Bablyonian Talmud, Book 4: Tracts Pesachim, Yomah and Hagiga, tr. by Michael L. Rodkinson, [1918], at sacred-texts.com
Bablyonian Talmud, Book 4: Tracts Pesachim, Yomah and Hagiga, tr. by Michael L. Rodkinson, [1918], at sacred-texts.com
REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE COMBINING OF COOKERY ON A FESTIVAL PRECEDING A SABBATH.
MISHNA: When the festival falls on Friday, it is unlawful to prepare thereon, on purpose, any food for the Sabbath, but for the festival alone, and whatever remains may be used for the Sabbath; and one may prepare on the eve of the festival one dish for the Sabbath especially, and then he may continue cooking on the festival for the Sabbath. Beth Shammai, however, say: Two dishes are necessary; Beth Hillel say: One is sufficient. Both, however, agree that fish and egg upon it may be considered as two dishes. If the dish thus prepared has been eaten or lost, nothing more may be cooked in addition to it; but if any small portion whatever is left, it suffices.
GEMARA: Whence is this deduced? Said Samuel: It is written [Ex. xx. 8]: "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy"; from which we infer that we should remember it when we are liable to forget it (i.e., when it is holiday already, one can forget it). Our Tana, however, infers this from the following passage [ibid. xvi. 23]: "What ye shall bake, bake to-day and what ye shall seethe, seethe to-day." From this R. Elazar inferred that it shall not be baked unless same is baked already, and it shall not be cooked unless same is cooked already. And this is used by the sages as a biblical support to the law of the combining of cookery.
The rabbis taught: It once happened that R. Eliezer was sitting and lectured a whole day (of the festival) about the laws relating to festivals. The first part of his audience arose and went out, and R. Eliezer said: These people must have great barrels of wine, and they are in a hurry to drink them. The second portion of the audience went away, and he said: These people must have smaller barrels. Of the third part he remarked: They must have cans. Of the fourth he said: They must have lugs. When the fifth part left him, he said: They must have only goblets. When the sixth part began to
depart, he said: They are worthy to be scolded (because the college began to be empty). At the same time he looked upon his disciples and saw the color of their faces was changed, and he said to them: My children, I did not mean you. I spoke only about those people who leave eternal life for temporary affairs. When his disciples were going away, he said to them [Nehem. viii. 10]: "Go your way, eat fat things, drink sweet drinks, and send portions unto him for whom nothing is prepared; for this day is holy unto our Lord: and do not grieve yourselves; but let the joy of the Lord be your stronghold."
The Master says: "Because they leave eternal life for temporary affairs." Is not the enjoying of the festival a religious duty? R. Eliezer said this in accordance with his theory that the enjoying of a festival is not obligatory, as we learned in the following Boraitha: R. Eliezer said: A man has nothing to do on a festival but either to eat and drink the whole day, or to sit and study; but R. Joshuah said: He must divide the day--one-half of it for eating and drinking, and one-half of it for religious purposes. Said R. Johanan: The above both sages deduce from the following verse [Deut. xvi. 8]: "On the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly unto the Lord thy God"; another verse [Num. xxix. 35]: "An assembly shall be to you." How can the contradiction between these two verses be explained? R. Eliezer explains it thus. The whole day shall be either for you or for the Lord; but R. Joshuah explains it thus: Divide the day--one-half for the Lord and one-half for you. Said R. Elazar: 1 All agree that on Pentecost the day must be partly devoted to one's self also. Why so? Because on this day the law was given to Israel, and we must enjoy it. Said Rabha: All agree also that on a Sabbath the day must be devoted to one's self also. Why? Because it is written [Is. lviii. 13]: "Thou shalt call the Sabbath a delight." And R. Joseph said: All agree that on the festival of Purim the day must also be devoted to one's self, as it is written [Esther, ix. 22]: "To make them days of entertainment and joy." Mar the son of Rabina was fasting the whole year except on Pentecost, Purim, and the eve of the Day of Atonement: Pentecost, because the law was given; Purim, because they are days of joy and entertainment; and the eve of the Day of Atonement, for a reason that is explained in Tract Yomah, p. 129.
R. Joseph on the days of Pentecost used to say to his domestics: Prepare for me a calf which is the third-born (of the third birth), saying: If not this day be the reason, how many Josephs are there abroad! (and but for the law, he would not be distinguished among them).
R. Shesheth used to repeat his studies every thirty days, and, supporting himself against the wall of the college, said: Rejoice, my soul! Rejoice, my soul! For thy sake I have read, for thy sake I have studied.
What is meant, in the above verse of Nehemiah, by "send portions to those for whom nothing is prepared"? Said R. Hisda: It refers to those men who have not made an Erub Tabshilin (combining of cookery). What is meant by "let the joy of the Lord be your stronghold"? Said R. Johanan in the name of R. Elazar bar Simeon: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel: My children, borrow money for my sake, and rejoice on the holy day, and trust to me, I shall pay it.
R. Tachlipha brother of Rabanai Huzaah taught: All the necessaries of a man are appointed for him in the Heavenly Court in the ten days between New Year and the Day of Atonement, except the expenses for Sabbath, the festivals, and the studies of his children: the amount for these purposes appointed for him in Heaven is the same as that which he spends (and varies with it).
We have learned in a Boraitha: It was said that Shammai the Elder used to eat all days for the honor of Sabbath. When he found a good animal, he used to say: This shall be for Sabbath. But when he found a better one, he ate the former, and left the better one for Sabbath; but Hillel the Elder had another habit: Because all his deeds were for the sake of Heaven, as it is written [Ps. lxviii. 20]: "Blessed be the Lord! day by day he loadeth us with benefits" (trusting in God to provide for Sabbath at the proper time). 1
"One may prepare on the eve of the festival one dish," etc. Said Abayi: Only a dish is good for the purpose, but bread alone is not. Why so? Shall we assume it is required to have an article of food which is not often eaten, and bread is always eaten, then a dish of disa (mush), which is rarely eaten, is nevertheless disallowed by R. Nehuma bar Zachariah in the name of Abayi? The reason is this: One must have a thing which can be eaten
[paragraph continues] with bread, and disa cannot be eaten with bread. As it happened that R. Zera saw people eating disa with bread, he said: The Babylonians are fools, they eat bread with bread!
R. Hiya taught: Lentils which are on the bottom of a pot may be used as an Erub Tabshilin, if the quantity is of the size of an olive. R. Itz'hak the son of R. Jehudah said that the fat of a fowl, if it is of the size of an olive, may be similarly used. And R. Abha said in the name of Rabh: The prescribed quantity for an Erub is the size of an olive, and it is sufficient for one or for one hundred persons. Said R. Huna in the name of Rabh: The combining of cookery must be done intentionally. It is certain that the person who makes the Erub must have the intention, but how is it with the person for whom the Erub is made? Is his intention also needed, or is it not? Come and hear: The father of Samuel made an Erub for all the inhabitants of Nehardai, and R. Ammi and R. Assi made an Erub for the whole population of Tiberia (hence the intention of those for whom the Erub is made is not necessary).
R. Jacob bar Idi proclaimed: Everybody who has not made an Erub Tabshilin shall rely on my Erub Tabshilin (and shall do the preparing for Sabbath). And at what distance? Said R. Nehuma bar Zachariah. in the name of Abayi: As far as the legal limit of Sabbath (2,000 ells).
There was a blind man who had classified Mishnaioth before Mar Samuel; and Mar Samuel saw he was downcast. And he asked him: Why are you downcast? And he answered: Because I have not made an Erub Tabshilin. Said Mar Samuel to him: Rely upon mine. The next year he saw him again sad, and got the s me answer, and Mar Samuel rejoined: If it is so, you are a transgressor (you have not made one intentionally). All can rely upon my Erub Tabshilin, but not you.
The rabbis taught: On a festival which happens to be on Friday, the Erub of legal limit and the Erubin of courts are not to be made. Rabbi, however, said: The Erub of legal limit is not to be made, but the Erubin of courts may, because you can prohibit one to do a thing for to-morrow which he may not do to-day; but you cannot forbid a man to do a thing for to-morrow which he may do to-day (Erubin of courts are needed only for Sabbath, but not on festivals). It was taught: Rabh said the Halakha prevails according to the first Tana, but Samuel said the Halakha prevails according to Rabbi.
The rabbis taught: On a festival following on Sabbath one
shall say eight benedictions; that is to say, the Sabbath benediction separately. Beth Hillel, however, said: One shall pronounce seven benedictions, and he shall begin and close, with Sabbath, and shall include the holiness of the day. Rabbi said: He shall close with the benediction: "Blessed be He who sanctifies the Sabbath, Israel, and the festivals." A disciple taught in the presence of Rabina: "Who sanctified Israel, the Sabbath, and the festivals," and Rabina rejoined: Does Israel then sanctify the Sabbath? The Sabbath is itself holy: Say then: "Who sanctified the Sabbath, Israel, and the festivals." Said R. Jose: The Halakha prevails according to Rabbi as interpreted by Rabina.
The rabbis taught: On a Sabbath following on the first day of the month, or any day of the intermitting days, one shall pronounce in the three prayers of evening, morning, and Min'ha seven benedictions; and concerning the festival he shall include the prayer about the return of the Temple-service, and if he has omitted it he must begin all again. But in the Additional Prayer he shall begin and close with the benediction of Sabbath, and t c holiness of the day shall be included.
Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel and R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Broka say that whenever there are seven benedictions, he shall begin and close with Sabbath, and the benediction of the day shall be included. Said R. Huna: The Halakha does not prevail in accordance with last pair.
R. Hyya bar Ashi in the name of Rabh said: One may lay an Erub of legal limit on the first day of a festival (in exile, where two days are kept) with a condition, if the right day of the festival is to-day, then the Erub is null and void, because one can go to-morrow without any Erub at all; and if the right day of the festival is the next day, this Erub shall be for that day. Said Rabha: The same is the case with the Erub for cookery.
The rabbis taught: It shall not be baked from one festival day for another. It was truly said that a woman may fill a whole pot with meat though she do not need more than one piece (for that day). The same is the case with a baker, who may fill a whole barrel with water, though he need only one can (for the day); but it is not allowed to bake except as much as is needed for the day. R. Simeon b. Elazar, however, said, that a woman (not a baker) may fill a whole oven with bread, because it is better baked when the whole oven is full. Said Rabha: The Halakha prevails according to the latter.
The schoolmen propound a question: If one has not made an Erub Tabshilin, is he only prohibited to do anything for Sabbath, but not his flour? Or is his flour also forbidden? What is the difference? To transfer his flour to others, if you say the flour is not prohibited, then another one can take his flour and prepare for him; but if you say his flour is prohibited, then he must transfer it. Come and hear: One who has not made an Erub Tabshilin must not bake nor cook nor save either for himself or for others, nor may others do it for him; but what shall he do (to eat something on Sabbath)? He shall transfer his flour to others, and then they may bake and cook for him. From this we infer that both he and his flour are prohibited.
The schoolmen propounded a question: How is it if one has transgressed and baked without an Erub? Come and hear: If one has not made an Erub Tabshilin, etc. (as mentioned above). Now, if it would be allowed to eat, why does not the Boraitha state that if one has transgressed and has baked, it is allowed to eat? Said R. Adda b. Mathna: From this nothing can be inferred. The Tana advises only how to dispose for a man, he shall be able to prepare something in accordance with the Law; but when one has acted against the Law, this Tana does not speak of it at all. Come and hear another Boraitha: If one has made an Erub Tabshilin, he may bake, cook, and save, and if he wants the Erub, it is allowed; but if he has eaten the Erub before he has baked or saved, then he is not allowed to bake, cook, or save either for himself or for others, neither are others allowed to do so for him. He may, however, cook for the festival and use what is left on the Sabbath, provided he does not do it cunningly (i.e., he shall not add so much that he shall have sufficient for the whole Sabbath), and when he does it cunningly he must not use it for the Sabbath. (Hence we see, that if he acted against the Law, it is prohibited.) Said R. Ashi: The case of cunning is different, because the rabbis were very rigorous with such. R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak said: The Boraitha which said that cunning is prohibited is not at all in accordance with the decision of the rabbis, but of an individual, Hananiah, who taught it in accordance with the decision of Beth Shammai, as it is to be understood from the following: Hananiah said: Beth Shammai declare: One shall not bake unless he has made an Erub with bread; one shall not cook unless he has made it with something cooked; and one shall not save, unless he has already saved warm water for the Sabbath. Beth Hillel, however,
said: One may make an Erub with something cooked, and through it he may prepare everything.
"Beth Shammai say two dishes," etc. Our Mishna is not in accordance with the Tana of the following Boraitha: R. Simeon b. Elazar said: Both schools agree that two dishes are needed. In what they differ is about a fish and egg which is upon it. According to Beth Shammai it is considered as two dishes, but according to the school of Hillel it is considered only as one dish. Both agree, however, that if one put in a cooked egg in the fish or χεφαλιδος in the cooked fish, it is considered as two dishes. Said Rabha: The Halakha prevails as our Tana and according to Beth Hillel.
"If it has been eaten or lost," etc. Said Abayi: We have a tradition that he who has begun to knead dough and heard mean. while that the Erub was lost, may finish his work nevertheless.
MISHNA: When the festival falls after a Sabbath, Beth Shammai say: Everything requiring purification must be immersed before the Sabbath. But Beth Hillel say: Vessels must be immersed before the Sabbath, and human beings on the Sabbath. Both schools agree that water which has become polluted may be purified by pouring it into an earthenware vessel, but not on earth itself. It is lawful, however, to dip vessels whose original appropriation has been altered, and men may bathe when they have changed from one company to another (to eat the Paschal lamb). 1
GEMARA: We see from this Mishna that, according to all, a vessel must not be dipped on Sabbath. Why so? Said R. Bibbi: It is a precautionary measure, lest one leave the vessels unclean on the week-days for purification on Sabbath. We have learned in a Boraitha in support to R. Bibbi: A vessel which has become unclean on the eve of the festival must not be dipped on the festival; and this is a precautionary measure, as the one above mentioned. Rabha, however, said: The reason why one must not immerse on Sabbath is that it would seem as if one repaired the vessel. If it is so, why may a man bathe on Sabbath (and a man cannot eat Terumah, etc., when he has not bathed). A man is different, as it can be said that he is doing so to cool himself. That would be right, if he bathed in pure water; but if he immerses himself in turbid water? Said R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak: It happens that a man becomes heated, and then
he bathes even in water in which flax has been steeped, to cool himself. This would be right in summer-time, but what can be said if he does it in winter-time? Said R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak: It may happen a man becomes dirty and soiled, and then considers not the quality of the water. All this is right on a Sabbath, but what would be the law on a Day of Atonement? Said Rabha: Do you find something allowed to be done on Sabbath that is not allowed on the Day of Atonement? (Therefore, because it is permitted on Sabbath, it is permitted also on the Day of Atonement.)
"But not on earth itself." What is meant by this? Said Samuel: He may bring it in contact with water of a legal bath, but not in an unclean vessel.
According to whom is our Mishna? As it is not according to Rabbi, nor according to the sages of the following Boraitha: One must not immerse the vessel with the water therein to purify it, nor bring it in contact with water in a stone vessel to purify the water therein: so is the decree of Rabbi. The sages, however, permitted both. (Hence according to whom is the Mishna?) We may say that it is according to the sages' opinion, and the Mishna refers not to purification on a week-day but on Sabbath.
"Whose original appropriation has been altered," etc. The rabbis taught: If one wishes to immerse his vessels for the purpose of filling them with the oil of newly crushed olives, and afterwards changes his mind and resolves to crush the olives in them, or vice versa, he may do so. If one was engaged to eat the Paschal lamb with one company, and thereafter he changed his mind to eat with another company, he might do so.
MISHNA: One may bring peace-offerings on the festival, but not lay his hands on them; 1 and burnt-offerings may not be brought at all--according to Beth Shammai. Beth Hillel, however, allow all this.
GEMARA: Said Ula: The point on which both schools differ is the laying of the hands on the peace-offerings of the feast and whether burnt-offerings of the pilgrimage may be sacrificed at all. Beth Shammai hold: It is written [Ex. xii. 14]: "Ye shall celebrate it as a feast unto the Lord"; it, i.e., the peace-offering, but not the burnt-offering. But Beth Hillel say: "unto the Lord that signifies, all that is unto the
[paragraph continues] Lord is allowed. But vows and voluntary offerings, all agree, are not. Such also is the opinion of R. Adda bar A'hba. An objection was raised: We have learned elsewhere (in addition to this Mishna): R. Simeon b. Elazar said: Both schools do not differ concerning a burnt-offering which does not belong to the festival, that it must not be offered, and also that peace-offerings which belong to the festival may be offered. In what they differ is, when the burnt-offering belongs to this festival and concerning the peace-offerings which do not belong to this festival. According to Beth Shammai they must not be offered, and according to Beth Hillel they may. (Hence we see that according to both, vow and voluntary offerings are to be offered on the festival?) Answer this objection that the saying of R. Simeon b. Elazar must read thus: He said, Both schools do not differ when the burnt and peace-offerings do not belong to this festival, that they must not be offered, and the peace-offering which belongs to this festival, that it may; they differ only about a burnt-offering which belongs to this festival, that according to Beth Shammai it must not, and according to Beth Hillel it may. Said R. Joseph: Is it necessary to make out the Boraitha as erroneous because of the saying of Ula? Are there not other Tanaim who differ on this point, and Ula's saying can be according to them? As we, have found in the following Boraitha: Peace-offerings which belong to this festival, when they are to be offered on it, Beth Shammai said: He may lay his hands upon it on the eve of the festival, and it shall be slaughtered on the festival; Beth Hillel, however, said: Both may be done on the festival; but vow and voluntary offerings must not be offered on the festival.
And the Tanaim of the following Boraitha differ on the same point: One must not bring thanksgiving-offerings on all days of Passover, because they contain unleavened bread; nor on Pentecost, because it is a festival; but he may bring them on the Feast of Tabernacles (on the intermitting days). R. Simeon, however, said: It is written [Deut. xvi. 16]: "On Passover, on Pentecost, and on the Feast of Booths." From this we may infer that all that may be brought on Passover and Pentecost, may be brought also during the Feast of Tabernacles; but what must not be brought on the first two, one may not on the third. R. Eliezer b. R. Simeon, however, said: One may bring thanksgiving-offerings during the Feast of Tabernacles, and by this will be fulfilled the duty of enjoying the holiday, but not the duty of bringing a feast-offering. Is not
this self-evident? Are not the feast-offerings a duty, and it is certain that a duty must be brought of a profane (ordinary) quality? He mean s to teach us, that even if one has explicitly said that be intends the thanksgiving-offering also for a feast-offering, nevertheless the duty of the feast-offering is not fulfilled. As R. Simeon b. Lakish asked of R. Johanan: If one say, "I will bring a thanksgiving-offering, and with this I will fulfil the duty of a feast-offering"; or, "I will be a Nazarite, but when I shall bring the offering after shaving, 1 I will take it from the second tithe money," what is the law? And R. Johanan answered him: He must bring a thanksgiving-offering, but the duty of the feast-offering is not fulfilled; he is a Nazarite, but cannot bring the shaving-offering from the second tithe money.
It once happened a man said: Give four hundred Zuz to a certain man, and he shall marry my daughter. Said R. Papa: The four hundred Zuz must be given to him, and the daughter, if he likes her, he can marry, but not otherwise. The reason is, because he has said first, "give him the money"; [but if he had mentioned the daughter first he would get the money only if he married]. If he had said: He shall marry and take the money, then he must marry her first. Meremar was sitting and declaring the Halakha in his own name. Said Rabbina to him: You teach this as if it were a Boraitha; we, however, learn it as the question of Resh Lakish from R. Johanan, mentioned above, and the decision is R. Johanan's.
The rabbis taught: It happened to Hillel the Elder that he brought his burnt-offering to the Temple-court for laying hands on it on the festival. The disciples of Shammai the Elder, however, surrounded him, and asked him: What is the matter with this animal? And he answered: It is a female, and I have brought it for a peace-offering. And he shook the animal's tail, and they went away. And on that day the school of Shammai took the upper hand over Beth Hillel, and the people wanted to decide the Halakha according to them; but one old man was there among the disciples of Shammai the Elder, Baba ben Butta by name, who was certain that the Halakha prevailed according to Beth Hillel. And he sent and brought of the best sheep of Jerusalem, and placed them in the Temple-court, and said: Everybody who wants to lay his hands upon them shall come and do so. And on that day Beth Hillel took the upper hand,
and the Halakha was decided according to them, and no objection was made by anybody.
Again, it happened once that a disciple of Beth Hillel brought his burnt-offering into the Temple-court for the purpose of laying his hands upon it, and a disciple of the school of Shammai met him and said: Why the handling? And he replied: Why are you not silent? So he silenced him with a rebuke, so that he went away. Said Abayi: From this we may infer that if a young scholar says to another a few words, the answer shall not be more lengthy than the remark which was addressed, as we have seen in the case of the two disciples, when he asked him: "Why the laying of the hands?" he answered him: "Why not be silent?"
We have learned in a Boraitha: The disciples of Hillel said to the disciples of Shammai: (Is not this an a fortiori?) If on Sabbath, when all things to be done for a human being are prohibited, nevertheless in honor of the Lord all is permitted; on a festival, when all things necessary for a human being may be done, so much the more everything may be done for the Lord (i.e., and why, then, shall a burnt-offering of the pilgrimage not be sacrificed?). And they answered: You can infer this from voluntary and vow offerings, that are permissible for a human being, and nevertheless even you own that they must not be sacrificed on a festival. Said Beth Hillel again: There is no comparison here because voluntary and vow offerings have no appointed times. The burnt-offerings, however, have stated times. Rejoined Beth Shammai: Nay, even these have no appointed time, as we have learned in a Mishna: One who has not brought his feast-offering on the first day of a festival may do it during the whole festival and even on its last day. Rejoined Beth Hillel again: Is this not a fixed time? As we have learned in another Mishna, if one has not brought a feast-offering during the whole festival, he is no longer responsible to do it (consequently there is a stated time for it, and if we will prohibit him from bringing it on the first day of the festival, he may not bring it any more at all). Said Beth Shammai again: Has it not been said in the verse, "an assembly shall be unto you," which may signify for your sake and not for the Lord's sake? And they answered: Does not another verse say: "An assembly shall be unto the Lord"? Whence we may infer that all which is in honor of the Lord shall be done. And from the expression "unto you" we may infer "for your sake but not for the sake of strangers."
R. Iviah the Elder asked R. Huna: An animal which is half a Gentile's and half an Israelite's, how is the law of slaughtering it on a festival? And he answered: One may do it. And he asked him again: What is the difference between this and voluntary vow-offerings? And he replied: A raven flew away. When R. Iviah was gone, said Rabba, R. Huna's son, to his father: Was this not R. Iviah the Elder, whom you praised to me as a great man? And he answered: What could I have done with him? I am to-day weak, I have lectured, and need what is written in Song of Songs, ii. 5, to "strengthen me with flagons of wine, refresh me with apples"; and he asked me a thing of which the reason must be explained (at length). [And in reality, what is the reason? This: An animal which is half a Gentile's and half an Israelite's may be slaughtered on a festival, because if one wants to eat meat even the size of an olive, he cannot take it .from the animal when it is still alive, but it must be slaughtered; and as this animal belonged half to an Israelite, he can certainly slaughter it. But vow and voluntary offerings, they are considered all for Heaven, and although the priests eat some of their meat, this is only because of their reward from Heaven, and not from the one who brings the offerings.]
Dough, however, which is half an Israelite's and half a Gentile's, is not to be baked on the festival, because it can be divided when it is yet dough. R. Hana bar Hanilai objects: We have learned of dough made for dogs, if the shepherd can eat of it, one is liable to take of it first dough, and may make an Erub with it, and may use it for the combining of the entrance; and the benediction of eating may be said over it, and if three or more men had eaten of it, they may pronounce the benediction of the meal, and it may be baked on the festival, and the man who eats it (when it is not leavened) on the first evening of Passover has done his duty of eating Matzah. Now, if it is possible to divide it when it is dough, why should it be baked on a festival (let him set apart the portion for the dogs, and bake for himself)? The dough for the dogs is different; because one can give a carcass to the dogs, instead of the dough. But does R. Hisda hold the supposition of because? Was it not taught (Vol. V., p. 74) that R. Hisda is against this supposition? Say, the case is when the shepherd has a carcass and intends to do so.
R. Huna was asked: May the inhabitants of Baga, who had the duty to give bread to the military, bake it on the festival?
[paragraph continues] And he answered: Let us see. If the soldiers are not particular when one takes a piece of the bread and gives it to a child, then of every loaf we can say: "This is fit for a child," and it may be baked. But if they are particular, it may not be so done. But have we not learned in a Boraitha as follows: It once happened to Simeon of Teman that he did not visit the house of learning on a festival day. On the morrow Jehudah b. Baba asked him: Why wast thou not yesterday in the house of learning? And he answered: Military were coming yesterday into the city, and wanted to rob the whole city; and we slaughtered for them calves, and made them eat, and they went away in peace. Rejoined R. Jehudah b. Baba: I wonder whether your loss vas not greater than your benefit, for the Torah teaches "unto you," but not unto Gentiles. (They should not have done work for the soldiers.) Now, why? Were not the calves fit for Israelites also? Said R. Joseph: The calves were Terepha. 1
But was it not fit for dogs when the owners are obliged to feed them? The Tanaim of the following Boraitha differ about this law: It is written [Ex. xii. 16]: "Save what is eaten by every soul, that only may be prepared for you." From the expression "every soul," we may infer, even a soul of an animal, as we find [in Leviticus xxiv.], "he that taketh the soul of an animal shall pay for it." Therefore the verse says plainly, "for you," and not for dogs. So said R. Jose the Galilean. R. Aqiba, however, said: For all souls, even souls of animals, are included. But for what purpose is it written "for you"? To indicate only animals for whose support you are responsible, but not for strangers, for whose support you are not responsible. Rabha accompanied Mar Samuel to the pulpit and the latter lectured: One may invite a Gentile on Sabbath, but not on a festival day, because on a festival day he may increase the Israelite's work in his behalf. When a Gentile guest came to Maremar or to Mar Zutra on a festival day, they said to him: If you are satisfied with what we have already done for ourselves, then you are welcome; and if not, you must excuse us, because we must not do any work for you.
MISHNA: It is prohibited to boil water on the festival for the purpose of washing the feet, unless the water is also fit to drink, according to Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel allow it.
[paragraph continues] (All agree, however,) that a fire is to be made for the sole purpose of warming himself by it.
In three things Rabban Gamaliel decides like the school of Shammai more rigorously, namely: They prohibit to commence to preserve the heat of pots for Sabbath on its eve, when it happens to be a festival; to put together the pieces of a candelabrum; and to bake large loaves, but only thin cakes. Rabban Gamaliel said: They never used to bake in my father's house large loaves on the festival, but only thin cakes. The sages, however, said to him: What does this usage of your father's family prove, who though strict in this respect nevertheless allowed all Israel to bake on the festival large loaves and thick cakes?
GEMARA: How is the case? If an Erub Tabshilin was made, why do Beth Shammai prohibit it? And if none was made, why do Beth Hillel permit it? Said R. Huna: It may be explained, when the case is that an Erub Tabshilin was not made, but nevertheless what is necessary for one's life, the sages permit. And this is according to his theory elsewhere, where he said: If one has not made an Erub Tabshilin, one loaf and one pot may be baked, and cooked for him, and also light may be kindled for him. In the name of R. Itz'hak it was said: They may roast for him also a small fish. The same we have learned in a Boraitha, with the addition that one pitcher of water may be heated for him. Rabha, however, said: The Mishna can be explained also thus: that an Erub Tabshilin was made, and nevertheless Beth Shammai prohibit it, because the preserving of the heat everybody can see is done only for Sabbath.
"To put together pieces of a candelabrum." What labor is in it? Said R. Hin'na bar Bisna: This refers to a candelabrum whose parts have to be screwed together, and is regarded like an act of building (construction) (see Tract Sabbath, p. 266).
It happened once that Ula came to R. Jehudah; his servant inclined the lamp so that the wick should sooner be extinguished (by the oil being out of its reach). R. Jehudah objected: Did we not learn that whoso puts oil into the lamp is culpable of kindling fire? and whoso removes the oil therefrom is culpable of extinguishing? Answered Ula: The servant did it without my knowledge.
Rabh said: To snuff a lamp on a festival is permitted. Abayi asked Rabba: How is the law to extinguish a conflagration on a festival? When there is danger of loss of life,
[paragraph continues] I do not ask, for it is allowed even on a Sabboth; what I ask is, when there is a pecuniary loss only? He answered: It is not permitted. Abayi objected to him: Did we not learn: A chip of wood must not be extinguished in order to save it. However, for preventing the house or the pot from being filled with smoke, it is permitted? He rejoined: This is in accordance with R. Jehudah, but my decision is in accordance with the majority of the rabbis.
R. Ashi asked Amemar: How is the law to paint the eyes (for a medical purpose) on a festival? When there is danger, e.g., when they prick, or are bloodshot, or drip, or drop tears continually, or are in fever at the first stages, it is not doubtful to me, as this is allowed even on a Sabbath. Where I am uncertain is, when they are almost cured, and the painting is done only for improving the sight? He decided that it is not allowed. R. Ashi objected to him with the same Boraitha which Abayi objected to Rabba as stated above, and Amemar's answer was the same.
Amemar himself, however, used to dye his eyes through a Gentile on the Sabbath. Said R. Ashi to him: What is your opinion in doing it? Because Ula the son of R. Ilai said: All that is necessary for a sick man may be done through a Gentile on Sabbath. And also R. Hamnuna said: All things which are not dangerous, it may be said to a Gentile that he should do them. But when is this the case? When the Gentile does it himself without assistance from the Israelite. But you, Master, assist him in his dyeing by your opening and closing the eyes. And he answered: There is R. Zbid, who has also asked the same question, and I answered him that assistance is not considered a labor at all. The same Amemar allowed that one should dye his eyes on the second day of New Year. Said R. Ashi to him: Did not Rabha say that in the two days of New Year the case is different with an egg (see above, p. 8)? And he answered: My opinion is as that of the sages of Nehardai, who say there is no difference.
"To bake large loaves," etc. The rabbis taught: The school of Shammai said: Thick loaves must not be baked on the Passover. Beth Hillel permit it. What are called thick loaves? Said R. Huna: If it is a span in thickness, for the showbread was thus. R. Joseph opposed: What comparison is this? There it is related of the specialists, who knew their work and were careful; there a great deal of labor was necessary (as stated in Menahoth,
that the flour of the showbread required three hundred oscillations and five hundred beatings of the fist); there it was baked with dry wood (as stated in Taanith, that on the fifteenth of Ab they had ceased to cut wood for the Temple); there was a hot oven which was constantly fired, and it was of iron. Should it be compared to common people, to common bread, to wet wood, and a brick oven which may not be heated as required?
Said R. Jeremiah bar Abha in the name of Rabh: I have asked especially our Master, our holy rabbi, what is meant by thick loaves? And he said: A great quantity; i.e., not the loaves are thick, but the quantity of the dough is great. But why does he call them thick loaves? Because it is thick when kneaded. If so, why is it prohibited only on Passover, why not on other festivals also? It means also other festivals, but the Tana was teaching them the laws of Passover, and therefore mentioned that festival. Another Boraitha says plainly: Much bread shall not be baked on a festival, according to Beth Shammai; but Beth Hillel allow it.
MISHNA: He (Rabban Gamaliel) decided the law leniently in respect to the following three things: He allowed to sweep on the festival between the couches (or sofas on which the ancients used to eat), to put spices on live coals (after meals), and to prepare a complete roasted kid on the nights of Passover (as a memorial to the Paschal lamb). But the sages prohibit all these.
GEMARA: Said R. Assi: They differ only about the enjoyment of the odor of the spices, when they are already there; but to put the spices on the live coals, all prohibit. The schoolmen propounded a question: How is the law to put fruit in the smoke of spices to flavor them on the festival (as the custom was to do)? R. Jeremiah bar Abha in the name of Rabh said: It is prohibited, but Samuel permitted it. R. Huna said: It is prohibited, because one extinguishes the live coals. Said to him R. Na'hman: Let the Master say, because one kindles the spices? And he answered: In the beginning, when he pours out the spices on the coals, he extinguishes the coals, and afterwards they kindle. R. Jehudah, however, said: That is prohibited only on live coals, but in a heated oven it is permitted. Rabba, however, said: This is also prohibited, because he produces a new odor in the oven. [Rabba and R. Joseph both said: It is unlawful to cover a silk garment with a goblet of spices on a festival in order to impart an odor to it. Why so? Because the garment produces a new odor. But why is this different from grinding
or cutting spices for smelling, which is allowed? There the odor is in it when grinding or cutting them, the odor is only increased, but here he produces a new odor altogether.]
Rabha, however, said: Even on live coals it is also permitted, because is it not allowed to put meat on live coals for eating on a festival? R. Gbiha of Be-Kthil at the door of the exilarch lectured: Fuming is allowed. Said Amemar to him: What is meant by fuming? Does it mean to perfume the sleeves of a woman's dress? This must be done by a specialist, and this is certainly prohibited. And if it means to fume to produce good odors, the producing of a new odor is not permitted also? Said R. Ashi: I have declared this law to him and in the name of a great man, that it may be even to produce a new odor, and it is nevertheless permissible, because it is equal to meat on live coals, which is permitted.
MISHNA: Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah permitted three things which the other sages prohibit: His cow was going out on a Sabbath with a strap attached to her horns; he permitted also to curry cattle on the festival, and to grind pepper in a pepper-mill. R. Jehudah says: It is not permitted with an iron currycomb, because a wound may be inflicted; but with a wooden comb it is. The sages, however, prohibit both.
GEMARA: Did R. Elazar ben Azariah possess but one cow? Did not Rabh, or according to others R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh, say that thirteen thousand calves used R. Elazar ben Azariah to give as tithes from his cattle yearly? We have learned in a Boraitha that the cow mentioned in our Mishna was not his, but his neighbor's, and because he did not protest, it was considered as if it was his own.
"He also permitted to curry cattle," etc. The rabbis taught What is called קרוד? An iron comb with small teeth, which produces a wound. What is called קרצוףּ? wooden comb with large teeth, which produces no wound. And three Tanaim differ about this law. R. Jehudah holds that if a thing was done even unintentionally, it is prohibited; but we do not take a precautionary measure to a wooden comb, lest one do it with one iron one. The sages are of the same opinion as R. Jehudah, but they say that such a precautionary measure may be taken. R. Elazar b. Azariah, however, holds with R. Simeon, who said that a thing done unintentionally is not prohibited at all, and therefore he permits both. Said R. Na'hman: The Halakha prevails according to R. Simeon, because R. Elazar ben Azariah
agrees with him. Said Rabha to R. Na'hman: Why does not the Master say that the Halakha prevails according to R. Jehudah because the sages agree with him? And he answered: I hold with R. Simeon, and confirm my opinion because R. Elazar ben Azariah agrees with him.
MISHNA: A pepper hand-mill is subject to defilement in all the three separate vessels whereof it is composed: the upper, because it is of metal; the middle one, because it is a kind of a sieve (which allows only the finely ground particles to pass through); and the lower one, because it is a vessel of capacity (where the ground pepper is collected).
A child's cart is subject to defilement through pressure (as will be explained in Tract Taharoth), and may be moved on Sabbath from one place to another, provided it is dragged over cloths or carpets. R. Jehudah said: It is not allowed to drag any piece of furniture except such a cart, because it makes but a slight impression on the ground (and does not remove the soil so as to make a furrow).
GEMARA: The cart is subject to defilement. through pressure, because the child is in the habit of sitting on it. It may be handled on Sabbath, because it is a vessel; and may be dragged only on pieces of cloth, but not over the ground itself, because it would make a furrow, and the whole Mishna is in accordance with R. Jehudah, who holds that a thing which is made unintentionally, is also prohibited; but according to R. Simeon, who holds that it is not, it may be dragged on the ground also, no matter if it makes a furrow.
42APPENDIX TO PAGE 42.
R. Zutra bar Tubiah said in the name of Rabh: If an eye has rebelled (bulges out), it may be painted even on Sabbath. The hearers thought, that is if the paint was already prepared; but to prepare and bring it through public ground on the Sabbath, it may not. Said one of the scholars, whose name was Jacob, to them: It was explained to me by R. Jehudah that even all this may be done. R. Jehudah permitted to paint an eye on Sabbath. Said R. Samuel bar Jehudah: Who will follow Jehudah, who permits to violate the Sabbath? Finally himself had sore eyes, and be sent to R. Jehudah to inquire whether it was permitted (to paint the eyes) or not, and the answer was: It is permitted to all, but not to you (because you have rejected my decision). And in reality, was it then my decision? It was Mar Samuel's. When his servant had fever in her eyes on a Sabbath, she cried, but none attended her (because of Sabbath). Finally the eye burst. On the morrow Mar Samuel lectured in public that if an eye has bulged out it may be painted on Sabbath, because the veins of the eye are connected with the cells of the heart.
R. Joshua b. Levi said: Unkli may be cured on Sabbath, What is "Unkli"? Said R. Abba; Asthma.--From Abodah Zarah, pp. 28a-29b.}
29:1 This is transferred from Pesachim, p. 68, b.
30:1 The saying of R. Johanan here is transferred in our edition from here to Tract Sabbath, p. 18, as it belongs there.
34:1 See Tract Pesachim, Chap. IX., Mishna I.
35:1 See Lev. i. 4.
37:1 See Num. vi. 9.
40:1 Legally prohibited to be eaten by Israelites, as will be explained in Tract Hulin.