, his fear lies upon dumb creatures; once he dies his fear ceases. R. Papa said: We hold [as tradition] that a lion does not attack two persons [together]. But we see that it does? &mdash; That is [explained] as Rami b. Abba. For Rami b. Abba said: A beast has no power over man until it appears to it as an animal, for it is said, Man that is in honour, and understandeth not, is like the beasts that perish.<a id="k151b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hanina said: One may not sleep in a house alone,<a id="k151b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and whoever sleeps in a house alone is seized by Lilith.<a id="k151b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was further taught, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Perform [righteousness and charity] whilst thou canst find [an object for thy charity], hast the opportunity,<a id="k151b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is yet in thy power,<a id="k151b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and Solomon in his wisdom too said: 'Remember also thy creator in the days of thy youth, or ever the evil days come' &mdash; this refers to the days of old age; 'and the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them'<a id="k151b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; this refers to the Messianic era, wherein there is neither merit nor guilt. Now he disagrees with Samuel, who said: The only difference between this world and the Messianic era is in respect of servitude to [foreign] powers, for it is said, For the poor shall never cease out of the land.<a id="k151b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was taught, R. Eleazar ha-Kappar said: Let one always pray to be spared this fate [poverty], for if he does not descend [to poverty] his son will, and if not his son, his grandson, for it is said, because that for [bi-gelal] this thing, [etc.].<a id="k151b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; The School of R. Ishmael taught: It is a wheel [galal] that revolves in the world.<a id="k151b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph said: We hold [as tradition] that a Rabbinical student will not suffer poverty. But we see that he does suffer poverty? Even if he suffers poverty, he [nevertheless] does not engage in begging.<a id="k151b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hiyya said to his wife: When a poor man comes, be quick to offer him bread, so that others may be quick to offer it to your children. You curse them! she exclaimed. A verse is written, he replied: 'because that for [bi-gelal] this thing', whereon the School of R. Ishmael taught: It is a wheel that revolves in the world. It was taught R. Gamaliel Beribbi<a id="k151b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; said: And he shall give<a id="k151b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee:<a id="k151b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; he Who is merciful to others, mercy is shown to him by Heaven, while he who is not merciful to others, mercy is not shown to him by Heaven.<a id="k151b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'Or ever the sun and the light be darkened':<a id="k151b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; this refers to the forehead and the nose; 'and the moon' &mdash; this is the soul; 'and the stars' these are the cheeks; 'and the clouds return after the rain' &mdash; this is the light of man's eyes [his eyesight], which is lost after weeping.<a id="k151b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; Samuel said: For tears, until the age of forty there is a recovery, but thenceforth there is no recovery.<a id="k151b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; And R. Nahman said: As for kohl,<a id="k151b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; until the age of forty it improves [the eyesight], but thereafter, even if the paint-stick is as thick [with paint] as a weaver's pin, it may indeed stay [the ravages of time], but will certainly not improve [the eyesight]. What does he inform us? That the thicker the paint-stick the more beneficial it is.
</p><p>
	R. Hanina's daughter died, [but] he did not weep for her. Said his wife to him, 'Hast thou sent out a fowl from thy house?'<a id="k151b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; '[Shall I suffer] two [evils],' he retorted, 'bereavement and blindness?' He held as R. Johanan said in the name of R. Jose the son of a laundress: There are six kinds of tears, three being beneficial and three harmful: those caused by smoke, weeping,<a id="k151b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k152a_1:" I.e., through internal disorders."
,k152a_2:" E.g., onions or mustard."
,k152a_3:" Eccl. XII. 2."
,k152a_4:" V. p. 587. n. 2."
,k152a_5:" V. <i>supra</i> 116a and notes a.l."
,k152a_6:" Lit., 'its surroundings are ice'."
,k152a_7:" My head is snowy white, my beard likewise, my voice feeble and my teeth do not function. &mdash; I am too old to attend."
,k152a_8:" This was their description of old age. One goes about bent and stooping, appearing to seek an article which he has not lost."
,k152a_9:" The two legs in youth are better than the three &mdash; i.e., the additional stick &mdash; of old age."
,k152a_10:" V. p. 12, n. 9."
,k152a_11:" Heavy to bear."
,k152a_12:" Jer. XLIV, 17."
,k152a_13:" Or, man of long teeth."
,k152a_14:" Lit., 'thy sack'."
,k152a_15:" Both fictitious places, of course, playfully formed from their names and persons."
,k152a_16:" Lit., 'one for whom a grave is dug'."
,k152a_17:" Ps. CXXVII, 3."
,k152a_18:" Rashi. R. Han.: O castrated goat. I do but rebuke, not quarrel with thee."
,k152a_19:" I.e., I have grown old, even those near are as difficult to visit as those at a distance, my two legs need an additional stick for walking, and I can no longer exercise a man's functions."
,k152a_20:" Eccl. XII, 4."
,k152a_21:" Lit., 'grind'."
,k152a_22:" I.e., fall apart and cannot enjoy the taste of food."
,k152a_23:" II Sam. XIX, 35."
,k152a_24:" They are hard of hearing."
,k152a_25:" Job XII. 12."
,k152a_26:" Ibid. 20."
,k152a_27:" Eccl. XII, 5."
,k152a_28:" Yalkut Koheleth 989 reads: it (the road) becomes for him full of terrors."
,k152a_29:" The lowest end of the vertebrae &mdash; the extreme weakness of old age causes it to 'blossom', i.e., protrude and be moved from its place."
,k152a_30:" Or, shall drag itself along."
,k152a_31:" [H], v. <i>supra</i> p. 572, n. 1."
,k152a_32:" Ps. XXXIII, 9."
,k152a_33:" It is God's decree that man shall desire woman."
,k152a_34:" Eccl. XII, 5."
,k152a_35:" Ibid. XI. 10."
,k152a_36:" Rashi: weaken him, the reference being to sexual indulgence. The passage may also refer to actions in general for which one in old age feels himself blackened with shame."
,k152a_37:" He derives shaharuth (E.V. prime of life) from shahor, black, and translates: 'for youth and the blackening (of old age) are vanity'."
,k152a_38:" Job XIV, 22."
,k152a_39:" Job XIV, 22."
,k152a_40:" Gen. L, 10."
,k152a_41:" I.e., there are no mourners. Lit., 'a dead person for whom there are no comforters'."
,k152a_42:" Where he died, and engage in religious exercises such as prayer and study. "
}

txt:
<p>
and the privy<a id="k152a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; are harmful; those caused by chemicals, laughter, or plants<a id="k152a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; are beneficial. 
</p><p>
	In the day when the keeper of the house shall tremble; and the strong men shall bow themselves, etc.<a id="k152a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; In the day when the keeper of the house shall tremble' &mdash; these are the flanks [sides] and the ribs; 'and the strong men shall bow themselves' &mdash; the legs; 'and the grinders cease' &mdash; the teeth; 'and those that look out of the windows darkened' &mdash; the eyes. The emperor asked R. Joshua b. Hanania,<a id="k152a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Why did you not attend the Be Abedan?'<a id="k152a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; 'The mountain is snowy, it is surrounded by ice,<a id="k152a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; the dog does not bark and the grinders do not grind,' he replied.<a id="k152a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; The School of Rab was wont to say: 'What I did not lose I seek.'<a id="k152a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was taught, R. Jose b. Kisma said: Two are better than three,<a id="k152a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and woe for the one thing that goes and does not return. What is that? Said R. Hisda: One's youth. When R. Dimi came,<a id="k152a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; he said: Youth is a crown of roses; old age is a crown of willowrods.<a id="k152a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; It was taught in R. Meir's name: Chew well with your teeth, and you will find it in your steps, as it is said, for then we had plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.<a id="k152a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Samuel said to Rab Judah: O keen scholar!<a id="k152a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; open your mouth<a id="k152a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and let your food enter. Until the age of forty food is more beneficial; thenceforth drink is more beneficial.
</p><p>
	A certain eunuch [gawzaah] said to R. Joshua b. Karhah [Baldhead]: 'How far is it from here to Karhina [Baldtown]? 'As far as from here to Gawzania [Eunuchtown],' he replied.<a id="k152a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Said the Sadducee to him, 'A bald buck is worth four <i>denarii</i>.' 'A goat, if castrated, is worth eight,' he retorted. Now, he [the Sadducee] saw that he [R. Joshua] was not wearing shoes, [whereupon] he remarked, 'He [who rides] on a horse is a king, upon an ass, is a free man, and he who has shoes on his feet is a human being; but he who has none of these, one who is dead<a id="k152a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and buried is better off.' 'O eunuch, O eunuch,' he retorted, 'you have enumerated three things to me, [and now] you will hear three things: the glory of a face is its beard; the rejoicing of one's heart is a wife; the heritage of the Lord is children;<a id="k152a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; blessed be the Omnipresent, Who has denied you all these!' 'O quarrelsome baldhead,' he jeered at him. 'A castrated buck and [you will] reprove!'<a id="k152a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; he retorted.
</p><p>
	Rabbi asked R. Simeon b. Halafta: 'Why were we not permitted to receive you on the Festival, as my ancestors used to receive your ancestors?' 'The rocks have grown tall, the near have become distant, two have turned into three, and the peacemaker of the home has ceased, he replied.<a id="k152a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	And the doors shall be shut in the streets:<a id="k152a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; this refers to the apertures of man; 'when the sound of the grinding is low' &mdash; on account of the stomach's failing to digest;<a id="k152a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; 'and one shall rise up at the voice of a bird', &mdash; even a bird will awake him from sleep; 'and all the daughters of the music shall be brought low &mdash; even the voices of male singers and female singers sound to him like a whisper. And thus too did Barzillai the Gileadite say to David: 'I am this day fourscore years old: can I discern between good and bad'? This shows that the opinions of old men are changeable [changed]; 'can thy servant taste what I eat or drink'? this shows that the lips of old men grow slack;<a id="k152a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; 'can I hear any more the voice of singing men and singing women'?<a id="k152a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; this proves that the ears of old men are heavy.<a id="k152a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab said: Barzillai the Gileadite was a liar. For there was a servant in Rab's house, ninety-two years old, who could taste the dish[es]. Raba said: Barzillai the Gileadite was steeped in lewdness, and whoever is steeped in lewdness, old age hastens upon him. It was taught, R. Ishmael son of R. Jose said: As for scholars, the older they grow the more wisdom they acquire, for it is said, With aged men is wisdom, and in length of days understanding.<a id="k152a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; But the ignorant, as they wax older, become more foolish, for it is said, He removeth the speech of the trusty, and taketh away the understanding of the elders.<a id="k152a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Yea, they shall be afraid of that which is high<a id="k152a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; even a small knoll looks to him like the highest of mountains; 'and terrors shall be in the way' &mdash; when he walks on a road his heart is filled with fears;<a id="k152a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; and the almond tree shall blossom' &mdash; that refers to the coccyx<a id="k152a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; 'and the grasshopper shall be a burden'<a id="k152a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; the rump; 'and desire shall fail' the passions. R. Kahana was expounding a portion [of scripture]<a id="k152a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; before Rab. When he came to this verse, he [Rab] uttered a long sigh. This shows that Rab's desires have ceased, observed he. R. Kahana said: What is meant by, 'For he decreed, and it was':<a id="k152a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; this refers to a woman;<a id="k152a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; 'he commanded; and it did stand' &mdash; this refers to children. A Tanna taught: Though a woman be as a pitcher full of filth and her mouth be full of blood, yet all speed after her.
</p><p>
	Because man goeth to his long home.<a id="k152a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Isaac observed: This teaches that every righteous person is given a habitation as befits his honour. This may be compared to a king who enters a town together with his servants. They all enter through the same gate, [yet] when they spend the night [there] each is given a lodging as befits his honour.
</p><p>
	R. Isaac also said: What means the verse, For youth and the prime of life are vanity?<a id="k152a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; The things a man does in his youth blacken his face<a id="k152a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; in his old age.<a id="k152a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Isaac also said: Worms are as painful to the dead as a needle in the flesh of the living, for it is said, But his flesh upon him hath pain.<a id="k152a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hisda said: A man's soul mourns for him [after death] seven whole [days]. for it is said, And his soul mourneth for him;<a id="k152a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is written, and he made a mourning for his father seven days.<a id="k152a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said: If there are none to be comforted for a dead person.<a id="k152a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; ten people go and sit in his place.<a id="k152a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; A certain man died in the neighbourhood of Rab Judah. As there were none to be comforted,
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k152b_1:" R. <i>Tam</i>. Rashi: until the coffin-lid is closed, v. <i>Nazir</i>, Sonc. ed., p. 302, n. 5'"
,k152b_2:" I.e., he suffers pain and grief &mdash; a sign of consciousness &mdash; as long as his flesh is upon him."
,k152b_3:" Eccl. XII, 7. I.e., immediately the dust &mdash; sc. the body &mdash; returns to the earth, the spirit returns to God, and there is no further consciousness of earthly matters."
,k152b_4:" Lit., 'a king of flesh and blood'."
,k152b_5:" Isa. LVII, 2."
,k152b_6:" I Sam. XXV, 29."
,k152b_7:" Isa. XLVIII, 22."
,k152b_8:" Sam. ibid."
,k152b_9:" Lit., 'muzzled'. Marginal translation: are eternally pressed down &mdash; sc. in the sling of destruction."
,k152b_10:" The guardian angel of the deceased. [The name is probably Silence, which is the meaning of Dumah, personified.]"
,k152b_11:" Who was buried there."
,k152b_12:" Prov. XIV, 30."
,k152b_13:" Ezek. XXXVII, 13; i.e., God alone can free men from their graves."
,k152b_14:" Gen. 111, 19."
,k152b_15:" MS.M. min (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>). This is preferable as there were no Sadducees in the time of R. Abbahu; cf. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p, 706, n. 8."
,k152b_16:" v. i Sam, XXVIII, 7. Bones were used in necromancy. "
}

txt:
<p>
Rab Judah assembled ten men every day and they sat in his place. After seven days he [the dead man] appeared to him in a dream and said to him, 'Thy mind be at rest, for thou hast set my mind at rest.' R. Abbahu said: The dead man knows all that is said in his presence until the top-stone [golel] closes [the grave].<a id="k152b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hiyya and R. Simeon b. Rabbi differ therein: one maintains, until the top-stone closes [the grave]; whilst the other says, until the flesh rots away. He who says, until the flesh rots away. &mdash; because it is written, But his flesh upon him hath pain and his soul within him mourneth.<a id="k152b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; He who says, until the top-stone closes [the grave]. &mdash; because it is written, and the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit return unto God.<a id="k152b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: 'And the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit return unto God who gave it': Render it back to him as He gave it to thee, [viz.,] in purity, so do thou [return it] in purity. This may be compared to a mortal king<a id="k152b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; who distributed royal apparel to his servants. The wise among them folded it up and laid it away in a chest, whereas the fools among them went and did their work in them. After a time the king demanded his garments: the wise among them returned them to him immaculate, [but] the fools among them returned them soiled. The king was pleased with the wise but angry with the fools. Of the wise he said, 'Let my robes be placed in my treasury and they can go home in peace'; while of the fools he said, 'Let my robes be given to the fuller, and let them be confined in prison.' Thus too, with the Holy One, blessed be He: concerning the bodies of the righteous He says, He entereth into peace, they rest in their beds;<a id="k152b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; while concerning their souls He says, yet the soul of my Lord shall be bound up in the bundle of life with the Lord thy God.<a id="k152b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; But concerning the bodies of the wicked He says, There is no peace saith the Lord, unto the wicked;<a id="k152b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; while concerning their souls He says, and the souls of thine enemies, them shall he sling out, as from the hollow of a sling.<a id="k152b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was taught, R. Eliezer said: The souls of the righteous are hidden under the Throne of Glory, as it is said, yet the soul of thine Lord shall be bound up in the bundle of life.<a id="k152b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; But those of the wicked continue to be imprisoned,<a id="k152b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; while one angel stands at one end of the world and a second stands at the other end, and they sling their souls to each other, for it is said, and the souls of thine enemies, them shall he sling out, as from the hollow of a sling. Rabbah asked R. Nahman: What about those who are intermediate? Had I died I could not have told you this, he replied. Thus did Samuel say: Both these and those [the wicked and the intermediate] are delivered to Dumah;<a id="k152b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; these enjoy rest, whereas the others have no rest. R. Mari said: [Even] the righteous are fated to be dust, for it is written, 'and the dust return to the earth as it was'. Certain diggers were digging in R. Nahman's ground, [when] R. Ahai b. Josiah<a id="k152b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; snorted at them. So they went and told R. Nahman, 'A man snorted at us.' He went and asked him, 'Who are you?' 'I am Ahai b. Josiah.' 'But did not R. Mari say. [Even] the righteous are fated to be dust?' said he. 'But who is Mari,' he retorted 'I do not know him.' Yet surely a verse is written, 'and the dust returns to the earth as it was'? he urged. 'He who taught you Ecclesiastes did not teach you Proverbs,' he answered, 'for it is written, But envy is the rottenness of the bones:<a id="k152b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; he who has envy in his heart, his bones rot away. [but] he who has no envy in his heart, his bones do not rot away.' He then felt him and perceived that there was substance in him. 'Let my master arise [and come] to my house,' he invited him. 'You have thus disclosed that you have not even studied the prophets, for it is written, And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves,'<a id="k152b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; said he to him, 'But it is written, for dust art thou, and unto dust thou shalt return?'<a id="k152b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; 'That means one hour before the resurrection of the dead', replied he.
</p><p>
	A certain Sadducee said to R. Abbahu:<a id="k152b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; You maintain that the souls of the righteous are hidden under the Throne of Glory: then how did the bone [- practising] necromancer bring up Samuel by means of his necromancy?<a id="k152b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There it was within twelve months [of death], he replied. For it was taught: For full [twelve months] the body is in existence and the soul ascends and descends; after twelve months the body ceases to exist
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k154a_1:" V. Yeb., Sonc. ed., p. 297 and notes. Such positions were only open to men of Jewish parentage, yet Rab declared him eligible because It was sufficient that his mother was a Jewess. That contradicts the present statement that his father too was a Jew."
,k154a_2:" BaH deletes the bracketed passage, and the same appears from Rashi and Tosaf."
,k154a_3:" This is the reading in cur. edd., and must be retained if the introductory phrase, 'we learnt', which always precedes a Mishnah, is correct, the Mishnah being that on Sanh. 66a (quoted <i>supra</i> 153b bottom). BaH however emends the text thus: if it is an offence for which a sin-offering is incurred if unwitting, stoning is incurred when deliberate. This suits the context better, this being the Baraitha quoted by Raba <i>supra</i>. But in that case the introductory phrase must be emended to 'it was taught'."
,k154a_4:" The penalty for which is flagellation."
,k154a_5:" I.e., the offender could be formally warned against driving a laden ass on the grounds that it is punishable by death; in such a case there is no flagellation even if the death penalty is not imposed. "
}

txt:
<p>
R. Zebid recited it thus: Rami b. Hama said: If one leads a laden ass on the Sabbath: if unwittingly, he does not incur a sin-offering: if deliberately, he is liable to stoning. Raba objected: He who desecrates the Sabbath by an offence for which, if unwitting, a sin-offering is incurred, if deliberate he is liable to stoning. Hence if one does not incur a sin-offering when it is unwitting, there is no stoning when it is deliberate? &mdash; Does he [the Tanna] then teach, 'Hence if one does not incur a sin-offering,' etc.? [Surely] he says thus: [Every] offence for which, if unwitting, one is liable to a sin-offering, if deliberate he is liable to stoning. Yet there is an offence for which, if unwitting, a sin-offering is not incurred, nevertheless if deliberate one is liable to stoning. And what is it? Leading a laden ass.
</p><p>
	Raba, the brother of R. Mari b. Rachel, others state, the father of R. Mari b. Rachel &mdash; (on the second version there is the difficulty that Rab declared R. Mari b. Rachel eligible [to hold office] and appointed him one of the collectors of Babylonia?<a id="k154a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; perhaps there were two men of the name of Mari b. Rachel)<a id="k154a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; recited this discussion in R. Johanan's name, teaching non-culpability. [Thus:] R. Johanan said: If one drives a laden animal on the Sabbath he is not culpable at all. If it is unwitting he does not incur a sin-offering, because the whole Torah is assimilated to idolatry. If deliberate he is not culpable, because we learnt: He who desecrates the Sabbath [is stoned], provided that it is an offence for which a sin-offering is incurred if it is unwitting and stoning if it is deliberate:<a id="k154a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; hence if the unwitting offence does not involve a sin-offering, the deliberate offence does not involve stoning. Neither is he liable for [the violation of] a negative precept,<a id="k154a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; because it is a negative precept for which a warning of capital punishment at the hands of <i>Beth din</i> may be given, and for such there is no flagellation.<a id="k154a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k154b_1:" V. Mak. 13b."
,k154b_2:" Glassware may be handled."
,k154b_3:" Used in bleeding."
,k154b_4:" For handling on the Sabbath."
,k154b_5:" V. <i>supra</i> 43a. These pillows, etc. may be handled, but not when the sacks fall upon them."
,k154b_6:" The pillows can be pulled away from under them &mdash; which is permitted &mdash; without hurt, as they have not far to fall."
,k154b_7:" The word denotes lumps of glass. lanterns, etc."
,k154b_8:" Which may be broken without loss."
,k154b_9:" Seeing that no loss is incurred."
,k154b_10:" Of <i>tebel</i>."
,k154b_11:" Which includes honey."
,k154b_12:" Why did he trouble to bring it at all?"
,k154b_13:" Caused by the chafing of the saddle."
,k154b_14:" If any of the honey were spilt."
,k154b_15:" This may seem non-humane, but it must be borne in mind that this was held long before other peoples gave the slightest consideration to animals. Cf. p. 640, n. 2 and p. 577, n. 6."
,k154b_16:" To amuse him."
,k154b_17:" It is not the normal way of employing an animal."
,k154b_18:" Coupled or tied together by a cord, a sack hanging down from each side of the animal. To make them fall one would have to lift them off and lean and rub against the animal in doing so which is making use of its sides. Hence this shows that it is permitted."
,k154b_19:" Each sack being separately attached to a ring by a hook; a slight jerk would suffice. to unhook it, and he would not make use of the animal. V. Jast s.v. [H]j."
,k154b_20:" A wooden cross-bar which can easily be pulled out, letting the sacks drop."
,k154b_21:" V. Suk. 22a. A <i>sukkah</i> (q.v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) requires three walls only. Now if two are erected in the normal fashion, whilst the third is made of a tree (this may mean either that the tree constitutes the third wall or that the third wall is fastened to the tree), the <i>sukkah</i> is valid. Nevertheless, one may not enter it on the Festival itself but only during the intermediate days. For the roof is attached to the tree and various utensils, etc., were hung on the roof; thus indirectly one would be using the tree itself, which is forbidden on Festivals. 'Ascending' is mentioned because the <i>sukkah</i> was often built above the ground, e.g., on a roof (Rashi)."
,k154b_22:" 'Wherein he fitted the third wall. &mdash; This assumes the second of the two meanings in n. 1."
,k154b_23:" He still makes use of the tree, in spite of the other three walls."
,k154b_24:" You wish to adhere to your original hypothesis, whence this follows."
,k154b_25:" I.e., the thick branches were allowed to form a fourth wall, the <i>sukkah</i> coming right up to them, but the roofing rested on the three other walls, not on the branches. The previous answer could have been retained, viz., that he bent over the branches of the tree, but rested the roofing on the other three walls. Since however a fourth wall is not required at all, it is assumed that one would not go to this trouble unless he meant the roofing to rest upon it (Rashi)."
,k154b_26:" That is the reason of the second clause quoted above. Hence it must be assumed that the <i>sukkah</i> is so made that the roofing does not rest on the tree at all, as otherwise it could not stand if the tree were removed."
,k154b_27:" Assuming that grooves were made in the tree etc., as above."
,k154b_28:" The laths or canes fitted in the grooves are the sides, whilst the roofing which rests on the laths are the sides of the sides. I.e., they differ as to whether one may make indirect use of the sides. "
}

txt:
<p>
And even on the view that we do flagellate [in such a case],<a id="k154b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; let the Divine Law write, 'Thou shalt not do any work nor thy cattle': why state 'thou'? [To teach:] only [when] he personally [works] is he liable, but [if] his animal works, he is not liable.
</p><p>
	WHEN HE REACHES THE OUTERMOST COURTYARD, etc. R. Huna said: If his animal is laden with glassware, he brings mattresses and pillows, places [them] under it, unties the cords, and the sacks fall off. But we learnt: HE REMOVES THE OBJECTS WHICH MAY BE HANDLED ON THE SABBATH?<a id="k154b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Huna spoke of surgeon's horns,<a id="k154b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; which are not fit for him.<a id="k154b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; But he makes a utensil lose its readiness [for use]?<a id="k154b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The reference is to small bags.<a id="k154b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	An objection is raised: If one's animal is laden with <i>tebel</i> or glass balls,<a id="k154b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; he must untie the cords and the sacks fall off, though they are broken? &mdash; There it treats of glass lumps.<a id="k154b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; This may be proved too, for it is taught analogous to <i>tebel</i>: just as <i>tebel</i> is of no use to him, so here too [it means something] that is of no use to him. Then why state, 'though they are broken'?<a id="k154b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; You might say that they [the Sages] were concerned even about a trifling loss: hence he informs us [otherwise].
</p><p>
	It was taught R. Simeon b. Yohai said: If the animal is laden with a bag of corn,<a id="k154b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; one places his head under it and moves it to the other side, so that it falls off automatically. R. Gamaliel's ass was laden with honey, but he would not unload it until the termination of the Sabbath. On the termination of the Sabbath it died. But we learnt: HE REMOVES THE OBJECTS WHICH MAY BE HANDLED?<a id="k154b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It had gone rancid. If it had gone rancid, of what use was it?<a id="k154b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; For camels' sores.<a id="k154b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Then he should have untied the cords so that the sacks would fall off? &mdash; The gourds [containers] would burst &mdash; Then he should have brought mattresses and pillows and placed them beneath them? &mdash; They would become soiled<a id="k154b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and he would deprive a utensil of its readiness [for use]. But there was suffering of dumb animals? &mdash; He holds that the suffering of dumb animals is [only] Rabbinically [forbidden].<a id="k154b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye found Rabbah letting his son glide down the back of an ass.<a id="k154b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Said he to him, You are making use of dumb creatures [on the Sabbath]? &mdash; It is but on the sides [of the animal], he replied, and in that case the Rabbis did not impose an interdict.<a id="k154b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; How do you know it? &mdash; Because we learnt: HE UNTIES THE CORDS AND THE SACKS FALL OFF AUTOMATICALLY. Does that not refer to a pair of coupled haversacks?<a id="k154b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; No: a balanced load is meant;<a id="k154b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; alternatively, it means where [the sacks are fastened] by a bolt.<a id="k154b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	He raised an objection: If two [walls] are [made] by man and a third is on a tree, it is valid, but one must not ascend [enter] therein on the Festival.<a id="k154b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Does that not mean that one made grooves on the tree,<a id="k154b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; so that it is the sides [only that would be used], and thus the sides are forbidden? &mdash; No: It means that he bent over [the branches of] the tree and placed the roofing &mdash; upon it, so that he makes use of the tree. If so, consider the second clause: If three are made by man and a fourth is in a tree, it is valid, and one may ascend therein on the Festival. But if he bent over the tree, why may he ascend therein on the Festival?<a id="k154b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Then what would you: that the sides are forbidden,<a id="k154b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; then still the question remains: why may one ascend therein on the Festival? But there it treats of spreading branches, and the tree itself was merely made a wall.<a id="k154b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; This may be proved too, for he states, This is the general rule: wherever it [the <i>sukkah</i>] can stand if the tree were removed, one may ascend therein on the Festival.<a id="k154b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; This proves it.
</p><p>
	Shall we say that this is dependent on Tannaim? [For it was taught.] One may not ascend therein on the Festival; R. Simeon b. Eleazar said in R. Meir's name: One may ascend therein on the Festival. Is that not [to be explained] that they differ in this, viz., one Master holds: The sides are forbidden; while the other Master holds: The sides are permitted?<a id="k154b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said Abaye, No: All hold that the sides are forbidden, but here they differ in respect of the sides of the sides:<a id="k154b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; one Master holds: The sides of the sides are forbidden; while the other Master holds: The sides of the sides are permitted.
</p><p>
	Raba maintained: He who forbids the sides forbids the sides of the sides too, while he who permits the sides of the sides permits the sides too. R. Mesharsheya raised an objection to Raba: If one drives
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k155a_1:" And places his 'erub-an 'erub of boundaries (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) &mdash; in it, intending to spend the Sabbath under the tree. &mdash; An 'erub is not valid unless it is accessible on the Sabbath."
,k155a_2:" Because a basket is generally four handbreadths square, and if it is ten from the ground it is technically a private domain (cf. <i>supra</i> 6a), whereas the ground below is a public domain, and so one must not take the 'erub from the basket; hence it is not accessible."
,k155a_3:" I.e., if he merely tied the basket to the tree. The 'erub is invalid because in order to get at it he must make use of the side of the tree; where it is hanging on a peg, however, he only makes indirect use of the sides."
,k155a_4:" A ladder for ascending to a lodge set high up on poles near a tree."
,k155a_5:" When he ascends on the Sabbath."
,k155a_6:" I.e., pegs driven into the tree (Rashi). Jast.: on the branches spreading beyond the circumference of the tree."
,k155a_7:" Or, on the canes protruding from the poles on which the lodge is built."
,k155a_8:" The Gemara discusses the exact meaning of the terms used."
,k155a_9:" Shahath is corn not fully grown as fodder."
,k155a_10:" 'Small cattle' &mdash; sheep, goats, calves, etc.; large &mdash; cows and oxen."
,k155a_11:" Cut from the tree. While yet moist they are fit for fodder, though most people leave them to dry for fuel."
,k155a_12:" Such as bundles of sheaves."
,k155a_13:" Such as young shoots which are normally intended for fuel."
,k155a_14:" When the bundles are tied they are not fit for fodder, therefore they may be untied; but it is superfluous indulgence to spread them out, and that is forbidden. Bunches of young shoots, however, are unfit for fodder unless they are spread out; hence it is permitted."
,k155a_15:" E.g., if the corn has gone dry."
,k155a_16:" Without being cut up they are altogether unfit; hence they may not be cut up."
,k155a_17:" That unless cut up they are unfit. &mdash; Generally animals can eat them even when hard."
,k155a_18:" Since carobs are fit in any case, but are more easily eaten when cut up. 'All the more so' because if they are fit in their present state for small cattle, they are certainly fit for large."
,k155a_19:" Chewing it until it is finely cut up. "
}

txt:
<p>
a peg in a tree and hangs a basket thereon<a id="k155a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; above ten handbreadths [from the ground], his 'erub is not an 'erub;<a id="k155a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; below ten handbreadths, his 'erub is an 'erub. Thus it is only because he fixed a peg in the tree, but if he did not, even if it is below ten handbreadths his 'erub is not an 'erub.<a id="k155a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Thus this Tanna forbids the sides yet permits the indirect use of the sides? &mdash; Said R. Papa: Here we treat of a narrow-mouthed basket, so that in taking out the 'erub he sways the tree, and thus makes use of the tree itself. Now the law is that the sides are forbidden, but the sides of the sides are permitted. R. Ashi said: Now that you have ruled that the sides are forbidden, one must not rest the lodge-ladder<a id="k155a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; on the palm tree, because that is tantamount to the [use of the] sides [of the trees;]<a id="k155a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; but he must rest it on pegs without the tree,<a id="k155a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and when he ascends he should place his foot not on the pegs but on the rungs.<a id="k155a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; 
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. BUNDLES [PEKI'IN] OF SHEAVES MAY BE UNTIED FOR CATTLE AND BUNCHES [KIPPIN] MAY BE SPREAD OUT, BUT NOT SMALL BUNDLES [ZIRIN].<a id="k155a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; NEITHER FODDER<a id="k155a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; NOR CAROBS MAY BE CHOPPED UP FOR CATTLE, WHETHER SMALL OR LARGE;<a id="k155a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; R. JUDAH PERMITS IN THE CASE OF CAROBS FOR SMALL CATTLE.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Huna said: PEKI'IN and KIPPIN are identical, [save that] peki'in are two [bunches tied together], while kippin are three; zirin are young shoots of cedar trees.<a id="k155a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; And this is what he [the Tanna] teaches: BUNDLES [PEKI'IN] OF SHEAVES MAY BE UNTIED FOR CATTLE, AND THEY MAY BE SPREAD, and the same applies to KIPPIN, BUT NOT TO ZIRIN, which may neither be spread out nor untied &mdash; R. Hisda said, What is R. Huna's reason? He holds that we may indeed take trouble over [natural] foodstuffs,<a id="k155a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; but we may not turn something into foodstuffs.<a id="k155a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab Judah said: Peki'in and zirin are identical, [save that] peki'in are two [bunches tied together], whilst Zirin are three; kippin are young cedar shoots. And this is what he teaches: BUNDLES [PEKI'IN] OF SHEAVES MAYBE UNTIED FOR CATTLE, but not spread out, but as for KIPPIN, [THEY] MAY [INDEED] BE SPREAD OUT; BUT NOT ZIRIN, [which it is not permitted] to spread out but [merely] to untie. Raba said, What is Rab Judah's reason? He holds that we may indeed turn something into fodder, but may not take trouble over fodder.<a id="k155a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	We learnt: NEITHER FODDER NOR CAROBS MAY BE CHOPPED UP FOR CATTLE, WHETHER SMALL OR LARGE: [Surely it means] carobs like fodder: just as fodder is soft, so are soft carobs meant, thus proving that we may not take trouble over [what is] foodstuff [in any case], which refutes R. Huna? &mdash; R. Huna can answer you: No: fodder like carobs: just as carobs are hard, so hard fodder<a id="k155a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; is meant.<a id="k155a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Where is that possible?<a id="k155a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; In the case of very young foals.
</p><p>
	Come and hear: R. JUDAH PERMITS IN THE CASE OF CAROBS FOR SMALL CATTLE. Thus, only for small but not for large: now it is well if you agree that the first Tanna holds that we may not take trouble over foodstuffs, yet we may turn [something] into foodstuffs: hence R. Judah argues [that cutting up] carobs for small cattle is also [an act of] turning [it] into fodder. But if you maintain that the first Tanna holds that we may not turn [aught] into fodder, yet we may take trouble over fodder, then R. JUDAH PERMITS IN THE CASE OF CAROBS FOR SMALL CATTLE [only]? all the more so for large cattle!<a id="k155a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Do you think that dakkah [small] is literally meant? [No] By dakkah large cattle is meant, yet why is it called dakkah? Because it grinds [dayyka] its food.<a id="k155a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; But since the first clause states, WHETHER SMALL OR LARGE, it follows that R. Judah means literally small? This is indeed a difficulty.
</p><p>
	Come and hear: One may cut up
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k155b_1:" For the gourds can be eaten even if not cut up."
,k155b_2:" They are uneatable unless cut up."
,k155b_3:" Cf. n. 3."
,k155b_4:" Meat that has gone so hard and dry that there are splits in it."
,k155b_5:" They cannot eat any flesh unless it is cut up."
,k155b_6:" I.e., shahath, v. p. 792, n. 2."
,k155b_7:" Though not quite putrid, for that would be unfit and mukzeh."
,k155b_8:" By stuffing them with food against their will."
,k155b_9:" A species of domesticated doves, probably so named from the manner of their fructification (Jast. s.v. [H]). Aliter: Herodian doves, a species of domesticated doves supposed to have been bred by Herod, v. Hul. 139b. &mdash; The Gemara discusses the various terms used in the Mishnah."
,k155b_10:" By excessively stuffing it."
,k155b_11:" V. p. 35, n. 5."
,k155b_12:" Of fodder for the journey-this is a very great quantity indeed."
,k155b_13:" Mal'itin is the term used in the Mishnah for putting food into their mouth."
,k155b_14:" Hence not so forcible."
,k155b_15:" Surely that is incorrect!"
,k155b_16:" For the Mishnah employs mehalkitin in respect of fowls and mal'itin i.e., hal'atah in respect of calves as parallel terms, and both are permissible. Hence hamra'ah, which is forbidden, must refer to feeding with a utensil."
,k155b_17:" Because doves can fly about in the fields and find their own food."
,k155b_18:" Or, house. It would appear that popular lectures were given there in the open."
,k155b_19:" Prov. XXIX, 7."
,k155b_20:" Few people trouble about dogs. &mdash; Many of the dogs in the East are semi-savage, and this 'would account for their neglect; v. J.E. art. Dog."
,k155b_21:" If an animal consumes flesh of a corpse and then dies in a house before it is completely digested, the contents of the house are unclean. The Mishnah quoted states how long we are to regard the flesh as undigested."
,k155b_22:" Sc. the care that the Almighty takes over a dog's food."
,k155b_23:" Lit., 'the way of the world'."
,k155b_24:" Give it a little, only as large as its ear, then immediately drive it off."
,k155b_25:" Rashi: because the swine eats anything, and it is also given much food."
,k155b_26:" Obviously in the former case the food can be forced down so far that it will not return, but not in the latter case."
,k155b_27:" That the mere pouring in of water does not constitute kneading."
,k155b_28:" V. <i>supra</i> 18a."
,k155b_29:" With water and oil to make of it a beverage. "
}

txt:
<p>
gourds for cattle and a carcass for dogs &mdash; Surely fit means] gourds like a carcass: just as a carcass is soft, so are soft gourds meant, which proves that we may take trouble over foodstuffs,<a id="k155b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; which refutes Rab Judah? Rab Judah can answer you: No. A carcass like gourds: just as gourds are hard, so a hard carcass [is meant].<a id="k155b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; And where is it possible?<a id="k155b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; In the case of split meat<a id="k155b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; or in the case of very young dogs.<a id="k155b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: For R. Hanan of Nehardea recited: 'One may break up straw and corn fodder<a id="k155b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and mix them together'. This proves that we may take trouble over fodder? &mdash; Straw means putrefying straw;<a id="k155b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; as for corn fodder [the reference is] to young foals.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. ONE MUST NOT STUFF A CAMEL. [WITH FOOD] NOR CRAM [IT]. BUT ONE MAY PUT FOOD INTO ITS MOUTH; AND ONE MUST NOT FATTEN CALVES,<a id="k155b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT ONE MAY PUT FOOD INTO THEIR MOUTH. AND FOWLS MAY BE MADE TO TAKE UP FOOD. WATER MAY BE POURED INTO BRAN, BUT WE MAY NOT MIX IT [INTO A MASS]. AND WATER MAY NOT BE PLACED FOR BEES OR FOR DOVES IN A DOVE-COTE, BUT IT MAY BE PLACED BEFORE GEESE, FOWLS AND HARDISIAN DOVES.<a id="k155b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What does ONE MUST NOT STUFF [OBSIN] mean? &mdash; Said Rab Judah: One must not make a manger [ebus] in its stomach.<a id="k155b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Is such possible? &mdash; Even so, and as R. Jeremiah of Difti<a id="k155b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; related: I myself saw a certain Arab feed it with a <i>kor</i> and load it with a <i>kor</i>.<a id="k155b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	ONE MUST NOT FATTEN, [MA'AMIRIN]. What is hamra'ah and what is hal'atah?<a id="k155b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said Rab Judah: Hamra'ah [is forcing the food] so far that it cannot return; hal'atah is [only] so far that it can return. R. Hisda said: Both mean so far that it cannot return, but hamra'ah is [done] with a utensil, [while] hal'atah is by hand.<a id="k155b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph objected: One may force fowls to take food [mehalkitin], and it is superfluous to state that we may fatten [malkitin] them; but one may not fatten [malkitin] the doves of the dove-cote or of the loft, and it is superfluous to state that we may not force them [mehalkitin]. What is mehalkitin and what is malkitin? Shall we say that mehalkitin is hand feeding, while malkitin is throwing [grain, etc.] in front of them? Whence it follows that one may not even cast [grain] before the doves of the dove-cote or of the loft!<a id="k155b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence mehalkitin is surely [forcing food] so far down that it cannot return, while malkitin is [only] so far that it can return. From this it follows that hamra'ah means [stuffing] with a utensil, which refutes Rab Judah?<a id="k155b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rab Judah can answer you: In truth mehalkitin means feeding by hand, while malkitin means casting [the food] before them, but as to your difficulty, Is it then not even permitted to cast [food] before the doves of the dove-cote and of the loft, [that indeed is so, for] you are responsible for the food of the former [sc. fowls], but not for that of the latter.<a id="k155b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Even as it was taught: Food may be placed before a dog but not before a swine. And what is the difference between them? You are responsible for the food of the one, but you are not responsible for the food of the other. R. Ashi said, Our Mishnah too implies this: WATER MAY NOT BE PLACED FOR BEES OR FOR DOVES IN A DOVECOTE, BUT IT MAY BE PLACED BEFORE GEESE, FOWLS, AND HARDISIAN DOVES. What is the reason? Is it not because you are responsible for the food of the former, but you are not responsible for the food of the latter? &mdash; But according to your reasoning, why particularly water: even wheat and barley too may not [be placed before them]? Rather [say] water is different, because it is found in pools.
</p><p>
	R. Jonah lectured at the entrance to the Nasi's academy:<a id="k155b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; What is meant by the verse, The righteous knoweth the cause of the poor?<a id="k155b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; The Holy One, blessed be He, knoweth that a dog's food is scanty,<a id="k155b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; therefore He makes him retain his food in his stomach for three days. As we learnt: How long shall the food remain in its stomach and yet defile? In the case of a dog, three full days of twenty-four hours; while in the case of birds or fish, as long as it would take for it [the food] to fall into the fire and be burnt.<a id="k155b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hamnuna said: This proves<a id="k155b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; that it is the proper thing<a id="k155b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; to throw raw meat to a dog. And how much? Said R. Mari: Measure its ear and the stick [straight] after!<a id="k155b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; But that is only in the fields but not in town, because it will come to follow him. R. Papa said: None are poorer than a dog and none richer than a swine.<a id="k155b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was taught in accordance with Rab Judah: What is hamra'ah and what is hal'atah? Hamra'ah: one makes it [the animal] lie down, opens the mouth wide, and forces it to swallow vetches and water simultaneously; hal'atah: he feeds it standing and waters it standing, and puts vetches separately and water separately [into its mouth].<a id="k155b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</p><p>
	FOWLS MAY BE MADE TO TAKE UP FOOD. Abaye said, I asked this before the Master [Rabbah]: With whom does our Mishnah agree?<a id="k155b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; And he answered me, With R. Jose b. Judah. For it was taught: If one pours in flour and another water, the second is liable: this is Rabbi's view. R. Jose b. Judah said: He is not liable unless he kneads [them].<a id="k155b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; Yet perhaps R. Jose b. Judah ruled thus only there, in respect of flour, which is used for kneading; but as for bran, which is not used for kneading, even R. Jose b. Judah may admit [that he is liable]? &mdash; You cannot think so, because it was explicitly taught: Water must not be poured into bran: this is Rabbi's view. R. Jose b. Judah ruled: Water may be poured into bran.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: Parched corn may not be mixed,<a id="k155b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; but others maintain, It may be mixed. Who are the 'others'? &mdash; Said R. Hisda:
</P>


lvr: 21
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k156a_1:" Lit., 'by hand, by hand'."
,k156a_2:" A drink prepared of flour and honey."
,k156a_3:" Though sometimes taken for medicinal purposes it is also imbibed as an ordinary beverage, and hence permitted; cf. <i>supra</i> 109b."
,k156a_4:" Stirring shatith is the same."
,k156a_5:" Such as a dough that is forbidden."
,k156a_6:" Such as shatith."
,k156a_7:" It was his duty to mix the fodder for his father's cattle."
,k156a_8:" E.g., food may be put into the mouth of a young calf."
,k156a_9:" Instead of round and round."
,k156a_10:" Or, mashing &mdash; bran."
,k156a_11:" A mash from one vessel into another, in order to mix it (Tosaf.). Rashi: from the vessel standing in front of one animal and pouring it out for another animal."
,k156a_12:" One may set its usual quantity of food before an animal on the Sabbath, &mdash; i.e., as much as it generally consumes; similarly, a double quantity for two, if they both feed out of the same manger. But one may not set a treble quantity for two animals, since they do not eat so much during the week."
,k156a_13:" There is no limit."
,k156a_14:" R. Judah the prince."
,k156a_15:" Who permits it <i>supra</i>."
,k156a_16:" Lit., 'one (thing) in (his) favour'."
,k156a_17:" I.e., the head of the academy."
,k156a_18:" An anticipation of gangsterdom?"
,k156a_19:" I.e., he shall be a man complete in his mode of life, without any opposing principle within him."
,k156a_20:" Hence his nature shall be the one or the other. &mdash; Rashal, for some reason which is not clear, deletes the bracketed passage."
,k156a_21:" Division or disunity is caused by bad temper. &mdash; Rashi: so will he be estranged from other people (through his temper)."
,k156a_22:" Herbs multiply very rapidly and also continually intermingle with other herbs."
,k156a_23:" 'Aruk. Rashi: bright, lustrous."
,k156a_24:" Which are fed by God's lovingkindness."
,k156a_25:" Just as on the eve of the Sabbath one seeks to complete the details necessary for the proper observance of the Sabbath."
,k156a_26:" Maharsha: Not all born on the Sabbath die on the Sabbath, but only those who are very holy."
,k156a_27:" I.e., when the sun, as one of the planets, wields its influence on man."
,k156a_28:" Or: bright, handsome."
,k156a_29:" During the hours ruled over by Mercury."
,k156a_30:" Just like the moon, which waxes and wanes, has no light of its own but merely reflects the sun's light, and is in general dark."
,k156a_31:" [H] (to frustrate) is the Chaldaic equivalent of [H]. "
,k156a_32:" Rashi: charitable."
,k156a_33:" And am none of these."
,k156a_34:" Not to be taken literally. of course. V. <i>supra</i> 153a."
,k156a_35:" Lit., there is no mazzal (planetary influence) to Israel."
,k156a_36:" Jer. X, 2."
,k156a_37:" Israel being uninfluenced by 'the signs of heaven'."
,k156a_38:" Gen. XV, 5, q.v."
,k156a_39:" Ibid. 3."
,k156a_40:" Ibid. 4. "
}

txt:
<p>
It is R. Jose son of R. Judah. But that is only if one does it in an unusual manner. How does one do it in an unusual manner? Said R. Hisda: Little by little.<a id="k156a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Yet they agree that shatith<a id="k156a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; may be stirred round on the Sabbath, and Egyptian beer may be drunk.<a id="k156a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; But you said that we must not mix?<a id="k156a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is no difficulty: the one treats of a thick mass;<a id="k156a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; the other of a loose [one].<a id="k156a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; And that is only if he does it in an unusual manner. How does one do it in an unusual manner? &mdash; Said R. Joseph: During the week the vinegar is [first] poured in and then the shatith, whereas on the Sabbath the shatith is [first] poured in and then the vinegar.
</p><p>
	Levi son of R. Huna b. Hiyya found [on Sabbath] the mixer of his father's household<a id="k156a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; mashing [up bran] and feeding the oxen. Thereupon he rebuked him &mdash; Then his father came and found him [there]. Said he to him. Thus did your maternal grandfather, viz., R. Jeremiah b. Abba, say in Rab's name: One may mash [bran] but not force it [on the animal]; and if it [the animal] cannot take it [the fodder] up with its tongue one may feed it;<a id="k156a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; provided, however, that it is done in an unusual manner. How does one do it in an unusual manner? &mdash; Said R. Yemar b. Shalmia in Rab's name: [By stirring it] crosswise.<a id="k156a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; But he cannot mix it well [then]? &mdash; Said Rab Judah: He shakes up the vessel [itself]. 
</p><p>
	It was recorded in Ze'iri's notebook: I asked my teacher, viz., R. Hiyya. What about kneading?<a id="k156a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; It is forbidden, replied he. What about emptying?<a id="k156a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; It is permitted, he answered. 
</p><p>
	R. Menassia said: It is well [to place] one [measure of food] for one animal, and two for two; but [to place] three [measures] for two [animals] is forbidden.<a id="k156a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jose said: A <i>kab</i> and even two <i>kabs</i> [may be set]. 'Ulla said: A <i>kor</i> and even two <i>kor</i>.<a id="k156a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was recorded in Levi's notebook: I spoke to my teacher, viz., our holy Master,<a id="k156a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; about those who mix shatitha in Babylonia, and my teacher, viz., our holy Master, protested [vociferously] against the practice of mixing shatitha, but none heeded him, and he lacked the power to forbid it, on account of R. Jose b. Judah.<a id="k156a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was recorded in R. Joshua b. Levi's notebook: He who [is born] on the first day of the week [Sunday] shall be a man without one [thing] in him &mdash; What does 'without one [thing] in him' mean? Shall we say, without one virtue?<a id="k156a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely R. Ashi said: I was born on the first day of the week! Hence it must surely mean, one vice. But Surely R. Ashi said: I and Dimi b. Kakuzta were born on the first day of the week: I am a king<a id="k156a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and he is the captain of thieves!<a id="k156a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rather it means either completely virtuous or completely wicked.<a id="k156a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [What is the reason? Because light and darkness were created on that day.]<a id="k156a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; He who is born on the second day of the week will be bad-tempered &mdash; What is the reason? Because the waters were divided thereon.<a id="k156a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; He who is born on the third day of the week will be wealthy and unchaste. What is the reason? Because herbs were created thereon.<a id="k156a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; He who is born on the fourth day of the week will be wise and of a retentive memory.<a id="k156a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the reason? Because the luminaries were suspended [thereon] &mdash; He who is born on the fifth day of the week will practise benevolence. What is the reason? Because the fishes and birds were created thereon.<a id="k156a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; He who is born on the eve of the Sabbath will be a seeker. R. Nahman b. Isaac commented: A seeker after good deeds.<a id="k156a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; He who is born on the Sabbath will die on the Sabbath, because the great day of the Sabbath was desecrated on his account. Raba son of R. Shila observed: And he shall be called a great and holy man.<a id="k156a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hanina said to then, [his disciples]: Go out and tell the son of Levi, Not the constellation of the day but that of the hour is the determining influence. He who is born under the constellation of the sun<a id="k156a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; will be a distinguished<a id="k156a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; man: he will eat and drink of his own and his secrets will lie uncovered; if a thief, he will have no success. He who is born under Venus will be wealthy and unchaste [immoral]. What is the reason? Because fire was created therein.<a id="k156a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; He who is born under Mercury will be of a retentive memory and wise. What is the reason? Because it [Mercury] is the sun's scribe. He who is born under the Moon will be a man to suffer evil, building and demolishing, demolishing and building. eating and drinking that which is not his and his secrets will remain hidden: if a thief, he will be successful.<a id="k156a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; He who is born under Saturn will be a man whose plans will be frustrated.<a id="k156a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; Others say: All [nefarious] designs against him will be frustrated. He who is born under Zedek [Jupiter] will be a right-doing man [zadkan] R. Nahman b. Isaac observed: Right-doing in good deeds.<a id="k156a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; He who is born under Mars will be a shedder of blood. R. Ashi observed: Either a surgeon, a thief, a slaughterer, or a circumciser. Rabbah said: I was born under Mars.<a id="k156a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye retorted: You too inflict punishment and kill.<a id="k156a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It was stated. R. Hanina said: The planetary influence gives wisdom, the planetary influence gives wealth, and Israel stands under planetary influence. R. Johanan maintained: Israel is immune from planetary influence.<a id="k156a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, R. Johanan is consistent with his view, for R. Johanan said: How do we know that Israel is immune from planetary influence? Because it is said, Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the nations, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven, for the nations are dismayed at them:<a id="k156a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; they are dismayed but not Israel.<a id="k156a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab too holds that Israel is immune from planetary influence. For Rab Judah said in Rab's name: How do we know that Israel is immune from planetary influence? Because it is said, and he brought him forth from abroad.<a id="k156a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; Abraham pleaded before the Holy One, blessed be He, 'Sovereign of the Universe! one born in mine house is mine heir.'<a id="k156a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Not so,' He replied, 'but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels.'<a id="k156a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Sovereign of the Universe!' cried he, 'I have looked at my constellation and find that I am not fated to beget child.' 'Go forth from [i.e., cease] thy planet [gazing], for Israel is free from planetary influence. What is thy calculation?
</P><hr noshade width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 21
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k156b_1:" Which is thy constellation."
,k156b_2:" Which is an unpropitious combination for begetting children."
,k156b_3:" E.V. 'righteousness'."
,k156b_4:" Sc. for the sake of Abraham: Isa. XLI. 2."
,k156b_5:" Or, meadow."
,k156b_6:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 644, n. 11."
,k156b_7:" prayer can counteract his fate as determined by the planets (Rashi)."
,k156b_8:" To escape your fate."
,k156b_9:" Lit., 'throw into the basket'."
,k156b_10:" E.v. righteousness. From the Jewish point of view the two are identical: One merely performs his duty (i.e., righteousness) in giving charity."
,k156b_11:" Prov. X, 2."
,k156b_12:" Lit., 'Chaldeans'."
,k156b_13:" Lit., 'the evil inclination'."
,k156b_14:" The tree did not belong to him. &mdash; This story shows that head-covering was not de rigeur, though regarded as conducive to piety. &mdash; From these stories we see that belief in planetary influence was not entirely rejected, but that these Rabbis held that it might be counteracted by good deeds."
,k156b_15:" Though normally they are for human consumption."
,k156b_16:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k156b_17:" V. p. 110, n. 1. '='Ulla; R = Rab; L = Levi; SH = SHemuel (Samuel); H = Johanan; Z = Ze'iri."
,k156b_18:" V. <i>supra</i> 19b."
,k156b_19:" I.e., when a doubt arose whether an animal was <i>terefah</i> (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>)."
,k156b_20:" Who permits mukzeh."
,k156b_21:" I.e., one sanctified for a sacrifice. When it dies all benefit thereof is forbidden and it may not even be thrown to the dogs. Hence it is mukzeh on Festivals, with which this deals."
,k156b_22:" It can be thrown to the dogs. and is therefore not mukzeh. "
}

txt:
<p>
Because Zedek [Jupiter]<a id="k156b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; stands in the West?<a id="k156b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; I will turn it back and place it in the East.' And thus it is written, Who hath raised up Zedek from the east?<a id="k156b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; He hath summoned it for his sake.<a id="k156b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	From Samuel too [we learn that] Israel is immune from planetary influence. For Samuel and Ablat were sitting, while certain people were going to a lake.<a id="k156b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Ablat<a id="k156b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; to Samuel: 'That man is going but will not return, [for] a snake will bite him and he will die.' 'If he is an Israelite,' replied Samuel. 'he will go and return.'<a id="k156b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; While they were sitting he went and returned. [Thereupon] Ablat arose and threw off his [the man's] knapsack, [and] found a snake therein cut up and lying in two pieces &mdash; Said Samuel to him, 'What did you do?'<a id="k156b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Every day we pooled our bread and ate it; but to-day one of us had no bread, and he was ashamed. Said I to them, "I will go and collect [the bread]".<a id="k156b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; When I came to him, I pretended to take [bread] from him, so that he should not be ashamed.' 'You have done a good deed,' said he to him. Then Samuel went out and lectured: But charity<a id="k156b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; delivereth from death;<a id="k156b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and [this does not mean] from an unnatural death, but from death itself.
</p><p>
	From R. Akiba too [we learn that] Israel is free from planetary influence. For R. Akiba had a daughter. Now, astrologers<a id="k156b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; told him, On the day she enters the bridal chamber a snake will bite her and she will die. He was very worried about this. On that day [of her marriage] she took a brooch [and] stuck it into the wall and by chance it penetrated [sank] into the eye of a serpent. The following morning, when she took it out, the snake came trailing after it. 'What did you do?' her father asked her. 'A poor man came to our door in the evening.' she replied, 'and everybody was busy at the banquet, and there was none to attend to him. So I took the portion which was given to me and gave it to him. 'You have done a good deed,' said he to her. Thereupon R. Akiba went out and lectured: 'But charity delivereth from death': and not [merely] from an unnatural death, but from death itself.
</p><p>
	From R. Nahman b. Isaac too [we learn that] Israel is free from planetary influence. For R. Nahman b. Isaac's mother was told by astrologers, Your son will be a thief. [So] she did not let him [be] bareheaded, saying to him, 'Cover your head so that the fear of heaven may be upon you, and pray [for mercy]'. Now, he did not know why she spoke that to him. One day he was sitting and studying under a palm tree; temptation<a id="k156b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; overcame him, he climbed up and bit off a cluster [of dates] with his teeth.<a id="k156b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; 
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. GOURDS MAY BE CUT UP FOR CATTLE,<a id="k156b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; AND A CARCASE FOR DOGS. R. JUDAH SAID: IF IT WAS NOT <I>NEBELAH</I> BY THE EVE OF THE SABBATH IT IS FORBIDDEN, BECAUSE IT IS NOT MUKAN.<a id="k156b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. It was stated: (Mnemonic: <i>'aReL SHaHaZ</i>).<a id="k156b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Ulla said; the <i>halachah</i> is as R. Judah. And Rab too holds [that] the <i>halachah</i> is as R. Judah; [this follows] from ship mattings,<a id="k156b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; which Rab forbids while Samuel permits. And Levi too holds [that] the <i>halachah</i> is as R. Judah. For when a <i>terefah</i> was brought before him on a Festival,<a id="k156b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; he would not inspect it save when he sat by a dunghill, for he said, perhaps it will not be found fit, in which case it is of no use even for dogs. But Samuel maintained: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Simeon.<a id="k156b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; And Ze'iri too holds [that] the <i>halachah</i> is as R. Simeon, for we learnt: If an animal dies, it must not be moved from its place: and Ze'iri interpreted this as referring to a sacred animal,<a id="k156b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; but in the case of an ordinary animal it is permitted.<a id="k156b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan too said, The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Simeon. Yet did R. Johanan say thus: Surely R. Johanan ruled, The <i>halachah</i> is as an anonymous Mishnah. and we learnt:
</P>


