itsllmmWSBw

IMP

IBiBBi

¦¦lll^I1¦¦1& -

Qi

\I:gLyef§^,:ff8pm
tyx tAe, f 'otijufbig 'of ti College wi/iit^Colcmy*

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

MICHAEL L. RODKINSON.

REV. DR. ISAAC M. WISE.

NEW EDITION

OF THE

Babylonian Talmud
ENGLISH TRANSLATION
©rtginal Uejt JEottefc, tformulatefc, ano punctuate©
BY
MICHAEL L. RODKINSON

IRevtsefc an5 Corrected
BY
THE REV. DR. ISAAC M. WISE
President Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, O.

Volume I.
TRACT SABBATH

NEW YORK
NEW AMSTERDAM BOOK COMPANY, PUBLISHERS
152-156 Fifth Avenue

Copyright 1896
BY
MICHAEL L. RODKINSON

CONTENTS.

PAGE
Reviser's Letter,  v
Editor's Preface,  vii
Brief General Introduction to the Babylonian Talmud, . xv
Introduction to Tract Sabbath,  xxi
Synopsis of Subjects of Volume I. — Tract Sabbath, . . xxix
CHAPTER I.
Regulations concerning Transfer on Sabbath, . . . i
CHAPTER II.
Regulations concerning the Sabbath and 'Hanukah Light, 32
CHAPTER III.
Regulations concerning Stoves, Hearths, and Ovens, . 64
CHAPTER IV.
Regulations concerning the Depositing of Victuals on the
Sabbath, .......... 86
CHAPTER V.
Regulations concerning Gear which May and May Not be
Worn by Animals on the Sabbath, . . . .94
CHAPTER VI.
Regulations concerning What Garments (Serving as Orna
ments) Women May Go Out with on the Sabbath, . 111

iv CONTENTS.

CHAPTER VII. PAGE
The General Rule concerning the Principal Acts of Labor
on Sabbath, ........ 131

CHAPTER VIII.
Regulations concerning the Prescribed Quantity of Vict
uals and Beverages which Must Not be Carried about
on the Sabbath,  147
CHAPTER IX.
Rabbi Aqiba's Regulations of Different Subjects, . . 159
CHAPTER X.
Further Regulations concerning the Prescribed Quantity
of Things to be Stored, . . . . . .176

REVISER'S LETTER.

Cincinnati, O., March 24, 1896.
To the New Amsterdam Book Company, New York.
Gentlemen :— I beg leave to testify herewith that I
have carefully read and revised the English translation
of this volume of the " Tract Sabbath," Rodkinson's re
construction of the original text of the Talmud. The
translation is correct, almost literal, where the English
idiom permitted it. Very respectfully yours,
Isaac M. Wise,
President Hebrew Union College.

EDITOR'S PREFACE.

The Hebrew edition of Rosh Hashana contains an elaborate
introduction in three chapters, the translation of which does not
appear as yet. Its contents include many important rules which
we have followed in the entire work, but we do not feel called
upon at this time to engross the time of the English reader by re
citing them. We, however, deem it a duty to say a few words, so
that the reader may understand our position and the reason why
we have undertaken a work which will probably be productive of
much adverse criticism in certain quarters.
The fate of the Talmud has been the fate of the Jews. As
soon as the Hebrew was born * he was surrounded by enemies.
His whole history has been one of struggle against persecution
and attack. Defamation and deformation have been his lot. So,
too, has it been with the Talmud. At the beginning of its for
mative period, viz., the development of the Mishna, it was sur
rounded by such enemies as the Sadducees, the Boethusians, and
other sects. When its canon was fixed the Karaites tried to de
stroy or belittle its influence, and since that time it has been sub
jected to an experience of unvarying difficulty. Yet, with re
markable truth, the words of Isaiah [xliii. 2] may be applied to
both : " When thou passest through the waters, I will be with
thee ; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee ; when
thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned ; neither
shall the flame kindle upon thee." There is, however, one point
concerning which this simile is not true. The Jew has advanced ;
the Talmud has remained stationary.
* Vide Genesis xliii. 32.
vii

viii EDITOR'S PREFACE.
Since the time of Moses Mendelssohn the Jew has made vast
strides forward. There is to-day no branch of human activity in
which his influence is not felt. Interesting himself in the affairs
of the world, he has been enabled to bring a degree of intelligence
and industry to bear upon modern life that has challenged the
admiration of the world. But with the Talmud it is not so.
That vast encyclopedia of Jewish lore remains as it was. No im
provement has been possible; no progress has been made with
it. Reprint after reprint has appeared, but it has always been
called the Talmud Babli, as chaotic as it was when its canon
was originally appointed.* Commentary upon commentary has
appeared; every reprint of the Talmud contained new glosses
from prominent scholars, proposing textual changes, yet the text
of the Talmud has not received that heroic treatment that will
alone enable us to say that the Talmud has been improved.
Few books have ever received more attention than this vast
storehouse of Jewish knowledge. Friends and enemies it has
had. Attack after attack has been made upon it, and defence
after defence made for it; yet whether its enemies or its de
fenders have done it more harm it would be hard to tell. Not,
forsooth, that we do not willingly recognize that there have been
many learned and earnest spirits who have labored faithfully in
its behalf ; but for the most part, if the Talmud could speak, it
would say, " God save me from my friends !" For the friends
have, generally, defended without due knowledge of the stupen
dous monument of Rabbinical lore ; and the enemies have usually
attacked it by using single phrases or epigrams disconnected from
their context, by which method anything could be proven. In both
cases ignorance has been fatal. For how many have read the
whole Talmud through and are thus competent to judge of its
merits ? Is it right to attack or defend without sufficient infor
mation ? Is it not a proof of ignorance and unfairness to find fault
with that of which we are not able to give proper testimony ?
* Vide Brief Introduction.

EDITOR'S PREFACE. ix
Let us take the case of those persons in particular who attacked
the Talmud and made it the object of their venomous vituperation.
Is it possible that they could have believed a work capable of
teaching the monstrous doctrines so frequently attributed to it,
when that work says among other things, " When one asks for food,
no questions shall be asked as to who he is, but he must immedi
ately be given either food or money" ? Could a work be accused
of frivolity and pettiness that defines wickedness to be "the action
of a rich man who, hearing that a poor man is about to buy a piece of
property, secretly overbids him" ? (Qiddushin 59 a.) Could there be
a higher sense of true charity than that conveyed by the following
incident ? Mar Uqba used to support a poor man by sending him
on the eve of each Day of Atonement four hundred zuz.* When
the Rabbi's son took the money on one occasion he heard the
poor man's wife say, "Which wine shall I put on the table?
Which perfume shall I sprinkle around the room?" The son, on
hearing these remarks, returned with the money to his father and
told him of what he had heard. Said Mar Uqba, " Was that poor
man raised so daintily that he requires such luxuries? Go back
to him and give him double the sum!" (Ketuboth 7 a). This is
not recorded by the Talmud as an exception ; but it is the Tal
mudical estimate of charity. The Talmud is free from the nar
rowness and bigotry with which it is usually charged, and if
phrases used out of their context, and in a sense the very reverse
from that which their author intended, are quoted against it, we
may be sure that those phrases never existed in the original Tal
mud, but are the later additions of its enemies and such as never
studied it. When it is remembered that before the canon of the
Talmud was finished in the sixth century, it had been growing for
more than six hundred years, and that afterward it existed in frag
mentary manuscripts for eight centuries until the first printed
edition appeared ; that during the whole of that time it was beset
by ignorant, unrelenting, and bitter foes ; that marginal notes
* One denar (about 15 cents).

x EDITOR'S PREFACE.
were easily added and in after years easily embodied in the text
by unintelligent copyists and printers, such a theory as here ad
vanced seems not at all improbable.
The attacks on the Talmud have not been made by the enemies
of the Jews alone. Large numbers of Jews themselves repudiate
it, denying that they are Talmud Jews, or that they have any
sympathy with it. Yet there are only the few Karaites in Russia
and Austria, and the still fewer Samaritans in Palestine, who
are really not Talmud Jews. Radical and Reform, Conservative
and Orthodox, not only find their exact counterparts in the Talmud,
but also follow in many important particulars the practices in
stituted through the Talmud, e.g., New Year's Day, Pentecost (as
far as its date and significance are concerned), the Qaddish, etc.
The modern Jew is the product of the Talmud, which we shall
find is a work of the greatest sympathies, the most liberal im
pulses, and the widest humanitarianism. Even the Jewish de
fenders have played into the enemy's hands by their weak defences,
of which such expressions as " Remember the age in which it was
written," or " Christians are not meant by 'gentiles,' but only the
Romans, or the people of Asia Minor," etc., may be taken as a
type. Amid its bitter enemies and weak friends the Talmud has
suffered a martyrdom. Its eventful history is too well known to
require detailing here. We feel that every attack on it is an
attack upon the Jew. We feel that defence by the mere citation
of phrases is useless and at the best weak. To answer the at
tacks made upon it through ludicrous and garbled quotations
were useless. There is only one defence that can be made in
behalf of the Talmud. Let it plead its own cause in a modern
language !
What is this Talmud of which we have said so much ? What
is that work on which so many essays and sketches, articles and
books have been written ? The best reply will be an answer in
negative form. The Talmud is not a commentary on the Bible ;
nor should the vein of satire or humor that runs through it be

EDITOR'S PREFACE. xi
taken for sober earnestness.* Nor is the Talmud a legal code,
for it clearly states that one must not derive a law for practical
application from any halakhic statement, nor even from a prece
dent, unless in either case it be expressly said that the law or
statement is intended as a practical rule [Baba Bathra 130 b.]
Further : R. Issi asked of R. Jo'hanan : " What shall we do if you
pronounce a law to be a Halakha?" to which R. Jo'hanan replied :
" Do not act in accordance with it until you have heard from me,
'Go and practice.' " Neither is the Talmud a compilation of fixed
regulations, although the Shul'han Arukh would make it appear
so. Yet, even when the Shul'han Arukh will be forgotten, the
Talmud will receive the respect and honor of all who love liberty,
both mental and religious. It lives and will live because of its
adaptability to the necessities of every age, and if any proof were
needed to show that it is not dead, the attacks that are with re
markable frequency made on it in Germany might be given as the
strongest evidence. In its day the Talmud received, not the de
cisions, but the debates of the leaders of the people. It was an
independent critic, as it were, adapting itself to the spirit of the
times ; adding where necessary to the teachings of former days,
and abrogating also what had become valueless in its day. In
other words, the Talmud was the embodiment of the spirit of the
people, recording its words and thoughts, its hopes and aims, and
its opinions on every branch of thought and action. Religion and
Ethics, Education, Law, History, Geography, Medicine, Mathe
matics, etc., were all discussed. It dealt with living issues in the
liveliest manner, and, therefore, it is living, and in reading it we
live over again the lives of its characters.
Nothing could be more unfair, nothing more unfortunate than
to adopt the prevailing false notions about this ancient encyclo
pedia. Do not imagine it is the bigoted, immoral narrow work
that its enemies have portrayed it to be. On the very contrary ;
it is as free as the bird in its statements. It permits no shackles,
* See our article, " What is the Talmud ?" in the prospectus.

xii EDITOR'S PREFACE.
no fetters to be placed upon it. It knows no authority but con
science and reason. It is the bitterest enemy of all superstition
and all fanaticism.
But why speak for it ? Let it open its mouth and speak in its
own defence ! How can it be done ? The Talmud must be
translated into the modern tongues and urge its own plea. All
that we have said for it would become apparent, if it were only
read. Translation ! that is the sole secret of defence ! In trans
lating it, however, we find our path bristling with difficulties. To
reproduce it as it is in the original is in our judgment an impos
sible task. Men like Pinner and Rawicz have tried to do so with
single tracts, and have only succeeded in, at the best, giving
translations to the world which are not only not correct but also
not readable. If it were translated from the original text one
would not see the forest through the trees. For, as we said above,
throughout the ages there have been added to the text marginal
notes, explanatory words, whole phrases and sentences inserted in
malice or ignorance by its enemies and its friends.* As it stands
in the original it is, therefore, a tangled mass defying reproduction
in a modern tongue. It has consequently occurred to us that, in
order to enable the Talmud to open its mouth, the text must be
carefully edited. A modern book, constructed on a supposed
scientific plan, we cannot make of it, for that would not be the
Talmud; but a readable, intelligible work it can be made. We
have, therefore, carefully punctuated the Hebrew text with modern
punctuation marks, and have re-edited it by omitting all such
irrelevant matter as interrupted the clear and orderly arrangement
of the various arguments. In this way there disappear those
unnecessary debates within debates, which only serve to confuse
and never to enlighten on the question debated. Thus consecu-
tiveness has been gained, but never at the expense of the Talmud,
for in no case have we omitted one single statement that was
necessary or of any importance. In other words we have merely
* In other of our works we have named these interpolators.

EDITOR'S PREFACE. xiii
removed from the text those accretions that were added from out
side sources, which have proven so fruitful a source of misunder
standing and misrepresentation.
We continue our labors in the full and certain hope that "he
who comes to purify receives divine help," and that in our task
of removing the additions made by the enemies of the Talmud we
shall be purifying it from the most fruitful source of the attacks
made on it, and thereunto we hope for the help of Heaven. As
we have already said, we feel that this work will not be received
everywhere with equal favor. We could not expect that it would.
Jewish works of importance have most usually been given amid
" lightning and thunder," and this is not likely to prove an excep
tion. We are always ready to accept criticism, as long as it is ob
jective, and we shall gladly avail ourselves of suggestions given
to us, but we shall continue to disregard all personal criticism
directed not against our work but against its author. This may
serve as a reply to a so-called review that appeared in one of our
Western weeklies.
At the same time we deem it our duty to render to Dr. fsaac
M. Wise, the venerable President of the Hebrew Union College
of Cincinnati, our heartfelt thanks for the several evenings spent
in revising this volume, and for many courtesies extended to us in
general.
The Editor.
Cincinnati, May, 1896.

BRIEF GENERAL INTRODUCTION
TO THE
BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

On this, the appearance of our latest literary undertaking, we
deem a few explanatory remarks necessary. The brief outline of
the origin of the Talmud that follows may suggest the thought
that we have departed from the usual manner of dealing with the
questions here discussed, the more so since we have, for the sake
of brevity, refrained from citing the authorities on which our
statements are based. We wish, therefore, to declare here that we
did not venture to make a single statement without the support of
authorities well known in Hebrew literature. Our method was to
select such views as seemed to us the best authenticated in the
historical progress of Judaism. As we have taken our choice
from the numerous works on our subject, the student is entitled
to adopt or to reject the views that we represent.
Most of the Mishnayoth date from a very early period, and
originated with the students of the Jewish academies which ex
isted since the days of Jehoshaphat, King of Judah [2 Chron.
xvii. 9].
The rabbinical students of ancient times noted the essence of
the academical teachings in brief form, and, as a rule, in the idiom
in which it was spoken to them, so that they could afterward easi
ly commit it to memory. They have sometimes, however, added
comments and extensive explanations in the form of notes, so that
the mass of their learning embraced in course of time, according
to some authorities, as many as six hundred divisions.
The source of the Mishnayoth was the customs and regula-

xvi BRIEF GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
tions practised by the authorities in their administration of relig
ious and civil affairs : such as the Sabbath, Prayers, Cleanliness
(considered actually Godliness), Permitted and Forbidden Foods,
and controversies arising concerning Slavery. Indebtedness and
corporal punishment are subjects of academical discussions, con
ducted with the aim of perfecting them into national statutes en-
forcible in all Jewish communities alike.
In course of time, however, when those Mishnayoth were
noted down from earlier existing copies, many additions were
made. Finally Rabbi Judah the Prince, generally called " Rab
bi," concluded to collect all the Mishnayoth in his college for
proper arrangement. From these he selected six divisions, called
according to the subject they deal with, viz. : Plants, Feasts, Wo
men, Damages, Sacrifices, and Purifications, and he proclaimed
them holy for all Israel. Of the Mishnayoth so treated by Rabbi
some were left entirely intact, and were reproduced in their origi
nal form. To others he parenthetically added brief comments of
his own, and there are still others that he changed in form com
pletely, because already in his day old customs had changed and
taken new forms.
Such of them as he desired to make final and indisputable na
tional laws he incorporated into the Mishna without mentioning
the names of their authors. Where, however, he could formulate
no definite decision himself, or where they were well known to the
public, he gave full information of their authors as well as the
names of those opposed to their conclusions, without any deci
sion on his part. In still others he mentioned no names, but con
tented himself with saying " A'herim," i.e., " Some say," not
wishing to specify their authority for certain reasons.
Rabbi did not seek the compliance and agreement of all his
contemporaries in his arrangement of the Mishna, and many
differed from his conclusions and even arranged Mishnayoth in
accordance with their own views. Being, however, a man of great
prominence, influence, and wealth, Rabbi succeeded in quell
ing opposition and in making his conclusions as acceptable as

BRIEF GENERAL INTRODUCTION. xvii
the Mosaic law itself, and his great pupils, seeing that his inten
tions were only to prevent dissensions and their only aim the
public weal, supported him nobly, until his teachings were accept
ed as the law of the nation.
Many Mishnayoth were rejected and destroyed by Rabbi, but,
not being in possession of all those he wished to destroy, he went
in search of them to Yeshibhoth outside of his jurisdiction.
There, however, he met with great opposition. Some of the Mish
nayoth were hidden beyond his reach, others were secretly pre
served and arranged within the very limits of his domain and
promptly brought to light after his death. But Rabbi's pupils
did not dignify them with the name Mishna, implying " next to
Mosaic law," * but called them Tosephtoth, meaning "additions
of a later period," or merely additional, not principal matter.
They were also named Boraithoth (outsiders), i.e., secondary,
not academical matter. They spread, however, very rapidly after
Rabbi's death, and to such an extent as to threaten the Mishnayoth
of Rabbi with entire extinction. Such would actually have been
the result, had not the pupils of Rabbi organized again Yeshib
hoth whose aim was to perpetuate the Mishnayoth of Rabbi, which
they also accomplished. Yeshibhoth of that character were those
of Rabh and Samuel in Babylon and Rabbi Janai and Rabbi
Jo'hanan in Palestine. These Yeshibhoth made strenuous efforts
to explain and harmonize the Mishnayoth of Rabbi with the
teachings of the Boraithoth, generally regarded as those of Rabbi
'Hija and Rabbi Oshaia, who were greatly admired bythe public.
At times the Mishna of Rabbi was abbreviated and replenished
with the text of the Boraitha, or explained with an opposing opin
ion, so as to harmonize it with the latter or suit the new condi
tions and consequent changes of the custom that originally caused
the conclusion of the Mishna. Where, however, they found no
other way to suit their purpose they inserted a new Mishna of
their own composition into the text of Rabbi.

* See Mielziener's " Introduction to the Talmud," page 6.

xviii BRIEF GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
The teachers mentioned in the Mishna of Rabbi or in the Bo
raithoth and Tosephta were called Tanai'm (singular Tana) signi
fying Professor. The teachings of the Yeshibhoth, covering a pe
riod of some centuries, which also found adherents and became
the traditional law, were called Gemara, signifying " conclusion."
The intention was to harmonize the Mishna and Boraitha, and, in
most cases, to arrive at a final decision as to the proper interpre
tation of the theory of the law (as Rabbi Jo'hanan prohibited
compliance with the Halakha unless it is mandatory). These
Gemara teachers were called Amoraim (interpreters), i.e., they in
terpreted to the public the difficult passages in the Mishna. Be
ing classified as interpreters only, they had no authority to devi
ate from the spirit of the Mishna unless supported by another
Tana opposing the Mishna, in which case they could follow the
opinion of the Tana with whom they agreed. Rabhina and R.
Ashi, who lived in the fifth century (third century of Amoraim),
began to arrange the Gemara, but without success, and commenced
a second time to arrange it. Unfortunately they died before ac
complishing their task, and the Gemara had to undergo the chances
of transmission from hand to hand until the appearance upon the
scene of Rabana Jose, president of the last Amoraic Yeshibha in
Pumbeditha, who foresaw that his Yeshibha was destined to be the
last, owing to the growing persecution of the Jews from the days
of " Firuz." He also feared that the Amoraic manuscripts would
be lost in the coming dark days or materially altered, so he sum
moned all his contemporary associates and hastily closed up the
Talmud, prohibiting any further additions. This enforced haste
caused not only an improper arrangement and many numerous
repetitions and additions, but also led to the " talmudizing" of ar
ticles directly traceable to bitter and relentless opponents of the
Talmud. The time (Rabono Jose conducted his Yeshibha only
seventeen years) being too short for a proper and critical review
of each and every subject, many theories were surreptitiously
added by its enemies, with the purpose of making it detestable to
its adherents. Of such character is the expression, " That of R.

BRIEF GENERAL INTRODUCTION. xix
Ashi is a fabrication," which is repeated numerous times through
out the Talmud and which could by no means have originated
with the Amorai'm, who as a rule were very guarded in their ex
pressions and would never have dreamed of applying it to such
Talmudical authorities as R. Ashi and Mar, his son, or such like
expressions with reference to even the Patriarchs or the Prophets.
This closing up of the Talmud did not, however, prevent the im
portation of foreign matter into it, and many such have crept in
through the agency of the " Rabanan Sabural" and the Geonim of
every later generation.
The chief aim of the authors of the Gemara being to perpetu
ate the Mishna as the sole source of the Jewish religious and civil
code after the Mosaic laws themselves, they not only directed all
their energy to the discussion and perfecting of its deductions,
but treated its very words and letters as inspired and as holy as
the Bible itself, forming at times conclusions from a superfluous
word or letter. Oftentimes, when they found the Mishna differing
with an established custom in their days, they resorted to subtle
inquiry and minute discussion, until they succeeded in establish
ing harmony between the differing points. All these efforts were
directed to refute and disprove the assertions of the different
sects who opposed the oral law and who were inclined to adhere
to the written law solely. Therefore the Rabbis of the Gemara
asked "Minalan" (Wherefrom its source?) in the treatment of a
subject not plainly specified in the Bible; and also the interroga
tory remark " Peshita" (Of course !) as regards subjects plainly
enumerated in the Scriptures which do not admit of any other in
terpretation. Of the same origin is the question " Lemai Hilk-
hetha?" (Wherefore this discussion?) with reference to an ob
solete custom. So much for its general history.

INTRODUCTION TO TRACT SABBATH.

With this tract we commence the translation of the section of
the Talmud called Moed (Festivals), containing the following
tracts : Sabbath, Erubhin, Rosh Hashana, Yuma, Shekalim, Suk-
kah, Megillah, Taanith, Pesachim, Beitzah, Hagigah, and Moed
Katan. All these tracts are entirely devoted to precepts pertain
ing to the observance of the festivals and Sabbath, such as the
performance of the different ritual ceremonies on feast-days, the
manner of sanctifying the Sabbath, and the ordinances relating
to mourning for the dead both on Sabbath and week-days.
The commandments on which these precepts are founded, or
from which they are derived, are contained in various portions of
the Pentateuch. The fourth commandment of the Decalogue
enacts (Exod. xx. 8-n) and (Deut. v. 12-15): "The seventh
day shall ye keep holy." In various other parts of the Pentateuch
the due observance of the Sabbath is repeatedly ordained; in
some instances merely mentioning the day as one to be kept
inviolate and holy; and in others employing greater emphasis,
referring to the history of creation, and establishing the obser
vance as a sign of the covenant between the Lord and Israel.
Such texts are Exod. xiii. 1 2 ; xvi. 1 5 ; xxxi. 1 3-1 7 ; xxxiv. 2 1 ;
xxxv. 1-3; Lev. xix. 29; xxiii. 32; Num. xv. 9, etc. While the
general principle is thus frequently inculcated, its special applica
tion, however, and specific enactments as to what consitutes a
violation of the Sabbath, are nowhere fully carried out in the
Pentateuch, and thus but few texts of the law serve as a direct
basis for the minute and numerous enactments of the rabbinical
law. The Mishna enumerates thirty-nine " Abhoth" or principal acts

xxii INTRODUCTION TO TRACT SABBATH.
of labor, the performance of any one of which constitutes a violation
of the Sabbath. Every other kind of work becomes illegal only
if it can be classified under one or any of these principal acts of
labor. Thus, for instance, under the principal act of ploughing,
every analogous kind of work, such as digging, delving, weeding,
dunging, etc., must be classified. In addition to these thirty-nine
principal acts and their accessories and derivatives, there are other
acts which are especially prohibited by the rabbinical law as tend
ing to violate the Sabbath rest (Shbhuth) . For the violation itself
various degrees of culpability are established, and various degrees
of punishment awarded. All these subjects relating to the due
observance of the Sabbath, and pointing out its violation in every
possible way, form the contents of the treatise Sabbath.
In order properly to understand the Mishna, and to avoid
tedious repetitions, it is necessary to commence with the explana
tion of certain general principles and technical expressions pre
dominating in the text.
Wherever throughout the Mishna the expression guilty
(Hayabh) or innocent (Patur) is used, the meaning of the former
(guilty) is that the transgressor acting unintentionally must bring
the sin-offering prescribed in the law ; of the second expression
(innocent), that the accused is absolved from punishment.
If through the performance of an unprohibited act some other
(prohibited) occupation is inadvertently entered upon, it consti
tutes no offence, providing the latter is not done intentionally nor
the lawful occupation entered upon with the covert purpose of
making it serve as a subterfuge to do that which is prohibited.
In the degrees of violation the nature of the occupation must
be considered, as various kinds of labor may be required to per
form and complete one act, and thus the offender may become
amenable to several penalties. On the other hand, the rule is laid
down that such occupations as only destroy, but do not serve an
end in view, do not involve culpability (in the rigorous sense
of the word) ; nor yet does work which is but imperfectly or
incompletely performed involve culpability.

INTRODUCTION TO TRACT SABBATH. xxiii
The prohibition to carry or convey any object from one place
to another, which in Chap. i. § i, of this treatise is called " Yetziath
(Ha) Shabbath" (which means transfer on the Sabbath) and forms
the thirty-ninth of the principal acts of labor, requires particular
attention and explanation from the complexity of cases to which
it gives rise. All space was by the Tanaim divided into four
distinct kinds of premises, explained in the Gemara of this chap
ter. When in the text of the Mishna the question is about carry
ing and conveying from one place to another, it does not apply to
the "free place," as that is subject to no jurisdiction. Moreover,
the open air above private property has no legal limitation, where
as that over public property or unclaimed ground (carmelith) only
belongs thereto to the height of ten spans (see explanation of
the Gemara). The carrying or conveying from one kind of prem
ises to another does not constitute a complete or perfect act,
unless the same person who takes a thing from the place it occu
pies deposits it in another place.
We commenced the translation of the edition with the Tract
Rosh Hashana instead of Sabbath for two reasons, the first being
that the former treats of New Year, and the second that it vir
tually contains the calendar of festivals. The time fixed for the
celebration of festivals, the keeping of fast days and half holidays
according to the Jewish calendar is not determined in any of the
tracts contained in the section Moed, with the exception of Rosh
Hashana, and the latter treats almost wholly of the appointment
of the times appointed for such festivals, etc.
From this time on we shall translate the tracts in their regu
lar order of sequence as enumerated above.
The tracts Sabbath and Erubhin will contain the laws for the
observance of rest on Sabbath, and these laws can be divided into
two separate parts. Firstly, the part prohibiting labor on the
Sabbath day, at the same time defining what is to be termed labor
and what does not constitute an act of labor; and secondly, the
part ordaining how the day is to be sanctified and distinguished
from a week-day in the manner of eating, drinking, dress, light-

xxiv INTRODUCTION TO TRACT SABBATH.
ing of candles in honor of the Sabbath, and incidentally the light
ing of candles in honor of the festival of Chanukah (the Mac
cabees). It has been proven that the seventh day kept holy by the Jews
was also in ancient times the general day of rest among other
nations,* and was usually spent by the people of those days in
much the same way as it is spent now, wherever local laws do not
restrict buying and selling, namely : In the forenoon prayers were
recited and the necessities of life for the day were bought, while
the afternoon was devoted to pleasure-seeking, merrymaking, vis
iting, and so forth. The Jews living prior to the time of Ezra
and Nehemiah, and even during the latter's regime, were wont to
spend the Sabbath in the same manner as their pagan neighbors.
It was this fact that caused the sages of Nehemiah's time to fear
that should the Jews, who were always in the minority as com
pared with other nations, continue this method of keeping the
Sabbath and join in the merrymaking and pleasures of their neigh
bors, mingling freely with their sons and daughters, assimilation
was almost inevitable, especially as the Jewish race was scattered
over all the known world and was nowhere in very large num
bers. The sages then devised means to keep the Jew from mingling
with the Gentile and from participating in the pleasures and
carousals of his neighbors. This can be seen from Nehemiah xiii.
1-26 : " In those days saw I in Judah some treading wine-presses
on the Sabbath, etc." " In those days also saw I Jews that had
married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab," etc. " Ye
shall not give your daughters unto their sons nor take their daugh
ters unto your sons, or for yourselves." Thus we see that Nehe
miah began by prohibiting traffic and the carrying of burdens on
the Sabbath [ibid. xiii. 19] and ended by prohibiting intermar-

*Inatable compiled by Rev. A. H. Lewis in his work entitled " Biblical Teachings,
concerning the Sabbath and the Sunday," it is shown that in nearly all the languages
spoken by man the Sunday is the first and the Sabbath the seventh day of the week,
conforming therefore to our Sabbath.

INTRODUCTION TO TRACT SABBATH. xxv
riage with foreign women. About this time also another prophet,
the Second Isaiah — who, though not possessing the temporal power
of Nehemiah, was gifted with that persuasive eloquence that ap
pealed to the heart, — preached against indulging in pleasures
on the Sabbath day. He says [Isaiah Iviii. 13-14]: "If thou
turn away thy foot from the Sabbath" (meaning if thou keep
away from drinking-places, dancing-houses, etc., on the Sabbath
and follow not the custom of other nations), " and call the Sab
bath a delight" (meaning the rest on the Sabbath shall constitute
thy pleasure), " the holy of the Lord, honorable ; and shalt honor
him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure,
nor speaking thine own words." " Then shalt thou delight thy
self in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride the high places of
the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father; for
the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." (The inf erence is very
plain. The prophet wishes to impress the Jew with the fact that
the Lord will reward those with the heritage of Jacob who have
kept away from mingling with the pleasures of other nations.
Read ibid, lvii., especially verses 10, 11, and 12.)
After the establishment of a permanent government among
the Jews, however, it was found that the exhortations of the
prophets after the manner of Isaiah were of no avail ; the people
still continued seeking pleasures on the Sabbath, after the manner
of other nations, and were still wont to enjoy the pastimes of their
neighbors. The enforcement of the prohibition of carrying bur
dens was then decided upon to act as a check upon the people by
defining minutely the meaning of burdens, and the prohibition was
interpreted to include not only heavy burdens but all portable
articles, such as money, trinkets, eatables, etc., while only neces
sary articles of clothing and apparel were permitted to be worn.
To such an extent was the matter carried that even the wearing of
rings, with the exception of such as had the name of the wearer
engraved upon them, was not permitted. In fact, everything that
could be converted into money was included in the definition of
burdens. Beggars were not permitted to solicit alms on the Sab-

xxvi INTRODUCTION TO TRACT SABBATH.
bath, contrary to the customs of other nations, so as not to afford
any one an excuse for carrying money on that day.
The enforcement of such a law, however, was practically im
possible in the case of people who remained in their houses, and cer
tain modifications were made. These modifications were as fol
lows : The laws were made to apply only on public grounds but
were not valid on private grounds, so that in a private house a
person was permitted to carry whatever was necessary. Private
grounds were also established by the institution of Erubhin, i.e.,
where a street or a public place was inhabited by Jews alone a
small amount of meal was collected from each household ; from
the meal a cake was made and hung conspicuously in that locality.
The point where the street inhabited by Jews alone commenced
and the point where it ended were joined by a piece of twine, and
thus definitely marked. Thus public grounds were turned into
private grounds, from the fact that each household contributing a
share of meal made them all in a manner copartners in one ob
ject. The walking of more than two thousand ells outside of the
city limits was also prohibited. Within the city limits, be the
city ever so large, walking was permitted.
The possibility of confinement in the house on the Sabbath
becoming conducive to the performance of labor was offset by the
establishment of a law prohibiting all the different modes of labor
used in the construction of the tabernacle, besides all manner of
agricutural labor. This again brought about the detailing of all
the different modes of labor employed in the construction of the
tabernacle and in agriculture, all of which is discussed in these
treatises of Sabbath and Erubhin.
Naturally the institution of laws carries with it provisions for
the penalties attending their infraction, and these penalties were
divided into three classes :
First, the penalties for unintentional infractions.
Secondly, for intentional infractions.
Thirdly, for intentional violations where the violator had been
previously forewarned of the penalty by two witnesses.

INTRODUCTION TO TRACT SABBATH. xxvii
The penalty for the first class of infractions was simply the
sacrificing of a sin-offering, which, however, involved a great
many hardships, as the culprit had to bring the sin-offering to the
temple in Jerusalem in person, and was frequently compelled to
travel quite a distance in order to do so, besides sustaining the
loss of the value of the offering.
For the second class, if two witnesses testified before the
tribunal that the culprit had labored on the Sabbath, and the cul
prit admitted that he had done so intentionally, no penalty was
inflicted by the tribunal, but the person was told that he would
be punished by the heavenly power with the curse of Kareth
(shortening his allotted time of existence on earth). No pen
alty was inflicted, for the reason that, the culprit having made him
self liable to severe punishment from superhuman sources, it
served as an excuse to absolve him from human punishment. *
For the third class, however, when the culprit openly defied
the existing authority and in spite of forewarnings persisted in
violating the law, he was considered a traitor to the government,
to be sentenced to death by stoning, as was the wood-gatherer
[Numbers xv. 32].
It is upon these laws that the discussions in the treatises Sab
bath and Erubhin are based, and in addition the reader will find
many ethical laws, legends, and the enumeration of such enjoy
ments as are permitted on the Sabbath day and the festivals.
In addition to the above we would make the following cita
tions from the text of the Talmud, as a necessary feature of the
introduction :
I. We find in the Tract Sabbath, 6 1 b and 96 b, the story of
the mysterious scroll which Rabh claimed to have found in the
house of his uncle, R. Hyya. This scroll referred to the prin
cipal acts of labor prohibited on the Sabbath, which were forty
less one. Rabh discovered in this scroll the statement of R. Issi
b. Jehudah to the effect that although thirty-nine principal acts of
* Because it is a rule of rabbinical law that of two punishments incurred by
one act, the severer one is meted out Oam leh bid'rabba mineh.

xxviii INTRODUCTION TO TRACT SABBATH.
labor are enumerated, only one of them makes a man actually
culpable. The Gemara then amends this statement and declares
that it should read : " One of the thirty-nine does not involve cul
pability," but does not mention which one it is. Consequently it
remains doubtful which act it is that does not involve culpability,
and where a doubt exists as to whether an act is prohibited or not
no punishment can be inflicted for its commission. From this
two things may be inferred : First, that these acts of labor were
prohibited for political reasons, because the mystery was extant,
and we find the term mystery applied to political cases only ; and
second, that the Gemara declares in the same passage that the car
rying of an object from public ground into private ground is not
one of the doubtful acts and a penalty is prescribed in the event
of its being committed. Hence the object was to prevent the
assimilation explained above.
II. We find in Yebamoth 90, b : " R. Eliezer b. Jacob said : 'I
have heard that a man was found riding a horse on Sabbath in the
time of the Greeks and being brought before the tribunal for the
crime was stoned to death.' This man was punished, not because
his crime merited the penalty, but because the times made it
necessary." The inference is therefore clearly established that the
man was punished for political reasons, and that the violation of
the Sabbath laws did not involve capital punishment.
III. In Yoma, 85 b, it is written : " R. Jonathan b Joseph said,
'The Sabbath is holy unto you,' " implying that the Sabbath is
handed over to you and not you to the Sabbath.*
IV. R. Johanan states elsewhere that in Palestine, where the
Jews were together, no public ground existed. Michael L. Rodkinson.
Cincinnati, March, 1896.

* This is taken from Mechilta, an authority older than the Talmud, and stands in
no connection with the Halakha. Furthermore, the mystic scrolls may in some in
stances have had reference to political necessities of the day, but by no means in all
cases. — The Reviser.

SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS
OF
VOLUME I -TRACT SABBATH

SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS.
Several requests have been received by the translator that an index
should be made to the volumes of the Talmud, as is customary with all
modern works. It would be an utter impossibility to give a complete index
of everything contained in the Talmud. Were it like other scientific works,
which treat each subject separately, this could easily be done ; but with
the Talmud it is different. On one page many different subjects may be
discussed, and again a single subject may occupy several pages. The
Talmud, therefore, has never had an index, not even the portions which
have been translated.
After careful examination of the volumes, page by page, it has been de
cided to make a synopsis, i. e., to give briefly the heads of the discussions
and conversations upon each Mishna, indicating the page where the
Mishna is to be found, and the Gemara of each one, which serves as a
commentary. By this the reader should be able to refer to what he desires
to know. A synopsis is therefore given of every Mishna which discusses a single
subject, with its accompanying Gemara ; but when several short Mishnas
cover the same subject, a single synopsis is given of the whole, including
the Gemara of each one ; and where a chapter is short and has but one
subject, a synopsis of the whole chapter is made, without dividing it into
Mishnas. This is the best that can be done, and it is hoped that readers will find
it satisfactory. CHAPTER I.
The first Mishna deals with: Regulations concerning prohibited and
permitted acts of transfer over the dividing line of adjoining premises and
the area of such premises ; the classification of premises ; in which premises
transfer is permitted ; laws of transfer or labor, when committed by the
joint efforts of two persons; transfer from and to doorsteps, . . 1-14
xxix

xxx SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS.
The second Mishna treats on : Whether work maybe commenced at the
approach of the time for afternoon prayer ; what kind of work is referred
to ; how should a man pray ; what must he wear ; when may he eat his
midday meal ; the informing of the bestowal of gifts; Sabbath as a valua
ble gift of God and its origin ; various legends of Rabha bar Ma'hassia in
the name of Rabh,  14-20
The third Mishna ordains: Tailors and other artisans are not permitted
to go out with their tools on Friday near eventide. Treats also on
whether one may read by lamplight on the Sabbath ; the laws of visiting
the sick ; what prayers may be offered for the sick, . . . 20-24
The fourth Mishna relates: How the eighteen famous ordinances were
instituted in the attic of Hananya ben Hyzkiah ben Goron, and by whom
the Roll of Fasts was written  24, 25
The fifth Mishna ordains: Which acts of labor maybe commenced on
Friday eve ; concerning labor which is accomplished without assistance of
man on Sabbath ; laws concerning labor which is accomplished without
assistance of man on Sabbath ; laws concerning work given to Gentiles.
Narrative of R. Simeon ben Gamaliel concerning how his father's house
dealt with Gentile clothes-washers. Treats on transmission of letters and
journeying on ships on the Sabbath,  25-30
The sixth Mishna treats on : Regulations pertaining to the roasting of
meats and baking of bread before the Sabbath ; the sacrifices at the Tem
ple on the Passover,  30-31

CHAPTER II.
The first Mishna treats on: Permissible and non-permissible oils and
wicks for lamps on the Sabbath and Hanukah (feast of Maccabbees) ; the
law of the Hanukah lights; Hanukah and the miracle; the duration of
Hanukah ; benedictions to be said on that festival ; the reward of those
who keep the Sabbath-light commandment; the reward of those who
esteem scholarship,  32-42
The second Mishna treats on : What balsams may and may not be used
both for light and for the person on the Sabbath ; a narrative of a woman
who hated her daughter-in-law ; who may be called a rich man, . 42, 43
The third Mishna treats on : What wicks made from parts of trees may be
used; whether broken vessels may be used for fuel on a biblical feast day; what
may be done with the residue of oil left in a lamp ; practical laws of egg
shells and whether chairs may be dragged on the floor on Sabbath, 43, 44
The fourth Mishna deals with the same objects as the third. . 44-45
The fifth Mishna treats on : The different opinions of R. Eliezer and
R. Aquiba concerning the defilement of a piece of cloth, and if it is allowed
to make a wick of it. What happened with R. Jehuda in the hall of Beth-
Nitzah and with Abbinh of Ziphorus, who committed certain things which
were not allowed in the presence of the sages  45-46

SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS. xxxi
The sixth Mishna treats on: Whether a light may be extinguished on
Sabbath either for fear of accident or to afford rest to the sick; the ques
tion asked R. Tan'hum of Nav and his replying sermon ; the soul being
called the " Light of God ; " the intended concealment of the Book of Prov
erbs and Ecclesiastes ; the Shekhina (divine presence) not resting with a
man except through his joy of having performed a good deed ; Rabha's
custom when commencing his lectures to his disciples. R. Gamaliel's ser
mon and answers to the disciple who derided him. The story of the three
proselytes rejected by Shamai and accepted by Hillel. " What is hateful to
thee do not unto thy neighbor, that is the law. All else is but a commen
tary." The six sections of the Mishna are inferred from a biblical passage.
The first thing asked of a man when standing before the divine judgment
is, " Hast thou traded in good faith ? " The " Fear of the Lord " is the chief
principle. The wicked fear death, although mentioning it every day, 46-54
The seventh Mishna contains : The sins of women are passed upon when
confined with childbirth ; the sins of men, while in danger. A good deed
is committed through the agency of a meritorious person and a bad deed
through the agency of the wicked ; all who are about to die must repent of
their sins; the defenders of man before divine judgment are repentance
and good deeds. A thousandth part of one defender saves a man from the
danger threatened him by a thousand accusers. The penalties imposed
upon man for hating without cause ; for robbery ; for perverting or pro
crastinating justice ; for destroying the law ; for murder ; for adultery ; for
idolatry ; for using obscene language. The story of R. Simeon ben Johai,
who remained in a cave for twelve years. The causes leading up to his
concealment in the cave ; his adventures after leaving the cave, . 54-59
The eighth Mishna ordains : The three things to be said by a man in
his house on Friday eve ; how they are to be said ; when twilight takes
place ; relates how many signals of the horn were blown to remind the peo
ple of the advent of the Sabbath. Is there a difference between a shophar
and a fife ?  59-64
CHAPTER III.
Mishna I. Into which hearths or ovens victuals may be deposited on
the Sabbath. The opinions of the school of Hillel and the school of
Shamai concerning the same ; the different opinions upon the teaching
of the two schools. Victuals having once been taken out of an oven, would
it be allowed to replace them ? The law concerning a pot of victuals
which had been forgotten and was thus cooked on the Sabbath. Usages
of R. Jose on his way to Zipporah, and of R. Jehuda Hanassi when travel
ling. A narrative of R. Ishai while in the presence of R. Hyya the
Great  65-68
Mishna II. The difference in law between an oven and a hearth; also,
difference arising from an oven or a hearth being with straw or with wood,
etc.,  68, 69
Mishna III. Customs of the people of Tiberius relative to the heating
of a pitcher of cold water. Is it allowed to place a pitcher of cold water

xxxii SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS.
into one filled with hot water in order to heat the water ; or, vice versa, in
order to heat the water ? May one wash his body in the warm water of the
Tiberius Springs or in water warmed on the Sabbath eve? May the entire
body be washed at once or each member separately? Customs in a bath
house. Are sweat-baths permitted on the Sabbath ? Incidents occurring
in the bath-house of the children of Barak. Why sweat-baths were pro
hibited. May one warm himself by a hearth-fire ? Is bathing one's self in
a washtub and anointing one's self with oils permitted on the Sabbath ?
Usages of Rabbi Jehuda Hanassi in this matter. Is swimming in a lake
permitted on the Sabbath? Incidents attending R. Zera's witnessing R.
Abuha's swimming in a lake on a Sabbath,  69-74
Mishnas IV. and V. Concerning the permissibility of pouring cold
water in a muliar or antikhi, the fuel of which had been removed ; or in a
kettle, the hot water of which had been poured out, and the prescribed
quantity of such water  74. 75
Mishna VI. Concerning the addition of spices to a pot of victuals, 76
Mishna VII. Concerning the permissibility of placing a vessel under
a burning lamp to receive its dripping oil or falling sparks, and the placing
of a vessel under a hen to receive the egg. Ordinance relating to a corpse
lying in the sun. If it is allowed to save a corpse from the fire. Prayers to
be offered on Sabbath over the dead. The accordance of permission to
save a corpse from conflagration on the Sabbath, . . . 76-78
Mishnas VIII and IX. Concerning the handling of new and old lamps
on the Sabbath. Ordinances relative to a bed which had been designated for
the purpose of holding money on the Sabbath. The permissibility of handling
a burning Hanukah lamp for fear of the Persians. The law of Muktzah.
The ordinance relative to handling a lamp on Sabbath and the dictum of
Resh Lakish in Zidon. The ordinance concerning the nuptial couch.
Action of R. Malchiah while the guest of R. Simlai and R. Abuhai at the
house of R. Joshua ben Levi and R. Johanan. The experience of R. Avia,
who came to the house of Rabha and sat on Rabha's bed without removing
his dirty shoes. Questions put to him by Rabha, and his replies. The law
of a principal prohibited act. What R. Haninadid with a folding bed, that
had become unfastened on a feast day  78-85

CHAPTER IV.
Mishna I. What substances may be used for the preserving of victuals
Rabba's and R. Zera's upbraiding of a slave of the Exilarch, while sojourn
ing in the latter's house. Concerning the replacing of feathers in a pillow.
Concerning the opening of a bunghead in a barrel and the making of a
neckband in a shirt  86-88
Mishnas II. and III. Concerning the permissibility of depositing vict
uals in cloth and shorn wool intended for market. The derivation of the
thirty-nine principal acts of labor on the Sabbath from the thirty-nine
times labor is mentioned in the Pentateuch. The law concerning branches

SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS. xxxiii
of trees which were bound together to be used for fuel and were subse
quently intended for sitting upon. R. Hanina ben Aqiba's action in such
a case. The ordinance relating to the use of soap-powder and soap on the
Sabbath. The necessity of washing one's hands and feet for the sake of
the Creator, ...  88-91
Mishna IV. What is to be done with a pot that had not been covered
on the eve of Sabbath? The decision of Ishmael in the matter in the
presence of Rabbi. The mutual respect of the sages for each other. R.
Nahman's statement to Doen his servant  92, 93
CHAPTER V.
Mishna I. What gear animals may go out in on the Sabbath. Levi
the son of R. Huna bar Hyya, and Rabbi, the son of R. Huna, occurrence
on the road. A bridle may be worn by an ass whose behavior is bad. A
bridle is allowed as a guard but not as an ornament, . . . 94-96
Mishna II. An ass may go out with a rug, but what is the law concern
ing a saddle ? Ordinances relative to a feed-bag. The decision of Arioch
of Babylon (Samuel) in the matter. Concerning bags tied around the
udders of she-goats. The miracle that was wrought for a man whose wife
died and left him a nursing child. The discussion of the rabbis about such
a miracle. Narrative relating to a man whose wife was lame, . 97-100
Mishnas III. and IV. Concerning gear which may not be worn by ani
mals on Sabbath. Peculiarities of the Hannun tree and where it may be
found. The wealth of R. Eliezer ben Azariah. Penalty for the failure to
warn one's family against evil. The different signs on the foreheads of the
righteous and the wicked. The seal of God. Derivation of the merits
of the fathers. Is death possible without sin ? Defence for Reuben and
others who are mentioned in the Bible as sinners. Rabbi Hannassi's justi-
cation for David. Was David guilty of listening to slander? Consequences
of David's sin. King Solomon's sin. The Archangel Gabriel's act at the
time of King Solomon's marriage with Pharao's daughter. The most fer
vent repenters of their sins,  100-110
CHAPTER VI.
Mishna I. What garments a woman may go out in. Definition of
totaphoth. Concerning the garbs of slaves. May the rabbis wear their
insignia of office on Sabbath ? Effect of a sermon on the women of the
city of Mehuza concerning ornaments in the shape of a crown. Ordinances
concerning nosebands, earrings, and finger-rings, . . . 111-115
Mishna II. What garments a man must not go out in. Consequences
of wearing iron-bound sandals. The law of majority. How shoes are to
be put on. Why one when anointing himself should first anoint the head.
Law concerning amulets, both tried and untried, . . . 115-118
Mishna III. Ordinances concerning hairpins and perfume-bottles.
Causes of poverty. The trees of Jerusalem, .... 118-121

xxxiv SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS.
Mishna IV. Concerning bows, swords, and shields. Are they con
sidered ornaments or is the wearing of such things degrading ? Interpre
tation of biblical passages. Are they to be taken literally or figuratively.
Rewards emanating from the proper study of the Law. Customs of scholars
when discussing the Law. God's blessing upon scholars who mutually in
struct one another. Regarding a man who keeps a vicious dog about his
premises. Why the children of Israel were in need of forgiveness upon
their return from the war with the Midianites  121-125
Mishnas V., VI., VII., and VIII. What garments women, young girls,
and boys may go out in on Sabbath. References to cripples and to chil
dren of princes  125-129
Mishna IX. Concerning the danger of imitating the customs of the
Amorites, Occurrence at the feast given by R. Akiba, . . 129,130

CHAPTER VII.
Mishna I. The principal rule concerning the Sabbath. Regulations
regarding children in captivity among idolators and converts. Remaining
with idolators. Rules concerning one who was ignorant as to what labor
was prohibited on the Sabbath but was conscious of the Sabbath, and vice
versa. Concerning a man who, while travelling in a desert, had forgotten
which day was Sabbath. How labor may be distinguished. Different
instances of forgetfulness regarding Sabbath and the performance of labor
on the Sabbath. Instances of forgetfulness in dietary matters. Instances
of intentional and unintentional performance of labor, and their distinc
tion,  130-139
Mishna II. Enumeration of the forty, less one, acts of labor. Principal
and. incidental acts. The degree of guilt involved in learning magic arts.
Condemnation of one who is able to acquire astronomical knowledge and
neglects to do so,  139-145
Mishnas III., IV., and V. Another rule was laid down. Discussions
concerning the carrying out of necessary things on the Sabbath and the
limitation of quantity. Different kinds of food may be counted to
gether,  145-146

CHAPTER VIII.
Mishna I. The prescribed quantities of wine, honey, and milk that
may be carried out on Sabbath. The strength of different wines. Instances
of stronger creatures fearing weaker ones. Why goats precede sheep in a
flock. Why are she-goats not covered with a tail like sheep ? Why has a
camel a short tail? Why has an ox a long tail? Why are the feelers of a
locust soft ? What is the reason that the lower eyelids of a hen turn up ?
Three creatures grow stronger, etc  146-151
Mishnas II., III., IV., and V. The quantity of rope, paper from which
writing has been erased, skins, parchment, bones, loam, etc., which may be

SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS. xxxv
carried out on the Sabbath. Honor of man supersedes a biblical command
ment. What is magic? The explanation of the verse Isaiah xxxv., 1 51-158

CHAPTER IX.
Mishnas I., II., III., and IV. Sayings and deductions of R. Akiba
The day of the week and the month on which the Law was given to Israel.
Assumption of authority by Moses and God's acquiescence. The name of
the month on which the Israelites left Egypt, and was it an intercalary
month ? The compulsory acceptance of the law by the Israelites and their
subsequent voluntary acceptance in the days of Xerxes of Persia. Israel's
readiness to obey even before hearing. The publication of every word
spoken by God in seventy languages. Comparison of the sayings of the
Thora with a nobleman. The understanding of the Law is healthful, its
misinterpretation is poisonous. Every word leaving the mouth of the Lord
filled the world with aromatic odors. Complaints of the angels upon the
ascension of Moses to heaven. Moses' answer. Satan's search for the
Thora. Concerning the bearing of a slave toward his master. Rabha's
lecture upon the patriarchs and their answers to the complaints of God
concerning the children of Israel. Isaac's defence of the children of Israel
upon the Lord's telling him that they had sinned, . . . 159-172
Mishnas V., VI., and VII. The quantity of spices, dyes, metals, pedler's
boxes, and seeds which may be carried out on the Sabbath. . 172-175

CHAPTER X.
Mishnas I., IL, and III. Rules pertaining to one who carries out things
valuable to him. The quantities in which they may be carried out. The
quantities in which they may be carried out by one to whom they are not
valuable. Concerning eatables which are carried out of the house and left
on the doorstep, and things that are carried in the left hand, on the shoulder,
on the head, or in the bosom  176-180
Mishna IV. Concerning one who, while intending to carry a thing in
front, accidentally carries it on his back, or vice versa, . . . 180
Mishnas V. and VI. Concerning the case of two men carrying out a
burden which one alone was not capable of carrying. The law in that case.
Concerning the case of one who carries out eatables in quantities less than
the limit in a vessel. Is he culpable for carrying the vessel or not ? 180-185
Mishnas VII. and VIII. Concerning the permissibility of paring the
finger-nails of one hand by means of those of the other hand on the
Sabbath. The case of one tearing off flowers from a plant in an unper-
forated flower-pot,  185-187

TRACT SABBATH.

CHAPTER I.
regulations regarding transfer on sabbath.
MISHNA: There are two acts constituting transfer* of
movable things (over the dividing line of adjoining premises,
based on biblical statutes). The two acts are, however, increased
to fovir on the inside and to a like amount on the outside of the
premises (bythe addition of rabbinical statutes). How so? A
mendicant stands outside and the master of a house inside. The
mendicant passes his hand into the house (through a window or
door) and puts something into the hand of the master, or he takes
something out of the master's hand and draws it back (toward
him). In such a case the mendicant is guilty (of transfer) and
the master of the house is not. If the master of the house
passes his hand outside and puts a thing into the hand of the men
dicant, or takes something out of the mendicant's hand and brings
it into the house, the master of the house is culpable and the
mendicant is not.f If the mendicant extends his hand into the
house and the master takes something out of it, or puts something
into it, which is drawn to the outside by the mendicant, — they are
both not guilty. If the master of the house extends his hand out
side and the mendicant takes something out of it, or puts some
thing into it, which is drawn to the inside by the master, — they
are both not guilty.
* See Jer. xvii. 21, 28, and Neh. xiii. 19. This Mishna treats on the prohibition,
so strongly inculcated by the prophets, of transferring things over the line of division
between various grounds or premises.
t The difference between the violation of the biblical statutes and that of the
rabbinical statutes is marked by the prescription of the penalties of sin offerings,
shortening of life and capital punishment for the first-named violation, while no penal
ties are attached to a violation of the last-named statutes. (See introduction.)
vol. 1. — 1 1

2 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
GEMARA : We were taught elsewhere : " The acts of trans
fer on the Sabbath are two, respectively four." Why is here this
teaching specified as two respectively four on the inside, and two
respectively four on the outside, and there no such specification
was made? Said R. Papa: "Here the special subject of treat
ment is the Sabbath, and he (the teacher of the Mishna) enumer
ated the cases which involve guilt and those which do not involve
guilt ; while there the principal subject of treatment is a different
one, and he mentions only the cases that involve guilt, leaving the
cases that do not involve guilt untouched. But the cases that in
volve guilt are those by which acts of transfer are committed, and
such are only two ! Nay, there are two acts of transfer from
within and two from without.
But the Mishna says, " Yetziath" (which in a literal sense
means transfer from within) ?
Said R. Ashi, the Tana * calls transfer from without by the
same term. And for what reason? Because every act of re
moving a thing from its place is called Yetziath.
Quoth Rabbina : " The Mishna also bears out this sense ; for
it speaks of Yetziath and immediately illustrates its remark by
citing a case from without. This bears it out.
Rabha says : He (the Tana) speaks about divided premises
(whose line of division is crossed), and in this case there are
only two (in each of which there may be four acts of transfer).
Said R. Mathna to Abayi : Are there not eight, even twelve
(instances of transfer over the line of division) ? f
Such transfers as involve the obligation of a sin offering are
counted ; but those that do not involve such an obligation are not
counted. (The Mishna says) : " They are both not guilty;" was not the
act (of transfer) committed by both ?
Said R. Hyya bar Gamda : The act of removing the thing was
committed by the joint efforts of both, and they (the rabbis)
said : " It is written in the law, when a person did it";}: — i.e., when
one person commits the act he is culpable ; but when an act is com
mitted by the joint efforts of two persons, they are both not guilty.
* A teacher of a Mishna or a Boraitha is called " Tana."
t Rashi explains at length how eight or even twelve instances of transfer could
occur, but, not being essential to the subject, we omit the explanation.
X Lev. iv. 27.

TRACT SABBATH. 3
Rabh asks Rabbi : " If a man were laden by his friend with eat
ables and beverages and carried them outside (of the house) what
would be his case ? Is the removing of his body tantamount to
the removing of a thing from its place, and thus he becomes cul
pable, or is it not so?"
Said Rabbi to him : " He is culpable." And this case is not
like the case of removing his hand. Why not ? Because (in the
latter case) the hand was not at rest, while (in the former) the
body (before and after removal) was entirely at rest.*
Said Rabbi Hyya to Rabh : " Descendant of nobles ! Did I
not tell thee that when Rabbi is engaged with a certain tract ask
him not about a subject (that is treated) in another tract, for he
may not have that subject in his mind! If Rabbi were not a
great man thou mightest cause him shame, for he would give thee
an answer which might not be right. In this instance, however,
he gave thee a correct answer ; for thus we have learned (in a
Boraitha) : If one was laden with eatables and beverages, while it
was yet day (on Friday), and he carried them outside (of the
house) after dark (when the Sabbath was come), he is culpable;
for his case is not like that of removing the hand (over the line of
division between separated premises)."
Abayi said : " I see plainly, by the instance of the mendicant's
hand,f that the hand of a man (standing on the street) is not
treated as public ground. By the instance of the hand of the
master of the house I see that (if a man stands on private ground)
his hand is not to be treated as private ground. Would it be cor
rect then to regard the hand as unclaimed ground ? If so, would
the penalty imposed by the rabbis in such a case, namely, that
one should not move his hand (containing a movable thing) back
(during the Sabbath day) apply in this case or not ?
" Come and hear (it was taught elsewhere) : If a man has his
hand filled with fruit and he extends it outside (of the premises
where he stands), one Tana says he is not permitted to draw it
back, and another Tana says he is allowed to do so. It seems,

* Students of the Talmud will remember that while in the act of walking a man
cannot be guilty of the transgression of carrying movable property. The body must
be at rest. The removal of a thing by means of the hand implies a disturbance in the
rest of the body.
f As illustrated in our Mishna ; for if he did not deposit the thing that he had
passed from the street into the house, he was not culpable,

4 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
then, that this is their point of dispute ; the former Tana holds
that the hand is treated as unclaimed ground, and the latter Tana
thinks that it is not like unclaimed ground.
" Nay ; it may be, that both agree, that the hand (as spoken of
in our Mishna) is like unclaimed ground, and yet (their subject of
controversy offers) there is no difficulty. One of the Tanaim
speaks of a man who had extended his hand unwittingly, and the
other one speaks of a man who had put forth his hand intention
ally. If the act was done unwittingly, the rabbis did not impose
the punishment ; if it was done intentionally, the punishment was
imposed. Again, it could be said that they both speak of a case
when the act was done unwittingly and their points of jurisdiction
apply (to various premises), — whether the hand may be drawn
back to the ground where the man stands, or to other (private)
ground that adjoins it?"
A similar question Rabha asked of R. Nahman : If the hand
of a man was filled with fruit and he extended it outside, may he
draw it back to the same ground (where he stands) ? Said he
(R. Nahman), " He may." (And may he remove his hand) to
other (private )ground? Said he : " He may not." Why is the
distinction made ? In the former case his design was not accom
plished ; in the latter case his design was accomplished (and there
is danger of its being repeated).
R. Bibhi bar Abayi asked : " If one has put bread into the
oven, is he allowed to take it out before (it is baked and) he be
comes liable to bring a sin offering, or is he not allowed?"
Said R. A'ha bar Abayi to Rabhina : " How is this question
to be understood? If he did it unintentionally and never was re
minded (that he would do wrong), who shall it be allowed to?
On the other hand, if he did it unintentionally and was reminded
(of his wrong) afterward, how can he become liable to bring a sin
offering, since we have learned that the liability to bring such a
sacrifice occurs only when the failing was begun and accomplished
unintentionally ? Should it be understood that the act was done in
tentionally, then it would not involve the liability of a sin offering,
but it would constitute a crime that involved capital punishment." *
* All the labors that were performed at the construction of the tabernacle in the
desert, as is taught in a Mishna further on, if done on the Sabbath intentionally, in
volved capital punishment. The intention becomes apparent when there are wit
nesses to warn the perpetrator of his wrong and he does not heed them.

TRACT SABBATH. s
Well, say then, it is a crime that involves capital punishment.
R. A'ha, the son of Rabba, cited the same as here amended : R.
Bibhi bar Abayi said : If one put bread into the oven, he is
allowed to take it out before crime involving capital punishment
is committed. " The Mendicant Extended His Hand," etc. Why is he
culpable ? (To complete the act) there must be a transfer from a
place that is four ells square and a depositing into a place of like
area, and such was not the case (in this instance) !
Said Rabba : The teaching of this paragraph agrees with the
opinion of Rabbi Aqiba, who holds that as soon as the air of a
place surrounds a thing it is equal to the thing being deposited in
that place.
But may it not be, that (according to this view) depositing is
not required (to complete the sinful act), but removing is required?
Said R. Joseph: The teaching of this paragraph agrees (not
with the opinion of R. Aqiba), but with that of Rabbi, for we
have learned thus.:
If one threw an object from one street into the other and there
was a private ground between them, Rabbi declared him culpable,
and the schoolmen said he was not culpable. Hereupon R.
Jehudah said in the name of Samuel : Rabbi declared the man
guilty of two offences ; one, for having removed the thing from
its place, and one for having deposited it in another place. . From
this it appears that a ground of four ells square is not required
either for the act of removing or for the act of depositing.
But with reference to this we were taught that both Rabh and
Samuel said that Rabbi's declaration of culpability treated of a case
where the private ground (that divided the two streets) was roofed,
for the assumption is that a house must be regarded as a solid ob
ject that fills out all the space it occupies. May it not be the case
that where the private ground is not roofed this law does not apply ?
Said Rabba: (All these views can be dispensed with.) The
hand of a man is considered as a piece of ground four ells square.
So, also, when Rabhin came from Palestine, he taught in the
name of R. Johanan, that the hand of a man is regarded as a piece
of ground four ells square.
R. Abhin said, R. Ila'a taught in the name of R. Johanan, that
if one threw a thing and it rested in the hands of another man he
is culpable.

6 " THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
What news does this teaching impart? R. Johanan already
decided that the hand of a man is treated as a space four ells
square. One might suppose that the act is sinful only when he in
tended to put it into the hand (of another), but if he did not intend
to put it into the hand his act is not sinful. This teaching, how
ever, implies that the act is sinful under any circumstances.
R. Abhin, furthermore, said in the name of former authorities :
If one remains standing in his place when he received a thing, he
is culpable ; but if he was moving away from his place when he
received it he is not culpable. The same law we have learned in
the name of anonymous teachers.
R. Johanan asked the following question : If one threw a thing
and then moved from his place and caught it, is he culpable or
not? What is this question for? Said R. Ada bar Ahabah : The
difficulty (of the question) is concerning the exercise of two forces
by one man and the question was thus : if two forces were exer
cised by one man (in committing a prohibited act) should both
parts of the act be accounted to one individual, and he be declared
culpable, or should each part of the act be considered separately,
as if there were two individuals concerned, and accordingly not
hold him culpable ? This question is not decided.
R. Abhin said in the name of R. Johanan : If one put his hand
into the yard of his neighbor, got it full of rain water, and with
drew it, he is guilty.
Now, to make one guilty of the act, it must consist of remov
ing a thing from a place of four ells square, and this is not the
case here.
Said R. Hyya, the son of R. Huna : The case may be that he
took the water as it was running down a slanting wall, as Rabha
taught elsewhere that removing a thing from a slanting wall made
the man culpable.
But (in speaking of removing an object from a slanting wall),
Rabha treated on the question of removing a book, which is a
stationary thing. Is it analogous to removing water that can
never become stationary (on a slanting wall) ?
In our case, Rabha may say, treats on the act of dipping the
water out of a cavity (in the slanting wall).
Why, in such a case, the act would certainly be culpable !

TRACT SABBATH. 7
Nay : one might think that water standing upon water is not
considered stationary. The teaching under consideration informs
us that it is. And indeed this fully agrees with the opinion
Rabha has expressed elsewhere, that water standing upon water
is considered stationary, but a nut lying upon the surface of water
is not considered stationary.
R. Abhin said, in the name of R. Ila'a, quoting a remark of R.
Johanan : If one were laden with eatables and beverages and car
ried the load in and out the whole day, he is not culpable until he
rests. Said Abayi : This is the case if he stops to rest ; but if he
stops merely to adjust his burden on his shoulders he is not cul
pable. Whence do you adduce this.
From the following teaching of the master : " If he stopped
within the limit of four ells to rest he is not guilty, but if he
stopped to adjust the load on his shoulders he is culpable. Be
yond four ells, if he stopped to rest he is culpable, but if he
stopped to adjust the burden on his shoulder he is not culpable.
What does this imply? It implies (non-culpability), because
there was no intentional act of removing from the first start.
The rabbis taught : If one takes anything from his store into
the market through the alley way (where the benches of market-
men are situated), he is culpable ; it makes no difference whether
he carries, throws, or pushes it with his arm. Ben Azai said : If
he carries it in or out he is not culpable, but if he throws or
pushes it in or out he is culpable.
The rabbis taught : There are four kinds of premises as re
gards the Sabbath, viz. : private ground, public ground, unclaimed
ground, and ground that is under no jurisdiction. What is private
ground ? A ditch that is ten spans deep and four spans wide ;
also a hedge that is ten spans high and four spans wide — these are
absolutely private grounds. What is public ground ? A country
road or a wide street, or lanes open on both sides — these are ab
solutely public grounds. From such private ground nothing shall
be taken out into said public ground, nor should anything be
brought in from said public ground into such private ground. If
one has brought in and taken out a thing unintentionally, he is
obliged to bring a sin offering : if he has done it intentionally, then
he is liable to be " cut off," or to suffer the extreme penalty (at
the hands of human justice).

8 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
A sea, a valley of fields, the front walk (before a row of stores),
and unclaimed ground are neither like public nor like private
ground. Nothing should be carried about there, but if one has
done it, he is not culpable. Nor should anything be taken out of
these grounds into public or private ground, or brought in from
the latter into these grounds, but if one has done so, he is not cul
pable. In adjoining court yards of many tenants and lanes that
are open on both sides, where the tenants have a mutual under
standing,* movable things may be (carried out from or brought in
from one place into another) ; but if they have not made common
cause, they (are considered as separate grounds and) may not. A
man standing on the door-step f may take things from or give
things to the master of the house ; so also may he take a thing
from a mendicant in the street or give it to him ; but he must not
take things from the master of the house and hand them over to
the mendicant in the street, nor take from the latter and transmit
to the former. Still, if this was done, all the three men are not
guilty. Anonymous teachers say the door-step serves as two sep
arate grounds : when the door is open it belongs to the inside (of
the house), and when the door is closed it belongs to the outside.
But if the door-step is ten spans high and four spans wide, it is
considered as ground in itself.
The master said: "These are absolutely private grounds."
What does he intend to exempt (by this emphatic declaration) ?
He intends to exempt that which R. Jehudah taught about
Erubhin (and such places as are designated by boards or beams to
be within an Erubh, but still are not considered private ground) .\
" These are absolutely public grounds." What does he intend
to exempt? He intends to exempt another instance of R. Jehu-
dah's teaching, concerning the enclosure of wells (which are cut
through by a public road).
Why does he (the teacher of the above Boraitha) not count the
desert also, for have we not learned elsewhere : " Public ground is
* The technical expression is "to make an Erubh," i.e., to mix their possessions,
as if they were partners. This " mixing " is accomplished by an act of putting aside
some victuals which they may all partake of, or by drawing a line over the termina
tion of the premises, or putting up side-posts at the termination to mark it as an en
trance to private grounds.
f A door-step is regarded as ground of which the religious law takes no cogni
zance. X This law is expounded, " Tract Erubhin," f. 5.

TRACT SABBATH. 9
constituted by public roads, wide streets, lanes that are open on
both sides, and the desert?"
Said Abayi : This is is no question. In that instance the law
was expounded, as it existed when Israel dwelt in the desert ; in
this instance, however, the law is taught as it prevails at the pres
ent time.
The master said : " If one has brought in or taken out a thing
unintentionally," etc. What does he intend to tell us? That
is a known fact. He wishes to tell us that if the culprit did
it intentionally, "he is liable to be cut off," etc. This is also
known. — (It seems then) he must tell us this on account of the
following statement of Rabh : " I found a mysterious paper in the
possession of my uncle R. Hyya, which read: 'Aysy ben Jehu
dah says : There are forty less one principal acts of labor. A
man, however, cannot be guilty of performing but one (on the
Sabbath).' We ask then, how is this to be understood? It
should be corrected to read : there is one of those acts of labor,
which a man is not guilty of when performing. (In consequence,
however, of the omission, just what particular act of labor is ex
cluded all of the thirty-nine remained doubtful) ; the intent of the
above Boraitha concerning the removal of a thing from public
ground to said private ground is : 'to emphatically state that such
act is not included in the doubtful ones.' "
Again the master said : " A sea, a valley of fields," etc. Is a
valley not to be regarded as private or as public ground ? Have
we not learned elsewhere that a valley is, in summer time, to be
regarded as private ground with reference to the Sabbath, and as
public ground with reference to pollution (by the touch of a dead
body) : but in the rainy season it is private ground in all re
spects ?
Said Ula : As a matter of fact it is unclaimed ground, but by
calling it private ground the Boraitha only means to distinguish
it from public ground, but R. Ashi said : He speaks of a valley
in which there are partitions.
Again — "and unclaimed ground." Are not all these (grounds
specified in the above category) unclaimed ground ?
When R. Dimi came he said in the name of R. Johanan : The
mention of " unclaimed ground" in this case is required merely to
imply a corner (of a private plot) that adjoins public ground; for
although at times (when the street is crowded) many people are

IO THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
forced into this corner, it is considered as unclaimed ground as
the public use of it is not regarded with favor.
Again R. Dimi came and said in the name of R. Johanan :
The space between the pillars and the buildings (on the side of
the street) is considered by the law as unclaimed ground. Why
so ? Because, although many walk there, still, since one cannot
make his way in such space freely (the row of pillars being irreg
ular or in a broken line) it is like unclaimed ground.
R. Zera said in the name of R. Jehuda: The benches in front
of pillars are regarded by the law as unclaimed ground (even if
they are ten spans high and four spans wide). The teacher, who
holds that the space between the pillars is regarded as such, will
so much more readily concede that the benches in front of the
pillars are like unclaimed ground ; but he who says that the benches
are like unclaimed ground thinks that this is so because the en
croachment upon them is not regarded with favor, but the ground
between the pillars, which is usually trodden by many people, is
like public ground.
Rabba bar Shila said : If one throw or plaster (an adhesible)
thing against the side of a brick, that is standing up in the street,
he is culpable ; but if he throw or plaster a thing on top of a
brick he is not culpable. Abayi and Rabha both said that such
is the law, if the brick is three spans high (a space of which the
law takes no cognizance) ; because many people do not step upon
it, but (if one throw anything upon) a bush or a briar, even if it
is less than three spans high (he is not culpable). Hyya bar
Rabh said even a bush or briar must be three spans high.)*
Rabha, of the school of R. Shila, said : When R. Dimi came
from Palestine, he said in the name of R. Johanan : No space can
be considered unclaimed ground unless it has an area of four spans
square, and R. Sheshet's opinion is that it holds good up to ten
spans square.
What does it mean when he says that it holds good up to ten
spans square ? Should it be inferred from this that, if it has an
enclosure of ten spans, it is unclaimed ground, and if not, it ceases
to be such ? (This would disagree with the following) : R. Gid-
* Any space that is less than ten spans high from the ground is considered by the
law as unclaimed ground and there things may be handled on the Sabbath only as
above, while on private ground things may be handled freely within the whole area
over which it extends.

TRACT SABBATH. n
del reported that R. Hyya bar Joseph said in the name of Rabh :
A person may handle things upon the roof of a house that is not
ten spans high, but which is raised to that height by the ceiling.
Inside of the house, however, things may be handled only within
an area of four ells square.
What is inferred by the statement : " It holds good up to ten
spans ?" It implies that the law of unclaimed ground is valid
when the height does not exceed ten spans. Thus Samuel said to
R. Jehudah : " Ingenious scholar ! treat not on laws of the Sab
bath exceeding ten spans in height." What laws did this refer to ?
To no other laws but these of unclaimed ground, for unclaimed
ground above ten spans does not exist ; because the Rabbis have
invested unclaimed grounds with the lax features of laws pertain
ing to private ground, viz : If the place have an area of four spans
square, it is unclaimed ground ; if it has a lesser area, it is not
subservient to any jurisdiction. The Rabbis furthermore invested
unclaimed grounds with the lax features of the law pertaining to
public ground, viz. : The place is regarded as unclaimed ground
only to the height of ten spans, beyond that it ceases to be un
claimed ground.
The text says : In a house the inside of which is not ten spans
high, but which together with the ceiling reaches that height, it
is not permitted to handle things except within an area of four ells
square. A bayi said : If one has cut into the ground (of such a
house) an excavation four ells square, so as to complete the height
of ten spans, he may handle things freely in the whole house.
Why so ? Because in such a case the entire space of the house
(around the excavation) would be considered like holes in the wall
of private ground, and we have learned that such holes are re
garded the same as the private ground itself. As to holes on
public ground, Abayi said : They are like public ground. Rabba
says : They are not like public ground. Then rejoined Rabba to
Abayi : According to your opinion, holes on public ground are to
be considered the same as the ground itself. Why do you oppose
R. Dimi's contention, which he taught in the name of R. Johanan?
Let, according to thy opinion, such a corner be considered as a
hole in public ground. Nay — (there is a difference between the
two) ; the use of the corner is not regarded with favor, while no
one objects to the use of a hole in the street.
R. Hisda said : " If a person erected a pole on private ground

I2 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
and threw something at it ; if that thing rested on top of the pole,
and be that pole a hundred ells high, the person is culpable, for
the height of private ground is absolutely unlimited and may even
reach to the sky.
Should we assume that R. Hisda expressed the same view as
Rabbi ? For we were taught as follows : " If one threw a thing
(in the street) and it rested upon the smallest cornice * (of a house)
Rabbi declares him culpable, and the schoolmen say that he is
not." Said Abayi : Anything that (stands within the precincts of)
private ground is admitted by every one to be like the case (of the
pole) of R. Hisda ; but the instance here (between Rabbi and the
schoolmen) treats of a tree that stands on private ground with its
branches reaching out into public ground, and one threw a thing
which rested on the branch. Rabbi holds that the branch is part
and parcel of the root, but the schoolmen opine that we need not
assume such to be the case.
Abayi said : If one threw a bee-hive which was ten spans high,
but not six spans wide, into the street he is culpable ; but if the
bee-hive was six spans wide he is not culpable (because it was a
piece of private ground in itself). Rabha said he is not culpable,
even if it be less than six spans wide. Why so ? Because it is
impossible for twined reed not to exceed the given height, f In
case he threw the bee-hive % with its mouth down, even if the hive
is a trifle over seven spans high, he is culpable, but if it is seven
and a half spans high, he is not. R. Ashi said : He is culpable
even if it is seven and a half spans high. Why so ? Because
the enclosing rim of the bee-hive is made for the purpose of con
taining something within, and not to be attached to the ground,
and hence is not included in the " Lovud" class. §
* The cornice which is spoken of above should be like the branch in this instance.
t The space above ten spans does not enter within the jurisdiction of public ground.
X Here a bee-hive is spoken of which is not six spans in circumference, i.e., less
than four spans square.
§ There is a law of Mosaic origin determining that every object that is not farther
from the ground than three spans must be considered " Lovud," i.e., attached to the
ground. In the above case, when a. bee-hive seven spans or a trifle over seven spans
high is thrown to the ground, it does not become positively " lovud" when within
three spans from the ground, and is thus considered ten spans in all. The margin is
too small. It must be seven and a half spans high, and, when reaching the ground
within three spans, the hive becomes " lovud," and being positively over ten spans
high is treated as a piece of private property,

TRACT SABBATH. 13
Ula said: A post nine spans high stands in the street, and
people use it to shoulder (their burdens) on; if one threw a thing
and it rested on the top of it he is culpable. Why so ? Because
a thing that is less than three spans high is stepped upon by many ;
a thing between three and nine spans high is not used either to
step or to shoulder a burden on ; but if it is nine spans high it is
surely used to shoulder burdens on.
Asked Abayi of R. Joseph : What is the law of a pit (of sim
ilar depth) ? Said he : The same (as of the post). Rabha, how
ever, said : A pit of similar depth is not governed by the same
law. Why so? Because the use (which a thing is made of)
through compulsion is not called (a customary) use.
Aba bar Mathna agrees with Rabha : (It was taught elsewhere
that) if one intended to keep the Sabbath on public ground and
deposited his Erubh * in a pit less than ten spans (below the
ground), his act is valid.
" If he deposited it more than ten spans below the ground his
Erubh is of no value." In any event, the pit must have been
less than ten spans deep, for were it more it would be considered
private ground, and the depositor of the Erubh intended to use
public ground. Hence we learn that the use of a place through
compulsion can at times be regarded as customary use.
And said Rabha : Acts committed during twilight ( and an
Erubh is always deposited at twilight) were not particularly no
ticed by the rabbis ; proof is, that the man, when depositing his
Erubh, intended to be on public ground, while his Erubh was
really in unclaimed ground. (A pit of less than ten spans is
surely unclaimed ground.) Nevertheless the Erubh was valid.
Hence you cannot infer from this law that compulsory use can also
be regarded as customary use.
R. Jehudah said : If one moves a bundle of reeds by raising
one end and throwing it over, then raising the other end and throw
ing it over, he is not culpable, unless he lifts the entire bundle off
the ground.
The master said : " A man standing on the door-step," etc.
What is that step ? If it is the step of the street, how may he
"take from the master of the house;" does he not transfer from

* To deposit an Erubh means depositing some victuals in the place where one in
tends to abide on the Sabbath. That place is then considered as his house.

14 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
private ground into public ground ? If it is the step of the house,
how may he "take from the mendicant (standing in the street) ?"
Does he not transfer from public into private ground ? And if it
is unclaimed ground, how may he " take and give intentionally,"
since a direct prohibition to that effect exists ?
Nay, but the door-step is a place concerning which the law has
no provision ; as, for instance, it is not four spans square.
Again the master said : " All three are not culpable." Would
this not form a case against Rabha ? for Rabha said, if one trans
fer an object (in public ground) from one to the other limit of
four spans, even if he moves it over his head (i.e., above ten spans
from the ground), he is culpable.
In one case the man is at rest, in the other case he is not at
rest. Anonymous teachers say a door-step serves as two kinds of
ground; when the door is open, it is like (the ground) within,
when the door is closed, it is like that without. Is such the case
even if there is no side-post to it? Did not R. Hamma ben
Gorion say that if it is inside the door, and not even four spans
square, there must still be a side-post to make it a free place ?
Said R. Judah in the name of Rabh : Here the doorstep of a
lane is treated of, the half of which is roofed, and the other half
not roofed, and the roofing is toward the inside. In this case
when the door is open (the door-step is) like the inside, when it is
closed it is like the outside.
Again : " If the door-step is ten spans high and four wide it is
separate ground by itself." This supports the theory of R. Isaac
bar Abbimi, who said in the name of R. Mair : Wherever thou
findest two distinct grounds belonging to the same premises, like
a post in the street, that is ten spans high and four wide, it is pro
hibited to shoulder (a burden) on it. It is a precaution (enacted
by the rabbis) for the sake of a pit that may be found in the
street. MISHNA : A man shall not sit down * before the hair cutter
at the approach of the time for afternoon devotion,f without recit-

* The reference made here, thaf one should not sit down before the hair cutter
near the time for the afternoon prayer is a simple precaution. The exact specification
for the time is to be found in Berachoth, Perek iv., M. I.
t The following discussions may seem to have no direct connection with the ordi
nances pertaining to the Sabbath ; however, they are included in the tract on account of

TRACT SABBATH. iS
ing his prayers. Nor shall he enter a bath room or a tannery (the
same is the case with any factory or large business), or sit down
to eat, or start pleading a case (before a judge). But if he has
started, he need not discontinue. One must quit his work to re
cite Shema, but he need not stop working in order to pray.
GEMARA : Near the time for what afternoon devotion (does
the author of the Mishna treat of) ? Does he mean the high after
noon* time ? why should a man not be allowed, since the day is still
young ? Does he mean the lesser time, and still hold that (if the
man had started the work) he need not discontinue it ? Shall this
be taken as an opposition to the opinion of R. Joshua ben Levi
who said : " When the time of afternoon prayer draws nigh, a man
must not eat anything before performing his devotion" ?
Nay ; he speaks here of the high time, and yet a man shall not
begin cutting his hair as a precaution against accidents (lest his
scissors break) ; he shall not enter a bath house to sweat (lest he
grow exhausted) ; nor shall he enter a tannery, lest he notice some
damage to his wares and become confused ; nor shall he sit down
to eat (lest the meal be protracted) ; nor shall he begin pleading a
case of justice, lest argument be advanced that overthrows all pre
vious arguments, and until this all is settled the Min'ha prayer
will be forgotten.
From what moment does the act of hair-cutting begin ?
R. Abhin said : From the moment the barber's cloth is spread
over him. The act of bathing begins from the moment the coat
is pulled off; tanning begins from the moment the working-apron
is tied around the shoulders ; a meal begins from the moment the
hands are washed, so said Rabh, but R. Hanina said : From the mo
ment one takes off his girdle. Yet there is no difference of opin
ion between the two rabbis ; the one (Rabh) spoke of the act as
they (the residents of Palestine) were accustomed to do it ; the
other (R. Hanina) spoke for us (the residents of Babylon).
their connection with the succeeding Mishna, which commences : "A tailor shall not
go out with his needle when it is nearly dark on Friday." Incidentally, the injunc
tions concerning the time for the Min'ha are given, in order that prayer time shall
not be forgotten.
* High afternoon (Min'ha) was the time when the regular afternoon sacrifice was
offered at the temple, about an hour after midday. The lesser afternoon time was
about an hour before sunset. Because the time for afternoon devotion was calculated
by the offering of the " gift-sacrifice," the name of that sacrifice, " Min'ha," is used
by the rabbis as a technical term to designate both the afternoon devotion and the
time when it is to be performed.

1 6 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
Abayi said with the colleagues of Babylon (the case is thus :)
" According to the opinion of the rabbi, who holds that the saying
of evening prayers is discretionary, as soon as a man has taken off
his girdle we do not trouble him (to put it on again in order to
say his prayers)."
Should he be put to this trouble, according to the opinion of
the rabbi who said that the recitation of evening prayers is obliga
tory ?
Is not the afternoon prayer obligatory by all means, while still
(the Mishna teaches that) " if he began (his meal) he need not
discontinue," whereupon R. Hanina said that the loosening of the
girdle (is the beginning) ?
In the case of the afternoon prayer, since the time for it is
fixed (we assume) that the man will hasten (to finish his meal) and
will not fail (to say his prayers in time), while in the case of even
ing prayer, the time for which extends through the entire night, it
is feared that he may not hasten, and neglect it.
R. Shesheth opposed : Is it so much trouble to put on one's
girdle ? furthermore, cannot one stand up (without a girdle) and
pray ?
Nay, it is written : " Prepare thyself to meet thy God, O
Israel!" [Amos iv. 12].
Rabba bar R. Huna put on stockings when he stood up to re
cite prayers, saying: " It is written, prepare thyself," etc. Rabha
threw off his mantle and folded his hands when he prayed. He
said one should stand like a slave before his master. R. Ashi
said : I have observed R. Kahana. In times of trouble, he threw
off his mantle and folded his hands when he prayed, saying that
one must stand like a slave before his master. In times of peace
he dressed and fitted himself up carefully, saying : " It is written,
prepare thyself to meet thy God, O Israel." Rabha noticed that
R. Hamnuna spent much time at his prayers ; said he : " Thus they
quit eternal life and busy themselves with transient life." * But
the other one (R. Hamnuna) thought that the time spent in prayer
is a thing by itself and the time devoted to study is also a thing
by itself. R. Jeremiah was sitting before R. Zera discussing a
point of learning. The day was breaking and time for prayer
* The rabbi thus regarded prayer as a thing belonging to transient life, because it
benefits only the individual. Study, on the other hand, is regarded as an object that
concerns eternal life, for by its results future generations may be benefited.

TRACT SABBATH. 17
came, and R. Jeremiah hastened (to break off the discussion).
Said R. Zera to him : " He that turneth away his ear from hear
ing learning, even his prayer is an abomination" [Prov. xxviii. 9].
At what moment does the work of dispensing justice com
mence ?
R. Jeremiah and R. Jonah (both answered). One said : " From
the moment the judges put on their mantles" ; the other one said :
" From the moment the litigants begin pleading." But there is
no variation of opinion between them. The former speaks of the
instance of opening court ; the latter of the instance when the
court was in session and the judges were engaged in deciding
other cases.
Up to what time should court be in session ?
R. Shesheth said : " Up to meal time." Said R. Hama :
From what scriptural passage have we this ? For thus it is written :
" It is well for thee, O land ! whose king is a son of freedom, and
whose princes sat in time for strength and not for drunkenness"
[Eccl. x. 17], i.e., for the strength of the law and not for indul
gence in wine.
The rabbis taught : The first hour (of the day) is the time the
Lydians eat (the Lydians were cannibals) ; in the second hour rob
bers eat ; in the third hour (rich) heirs eat ; the fourth hour is eat
ing-time for the people in general ; in the fifth hour laborers eat ;
in the sixth hour scholars eat ; from the last hour onward, eating
is like throwing a stone into a barrel (rather injurious than bene
ficial). Abayi said : This is the case only when one has tasted
nothing in the morning, but if he did so, it does not matter.
R. Ada bar Ahba said : A man may say his prayers in a new
bath room, which has not been used. R. Hamnuna said in the
name of Ula, a man is not permitted to call Shalom to another
man in a bath room, for it is written : " He called the Eternal
Shalom" [Jud. vi. 23].
According to this the saying of the word "faith" should also
be prohibited, for it is written, "the God of faith" [Deut. vii. 9].
If thou sayest that such is really the case, has not bar Mehassia
said in the name of R. Hama bar Zorion, who taught in the name
of Rabbi, "faith" may be mentioned?
In the latter case, the name itself is not so designated, for we
translate the words of [Deut. vii. 9] " the faithful God." But in
the former case it (Shalom) is a designation of the name itself.

18 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
Again Rabha bar Mehassia said : If one bestows a gift on his
friend, he should let him know it ; for thus it is written, " To know
that I, the Eternal, made you holy" [Ex. xxxi. 13]. We have
learned (in a Boriatha) a similar thing : " The Holy One, blessed
is He, said unto Moses, I have a good gift in my storehouse; its
name is Sabbath. This I wish to bestow on Israel, go and an
nounce it to them." Therefore said R. Shimeon ben Gamliel : (We
learn that) if one gives a child some bread, he should make the act
known to the child's mother. How shall he do this ? Said Abai :
He should put some ointment around its eyes and stain it with
dye. Is this so ? Has not R. Hama bar R. Hannia taught : " He
who bestows a gift on his friend should not let him know it, for it
is written, Moses knew not that his countenance beamed when
He spoke unto him?" [Ex. xxxiv. 29].
This is no question. The latter instance represents a thing
that is to become known by itself ; the former instance treats of a
thing that cannot become known by itself.
Was not the Sabbath a thing that was to become known?
Aye, but the reward (for keeping the Sabbath holy) that at
tends it cannot become known.
R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon ben Yhoayi : All
the commands that the Holy One, blessed is He, gave unto
Israel, were given with publicity, excepting the Sabbath, which
was given in privacy, for it is written, " Between me and the chil
dren of Israel it is an everlasting sign" [Ex. xxxi. 17].
If such is the case, the idolaters need not be punished for its
sake. The Sabbath was made known, but the additional soul (a new
impetus of life), which comes with the Sabbath, was not made
known to them. Thus R. Simeon ben Lakish said : " The Holy
One, blessed is He, bestows an additional soul on man on the eve
of the Sabbath, and takes it back again when the Sabbath de
parts." R. Hisda held in his hand two gifts * from the flesh of an ox
and said : " I will give this to the man who will tell me some new
teaching in the name of Rabh." Said Rabha bar Mehassia to

* He was an Aaronite, and at his time they used to give the Aaronites their meat
offerings. In the time of R. Hisda the descendants of the priests still received their
titles.

TRACT SABBATH. Jr)
him, thus taught Rabh : " He who bestows a gift on a friend
should let him know it."
Rab Hisda gave him the meat. Said the former again : Art
thou so fond of the teachings of Rabh. Aye, aye— he answered.
Said he: this is like that which Rabh said: "A silk garment is
precious to the wearer." Said he (R. Hisda) : " Did Rabh say so ?
Indeed, this second thing is even better than the first ; if I had
other gifts I would bestow them on thee."
And Rabha bar Mehassia continued: A man should never
show preference for one child above his other children, because
for the sake of two Sel'a weights of silk, which Jacob bestowed on
Joseph in preference to his other sons, the brothers became jealous
of Joseph, and the development brought about our ancestors' mi
gration into Egypt.
Again he continued : A man should always endeavor to seek a
dwelling in a city of recent settlement, for the settlement being
recent, the sins are few. Thus it is written : " Behold, I pray,
this city is near to escape thither, and it is small" [Gen. xix. 20].
What does it mean, it is near and small ? Could not he see this
himself? But it means, its settlement is recent and therefore its
sins are not many.
Furthermore, the same master said : A city whose roofs are
higher than that of the synagogue will ultimately be destroyed,
for thus it is written : " To raise high the house of our God"
[Ezra ix. 9]. This refers only to the roofs of the houses, but as
to the tops of towers and palaces, it does not concern them.
Furthermore the same master said :* It is better to be depend
ent on an Ishmaelite than on an idolater ; on an idolater than on
a Persian ; on a Persian schoolman f than on a scholar ; on a
scholar than on a widow or an orphan.
Furthermore, he said, rather any sickness than sickness of the
bowels ; rather any pain than pain of the heart ; rather any dis
order than a disorder in the head ; rather any evil than a bad wife.
Again he said, if all the seas were ink, if all the swamps were
producing pens, if the whole expanse of the horizon were parch-
* These somewhat abstruse distinctions are made for the reason, that a dependant
of a scholar, orphan, or widow is liable to incur greater punishment for an injury
done his master, than was his master an Ishmaelite, Persian, etc.
f The title " Habher " is the exact equivalent of " fellow " as a college degree in
our time; we translate it "schoolman.''

20 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
ment and men scribes, the (thoughts that fill the) void of a ruler's
heart could not be written in full. From what biblical passage
did he adduce this ? Said R. Mesharsia : " The heavens as to
height and the earth as to depth and the hearts of kings cannot be
fathomed." [Prov. xxv. 3].
" If they began, they need not discontinue, etc."
Did he not say before that they need not discontinue ?
The repetition of the sentence refers to study, for thus we have
learned : " Scholars that are engaged in studying the Law, must
stop for the reading of Shema, but they need not stop for prayer."
Said R. Johanan, such is the case with men like R. Simeon ben
Yo'hai and his colleagues, for learning is their profession; but
men like ourselves must stop for Shema and also for prayer.
Have we not learned : " as (students of the law) need not quit
(their studies) for prayer, so they need not stop them for Shema" ?
This was taught only (while studying) the establishment of
leap year. Thus R. Ada bar Ahba said, and so also the sages of
Hagrunia taught in the name of R. Elazar bar Zadok : " When we
were engaged in fixing a leap year at Yabne, we did not quit (our
work) either for Shema or for prayer."
MISHNA : A tailor shall not go out with his needle, when
it is nearly dark on Friday, lest he forget and go out (carrying it
about with him) after dark. Nor shall a scribe go out with his
pen ; nor shall one search for vermin in his garments or read be
fore the lamp-light (Friday night). Of a verity it is said, an in
structor may follow the children when they read, but he shall not
read himself (before the lamp-light). In a similar manner it is
prohibited that a fluxu laborans should eat together with a woman,
that has the same disease, lest they become accustomed to one an
other and come to sin.
GEMARA : " A tailor shall not go out, etc."
He speaks here, without doubt, about the needle stuck in the
garment. Nay, he treats of the case, when (the tailor) holds it in his
hand. Come and hear: (We have learned elsewhere) "A tailor
shall not go out with the needle sticking in his garment." Does
this not treat of the eve of the Sabbath ?
Nay, this passage treats of the Sabbath itself.
But have we not learned again : " A tailor shall not go out with

TRACT SABBATH. 21
the needle sticking in his garment on Friday when it is nearly
dark?" This was taught according to R. Jehuda, who holds that a
laborer (carrying a thing) after the manner of his profession is
culpable. For have we not learned, " A tailor shall not go out
with his needle sticking in his garment ; a carpenter shall not go
out with his ruler behind his ear ; nor a cloth cleaner with the
spanning cord behind his ear ; nor a weaver with the stuffing cotton
behind his ear ; nor a dyer with samples around his neck ; nor a
money changer with the coin in his ear. But if they did go out
they are free, though there is a prohibition against it, says R.
Mai'r; R. Jehuda says, the laborer (going out) after the manner
of his profession is culpable ; but any other person (carrying any
thing after the manner of a laborer) is not culpable."
In the school of R. Ishmael it was taught : " A man may go
out with the phylacteries on his head on Friday when it is nearly
dark." Why so ? Because Rabha bar R. Huna said : A man must
feel the phylacteries on his head at all times, and in consequence
he will be reminded, through feeling the phylacteries, that he must
remove them before the Sabbath.
We have learned, R. Hananiah said : A man must examine his
garments on Friday evening, when it is getting dark, to see whether
there is anything in them, that must not be carried about on the
Sabbath. Said R. Joseph : This is an important ordinance con
cerning the Sabbath.
" One shall not search for vermin," etc.
The following question was asked: (Does the Mishna mean)
One shall not search for vermin in the day-time (of a Sabbath)
lest he destroy one ; and he shall not read before a lamp-light lest
he snuff (the wick) ; or are both ordinances (searching for vermin
and reading, mentioned in the Mishna) connected with each other
so as to make the ordinance prohibiting the snuffing of the wick
binding ?
Come and hear : " One shall not search for vermin before the
lamp-light, nor read before the lamp-light. These two ordinances
belong to those established in the attic of 'Hananiah ben 'Hyzkiyah
ben Gorion." From this it may be inferred that both were pro
hibited for fear lest both searching for vermin and reading would
entail snuffing the wick.
R. Jahuda said in the name of Samuel : It is prohibited even

22 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
to try to distinguish between a man's and his wife's garments
(before the lamp-light). Said Rabha: This is the case only with
the dwellers of Ma'hoza,* but among the dwellers of rural places
the garments can easily be distinguished. Even among the
dwellers of Ma'hoza only the garments of old women cannot easily
be distinguished from those of the men, but the garments of young
women can easily be distinguished.
The rabbis taught : One shall not search for vermin in the
street out of self-respect. In the same wise R. Jehuda taught,
(others say R. Ne'hemiah taught), that one shall not vomit in the
street out of self-respect. The masters taught : One who searches
his garments and finds a louse shall not crack it, but simply rub it
with his fingers and throw it away (on the Sabbath) — says R.
Huna : This should also be done even on week days, out of self-
respect. We have learned R. Simeon ben Elazar said : " One shall not
kill vermin on the Sabbath is the opinion of Shamai's school ; the
school of Hillel maintains that this is allowed." Again R.
Simeon ben Elazar said in the name of R. Simeon ben Gamaliel :
" He is not allowed to negotiate marriage engagements for chil
dren, nor to engage teachers or artisan masters for children, nor
to pay visits of condolence to mourners, nor to visit the sick on
the Sabbath; such is the opinion of Shamai's school. Hillel's
school, however, allows all this."
The rabbis taught : If one comes to visit the sick on the Sab
bath he shall say: "It is Sabbath (and we are) not to cry, but
relief is drawing nigh." R. Mair said, one should say : " It (the
Sabbath) has the power to bring mercy." Rabbi Jehuda said:
" May the Omnipresent have mercy toward thee and toward the
sick of Israel." R. Josi said : " May the Omnipresent bestow
mercy on thee amongst the sick of Israel." Shebhna the Jerusa-
lemite when he entered (a sick-room on the Sabbath) said,
" Shalom ;"on leaving he said : " It is Sabbath, (we are) not to cry,"
" relief is drawing nigh," " His mercies are great," and " Rest ye
in peace." According to whose opinion was that which R. 'Hanina said:
" He who has a sick person in the house should include him (in
his prayers) amongst the sick in Israel" ? It was according to
* Large cities where the men are effeminate and wear garments like the women.

TRACT SABBATH. 23
the opinion of R. Josi. R. 'Hanina also said that it was with
difficulty that the rabbis allowed visits of condolence to be paid
to mourners and to visit the sick on a Sabbath. Rabba-bar-bar-
'Hana said: When I acompanied R. 'Eliezer visiting the sick, 1
sometimes heard him say : (in Hebrew) " May the Omnipresent
mind thee in peace, and sometimes (in Aramaic), "May the
Merciful remember thee in peace." How could he do this ? Did
not R. Jehuda say : " A man should never pray for what he needs
in the Aramaic language?" And (did not) R. Johanan say: "The
angels of service are not compelled to do what a man prays for in
the Aramaic tongue, for they know not that language" ? The case
of a sick person is different; Shekina itself is with him. (See
Nederina). " One shall not read before the lamp-light."
Rabba said : (The prohibition holds good) even if the lamp is
placed two (men's) heights (from the ground) ; even two stories
high or even if it is on top of ten houses, one above the other.
"One shall not read," but may two persons read together?
Have we not learned, " Neither one, nor two together?"
Said R. Elazar : This is no contradictory view. Here (in our
Mishna) the case refers to two persons reading one subject; there
the case refers to two persons reading different subjects.
R. Huna said : Around the hearth-fire even ten persons shall
not read together. Said Rabha : A prominent man may read. If
the man is really prominent (he would not) degrade himself by
stirring the fire.
An opposing view (to that of Rabha) was adduced.
(It was taught elsewhere) one should not read before a lamp
light, lest he snuff the wick. Said R. Ishmael ben Elisha (who
surely was a prominent man) ; " I will read and not snuff it." Once
he actually read and was tempted to snuff the wick. Said he,
" How great is the saying of the sages, that one should not read
before a lamp-light." R. Nathan said : He actually snuffed the
wick and noted in his diary, " I, Ishmael ben Elisha, have read
before the lamp on Sabbath and have snuffed the wick. When
the holy temple will be rebuilt, I shall bring a fat sin-offering."
Said R. Aba : The case was different with R. Ishmael ben Elisha,
for in matters concerning the Law he acted like any common man.
In one place we were taught : A servant may examine cups
and dishes (to see if they are clean, before the lamp), and in an-

24 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
other place we were taught that he may not do so." These are
not conflicting views. The former treats of a servant in perma
nent engagement ; * the latter of one who performs occasional ser
vice. Both seemingly conflicting statements are, however, also
applicable to a servant in permanent engagement. The latter in
the case of a lamp which is fed with oil, the former in the case
where it is fed with naphtha. (Naphtha emits a bad odor ; he will
therefore not be tempted to touch it.)
The students asked : May a servant, that is not permanently
engaged, (examine his utensils) before a lamp fed with oil ?
Said Rabha : The rule is laid down (that he may) but we do
not apply it. R. Jeremiah bar Aba said : The rule is laid down
and we abide by it.
Once R. Jeremiah bar Aba took (his Friday night meal) at the
house of R. Assi. His servant (R. Jeremiah's retainer, who was
at the time doing occasional service in R. Assi's house) proceeded
to examine (the dishes) before the lamp. Said the wife of R.
Assi (to her husband) : " You, my master, do not approve of this."
" Let him be," answered R. Assi, "he acts according to the opin
ion of his master."
" Of a verity they said, an instructor, etc."
Was it not said, " He may see" ? For what purpose should he
do this but to read ?
Nay ; he should see in order to watch the sequence of para
graphs. So also did Rabba bar Samuel say : " He may arrange
(for the children) the sequence of paragraphs."
Consequently, may he not read the paragraphs through?
Would this not oppose the opinion of R. Simeon ben Gamaliel,
who said : " Children in their rabbi's house (school) have arranged
their paragraphs and read before the lamp-light" ?
With children the case is different ; out of fear for their master
they will not be led to adjust (the wick).
MISHNA : And these are some of the regulations enacted
in the attic of 'Hananiah ben 'Hyzkiyah ben Garon, when they (the
rabbis) came to visit him. They called the roll and found that
the disciples of Shamai were more numerous than those of Hillel,
and they enforced eighteen regulations on that day.

* A servant in permanent engagement is more careful about his dishes, for fear
that he may lose his position. He is therefore more apt to adjust the wick.

TRACT SABBATH. 2S
GEMARA: Said Abai to R. Joseph: Does the expression (in
our Mishna) "and these," etc., refer to the things that were men
tioned, or is " these" used with reference to things to be mentioned
further on ?
Come and hear. " One shall not search for vermin or read
before a lamp-light ; and these are some of the regulations, etc."
From this it is obvious that "and these" (with reference to the
regulations that were mentioned) is the correct version.
The rabbis taught : The " Roll of Fasts" was written by
'Hananiah ben 'Hyzkiyah and his company, for they thought with
fondness of the troubles (which their race had experienced). Said
R. Simeon ben Gamaliel : We also think with fondness of the
troubles ; but what shall we do ? If we were to record (all the
troubles our race has experienced since that time) we would never
finish. It may also be said : A fool never feels trouble ; or (more
pointedly) a dead member on a living body feels not the lancet).*
MISHNA : The school of Shamai said : Ink, dye material, or
fodder (for animals) shall not be put into water (on Friday) unless
there is still time for them to soak through while it is day. The
school of Hillel, however, permits this. The school of Shamai
prohibits putting bundles of linen thread (to bleach) into the oven
unless there is suflicient time left for them to become heated
through while it is yet day, or wool into a dye -kettle unless there
is still time for it to be soaked through the same day. The school
of Hillel permits this. The school of Shamai says : Traps shall
not be set for animals and birds, or nets for fishes (on Friday),
unless there is still time for them to be caught before sunset.
The school of Hillel permits this. The school of Shamai says :
One shall not sell anything to a Gentile (on Friday) or help him
load his animal, or help him shoulder a burden unless he (the
Gentile) can reach (with his load) the nearest place while it is yet
day. The school of Hillel permits this. The school of Shamai
says : Hides shall not be given to a tanner nor clothes to a Gentile
washer (on a Friday) unless there is still sufficient time left for
him (the Gentile) to finish it, while it is day. The performance
of all these acts of labor heretofore mentioned was permitted by the
school of Hillel (on Friday), while the sun was still shining.

* The rabbis considered themselves foolish in comparison with the men of former
generations.

26 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
Rabbi Simeon ben Gamaliel said: At my father's house it was the
custom to give out white clothes to a Gentile washer three days
before the Sabbath. Both schools agree that the presses may be
put on olives and grapes in the press-pits (as long as it was still
daytime) .
GEMARA : The view taken (in our Mishna) that putting water
on ink constitutes the process of soaking it (although no stirring is
done) agrees with the opinion of Rabbi, says R. Joseph ; for thus
we have learned : " If one put flour (in a vessel) and another one
put water on it, the latter is culpable (of the act of kneading) said
Rabbi." The rabbis taught : Friday, when it is getting dark, one may
make an opening in a spring so that the water run into the garden
the whole day (of the Sabbath). He may also put smoking in
cense underneath garments, so that they hold the fragrance the
whole day. He may also put burning sulphur under enamelled
vessels so that its smoke work on the paints the whole Sabbath
day. He may also put a balm on the eye and a plaster on a wound,
so that the healing process continue throughout the Sabbath ; but
it is prohibited to put grain into a water-mill, unless there is yet
enough daytime left for it to be ground. Why so? Because
tools must not be put to work (on the Sabbath), said R. Joseph.
Now since it was said that the resting of tools (on the Sab
bath) is commanded by the (written) Law according to the inter
pretation of the Hillel school, why did his school permit putting
sulphur and incense to smoke, or linen thread to bleach during the
Sabbath ?
Because no act was being done, and (the tools were practically)
at rest. But do not traps set for the animals, birds, and nets for fishes
work? Why then did they allow these (to be put up on Friday at
sunset) ?
Here, too, they treated only of fishers' rods and traps, which
do no work (but into which animals work themselves).
According to R. Assi, who said, that the resting of tools is
commanded by the (written) Law, only as interpreted by the
school of Shamai, but not by the school of Hillel, all the acts
enumerated above are permitted by the school of Hillel, even in
the event of the tools performing work, while the school of Shamai
prohibits them all, even when the tools do not perform any work.

TRACT SABBATH. 27
The rabbis taught : A woman shall not put dried lentils and
peas into the oven (on Friday) when it is getting dark and leave
them there (to get soft) ; and if she needs them for after the Sab
bath she shall not use them, unless she waits the length of time
it required to cook them afresh. In the same wise a baker shall
not put a vessel with water in the oven on Friday when it is get
ting dark ; and if he needs (the hot water) for after the Sabbath,
he shall not use it unless he waits the length of time it would
require to boil it afresh.
Shall we say that this teaching agrees with the school of
Shamai but not with Hillel's school?
Nay, but it may also agree with the teaching of Hillel's school ;
only the prohibitions were made as precautionary measures, lest
one (the woman or the baker) stir the coals (on the Sabbath).
If such is the case, the burning of incense and sulphur (as
mentioned in our Mishna) should also be prohibited for the same
reason. Nay; there (in the cases of the woman and the baker) the
coals might be stirred, while here (in the cases of sulphur and
incense) when the coals are stirred smoke may arise that injures
the enamel or the garments. In the case of the linen thread also
no precautionary measure was necessary, because the draught
caused by the admission of air into the oven would prove injurious
to the thread and therefore a man would not open the oven to stir
the fire. Let, then, the placing of wool into a (dye) kettle be prohibited
as a precautionary measure ?
The Mishna treats of a kettle that stands at some distance from
the fire ; so says Samuel.
Still the apprehension exists, that he may stir the dye ?
Nay, we speak of a kettle whose cover is sealed with clay.
Now that the master said that the prohibitions (of the Bor
aitha) are only precautionary measures, to prevent a person from
stirring the coals, a cold pot may be put in the oven Friday when
it is getting dark. Why so ? Because (the victuals in it) cannot
be used the same evening, and he (the cook) will never think of
stirring the coals.
" The school of Shamai said : One shall not sell a thing to a
Gentile, etc."
The rabbis taught : The school of Shamai said : One shall not

28 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
sell a thing to a Gentile, nor lend it to him, nor help him carry it,
not give it to him (as a present) on Friday unless there is time
enough for him (the Gentile) to reach his house before night
comes on. The school of Hillel said (all this may be done) if
there is time enough to reach the house nearest to the wall of the
city where he (the Gentile) lives. R. Aqiba says (all this may be
done) if there is time enough for the Gentile to leave the house of
the Jew. Said R. Josi bar Jehudah : R. Aqiba contends that his
teaching does not contradict that of the school of Hillel, but
merely explains the latter's real intent.
The rabbis taught : One may put down eatables on his own
grounds for a Gentile (on the Sabbath). If the latter takes the
eatables and carries them off, he need not prevent him.
The rabbis taught : One shall not hire out his tools to a Gen
tile on Friday, but he may do so on Wednesday or Thursday (even
if he knows positively that the Gentile will use them on Sabbath).
In the same manner it is prohibited to transmit a letter by a Gen
tile on Friday, but it may be sent on Wednesday or Thursday. It
was said of R. Josi the Kahanite, others say of R. Josi the Pious,
that his handwriting was never found in the hands of a Gentile
(for fear that it might be carried on the Sabbath) .
The rabbis taught : One shall not send a letter by a Gentile on
Friday unless he stipulated a certain sum for the delivery. If
such a stipulation was not made, the school of Shamai say, it must
not be delivered, unless the messenger has time to reach the house
in which it is to be delivered (before sunset) ; the school of Hillel
says : He may do it, if the messenger has time to reach the house
nearest to the wall of the city, where the letter is to be delivered.
Was it not taught at first, that "one shall not send" at all?
This is no question. In the first part the case is treated of a
town which has no post-office ; in the latter part the Boraitha
speaks of a town which has one.
The rabbis taught : One shall not embark on a vessel less than
three days before the Sabbath. This is the case if one goes (to
sea) on private business, but if he goes in the interest of a good
work, he may do so. To travel from Tyre to Zidon (a journey of
a few hours) one may embark even on Friday.
The rabbis taught : Siege shall not be laid to Gentile cities
less than three days before the Sabbath, but when the siege is laid
it need not be raised. So also says Shamai (it is written in the

TRACT SABBATH. 2g
Law) : "until it is brought down" [Deut. xx. 20], i.e., even on
a Sabbath day.
" R. Simeon ben Gamaliel said, etc."
We have learned, R. Zadok said : " It was the custom at the
house of Rabban Gamaliel to give white clothes to the washer
three days before the Sabbath, but colored clothes even on a Fri
day." From this we have learned that it is harder to wash white
clothes than colored ones. Abayi gave colored clothes to the
washer and asked : How much wilt thou take for washing them ?
" As much as for white clothes," answered the washer. " The
rabbis have long ago decided," said Abayi (that white clothes are
harder to wash).
" Both schools agree, etc."
Why did the school of Shamai enforce precautionary measures
in all the previous cases, but in the case of wine and oil presses
they did not do so ?
They prohibited the performance of such labor as involves the
obligation of a sin offering, if performed (unintentionally) on the
Sabbath, or on a Friday, when approaching darkness ; but the put
ting of press beams on grapes or olives, which does not involve
the obligation of a sin offering if done on the Sabbath day, they
did not prohibit (to be done on Friday toward evening) as a
precautionary measure.
From this it may be inferred that work which continues by
itself may well be started (late on Friday).* Said R. Josi: This
agrees with the teaching of R. Ishmael, for thus we have learned :
" Garlic, unripe grapes, and green grain-stalks which were crushed
(on Friday) while yet day, may be put under pressure at sunset,"
says R. Ishmael ; R. Aqiba says : This is prohibited. This (opin
ion of R. Ishmael) again agrees with that expressed by R. Eleazar ;
for we have learned : " Honeycombs that were crushed on Friday
shall not be put in the press (at sunset), so that the honey run out
by itself; but R. Elazar permits this to be done."
The oil and the covers of the small oil-presses, Rabh prohibits
to handle on the Sabbath. Samuel permits this to be done.
Reed- cloth (which is used to cover wares) Rabh prohibits, but
Samuel permits (to handle). Covers that are used on board of a
* Without requiring the labor of man when once started, as is the case with wine
and oil presses, in which case the beams, once put on grapes or olives, force the fluids
to run down of their own accord.

30 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
vessel to cover the deck, Rabh prohibits and Samuel permits the
handling of (on Sabbath).
R. Na'hman said : " A goat, that is kept for its milk, a sheep,
that is kept for its wool, a hen, that is kept for its eggs, an ox,
that is kept for the plough, and dates, that are put up for the
market, are prohibited for use at a biblical feast," is the teaching
of Rabh; Samuel said: " They are allowed." Their points of
disagreement are the same as those of R. Judah and Simeon.
A disciple in 'Harta decided cases according to R. Simeon's
teaching, and R. Hamnunah punished him.
Have we not adopted the opinion of R. Simeon ?
Yea; but 'Harta was within the jurisdiction of Rabh, and he
(the disciple) should not have done as he did against Rabha's
teaching. MISHNA : Meats, onions, and eggs shall not be put to roast
ing (on Friday), unless they can be done while it is yet day.
Bread shall not be put in the oven or a cake upon live
coals, unless the crust can be formed while it is yet day. R.
Eleazar says, it is enough if the bottom crust is formed. The
Passover sacrifice may be turned around in the oven (on Friday)
when it is getting dark. In the heating-house of (the Sanctuary)
the fire was fed at eventide. The fires in the rural districts may
be fed, until the flames envelop the greatest part (of the fuel).
R. Judha says : " Where coals were already burning, more fuel
may be added, even when Sabbath is quite near at hand."
GEMARA : (The Mishna said that meats, etc., should not be
put to roasting unless there is time, etc.) When should such vic
tuals be considered done? When they are done like the victuals
of Bar Drostai.*
We have learned, Hananiah says : All victuals that are done
like the victuals of Bar Drostai may be left upon the hearth, even
if the fire in the hearth is not stirred up and full of ashes.
" Bread shall not be put, etc."
The disciple asked : (" Does the Mishna speak of) the crust
that is formed near the wall of the oven, or the crust formed (on
the side of the loaf, that is turned) to the fire?"
Come and hear : R. Eleazar says : " It is sufficient, if the sur
face is crusted, which lies close to the wall of the oven."
* A notorious highwayman, who could never stay in one place long enough to cook
his meals, and was wont to do only the third part of cooking they required.

TRACT SABBATH 31
" The Passover sacrifice may be turned, etc."
Why so ? Because a company (when preparing a sacrifice in
the temple) is very cautious.
If this were not the case, would it not be allowed ? Has not
the master taught : A (sacrificial) kid may be used well done or
not well done ?
Aye; but in that case it is cut in pieces; in our case it could
not be cut in pieces.*
"The fire in the heating-house, etc."
Why so ? Because priests are very careful.
"In the rural districts, etc."
What does "the greatest part" mean? Rabh said: "The
greatest part of each piece ;" Samuel said : " Until no more small
wood is needed to make the heap burn." R. 'Hyya taught in
support of R. Samuel's opinion : " The flame should continue ris
ing by itself and not bythe assistance of anything else." If there
is only one log of wood — ? Rabh said : (Until the fire catches)
most of its thickness ; others say — the most of its circumference.
Said R. Papa: To comply with (both views expressed by) the
Tanaim, we must have (the fire catch) the most of its thickness
and also the greatest part of its circumference. These views are
like those of the Tanaim, whose decisions follow: R. 'Hyya
says : Until it is so burned that it is unfit for any carpenter's
work. R. Judah ben Bethera says : Until the fire catches both
sides. Although this cannot be substantiated by evidence (from
Scripture) there is a passage which reminds one of it, viz. : " Both
ends were consumed by the fire and the inside is scorched ; is it
fit for any work?" [Ez. xv. 4]. R. Kahana said: Reeds, if they
are tied together, must (have enough daytime on Friday) to burn
over half; if not tied together they need not (have so much
time). Peats (of dates) must have enough time for the fire to
catch their greater part ; if they are put in a fire-pot, they need
not. R. Joseph taught four substances (used as fuel) need not
(have time until the fire catches) the greater part, viz. : pitch, sul
phur, cheese, and running fats ; in a Boraitha it was taught that
straw and (wood) shavings belong to the same category.
* See Ex. xii. 9, 46, where it is explicitly ordained that the pastoral lamb should
not be dismembered before it is cooked.

CHAPTER II.
regulations concerning the sabbath and 'hanukah light.
MISHNA : What shall be used for lighting (the Sabbath light)
and what shall not be used ? The light shall not be made with
(wicks of) cedar fibre, raw flax, silk fibre, nettle fibre, and ship-
moss.* Nor shall pitch, wax, cotton-seed oil, oil of rejected
heave-off erings,f fat and and tallow be used (as fuel).
Nahum the Mede says melted tallow may be used as fuel ;
the schoolmen prohibit melted and raw tallow alike.
GEMARA : The rabbis taught : All that which was prohib
ited for the Sabbath lamp may be used in fires that are kept up
for heat or even for constant light, whether (such fires are built/
upon the ground or in the hearth ; the materials are prohibited
only as wicks for the Sabbath lamp.
Rabba said : The wicks, which the rabbis forbade the use of
in the Sabbath lamp, are prohibited, because they give a flicker
ing light. The fat substances were prohibited, because they do
not adhere to the wick.
Abayi asked of Rabba : Would it be permitted to mix oil with
these prohibited fats and then use them for the Sabbath lamp ?
Or is even that prohibited as a precaution, lest one use those fats
without the addition of oil ? Rabba answered : It is prohibited.
Why so? Because " It is prohibited."
Abayi confronted him with the following : ' R. Simeon ben
Gamaliel said : " In my father's house they wound the wick around
a nut and lighted it " ; is it not obvious from this that it may be
lighted ? (when permissible fuel is mixed with a kind that is not
permitted to be used.)
Said Rabba : " Instead of contradicting me with the saying of
R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, support my view with the decision of the
* Moss springing up on the hulk or boards of a ship.
f The text reads " oil for burning," the full explanation of which is given in the
Talmud further on. We have paraphrased the term to convey the sense to the
English reader. 32

TRACT SABBATH. 33
first Tana" (of our Mishna). This is no rejoinder; the record of
a deed is incontrovertible.
Still the record of the master remains contradictory.
The adduced record is not complete. In full it reads thus :
" If one has wound a thing that may be used (as a wick) around a
thing that may not be used, he is not permitted to light it. This
is the case when the two (substances) are to serve the purpose of
a wick, but if the prohibited substance is used merely to support
the permissible (the combination) is allowed, for thus said R.
Simeon b. Gamaliel : ' In my father's house, etc' "
Yet, the decision is doubtful. Did not R. Beruna teach in the
name of Rabh : To melted tallow or fish fat one may add some oil
and use it for the Sabbath lamp ? These substances adhere to
the wick in themselves.
But the rabbis had prohibited melted tallow or fish fat as a
precaution, lest (if the melted substance be allowed) one use it
raw also (as fuel for the Sabbath lamp). Why did they not enact
the prohibition to use these substances with the admixture of
some oil as a precaution lest they be used without the admixture
of oil ?
This itself is a precautionary measure ; shall we enact another
as a safeguard to it ?
R. Huna said : The wicks and fats, which the sages have pro
hibited for the Sabbath lamp, cannot be used for the 'Hanukah
lamp either on the Sabbath night or on week nights.
Rabba asked: What are R. Huna's reasons? He holds that
if the ('Hanukah lamp) goes out (by accident) it must be relighted,
and also that its light may be used to work by.
But R. Hisda says: (The 'Hanukah lamp) can be fed (with
these fats) on week nights, but not on the Sabbath night. He
holds that if it is put out, one is not in duty bound (to light it
again), and as long as it burns it may be used to work by.
R. Zera said in the name of R. Mathna, according to others
in the name of Rabh : The wicks and fats, which the sages pro
hibited for the Sabbath lamp, maybe used for the 'Hanukah lamp,
both during the week and on the Sabbath night.
R. Jeremiah inquired into this by asking : " What are the rea
sons of Rabh ? He holds that if it is put out, he need not relight
it and its light may be used to work by."
The scholars cited this ruling before Abayi, in the name of R.
VOL. i. — 3

34 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
Jeremiah, and he would not accept it ; when R. Abhin came and
cited it before Abayi in the name of R. Johanan, he (Abayi) ac
cepted it and said : " Had I been worthy, I would have accepted
this teaching before."
" If it is put out, one is not in duty bound to relight it?"
Is this not contradicted by the following : (It was taught else
where) "the proper ordinance is for (the 'Hanukah light) to last
from the setting of the sun, until footsteps are no longer heard in
the street.*
Do you not think that if the light is put out it should be re
lighted? Nay; the time appointed is only for the purpose of
determining when the light is to be lit, or a light should be made
which will last for the appointed time.
" Until footsteps are no longer heard in the street ;" up to what
time is this ?
Up to the time when the steps of the Tarmudites -f- are heard
no more. The rabbis taught : The law of 'Hanukah demands that every
man should light one lamp for himself and his household. Those
who seek to fulfil it well have a lamp lit for every member of the
household. Those who seek to fulfil the law in the best possible
manner should light the first night eight flames and every fol
lowing night one flame less, says the school of Shamai. Hillel's
school holds that only one should be lit on the first night and be
increased by one on each succeeding night.
Rabba-bar-bar-'Hanasaid in the name of R. Johanan: "There
were two old men living in Zidon ; one did according to the deci
sion of Shamai's school and the other according to the opinion
expressed bythe school of Hillel. The former gave his reason ;
saying, that the 'Hanukah lamp is to be lit in the same manner
as the sacrifices of the feast were offered.:]; The latter gave his
reason, that holy actions should show (emblemize) increase and
not reduction.
The rabbis taught: The ordinance demands that the 'Hanu
kah lamp be put on the outside door of the house. If one lives on
* The ceasing of footsteps in Talmudical language implies the time when people
have already retired.
f Vendors of shavings and small wood, which are bought for the hearth-fire in the
evening. X The sacrifices of the Feast of Booths were decreased in number each succeeding
day. See Numbers xxix. 13, 17, 23, 25, 29, 32.

TRACT SABBATH. 35
an upper floor he should put it in a window that opens into the
street. In time of danger,* it is sufficient if the lights are on
the table.
Said Rabba: In the latter case another light is required to
work by ; but if there is a hearth-fire in the house, it is not neces
sary. If the man is of high standing (and not in the habit of
working by the hearth-light) he must have another lamp.
What is 'Hanukah? The rabbis taught: "On the twenty-
fifth day of Kislev 'Hanukah commences and lasts eight days, on
which lamenting (in commemoration of the dead) and fasting is
prohibited. When the Hellenists entered the sanctuary, they de
filed all the oil that was found there. When the government of
the House of Asmoneans prevailed and conquered them, oil was
sought (to feed the holy lamp in the sanctuary) and only one vial
was found with the seal of the high priest intact. The vial con
tained sufficient oil for one day only, but a miracle occurred and it
fed the holy lamp eight days in succession. These eight days
were the following year established as days of good cheer, on which
psalms of praise and acknowledgment (of God's wonders) were to
be recited. R. Kahana said : R. Nathan bar Manyomi preached in the
name of R. Tanhum : "A 'Hanukah lamp becomes disqualified, if
it is put higher than twenty ells (from the ground), just like a
Sukkah (booth)."
Rabba said: "The ordinance of the 'Hanukah lamp provides,
that it be put within a span of the house door.
Where shall it be placed ? R. A'ha ben Rabba said it should
be placed to the right (of the entrance). R. Samuel of Diphti
said to the left. The final decision is that it should be placed to
the left of the entrance, so that the 'Hanukah light be on one side
and the Mezuzah f on the other side of the door.
R. Jehudah said in the name of R. Assi : It is not allowed to
count money by the 'Hanukah light. When this was cited before
Samuel, he said : " Is there any holiness in the light ?" R.Joseph
retorted : Is there any holiness in the blood of an animal ? and
* Time of danger is used here to designate the time when a prohibitive order
against lights is issued by the local government.
f " Mezuzah," door-post, technical name for the writing which was to be placed on
the door-post by the command of Deut. vi. 9 and elsewhere. The Rabbis decreed
that this was to be placed to the right of the entrance.

36 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
yet have we not learned : (It is written) " He shall shed his blood
and cover it with earth" [Lev. xvii]. From this we infer that
he must cover it with the same tool it was shed with, but not with
his foot, in order that the fulfilment of the commandment should
not be treated with lack of reverence. In our case too (money
must not be counted before the 'Hanukah lamp) in order that
the compliance with an ordinance should not evince a lack of
reverence. It was asked of R. Joshua b. Levi : May the fruits, hung up in
the Sukkah for ornamentation, be used during the seven days of
the feast?
He answered : A law was passed prohibiting the counting of
money by the 'Hanukah light.
Said R. Joseph : " Lord of Abraham." Here he connected a
law that was enacted (by the ancient masters) with one that was
not discussed by them ! The law concerning the Sukkah was
biblical, that concerning 'Hanukah was not biblical but rabbinical.
Finally, R. Joseph decided, the precedent of all these cases is
the law concerning the blood (which was cited above).
It was taught that Rabh said : It is not allowed to light one
'Hanukah light with the other; Samuel permits this (to be done).
Rabh prohibited Tzitzith (show-threads) to be taken out of one
garment and put into another ; Samuel said, this may be done.
Rabh said, the following law, as decided by R. Simeon, that one
may drag a thing across the floor on the Sabbath, does not hold
good ; Samuel said, it does.*
Said Abayi : " My master followed the decisions of Rabh in all
questions except the three mentioned above, which he decided
according to Samuel."
A scholar sitting before R. Ada bar Ahba said: "Rabh's
reason for prohibiting these acts was to prevent irreverence in the
compliance with the law." Said R. Ada to the scholars present :
" Hear him not ; Rabh's reason was to prevent stinginess in the
fulfilment of laws."
What is the difference between the two ?
The difference appears to be in the lighting of one 'Hanukah
lamp with another. He who says that irreverence was the reason,

* The different contentions given above may seem somewhat out of place; how
ever, they are cited merely to show the differences of opinion existing among the dif
ferent schools and sages.

TRACT SABBATH. 37
cannot prohibit this ; but he who holds stinginess to be the rea
son, prohibits even this rightfully.
How is this question to be decided?
Said R. Huna, the son of R. Joshua : Let us see whether the
act of lighting the lamp constitutes compliance with the ordinance,
or whether it is the act of putting it in its proper place ; this
question having been already propounded (the answer, when given,
will serve for the above also).
And now I would direct your attention to what R. Joshua
ben Levi says : " A lantern (that was lit for ' Hanukah on Friday
night) and kept burning the whole following day, must, at the
close of the Sabbath, be extinguished and then relighted." Now,
if we say that the lighting constitutes compliance with the com
mandment, this teaching is correct ; but if we say that the plac
ing of the lamp in its proper place constitutes compliance, the
master of this decision should say : " It should be extinguished,
raised up, put in its proper place, and lit." Again, since we pro
nounce the benediction : " Blessed art Thou, etc., who hast com
manded us to light the 'Hanukah lamp," it becomes clearly ap
parent, the lighting constitutes compliance. This is well estab
lished. Now that it is decided that the act of lighting constitutes
compliance with the ordinance (we draw the conclusion that) if a
deaf-mute, an idiot, or a minor lights (the 'Hanukah lamp), the act
is void of legality ; but a woman may surely light it ; for thus said
R. Joshua ben Levi : " Women are in duty bound to light the
'Hanukah lamp, for they were included in miracle" (which the light
commemorates). R. Shesheth said : A guest (at a stranger's house) is in duty
bound to light the 'Hanukah lamp.
Said R. Zera : When I was studying at the school of Rabh, I
contributed my share towards maintaining and lighting the lamp
with mine host. Since I am married, I say, I surely need not
light it now, for it is lit for me at my house.
R. Joshua ben Levi said : All fats are good for the 'Hanukah
lamp, but olive oil is the best. Abayi said : " My master always
sought for poppy-seed oil, because, said he, it burns slowly (and
the light lasts longer), but when he heard the saying of R. Joshua
ben Levi, he sought for olive oil, for that gives a clearer light."
Rabh said : He who lights the 'Hanukah lamp must pronounce

38 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
a benediction ; R. Jeremiah said : He who perceives it must pro
nounce a benediction. R. Jehudah said: He who perceives a
'Hanukah lamp on the first day, must pronounce two benedictions,
and the one that lights it on the first day, three ; * after the first
clay, the one that lights it must pronounce two benedictions and
the one that perceives it one.
What benediction would he omit ?
The benediction of time.
Why not omit the benediction of the miracle ?
Because the miracle was continued every day (of the eight).
What is the (special) benediction ?
" Blessed be, etc., who hallowed us with His commands and
ordained that we shall light the 'Hanukah lamp."
Where did He ordain this ?
Said R. Avya: (This command is included in) "Thou shalt
not depart, etc." [Deut. xvii. n]. R. Nehemiah said: (It is in
cluded) " Ask thy father and he will tell thee ; thine elders and
they will inform thee" (ibid, xxxii. 7).
R. Huna taught : A house that has two doors, must have two
lamps. This is the case only when the two doors are in two different
sides of the house ; but if they both open on the same side, it is
not necessary (to place a light in each).
Why so ? Because the townsmen may pass by the side which
has no lamp and suspect the owner of the house of not having lit
any at all.
R. Isaac b. Rediphah said in the name of R. Huna : " A lamp
with two mouths (so that two wicks can be lit in it) is sufficient
for two men."
Rabha said : If one has filled a dish with oil, put wicks all
around the brim, and covered it with a vessel (so that each wick
yields a separate flame) it is sufficient for many persons ; but if he
has not covered it, he made it appear as one flame of fire, and .it is
not sufficient, even for one person.
" It is certain to me," said he again, " that if one (possessing
only means enough to light one lamp) must choose between using
* The three benedictions here referred to are : ist, for the privilege of lighting the
'Hanukah lamp ; 2d, for the miracle which the lamp commemorates; and 3d, for the
continuance of life until the season of 'Hanukah. The second benediction is techni
cally designated as that of the " miracle" and the third as that of " time."

TRACT SABBATH. 39
this light for a house-light* (on Friday night) or a 'Hanukah light,
he should use it for a house-light in order to preserve his domestic
peace. If again his choice must be between (purchasing) the
house light and (the wine necessary for the celebration) of the
holiness of the day (Sabbath), the house-light must again be pre
ferred and for the same reason ; but if he must choose between
the 'Hanukah light and (the wine) for the holiness of the day,
which must he prefer?" "Is the latter to be preferred, because
it is of regular occurrence,-1- or is the 'Hanukah light preferable,
in order to celebrate the miracle (which it commemorates) ?"
Having propounded this question, he afterwards decided it as fol
lows : "The 'Hanukah light must be preferred, in order to cele
brate the miracle."
R. Huna said : " He who makes a practice of lighting many
lamps (which the law requires for festive occasions) shall be re
warded with scholarly sons. He who is particular about his Mezu
zah shall be blessed with a fine dwelling. He who is particular
about his show-threads (Tzitziths) shall be blessed with fine gar
ments. He who is particular about hallowing the day (of Sabbath
over a cup of wine) shall live to have his cellar well stocked.
R. Huna was wont to pass by the house of R. Abhin, the car
penter ; he noticed that the latter lit a great many lamps on the
Sabbath night. Said he : " Great men will come forth from this
house." And it happened, that R. Jidi and R. Hyya (sons of
Abhin) came forth from that house.
R. Hisda was wont to pass by the house of the master (father
or father-in-law) of R. Shezbi ; he noticed that the man made a
practice of lighting many lamps. Said he : "A great man came
forth from this house." This great man was R. Shezbi.
The wife of R. Joseph was accustomed to light her (Sabbath)
lamp late. Said he unto her : We have learned : (It is written in
the Scriptures) " The pillar of cloud did not depart by day nor the
* "The light for a house-light." The text does not specify on what night, but
Rashi's commentary adds Friday night, i.e., Sabbath eve. In my opinion that is not
the intent of Rashi ; for even on workdays the light used by the household should
have reference. Proof is: the reason given is for the sake of domestic peace; were it
only to apply to Sabbath eve, the reason given would have been in honor of the Sabbath.
f In all the ordinances to be observed, the rabbis have adopted the rule that if the
choice stands between one that recurs at short intervals and one that occurs more
seldom, the former is always to be preferred. (" Tadir, vesheaino tadir, tadir
kodom.")

40 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
pillar of fire by night" [Ex. xiii. 22]. From this we infer that
the two pillars always closely followed one another. She then
wanted to light up too early. Said a certain old man to her :
" We have learned (in a Boraitha), however, that (whatever is to
be done) should be done neither too early nor too late."
Rabha said : " He who loves scholars, will have sons that are
scholars ; he who respects scholars will have scholarly sons-in-
law ; he who fears scholars, will be a scholar himself, and if he is
not a scholar, his words shall be respected like those of an ordained
scholar." " Oil of rejected heave-offering, etc."
What is that ? Answered Rabba : That was (oil, that was con
secrated) as a heave-offering and became defiled. It is called oil
for burning, because it must be destroyed in fire, and the Mishna
speaks here of a Friday that happens to fall on a (biblical) feast-
day, and prohibits lighting (the Sabbath lamp) with it, because
consecrated things, that have been defiled, must not be burned on
a feast-day. A Boraitha corroborates this explanation thus : " And
R. Hanina of Massora said, it should be read in the Mishna : Why
shall one not make a light with the defiled oil ? Because defiled
things cannot be burned on a feast-day. All material, which must
not be used for lighting on the Sabbath, may be lit on a feast-day,
save the oil for burning."
The schoolmen propounded the following question : Should the
'Hanukah incident be mentioned in the benediction after meals ?
Is it not necessary to do this, because 'Hanukah is a rabbinical
institution ; or should it be done for the sake of the celebration in
honor of the miracle ?
Said R. Huna : " It is not necessary to make this mention, but
if one wishes to do it, he should incorporate it in the thanksgiving
part." R. Hunah bar Jehudah visited the house of Rabba. He wanted
to mention it (the 'Hanukah incident) in (the prayer part under
the heading of) " the One who builds up Jerusalem." Said R.
Shesheth : Nay ; it should be mentioned in the thanksgiving part
of the benediction after the meal, as it is mentioned in the same
part in the order of daily services.*

* The principal elements of all Hebrew prayers are : ist, Shebhah, i.e., praise ;
2d, Hodayah, i.e., thanksgiving; 3d, Tephilah, i.e., prayer, and 4th, Ta'hanun,
i.e., propitiation.

TRACT SABBATH. 41
Should the New- Moon clay be mentioned in the benediction
after meals? Can we assume that the New-Moon day is more
important than 'Hanukah because its observation is enjoined in
the Scriptures, and therefore it must be mentioned, while 'Hanu
kah need not be; or need it not be mentioned because manual
labor is not prohibited on that day ?
Rabh holds that it should be mentioned ; R. Hanina holds
that it need not be be.
Said R. Zerika: "Hold to Rabh's opinion, for R. Oshiaya
holds to the same. Thus we have learned : R. Oshiaya taught : On
the days on which additional sacrifices (Mussaph) are offered in
the Sanctuary, like New- Moon days and the common days of a
biblical feast (as the five days intervening between the first and
last days of the Passover feast), one must at evening, morning, and
afternoon services recite the regular eighteen benedictions and
insert in the thanksgiving part of the day's service a passage re
ferring to the subject of the day. If he has failed to do so, he
should be made to repeat (his eighteen benedictions) ; but such
days need not be hallowed over a goblet of wine ; though a re
membrance of their significance must be made in the prayer after
meals. On days requiring no additional sacrifice, like the first
Monday ; Thursday and Monday (after a biblical feast), fast days
and the days (devoted to prayer by) commoners,* one must recite
the eighteen benedictions at evening, morning, and afternoon ser
vices and insert a paragraph referring to the subject of the day in
the prayer division ; but if he forgot the latter he need not be
made to repeat (the eighteen benedictions). The subjects of such
days need not be mentioned in the prayer after meals. The
Halakha, however, is not in accordance with the preceding de
cisions. It remains as decreed by R. Joshua ben Levi : If the day
of Atonement happens to fall on a Sabbath day, mention of the
Sabbath must be made even in the Neilah prayer (the last of the
four different prayers of the day of Atonement), although on ordi
nary Sabbath days the prayer of Neilah is never recited. Why

* A division of the people had always to be present at the temple to witness the
services. The men of such a division were called " commoners " because there was
a special place assigned to them in the temple. All of them not being able to attend,
they sent their delegates to represent them, but they assembled in their various cities
and villages to perform their devotion. The days on which this was done were desig
nated as those of " commoners," " Ma'amadoth." See Mishna Ta'anith.

42 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
so ? Because the Sabbath and the day of Atonement are now one,
and four prayers are indispensable to the services of the day.
MISHNA : The lamp used on a (biblical) feast-night shall
not be fed with oil of rejected heave-offerings. R. Ishmael said :
The Sabbath lamp shall not be fed with tar, out of reverence for
the Sabbath. The schoolmen allow all fatty substances for this
purpose; poppy-seed oil, nut oil, fish oil, radish oil, wild-gourd
oil, tar and naphtha. R. Tarphin said : It shall be lighted with
nothing but olive oil.
GEMARA: " R. Ishmael said, etc." What is the reason?
(that tar shall not be used). Said Rabba, because it emits a bad
odor (and the Tana prohibits it) as a precaution, lest one light it
and leave the house.
Said Abayi : Let him go. (What harm is there in that ?)
Rejoined Rabba : " I hold that the Sabbath light is a duty (to
be enjoyed and not merely complied with) ; for so was the opinion
of Rabh : The (enjoyment of) Sabbath light is an obligation.
The washing of hands and feet in warm water toward evening
(on Friday) is optional. Yet I say it is a duty, for thus said
Rabh : " It was the custom of R. Jehudah bar Ilayi to bathe his
face, hands, and feet in warm water, that was brought to him in a
trough every Friday toward evening ; after that he wrapped him
self in a pallium with Tzitzith (show-threads) and thus assumed
an angelic appearance."
"My soul was deprived of peace" [Lam. iii. 17]. What does
this mean? Said R. Abahu: It means (being deprived of the
pleasure of) lighting the Sabbath lamp. " I forgot the good"
(ibid.). R. Jeremiah said : This refers to (the deprival of) a bath.
R. Johanan said : It refers to the washing of hands and feet with
warm water. R. Isaac of Naphia said : It refers to a good bed and
comfortable bedding. ' R. Aba said : It refers to an arranged bed
and an elegantly robed wife for scholarly men.
The masters taught : " Who is rich ?" One who enjoys his
riches, is the opinion of R. Meir. R. Tarphon says, he who has
a hundred fields, a hundred vineyards, and a hundred slaves at work
in them. R. Aqiba said, he who has a wife adorned with good
virtues. R Josi said, he who has all necessary comforts near his
table. It was taught, R. Simeon ben Elazar said: "The Sabbath
lamp shall not be fed with aromatic balsam." For what reason?

TRACT SABBATH. 43
Rabba said, because it yields a fine fragrance, it was prohibited in
apprehension, lest one use it (taking it out while the lamp is burn
ing). Said Abayi to him : " Why does not the master say, because
it is volatile?" Aye; he means this and the other also ; the bal
sam is prohibited, because it is volatile and also for fear lest it be
used. A mother-in-law, who hated her son's wife, told her to go out
and perfume herself with aromatic oil. When the daughter-in-law
had done this, she ordered her to go and light the candle. While
complying with this order, she caught fire and was burned.
The masters taught : A lamp shall not be fed with " Tebhel" *
that has become unclean, even on week days, and the less so on
the Sabbath. In a similar manner, white naphtha shall not be used
to feed a lamp with on week days, much less on Sabbath, because
it is volatile.
In the Boraitha it was said that aromatic balsam shall not be
used; so also did R. Simeon ben Elazar teach: Aromatic balsam
is nothing but resin, that comes forth from aromatic trees.
R. Ishmael said, The (Sabbath) lamp shall not be fed with
anything that comes from the trunk of a tree. R. Ishmael ben
Beroqa said : It shall be lighted only with such substances as come
from fruit. R. Tarphon said : It shall be fed only with olive oil.
R. Johanan ben Nuri arose and said : " What shall the people of
Babylonia do, who have nothing but poppy-seed oil ? What shall
the people of Media do, who have nothing but nut oil ? What
shall the people of Alexandria do, who have nothing but radish -
oil ? and what shall the people of Cappadocia do, who have no oil
of any kind, nothing but tar?" Nay; we have no choice, but to
accept the decree of the masters as to substances which should
not be used ; (but all other substances may be used). Even fish-
oil and oil of wild gourds may be used to feed the Sabbath lamp
with. R. Shimeon Shezori said : Oil of wild gourds and naphtha
may be used. Sumkus said no animal fat save fish oil may be
used. MISHNA : No substance that comes from a tree shall be used
(as a wick) for the Sabbath lamp, save flax. In like manner no
substance that comes from a tree becomes defiled when serving as
a tent (in which a dead body lies) save flax.
* " Tebhel " is the designation of the produce of the field and the garden, from
which the Levitical gifts or tithes were not separated.

44 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
GEMARA : Whence do we know that flax is called a tree ?
Said Mar Zutra : Thus says the Writ : " She took them up to the
roof, and hid them in the flax-trees" [Josh. ii. 6].
" No substance, etc., save flax."
Whence do we know this ?
Said R. Elazar : We derive this from the similarity of terms,
that occurs here and in the case of the tabernacle. In our case
it is written : " If a man die in the tent, etc." [Num. xix. 14], and
in the latter case it is written " Moses spread the tent over the
tabernacle" [Ex. xl. 19]. As the tent of the tabernacle was made
only of flax, so also in our case, if a tent is made of flax only, it is
also called a tent and is liable to become defiled.
MISHNA : A piece of cloth, that was rolled together, but not
singed, said R. Eliezer, becomes defiled (when it is in the same
tent with a dead body) and shall not be used (as a wick) to light
(the Sabbath lamp) with. R. Aqiba said : It remains pure and
may be used as a light.
GEMARA : On what grounds do they differ ?
R. Oshaya and also R. Ada bar Ahba said : Here the question
is about a piece of cloth that is exactly three spans square, and
the lighting is to be done on a feast-day, which happens on a
Friday. All agree to the opinion of R. Jehudah, who said that
(on a feast day) fire may be made with good cloth (or vessels) but
not with such as have been spoiled (the same day). Again all
agree with the opinion of Ula, who said that in lighting (the
Sabbath lamp) one must light the largest part of the wick that
protrudes from the lamp. Now, R. Eliezer holds, that the rolling
up (of the piece of cloth) does not improve the position (i.e., it is
still an object, to which the term " cloth" or vessel applies) ; as
soon as it is slightly burned, it becomes spoiled material ; fire,
being applied further, is naturally generated with spoiled material
(which, according to R. Jehudah, is prohibited). R. Aqiba, on the
other hand, holds that folding does improve the condition and the
cloth is no longer a vessel ; hence he puts fire to a simple piece of
wood (as it were, and this is allowed).
Rabba said : The reason of R. Eliezer's (prohibition) is that the
Sabbath lamp is not allowed to be lighted with a wick or rag, that
has not been singed.
R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh : Fire may be made (on
a feast day) with vessels, but not with broken vessels. R. Shim-

TRACT SABBATH. 45
eon permits (even the latter). Fire may be made with dates, but
having eaten dates, one is not allowed to feed the fire with the
peats, is the opinion of R. Jehudah ; R. Shimeon says : It is al
lowed. A fire may be made with nuts, but if one has eaten the
meat, he must not feed the •fire with the shells, holds R. Jehudah ;
R. Shimeon permits both.
The statement credited to Rabh in the foregoing paragraph was
not really made by him, but was merely implied from his actions.
While in Palestine, one day Rabh was eating dates and threw the
peats into the fireplace, upon which R. Hyya said to him : " De
scendant of nobles, on a (biblical) feast-day this would be prohib
ited !" Did Rabh agree with him, or did he not ? Come and
hear : While in Babylonia, one feast day Rabh was eating dates
and threw the peats to some cattle (for food). Must we not
assume that these dates belonged to the class known as " Par-
siassa" (a ripe, delicious free-stone fruit), and if Rabh fed cattle
with the peats of this fruit it was because they may be used for
fuel also, and thus the statement of R. Hyya is contradicted?
Nay ; it may be the peats that fed the cattle by Rabh were from
dates known as " Armiassa" (an inferior fruit, the peats of which
cling to the meat). The peats of this latter class of dates, in
consequence of the meat still clinging to them, are regarded as
dates themselves and may be carried on the Sabbath. Hence it
is obvious that they may also be fed to cattle, and Rabh therefore
does not contradict R. Hyya.
MISHNA : A man shall not bore a hole in an egg-shell, fill it
with oil and put it upon the (Sabbath) lamp, so that the oil drip
into it ; (he shall not do this) even with one made of clay. R.
Jehudah permits this to be done. If, however, the potter has at
tached it to the lamp, when he made it, it is allowed to do this,
for (together with the lamp) it forms one vessel. A man shall
not fill a dish with oil, put it beside the lamp and dip the (un
lighted) end of the wick into it, in order that it should draw. R.
Jehudah permits this to be done.
GEMARA : " If the potter has attached it, etc."
It was taught also : If the man himself has attached it with
mortar or clay, it is allowed. Does not our Mishna say "the
potter" (from which it may be inferred, that if the owner did it,
is it not allowed for use?) Nay; "the potter" means: in the
manner of the potter.

46 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
It was taught, R. Jehudah said : " Once we kept Sabbath in
the hall of Beth Nitza in Lydda. We procured an egg-shell, filled
it with oil, and placed it on the lamp. R. Tarphon and the aged
scholars were there, and they made no objection to our action."
They answered him : " Wilt thou prove by this (that this is al
lowed) ? Beth Nitza is quite a different case ; for the men there
are very careful."
Abhin of Ziphoris dragged a chair (along the floor on Sabbath)
in the marble hall in the presence of R. Isaac ben Elazar. Said
the latter : " If I should be silent toward thee (although this floor
being marble, no indenture can be made by the chair, and thou
art not guilty of wrong-doing) as the colleagues were silent toward
R. Jehudah, my silence might be misconstrued (and people might
think that this can be done on any floor; therefore I say that)
this is prohibited in the marble hall as a precautionary measure,
lest one do it in any other hall." The head man of the assembly
room of Bazra dragged a chair in the presence of Jeremiah the
Great. Said the latter to him: "According to whose decision
dost thou this?" "According to R. Shimeon." "But R. Shim
eon allowed large things only (to be dragged) because they can
not be lifted ; and how do you know that he did allow also small
things?" This teaching differs with the opinion of Ulla, who
says the dispute was only concerning small things, for as to large
ones there was no objection from any one.
MISHNA: If one extinguishes a lamp (on the Sabbath) be
cause he is afraid of idolaters," or of robbers, or of an evil spirit ;f
or in order that a sick person may be able to sleep, he is not held
culpable. If he does this, however, to prevent damage to the lamp,
or to save the oil or the wick, he is. R. Josi declares the man not
culpable even in the latter cases, excepting (if he extinguished the
lamp to save the wick), for in that case he caused a cinder to be
created. GEMARA : From the fact that the second part of the Mishna
declares the man (who had extinguished the lamp to prevent
damage, etc.), culpable it is evident that this regulation was made

* Alike the Persians, says Rashi, who had certain nights on which they allowed no
lights to burn anywhere but in their sacred shrines.
f The evil spirit here referred to is explained by the commentators to mean " mel
ancholia.'

TRACT SABBATH. 47
by R. Jehudah.* Now, how is the first part to be understood?
If it speaks of a sick person, whose illness is dangerous, it should
not say (that the man who extinguishes the lamp to afford him
rest) is " not culpable," but should say that he is " allowed to do
it" (even intentionally). And if it speaks of one whose illness is
not dangerous (the one who extinguished the lamp for him) ought
to be declared in duty bound to bring a sin-offering.
Of a verity, the Tana speaks of a case of dangerous illness,
and should have said " it is allowed" (to extinguish the lamp even
unintentionally), but he used the term " not culpable" merely (for
the sake of euphony), because in the latter part (of the Mishna)
he must say " culpable ;" therefore he taught in the first part of
the Mishna that he is not culpable. But have we not learned, R.
Oshayaa said, that " in order that a sick person may be able to
sleep, one should not extinguish (the lamp on the Sabbath) ; and
if he did so he is not held culpable, though it is not allowed (to be
done intentionally) ;" the teaching of R. Oshayaa refers to sick
ness that is not dangerous and is in accord with the opinion of
R. Shimeon. The question, " Is it allowed to extinguish a lamp for the sake
of a sick person on the Sabbath?" was propounded before R.
Tan'hum of Navi.
He began thus : •*- " O thou Solomon ! Where is thy wisdom ?
Where is thy folly ? Thy words contradict not only the words of
thy father, but also thine own utterance. Thy father David said,
'The dead do not praise God' [Ps. cxv. 17], and thou sayest, 'I
praise the dead that died long ago' [Eccl. iv. 2], and then again,
' A living dog fareth better than a dead lion ' [ibid. ix. 4] . (Yet
there is no contradiction.) That, which David said, The dead do
not praise God, means this : A man must always engage in study
and in God-pleasing deeds before his death ; for as soon as he
dies, he is free of both, and the Holy One, blessed is He, receives
no praise from him. The saying of Solomon, ' I praise the dead,
etc.,' means : When Israel sinned in the desert, Moses stood up be-

* The inference is made on the strength of a rule laid down by R. Jehudah else
where, that every unintentional breach of the Sabbath, which is made not out of per
sonal necessity or habit, must be atoned for by a sin-offering (Rashi) .
f This apparently far-fetched introduction to an answer to a question of religious
legalism illustrates most beautifully how the ethical principle predominated in the
rabbinical discussions.

48 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
fore the Lord and offered many prayers and propitiating invoca
tions ; but he received no answer. As soon, however, as he said :
' Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Thy servants' [Ex. xxxii.
13], he was answered forthwith; now did not Solomon say well:
'I praise the dead that have died long ago?' In another way
(this can be explained as follows) : The custom is, if a man of
flesh and blood issues a decree, it is doubtful whether the people
will comply with it or not. If they comply with it while he
lives they may disregard it after his death. Moses, our master,
on the other hand, has issued many decrees and established many
enactments, which stand unshaken forever and aye. Now, did not
Solomon say well : 'I praise the dead, etc' As to the question
that was propounded,* I say this: A lamp is called 'Ner,' and
the soul of man is called 'Ner.'f Let rather the Ner which
man has made (the lamp) be extinguished, than the 'Ner' (the
soul) which belongs to the Holy One, blessed is He."
It was said in the name of Rabh : The sages wanted to conceal
the book of Ecclesiastes because of its contradictory sayings.
Why did they not conceal it ? Because it begins with sound re
ligious teachings and ends with similar teachings. It begins with
the words : " What profit hath man by all his toil under the sun?"
[Eccl. i. 3]. Whereupon the school of R. Janai said, " Under the
sun" there is no profit, but there surely is " beyond the sun." It
ends with the words : " The conclusion of the matter is, fear God
and observe His commands, for this is all (there is) for man" [Eccl.
xii. 13]. What does it mean: "This is all (there is) for man?"
R. Elazar said : (It means) the whole world was created only for the
sake of his fear of God. R. Aba bar Kahana said : The God-fear
ing man outweighs (in importance) the whole world. Shimeon
ben Azai, others say Shimeon ben Zoma, said : The whole world
was created only to provide him with assistance.
"I praise mirth" [Eccl. viii. 15]. This means the rejoicing
man conceives, when he performs a God-pleasing act. " To what
advantage is mirth" [Eccl. ii. 2] alludes to rejoicing that comes
not through a God-pleasing deed. This teaches that the divine
presence (Shekhina) comes not by sadness, by indolence, by hilar-
* The liberality of the rabbinical law is evinced by the fact that it regards an act
done for the sake of alleviating sufferings on the Sabbath day not wrongful. Every
comfort may and should be provided for the sick on the Sabbath day.
f " Ner" is the Hebrew word for candle ; the soul is the candle of God.

TRACT SABBATH.

49

ity, by levity, by gossip, or by senseless talk — but through rejoic
ing in a good deed. Thus it is written : " Now bring me a min
strel; and when the minstrel played the power of the Lord was
upon him" [2d Kings iii. 15]. Rabba said: The same (should be
done) in order to enjoy good dreams. R. Jehudah says : The same
(should be done) to predispose one's self for legislative work, as
Rabba did : Before commencing to expound Halakha he intro
duced it with a simile and caused the masters to become joyful ;
afterward, he sat down in the fear of the Lord and began to ex
pound the Halakha.
It was taught that in the same time they also wanted to con
ceal the book of Proverbs on account of its contradictory sayings.
But why did they not do so ?
They said : " Have we not scrutinized the book of Ecclesiastes
and found the meaning (of its contradictory sayings) ? Let us
then search deeply here (in the book of Proverbs) also."
Which are the contradictory sayings ? It says : " Answer not
the fool according to his folly" [Prov. xxvi. 4] ; and then again :
"Answer the fool in his folly" [ibid. v. 5]. Yet this is no con
tradiction ; the latter refers to a subject of learning, the former
saying to a subject of indifferent talk.
How is the subject of learning here to be understood?
In the following manner : R. Gamaliel preached : " In the
future, woman will bear a child every day, for thus it is written :
" She conceived and gave birth at a time" [Jer. xxxi. 7]. A dis
ciple laughed at this and said : " There is no new thing under the
sun" [Eccl. i. 9]. Said R. Gamaliel : Come, I will show thee
such a thing in the world ; and he showed him a hen. The same
rabbi preached : In the future, trees will bear every day, for it
is written: " It will produce branches and bear fruit" [Ezek. xvii.
23]- " As branches are produced for every day so also will fruit be
brought forth every day. Again the disciple laughed and said :
" There is no new thing under the sun." Said the master to him :
Come, I will show thee a thing of this kind in the world ; and he
showed him a caper tree. He preached again : The land of Israel
will in the future produce ready cakes and garments, explaining
the first part of verse 16 of Psalm Ixxii. to that effect.
The disciple again laughed at him ; but he showed him that
ready meats are produced in the shape of mushrooms and ready
VOL. 1. — 4

So THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
garments grow in the shape of many-colored fibres that cover the
young date trees.
The masters taught : A man should always be as modest as
Hillel and not as impulsive as Shamai. It once happened that
two men laid a wager of two hundred Zuz, which would be won
by him who could provoke Hillel to anger, but lost if he failed in
the attempt. This happened on Friday, while the sage was bath
ing his head. The man who undertook the task went to Hillel's
door and cried: "Who is Hillel here? Who is Hillel here?"*
The Rabbi threw a mantle over his shoulders and went out to
meet him." " What desirest thou, my son," he asked. " I have
a question to ask," the man replied. " Ask, my son, ask," said
the Rabbi. "Why are the Babylonians round-headed?" asked
the man. " This is an important question, my son ; the reason is
that they have no skilled midwives in Babylon," answered Hillel.
An hour later the man came again calling : " Who is Hillel here ?
Who is Hillel here?" The Rabbi came out again and said:
"What desirest thou, my son?" "I have a question to ask,"
the man said. "Ask, my son, ask," said Hillel. "Why have
the Tarmudites oval eyes ?" " This is a very important question,
my son. (The Tarmudites) live in a sandy land and must always
keep their eyes half closed." An hour later the man came again
in his insolent manner and said again that he had a question to
ask. Hillel in his quiet manner again encouraged him. " Why
do the Africans have large feet?" he asked. "Because they live
in a swampy land," answered Hillel. " I have many more questions
to ask, but I am afraid, lest thou get angry," continued the man.
Hillel wrapped himself in his mantle and sat down, saying : " Ask,
my son, all the questions thou desirest." "Art thou Hillel, who
is titled a prince in Israel ?" asked the man. " Yes, my son,"
answered the Rabbi. " If thou art the man, may there not be
many like thee in Israel." " Why so, my son ?" " Because thou
makest me lose four hundred Zuz." Said Hillel to him : "Take
care of thy temper. A Hillel is worthy that twice that amount
be lost through him ; a Hillel must not get excited."
The masters taught : A Gentile once came before Shamai and
asked : " How many laws have you ?"
* Hillel, being the president of theSynedrion, should have been addressed accord
ing to his rank, but by addressing him thus, it seems, the man thought he could pro
voke him to anger.

TRACT SABBATH.

51

" Two laws ; the written and the oral law," answered the Rabbi.
" I believe thee as regards the written law, but I don ot believe
thee as to the oral law," said the Gentile. " I will be converted
to Judaism on condition that thou teach me the written law."
Shamai rebuked him and drove him away.
He then came to Hillel with the same plea and Hillel ac
cepted him. He began teaching him the alphabet in regular se
quence. The next day he taught him the letters backward.
" You did not teach me so yesterday," the man objected. "Aye,
aye, my son; must thou not repose confidence in me? Thou
must likewise repose confidence in the oral law (which appears at
first sight different from the written law)."
Another Gentile came to Shamai saying : " Convert me on the
condition that thou teach me the whole Torah while I stand on
one foot." Shamai pushed him away with the builders' measure
he held in his hand. He thereupon came to Hillel and the latter
accepted him. He told him : " What is hateful to thee, do not
unto thy fellow ; this is the whole law. All the rest is a com
mentary to this law ; go and learn it."
Another Gentile once heard a Jewish teacher instructing his
class about the vestments of the high priest. He took a fancy to
that and thought he would accept Judaism in order to be made a
high priest. Thus he appeared before Shamai and said : " Con
vert me on the condition that I be made a high-priest." Shamai
pushed him away with the builders' measure he held in his hand.
He came to Hillel (with the same request) and the latter accepted
him. Said Hillel to him : " Do people select a king unless he
knows the laws of their government ? Thou must study the laws
of our government (if thou wilt become a high priest)." The con
vert began studying Torah. When he came to the passage : " A
stranger, who comes near (to the vessels of the sanctuary) shall
die" [Numb. i. 51] he asked: "To whom does this passage
refer?" Hillel answered: "To any one (who is not a descendant
of Aaron the high priest), even if he would be David, the king of
Israel." Then the convert made the following deduction : If the
people of Israel, who are called the children of the Lord, so that
out of love to them the Omnipresent said : " My first-born son is
Israel" [Ex. iv. 22] — if of them it is written, "a stranger that
comes nigh shall die," the more so must it be with an insignificant
stranger, who is come (within the pale of Judaism) merely with his

5 2 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
staff and his bag! He went before Shamai and said: "Am I
qualified to become a high priest ? Is it not written : A stranger,
that comes nigh shall die?" He then appeared before Hillel and
said : " Thy equanimity of temper, O Hillel. May blessings be
upon thy head, for thou hast gathered me in under the wings of
the Shekhina (divine presence)."
The three converts met some time later, and said : " The impul
siveness of Shamai came near sending us adrift in the world (out
side of the pale of religion) ; Hillel's equanimity of temper gath
ered us in under the wings of the Shekhina."
Resh Lakish said : What does the verse, " The trust of thy
times shall be the strength of salvation, wisdom, and knowledge,
etc." [Is. xxxiii. 6] what does this mean? (I think that this
can be a biblical support to the six divisions of the Mishna
which we possess) ?* " The trust" comes within the depart
ment of " Zeraim " (Plants) ; " thy times " in the department
" Moed" (Festivals) ; " strength" in the department " Nashim"
(Women); "salvation" in the department of "Nezikin" (Juris
prudence) ; " wisdom " in the department of " Qodoshim" (Holi
ness), and " knowledge" in the department of " Taharith" (Purity).
And yet, "the fear of the Lord is his treasure" (i.e., all these do
not avail where there is not the fear of the Lord).f
Rabba said : When a man comes before the (divine) judgment,
he is asked : " Hast thou traded in good faith ? Hast thou appor
tioned regular times for study ? Hast thou produced children ?
Didst thou hope for salvation? Hast thou discussed subjects of
wisdom ? Hast thou formed (logical) conclusions from the things
thou hast learned?" After all this (if he can affirm all these
questions) if he possessed the fear of the Lord, it was well ; if not
* The six departments enumerated here are those of the Mishna, into which the
Rabbis have divided all the subjects touched upon in the Bible.
f " Trust " comes within the department of " Plants " because the tithe due the
priests and Levites by the farmers was not fixed legally as to quantity, but was trusted
to the honesty of the donor. " Thy times " comes within the department of " Festi
vals " for self-evident reasons. " Strength " comes within the department of " Wom
en," for the reason that the Hebrew word, " Chosen " also means inheritance, and
heirs are naturally produced by women (this is the opinion of Rashi). "Salva
tion " in the department of " Jurisprudence :" all laws pertaining to the saving of life
and property. "Wisdom" in the department of "Holiness:" the holy sacrifices
requiring the exercise of much wisdom. " Knowledge" in the department of " Pu
rity." The determining of pure and defiled things necessarily demanded thorough
knowledge of the subject.

TRACT SABBATH.

53

it was not so. This is like a man who ordered his agent to store
a measure of wheat in the attic. The agent did so. Then the
man asked him whether he had mixed some dry dust with the
wheat (for protection against weevils), and he answered nay. " It
were better," said the merchant, "if thou hadst not stored it."
Rabba bar R. Huna said : A man who possesses learning, but
has no fear of Heaven, is like the manager (of a palace) who has
the keys to the inside apartments, but lacks the one which opens
the outside gate. How can he enter ?
R. Janai cried out : " Alas for him who has no dwelling, yet
strives to make the door of a dwelling!" R. Jehudah said: The
Holy One, blessed is He, created the world only for the purpose
that man should fear Him, for it is written : " God hath so made
it, that (men) should fear Him" [Eccl. iii. 14].
R. Simon and R. Elazer were sitting together as R. Jacob bar
Aha came passing by. Said one of them : " Come, let us arise be
fore him, for he is a man that fears to sin." Said the other one :
" Aye ; let us arise before him, for he is a son of enlightenment (a
scholar)." Said the former : " I tell thee, that he is a man that is
afraid to sin, and thou sayest he is a scholar. Thou shouldst be
mindful of what R. Elazar said : " The Holy One, blessed is He,
has nothing better in the world than (men who possess) the fear
of Heaven, for thus it is written: 'And now Israel, what doth the
Lord, thy God, require of thee but to fear the Lord thy God"
[Deut. x. 12].
R. Ulla preached : What does the passage mean, " Be not wicked
over much"? [Eccl. vii. 17]. Is it allowed to be wicked at all?
Nay, but the passage means this : If one has eaten garlic and has
acquired a bad odor, he must not eat more garlic, because the bad
odor is (about him) already. Rabba bar Ulla preached : It is
written, " For there are no fetters in them, but their strength is
firm" [Psalms lxxiii. 4]. Said the Holy One, blessed is He : " It
is not enough that the wicked do not trouble for, nor fear the day
of their death, but that their heart within them is as strong as a
strong fortress." Which is similar to Rabba's explanation of the
passage: "This is their way; their folly" [ibid. xlix. 14]: The
wicked know that their manner (of living) leads them to death and
still their kidneys wax fat (implying their blindness to the fact).
Perhaps thou wilt attribute this to their forgetfulness. See
further: "What will happen after their lives is the subject of

54 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
their sayings," whence we conclude that while they do not repent,
they continually speak of their death.
" To spare the lamp, etc."
With whom does R. Josi agree ? If he agrees with R. Jehu
dah, he should declare culpable even these ; and if he agrees with
R. Shimeon, he should declare not culpable even (the man who
extinguishes the lamp) for the purpose of saving the wick. Said
Ulla, by all means R. Josi agrees with R. Jehudah, but he holds
that if one destroys in order to rebuild in the same place, he is
guilty (of the act) of breaking ; but if one destroys not intending
to rebuild in the same place, he is not (guilty of) breaking.
MISHNA : For three sins women die of childbirth : for
negligence (of the laws) of their isolation, neglect of (separating
the Levitical) gifts of their dough, and for neglecting to light the
(Sabbath) lamp.
GEMARA : Why so ? Thus a Galilean master preached be
fore R. Hisda: The Holy One, blessed is He, says I have
created you with power of blood ; I have warned you concerning
blood; I have called you "the first produce" [Jer. ii. 3] and
charged you to sacrifice the "first of your dough" [Numb. xvi.
21]; the soul that I have I gave you is called a light, and charged
you concerning the (Sabbath) light. If you observe these things,
it is well ; if not, I shall take your souls ; but why should this
happen at the time of childbirth ? Said Rabba, when the ox falls
or is felled, it is time to sharpen the knife.*
And when are the sins of men passed upon? Said Resh
Lakish, when they pass a dangerous place, that is like a bridge
(which is unsafe). Rabh would not embark on a ship that carried
an idolater; .said he: " His time to be punished may come, and I
(being on the same vessel) may have to suffer with him." Sam
uel would go to sea only on a vessel which carried idolaters, say
ing: " Satan hardly ever metes out punishment to two people" (of
different beliefs). R. Janai always examined a vessel before he
embarked. This he did in conformity with his own teaching, for
thus he taught : " A man should never place himself in danger,
expecting that a miracle would be wrought for him, for it may be
that no such miracle will be wrought, and if a miracle is wrought
* When the ox is felled the knife should be ready, lest he rise again and cause
more trouble ; thus it is stated that women die at time of childbirth because, while
they are in danger, the punishment for transgressions is also inflicted !

TRACT SABBATH. 55
for him, it will be deducted from the reward due his merits in the
world to come." Asked R. Hanin : " Where is the biblical pas
sage that proves this?" It can be inferred from the verse : "I
am not worthy of all thy kindness and of all thy truth" [Gen.
xxxii. ii]. R. Zera would never walk under date trees in stormy
weather. R. Isaac, the son of R. Jehudah, said : A man must
always pray that he should not become sick, for if sickness befall
him, he must be possessed of special virtues in order to get well
again. Said Mar Ukba : What is the biblical passage relating to
this ? The school of R. Ishmael maintains, the passage in ques
tion is to be taken from Deut. xxii. 8, viz. : " Peradventure, one
may fall down from there." The word " Hanofel," which is in
the past tense and implies that he has fallen down, although
such a case had not happened as yet, is simply a matter of conjec
ture on the part of this school, which considered a predestined
thing as a matter that had already occurred, because the fall was
already predestined for the guilty person.
The reward of virtue is, however, brought about by a meritorious
person, while the chastisement for sin is dealt out through a
sinner (and his not making a railing around his roof constitutes
him a guilty person). [See Deut. xxii. 8.]
The rabbis taught : If one is sick, approaching death, he
should be told to confess his sins, for all those who are to suffer
the death penalty must make a confession. When a man goes out
to a market (where there are always dangerous people in the
crowd) he should consider himself like one arrested by a soldier.
When his head aches, he should consider himself as one put in
prison. If he cannot rise from his bed, he should consider him
self as one indicted before Gardom (a criminal court) ; if he has
good advocates to defend him, he may go free ; if not, he cannot
be saved. The defending attorneys of a man (before divine jus
tice) are penitence and good works. If there should be nine hun
dred and ninety-nine accusers against him and only one to plead
in his favor, he is saved, for thus it is written : " If there be a mes
senger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand to show unto
man his uprightness, then He is gracious unto him, etc." [Job xxxiii.
23]. R. Eliezer, the son of R. Josi the Galilean, said: Even if
only one thousandth part of one advocate out of a thousand plead
in the man's favor, although the rest speak against him, he is
saved ; because it is said, " one" defender out of a thousand suffices.

56 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
It was taught, R. Shimeon ben Gamaliel said : The laws of
holy offerings, heave-offerings and tithes, are integral parts of the
Torah, and yet their observance was entrusted to the common
people. It was taught, R. Nehemiah said : The penalty for the sin of
hating without cause is : Strife at home, the wife (of the sinner)
gives birth before her time, his sons and daughters die young.
R. Elazar ben Jehudah says, The penalty for the sin of (neglect
ing to separate) the Levitical portion from the dough is : No bless
ing in the harvest, high prices (for necessities), the consumption of
the seed by strangers ; but if this portion is given, blessings will
surely follow, for thus it is written : " The first of your dough
shall you give to the priest, to cause a blessing to rest on thy
house" [Ez. xliv. 30]. The penalty for the sin of neglecting (to
separate) heave-offerings and tithes is : The sky withholds rain
and dew ; dearth comes on, there are no profits, and men run about
to earn a livelihood, but they do not succeed. But if these offer
ings are given, blessings will come, as it is written : " Bring ye all
the tithes into the storehouse, etc., and prove me but herewith,
saith the Lord of Hosts, if I will not open for you the windows of
heaven, and pour out for you a blessing, until there be more than
enough" [Mal. iii. 10]. The penalty for the sin of robbery is:
Locust pestilence, famine comes, and the people feed on the flesh
of their children, as it is written in Amos iv. 1-7. For the sins
of curbing, perverting, and polluting justice, and of neglecting the
law, the sword comes on, (enemies take) much spoil, the people
eat and are never satisfied, and they must weigh the bread they
eat (i.e., eat in small portions, for fear that nothing be left for the
next meal), as it is written in Leviticus xxvi. 25 : "Avenging the
quarrel of my covenant," and covenant is synonymous with the
Law, as it is written in Jeremiah xxxiii. 25. For the sins of un
necessary swearing, perjury, blasphemy, and desecration of the
Sabbath, many wild beasts come and domestic cattle are destroyed ;
the population decreases and the roads are bare (without travellers) .
For the sin of bloodshed, the sanctuary is laid waste and Shekhina
(divine presence) departs from Israel, as it is written in Numbers
xxxv. 34 : " And ye shall not render unclean the land, which ye
inhabit, in the midst of which I dwell ; for I, the Lord, dwell in
the midst of the children of Israel ;" but if ye render it unclean,
the Shekhina will depart from the land. For the sins of adultery,

TRACT SABBATH.

57

idolatry, and disregard of (the laws of) the year of release and the
Jubilee, exile comes and (other nations) take up the place (of the
exiles), as it is written in Lev. xviii. and xxvii. For the sin of
defiling the mouth (speaking indecent things), great oppressions
and evil decrees are (constantly) renewed, young men die, orphans
and widows cry (for help), but are not answered, as it is written
in Isaiah ix., end of verse 16: "For all this His anger is not
turned away and his hand still remaineth stretched out," which is
explained by R. Hanan bar Ahba as follows : " All know for
what purpose a bride marries ; still, he who defiles his mouth (by
speaking of its details) , even if a happy life of seventy years is
decreed for him, the decree is turned aside." R. Hisda says,
Gehenna is made deep for him who defiles his mouth, as it is
written in Proverbs (xxii. 14.) R. Nahman bar Isaac says, it is
made deep even for the one, who listens to (indecent talk) and
does not protest against it ; (ibid. 15.) R. Oshaya says : He who
abuses himself (by masturbation) becomes afflicted with wounds
and boils ; not only this, but he is punished with dropsy. R.
Nahman bar Isaac says, dropsy is an evidence of sin. Samuel the
Little took sick with it, and he said : " Creator of the world. Who
will prove (that I am not guilty of immoral conduct) ?" Here
upon he got well again. Abayi took sick with it. Said Rabha :
" I know that the Nahamanite (son of Nahman) starves himself."
The Rabbis taught, there are four evidences : An evidence of
sin is dropsy ; an evidence of hate without cause is jaundice ; an
evidence of pride is poverty ; an evidence of calumny (spreading
evil reports about others) is croup. The sickness of croup be
comes epidemic for (the sin of neglecting to give) tithes ; but R.
Elazar bar Josi said, for the sin of calumny.
R. Jehudah, R. Josi, and R. Shimeon were sitting together and
Jehudah, the son of proselytes, sat before them. R% Jehudah
opened the conversation, saying : " How beautiful are the works of
this nation (the Romans) . They have established markets ; they
have built bridges ; they have opened bathing-houses." R. Josi
said nothing ; but R. Shimeon ben Johai said : " All these things
they have instituted for their own sake. Their markets are gather
ing-places for harlots ; they have built baths for the purpose of
indulging themselves in their comforts ; they have built bridges
to collect tolls from those who cross them." Jehudah, the son
of proselytes, went and reported this conversation, and it came to

58 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
the ears of the government. Said (the rulers) : " Jehudah, who
has praised (our doings) shall be promoted ; Josi, who said noth
ing, shall be exiled to Sophoris ; Shimeon, who spoke disparag
ingly, shall be put to death." R. Shimeon and his son then went
and hid themselves in the college, and their wives brought them
every day some bread and a measure of water, and they ate. When
the decree became imperative, he said to his son: "Women are
of a pliant disposition. They (the government agents) will per
haps trouble them and they (the women) will reveal our where
abouts." They then went and hid themselves in a cave. A
miracle occurred, that a date tree and a spring of water came out
for them. They stripped themselves naked and sat down covered
with sand up to their necks. Thus they sat all day studying ;
only at the time of prayer they put on their garments, and after
performing their devotion, they took them off again, for fear they
might wear them out. In this wise they spent twelve years in
their cave. Elijah then came to the opening of the cave and said :
" Who will inform the son of Johai, that the Caesar (governor) is
dead and his decree is annulled?" Hereupon they left the cave.
They then went forth and saw men who were ploughing and sow
ing grain. Said R. Shimeon : " These people leave the works
which lead to everlasting life and occupy themselves with worldly
things." After this every place, where they chanced to turn their
eyes, was burned. Suddenly a " Bath Kol" (heavenly voice) was
heard, which said unto them : " Have ye come to destroy my
world? Go, return to your cave." They returned and stayed in
the cave another twelvemonth, saying, the punishment of the
wicked in Gehenna only lasts twelve months. At the end of that
time came again the heavenly voice and said : " Go out of the
cave," and they came out. This happened on a Friday near sun
set. They saw a man hurrying with two bunches of myrtle in
his hand. " What are they for ?" they asked him. " To honor the
Sabbath," was the reply. " Would not one bunch be enough ?"
" Nay; one is for the command 'to remember,'* the other for the
command 'observe,' " said the man. Said R. Shimeon to his son:
" Behold, how Israel loves the commands (of God)." This re
assured them.
* In the Decalogue of Exodus the fourth commandment begins with the word
" Zakhor," "Remember;" in Deuteronomy it begins with the word " Shamor,"
" observe."

TRACT SABBATH.

59

R. Shimeon's father-in-law, R. Pinhas ben Yair, heard (that
they were coming) and went to meet them. He took them to the
bath-house. While R. Shimeon was cleaning his (own) body, R.
Pinhas noticed that it was full of blisters ; tears ran from his
eyes when he saw this, and (the tears falling upon the flesh of
his son-in-law) caused R. Shimeon pain. Said R. Pinhas : " Woe
unto me, that I see thee in this state." R. Shimeon rejoined :
" Well unto thee, that thou seest me so, for if thou hadst not seen
me in this state, thou couldst not find in me (all the learning) that
thou canst find in me now.'
MISHNA : Three things a man must say in his house on Fri
day, when it is getting dark, viz. : " Have you set aside the tithes
(from the fruit, which is to be eaten on the Sabbath) ? Have you
put up the Erubh? and Light ye the lamp." When one is in
doubt whether darkness had set in, he must not separate tithes
from (fruit of which he is) certain (that tithes had not been set
aside), and he shall not put vessels under process of lavation,* and
he shall not light a lamp any more. But he may set aside tithes
from (fruit of which he is) not certain (that tithes have been set
aside) and he may put up the Erubh and also put his victuals into
the stove for the purpose of keeping them warm.
GEMARA : From where is this derived (that a man must say,
etc.) ?
Said R. Joshua ben Levi : From the passage, " Thou shalt know,
that peace is in thy tent, and shalt examine thy dwelling, that
thou mayest not sin" [Job v. 24]. Rabba bar R. Huna said: Al
though the masters have taught that "a man must say three
things, etc.," yet one ought to say it quietly, in order that (his
family) should take it from him (in good grace). Said R. Ashi :
" I have not heard of this saying of Rabba bar R. Huna before,
yet I have always done so as a matter of common sense.
Does the text (of our Mishna) contain a contradiction ? It says :
"Three things a man must say, etc., when it is getting dark;"
this implies, that, if he is in doubt whether it is getting dark, or
whether darkness has set in already, he cannot say it any more.
In the latter part, however, it says " if he is in doubt, etc., he may
put up an Erubh."
" This is no contradiction," was said in the name of Rabh. In
* All new vessels must undergo a process of lavation before they can be used.
See Num. xxxi. 23.

60 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
the first part it speaks of an Erubh, that marks the boundaries of
the city ; in the latter part it speaks of an Erubh, by which the
neighbors of adjoining courts make common cause (for the Sab
bath). Rabba said: The rabbis have prohibited putting victuals
among things (that preserve but) that do not increase the heat
after dark, for fear lest one find them too cold and be tempted to
make them boil.
Said Abayi to him : " If such is the case, why did he not enact
the same prohibition for (the time) when it is twilight also?"
Answered Rabba : " At that time the pots are generally boiling
hot." Rabba said again : " The rabbis have prohibited putting
victuals among things that increase the heat, when it is yet day,
for fear lest one put them in cinders, where there are yet live
coals." " What harm is there, if one does this ?" asked Abayi.
Nay; there is fear lest he be tempted to stir the burning
coals. The rabbis taught: "Which is the time of twilight?"
When the sun sets and the eastern sky is red ; when the lower
(edge of a cloud) is dark, while the upper part is not yet dark ;
but when the upper edge (of such a cloud) is as dark as the lower,
night has set in. So says R. Jehudah. R. Nehemiah says : (The
duration of twilight) is the time a man takes to walk a half-mile
from the moment the sun sets. R. Josi says : Twiligrft is like the
twinkling of an eye ; the one (day) goes out, the other (night)
comes in, and it is impossible to determine it.
Each one has his reasons, for we were taught : What is the
duration of twilight? Rabba said in the name of Samuel, (the
time it takes to walk) three-quarters of a mile ; R. Joseph said in
the name of the same authority, two-thirds of a mile. The differ
ence between them is half a Danka. (The contrary is the case,
when a bee-hive is concerned ; in that case, Rabba said, a bee-hive
of two Kurs * one may move on the Sabbath ; of three, one shall
not ; R. Joseph, however, said, that one may move even a hive of
three Kurs, but one of four is forbidden. Said Abayi : " I have
inquired of the master at the time of the deed, and he did not even
permit me to move one of two Kurs.)
* Kur was an ancient measure and cannot be determined at the present time ; it
may have been about three gallons. See Schoenhak's " Hamashbir."

TRACT SABBATH. 61
Rabba saw that Abayi was (one Friday) looking toward the
east (to calculate the duration of twilight). Said he to him:
" Dost thou think the masters spoke of the sky in the cast ?
They spoke of an object in the east, that reflects the red sky (of
the west), like a window (placed eastward of the setting sun).
R. Nehemiah said : (The duration of twilight is the time) it
takes a man to walk a half-mile. Said R. Hanina : " If one
wishes to know the time according to R. Nehemiah's calculation,
he should leave the sun (see it set) on the top of Karmel (a cer
tain mountain peak on the sea-coast), go down, dive into the sea,
and go up (the mountain) again ; — this will give him the exact
time." R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel : If only one star (can
be seen in the sky) it is yet day ; if two stars, it is twilight ;
three stars, it is night. The same was taught in a Boraitha.
Said R. Josi : But this is not the case with the big stars, that can
be seen even in daytime and not with the small stars, which can
not easily be seen at night, but with stars of medium size.
R. Josi bar R. Zebhida said : If one (unintentionally) performs
work on both times of twilight (Friday and Sabbath), he must
bring a sin-offering by all means (because at one of both times it
was certainly Sabbath).
Rabba said to his attendant : " You, who are not an expert in
the scholarly calculation of time, must light the Sabbath lamp,
when you see the (last rays of the) sun on top of the trees. In
cloudy weather how shall it be ? (The lamp must be lit) in the
city, when the hens go to roost ; in the field, when the ravens fly
to roost or when the mallow shrub* (inclines its head to the west).
The Rabbis taught : Six times was the signal blown on Friday ;
the first time to stop work in the field ; the second to stop it in
the city and in the stores ; the third time to light the lamps.
Such is the opinion of R. Nathan. R. Jehudah says, that the
third time is sounded to take off the phylacteries. Then (the beadle)
waits about as long as is required to bake a small fish, or for
bread to cleave to the oven, and he sounds again the three tones f
* The mallow (Adana or Hama, see Arukh) more than any other plant, was be
lieved to incline its head toward the sun, like our own sunflower.
f The three tones of the Shopharare technically designated a " Tekyah " (a long
simple note) ; " Teruah " (a slow trill), and "Tekyah" again. See note to Rosh
Hashana, p. 63.

62 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
of the signal in succession for the Sabbath (that is already come).
R. Simeon ben Gamaliel said : " What shall we do with the
Babylonians? They sound the signal first, and then blow the
trumpet ; from the moment the trumpet is sounded, they cease
work." They do so because it is with them a matter of inherited
custom. R. Jehudah taught his son, R. Isaac : " The third (sounding
was a signal) to light the lamp." This agrees with the ruling of
R. Nathan. At the school of R. Ishmael it was taught : Six times the signal
is sounded on Friday. When the first sounding begins, those
who are in the field stop ploughing and harrowing and all field
work. At the entrance to the city, those who are near must wait
until the distant (farmers) come, so that they enter the city all
together. The stores are yet open, and the stalls (upon which
wares are laid out) are as yet in their places. As soon as the
second sounding begins, the stalls are cleared and the stores closed.
The warm victuals (prepared for the Sabbath) and the pots are
as yet upon the hearth. As soon as the third sounding begins,
the pots are taken off the hearth, the warm victuals are put in the
stove, and the lamps are lighted. Then (the beadle) waits about
as long as it is required to bake a small fish or for bread to cleave
to the oven, and he sounds, trumpets, and sounds the signal again,
and rests.
R. Josi bar R. Haninah said : " I have heard, that if one wants
to light up after the six signals he may do so; for the Rabbis have
allowed some time to the beadle to take his Shophar (horn) to the
house (after the six signals). Said they (the schoolmen) to him :
" If such were the case, the subject would depend on various
measurements of time." Nay; but the beadle has a concealed
place upon the roof (where he sounds the Shophar) and puts away
his instrument (as soon as he has used it) ; because neither a
Shophar nor a fife may be handled (when the Sabbath is come.)
Have we not learned that a Shophar may be handled, but a
fife may not?
Says R. Joseph : This is not contradictory. Our case is that of
a Shophar belonging to the community ; the case adduced treated
of one that belongs to a private party (therefore it is permis
sible). Said Abayi : " Why may a Shophar, that is private property,

TRACT SABBATH. 63
be handled ? Because it is sometimes used for taking up water,
to give a child drink; let one that is public property also be al
lowed to handle, because it may be used in the same manner."
Furthermore, was it not taught : "Asa Shophar may he handled,
so also may the fife be handled ?" According to whose ruling is
this ? (the latter teaching).
There is no contradiction in all this. The one (that a Shophar
may be handled, but not a fife) is according to the ruling of R.
Jehudah. The other (that both may be handled) is according to
the ruling of R. Shimeon. The third (that neither should be
handled) is according to the ruling of R. Nehemiah.
" And what is a Shophar?"
The same as a fife; as R. Hisda says: "Since the sanctuary
was destroyed, the names have become changed; a Shophar is
called a fife ; and a fife is called a Shophar."

CHAPTER III.
regulations concerning stoves, hearths, and ovens.
MISHNA : Cooked victuals may be put on a stove that was
heated with straw or stubble. If the stove was heated with the
pulp of poppy seed (i.e., poppy seed, from which the oil was
pressed out) or with wood, (cooked victuals) may not be put upon
it, unless the (live) coals were taken out or covered with ashes.
Beth Shamai says : (The latter instance) is permissible only in
the case of victuals that are to be kept warm, but not of such as
are improved by continued cooking. Beth Hillel says : Both alike
are permitted. Beth Shamai says : (Victuals) may be taken off the
stove, but not be put back upon it ; Beth Hillel holds they may
also be put back.
GEMARA : The schoolmen asked : " As for the expression
'shall not be put,' does it (referring to a pot, that has been taken
off the stove) mean 'one shall not put it back,' but if it has not
been taken off, it may be left there, even if the live coals were
not cleared away or covered with ashes ? Or does it mean that
the pot should not be left there (even if it was standing there
before), unless the live coals have been cleared out, or damped, so
much more so should it not be put there, if it was once taken off?"
Come and hear : There being two parts in our Mishna, viz. :
ist, Beth Shamai says, it is permissible only in the case of
victuals, that are to be kept warm, but not of such as are improved
by cooking, and Beth Hillel says, both are permissible; 2d, Beth
Shamai says, (victuals) may be taken off the stove but not put
back upon it; Beth Hillel holds that both maybe done. Dost
thou say, that the point of controversy is the leaving (of the
victuals on the stove, if they were there before) ? The Mishna
means this : On the stove, that was heated with straw or with
stubble, the victuals may be left ; on a stove, that was heated with
pressed poppy seed or with wood, the victuals may be left only if
the live coals were taken out or covered with ashes. What kind
of victuals may be left there ? Beth Shamai says : Such as are to
64

TRACT SABBATH. 65
be kept warm, but not such as improve by cooking; Beth Hillel
says : Both kinds may be left. Thus the point of controversy is
the leaving of the victuals (that had been on the stove before).
And as the (two schools) differ in this matter, so do they also
differ in their opinions concerning putting them back upon the
stove, if they were once taken off. But if you interpret the
Mishna to make the returning of the victuals to the stove the
point of contention (between the two schools), viz. : what kind of
victuals should be returned (to the stove), Beth Shamai says,
such as are to be kept warm, but not such as improve by cook
ing; Beth Hillel says, either (may be returned). (If you put such
a construction upon the text of the Mishna) to what purpose is it
repeated ? Beth Shamai says : " They (the victuals) may be taken
off but not put back, and Beth Hillel says, they may also be put
back?" Nay ; I can tell thee that (the point of dispute is) about re
turning (the victuals after they have been taken out), but there are
words missing in our Mishna, as follows : " But if they stood there
before, they may be left there, even if the live coals are not taken
out or covered with ashes." And (now the question is) what
(kind of victuals) may be left ? Beth Shamai says, only such as
are to be kept warm, and Beth Hillel says, even victuals requiring
cooking ; but even in the case of returning (the victuals to the
stove, if they have been removed) there is also no agreement be
tween the two schools, for Beth Shamai opines, that they may be
only taken off, and Beth Hillel holds, that they may be returned
also. Come ye * and hear : R. Helbo said in the name of R.
Hama bar Gorion, speaking in the name of Rabh : " The Mishna
speaks only about putting the victuals upon the stove, but as to
putting them into the stove, it is surely prohibited." Now, if
thou sayest the dispute is about returning (the pot to the stove),
this remark is correct ; for there is a difference to what place it is
returned, whether into the stove or upon it ; but if the question
were about keeping it on the stove while it is there, what differ
ence would it make?
Do you think R. Helbo's report refers to the first part of the
* Here the disciple who advanced the later construction of the Mishna turns the
tables on his interlocutor and brings forward an argument in favor of his suggestion,
introducing it with the same words as the previous speaker in his argument.
vol. 1.— 5

66 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
Mishna ? Nay ; it refers to the second part, in which Beth Hillel
allows it to be returned, and now R. Helbo says, even in this
case, upon the stove it is permissible, but not into the stove.
The following problem was propounded : " May (a pot with
victuals) be placed so as to touch the side of the stove ? Does
the prohibition, which holds good for putting it into or upon the
stove apply also here, or is touching its side a different case ? "
Come and hear : " (A Boraitha teaches) a stove that was heated
with pressed poppy seed or wood may (be used) to put a pot
alongside of, but not on, unless the live coals were taken out or
covered with ashes." If the coals get dim or fine hurds were put
upon them, they are considered as if their fire was damped with
ashes. R. Isaac says in the name of R. Oshaya : If the fire (in a
stove) was damped and still it got a-glowing, victuals, that are
sufficiently warm, and cooked meats, that require no more cooking,
may be left standing upon it.
Should we infer that if such victuals are improved by shrivel
ling (upon the fire), they may be left there?
This is a different case, for the fire was damped.
If such is the case, to what purpose does he (R. Isaac) say:
" Lest one assume, that, if the fire got to glowing again, it is to
be considered as a fire originally started?" R. Isaac lets us know
that, when once a fire has been damped, we need have no further
scruples about letting the victuals remain on it.
R. Shesheth said in the name of R. Johanan : Victuals, that
require additional warming or additional cooking, may be left upon
a stove that was heated with pressed poppy seed or with wood ;
but if they were once removed, they shall not be replaced unless
the live coals were taken out or covered with ashes. He was of
the opinion that our Mishna (treats) on replacing (a removed pot),
but allows (a pot that was not removed) to be left on the stove,
even if the live coals are not taken out or covered with ashes.
Said Rabba : " Were not both (propositions) expounded in the
Boraithoth (that were cited) ?"
Aye ; but R. Shesheth merely wishes to exhibit his construc
tion of the text of the Mishna.
R. Samuel bar Jehudah said in the name of R. Johanan : Upon
a stove that was heated with pressed poppy seed or wood, victuals
may be left standing, if they are sufficiently warmed and sufi-
ciently cooked, even if shrivelling improves them. Said one of

TRACT SABBATH. 67
the schoolmen to him : " Did not Rabh and Samuel both say that
if shrivelling improves them, it is not allowed (to leave them on
the stove) ? Aye ; answered R. Samuel : " But I cite the opinion
of R. Johanan." R. Ukbha of Mishan said to R. Ashi : " You,
who cherish the teachings of Rabh and Samuel, may follow their
regulation; but we will follow the regulation of R. Johanan."
Abayi asked R. Joseph : " May victuals be left (on the stove) ?"
" Did not R. Jehudah leave (victuals on the stove) and eat them
afterward?" rejoined the other,
Said he (Abayi) again : The case of R. Jehudah cannot be taken
into consideration ; he was stricken with a dangerous disease, and
for him even (the cooking of victuals) on the Sabbath was per
mitted; but I ask about (healthy men like) you and I.
R. Joseph answered : " In Sura they do leave (victuals upon
the stove). Even R. Nahman bar Isaac, who was exemplary in
following religious ordinances, was wont to leave (his victuals upon
the stove), and to eat them.
R. Ashi said : " I was standing before R. Huna (and observed
that fried fish was kept (warm) for him and he ate it ; but I know
not whether (he did it), because he thought that victuals which
improve by shrivelling are allowed (to be left on the stove) or
whether he thought that, because there was flour on his fish, con
tinuous warming did not improve it.
R. Nahman said : (Victuals) that improve by shrivelling must
not (be left on the stove) ; such as deteriorate may be left. The
rule is, that (victuals) with which flour is mixed deteriorate by
continuous warming.
The following question was asked of R. Hyya bar Ahba : " If
one forgot his pot and left it upon the stove, and the victuals were
thus cooked on the Sabbath, may he eat them or not?" The
master gave no answer. The next time he preached : Victuals
cooked on the Sabbath unintentionally may be eaten ; if it is done
with intention, they shall not be eaten ; but (as regards the pot
that is forgotten on the stove) it makes no difference.
What does (the phrase) " It makes no difference" mean?
Rabba and R. Joseph both say that the phrase implies that
it may be eaten ; for one who cooks performs work, and there
fore is not allowed to eat the victuals. If the cooking is nninten-
tional he may. The forgetting of the pot on the stove, however,
does not constitute a prohibited act, and even if the forgetting is

68 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
intentional (pretended) he may eat. But R. Nahman bar Isaac
says the above phrase of " it makes no difference" implies a pro
hibition. In the case of cooking there is no room to apprehend
that one may pretend ; therefore, if he has done it unintentionally,
he is allowed to eat his victuals ; but in the case of forgetting (the
pot in the fire) one may pretend, and therefore even if he actually
forgets he is not allowed to eat the victuals.
The schoolmen asked : " What is the ordinance concerning the
man who had intentionally left (his victuals upon the stove) ?
Did the masters fine him (by prohibiting him to eat) or not?"
Come and hear : Samuel bar Nathan said in the name of R.
Hanina : " When R. Josi came to Zipora, he found warm meats, that
had been left upon the stove, and he did not prohibit their use ;
but shrivelled eggs, that had been left upon the stove, he pro
hibited. Do you not think that he forbade their use even on that
Sabbath, as a punishment ? Nay ; he forbade their use for the
following Sabbath."
Should from this story the inference be made that shrivelled
eggs improve by continuous heating ?
Aye ; for so R. Hama bar Hanina said : " Rabbi and I were
once stopping at a certain place. We were treated with eggs
shrivelled like wild pears, and we ate many of them."
"Beth Hillel says: It may also be put back."
R. Shesheth said : The Tana who holds that the pot may also
be put back (upon the stove) allows this (to be done) even on the
Sabbath. R. Oshaya is also of the same opinion, for so he said :
" We were once standing before R. Hyya the Great ; we served
him with a bowl of warm (soup), which was brought from the lower
floor (of the house), and we mixed a cup of wine for him, and
(afterward) we returned it (the bowl) to its place, and he did not
object." R. Hyya said in the name of R. Johanan : Even if (the
warm pot taken off from the stove) was put upon the ground, it
may (still be put back on the stove).
MISHNA : (Victuals) shall not be put either inside or on top
of an oven, that was heated with straw or with stubble ; a firing-
pot that was heated with straw or with stubble, is (considered by
the law) as a stone, but if it was heated with pressed poppy seed
or with wood, it is considered as an oven.
GEMARA : A Boraitha teaches : If an oven was heated with
straw or with stubble, (a pot with victuals) shall not be put close

TRACT SABBATH. 69
to it (so that it touch the oven), the less so upon it, and still less
so into it ; so much more so shall (a pot) not be put (alongside of
an oven) that was heated with poppy-seed pulp or with wood.
If a firing-pot was heated with straw or with stubble, (a pot) may
be put close to it but not upon it ; if it was heated with poppy-
seed pulp or with wood (a pot) shall not be put close to it.
Said R. Aha, the son of Rabba, to R. Ashi : " How shall the
firing-pot be considered ? If it is like a stove, even if heated with
poppy-seed pulp or with wood (a pot shall be allowed to be put
close to it) ; and if it is like an oven (a pot should not be allowed
to be put close to it), even if it is heated with stubble or straw ?"
Answered he : It contains more heat than a stove and less heat
than an oven.
What is a firing-pot and what is a stove ?
Said R. Josi bar Hanina : " A firing-pot has an opening on the
top upon which only one pot can be set ; a stove has openings
upon which two pots can be set at a time."
MISHNA : An egg shall not be put close to a boiler (so that
it get hot and) that it rolls, nor shall it be poured out on a (hot)
cloth. R. Josi permits this to be done; nor shall it be put into
hot sand or in the (hot) dust of the road, for the purpose of getting
it cooked. It happened that the people of Tiberias had laid a
duct to lead cold water within an ell of the hot springs (so that
the cold water became warmed by passing the springs). Said the
Sages unto them : if (this artificially warmed water) is required
for the Sabbath, it is like water warmed (by the fire) on the Sab
bath and must not be used either for washing (the body) or for
drinking ; and if it is for a feast day, it is like water warmed (by
the fire) on a feast day, and shall not be used for washing, but it
may be used for drinking. '
GEMARA : The schoolmen asked : If one has caused (an egg)
to roll (by the heat of a boiler) what is the law governing his case ?
Said R. Joseph : He must bring a sin-offering.
Mar, the son of Rabhina, said : We have learned a Boraitha to
the same effect : Everything that was in hot water before the
Sabbath may be soaked in hot water on the Sabbath ; things that
were not in hot water before the Sabbath may be only rinsed (but
not soaked) in hot water on the Sabbath, excepting old herrings
and Spanish (salted) fish, because with these rinsing is the main
work required (for preparation).

7o THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
" Nor shall it be poured out on a (hot) cloth."
We have learned : " Cooked meats may be put into a pit for
preservation ; good water (when too warm to drink) may be put
into bad water to cool ; cold victuals (may be put) in the sun for
the purpose of warming." Now, shall we say that (this Mishna)
teaches according to the view of R. Josi and not according to that
of the Sages ?
Said R. Nahman : As to the heat of the sun, no one disputes
that it is allowed (to be used for warming victuals) ; concerning
(heat) that is generated by fire, all agree that it is prohibited.
They only disagree on (the subject) of heat generated (not directly
issued) by the sun. The one master holds that the use of such
heat is prohibited for fear lest one use also the heat that is gen
erated by fire ; the other master does not impose such a precau
tionary measure.
" IT HAPPENED THAT THE PEOPLE OF TlBERIAS," ETC
R. Hisda said: From the deed of Tiberias, which the rabbis
have prohibited, the permission to stow away victuals in a place
(among things) that increases their heat was disqualified, even if
this is done (on Friday) during the day. Said Oola : " The law
stands as the men of Tiberias applied it." Said R. Nahman to
him : " The men of Tiberias have already destroyed their duct"
(hence their case is not to be cited as authority). " Washing with
warm water" (which the Mishna speaks of), how is this to be un-
destood ? Should I say that washing the whole body with water
that was warmed on the Sabbath is prohibited, but it is allowed to
be done with water that was warmed on Friday ? Have we not
been taught : " In water that was warmed on Friday, a man may
on the Sabbath wash his face, hands, and feet, but not his entire
body?" Recite the latter part (of the Mishna), viz. : " If it is re
quired for a feast day, it is like water warmed on a feast day, pro
hibited for washing but allowed for drinking."
Shall we say that our Mishna was taught in a general way,*
and yet it teaches according to the opinions of Beth Shamai?
For thus we have learned, according to Beth Shamai's opinion (in
another place).
Said R. Iyya bar Hanina : Nay ; (our Mishna) treats on wash-
* Every teaching of the Mishna which is not credited to a certain author is either
one that is generally accepted or one of which the compiler of the Mishna was the
author.

TRACT SABBATH. 71
ing the entire body, and that is according to the opinion of another
Tana. For thus we have learned : " A man shall not wash his
entire body (on the Sabbath) either with warm or with cold
water." So says R. Mair ; but R. Simeon permits this. R. Hisda
says their dispute concerns only (water that is) in the ground ; but
water contained in a vessel is prohibited by all means.
Rabba said in the name of R. Johanan : " The law stands ac
cording to the opinion of R. Jehuda."
Said R. Joseph to him : " Didst thou hear this explicitly, or
thou derives it by inference (from a similar teaching) ?"
" I have heard it explicitly," he answered.
It was taught : If water was warmed on Friday, Rabh said, one
may wash his entire body in it on the next day, every limb sepa
rately (i.e., not plunge into it at once). Samuel said : Only the
face, hands and feet may be washed in it. A Boraitha teaches
according to the opinion of Samuel : " If water was warmed on
Friday, one may wash his face, hands, and feet with it on the fol
lowing day, but not his entire body, even limb by limb ; and it is
unnecessary to say that (the same is the case with water) warmed
on a feast day.
Said R. Joseph to Abayi : " Did Rabba not act according to
the decisions of Rabh?"
" I know not," he answered.
The masters taught : A bath-house, the openings of which were
stopped up on Friday (so that the heat should not escape) may be
used for bathing immediately after the Sabbath is over. If its
openings were stopped up on the eve of a feast day, one may, on
the next day, enter it to have a sweat, but he must leave it and
wash off his hands in an adjoining room. R. Jehudah said : It hap
pened in a bath-house of Bene Berag, that its openings were
stopped up on the eve of a feast day. The next day R. Eliezer
ben Azariah and R. Aqiba entered it and took a sweat ; then they
left it and washed off their bodies in the adjoining room ; but the
warm water in it had been covered with boards. When the report
of this reached the masters they said, even if the warm water had
not been covered with boards, they were also allowed (to do so).
But when the number of transgressors began to increase, the
masters commenced to prohibit. In bath-houses of large cities,
one is allowed to go about freely (but not to take a sweating,
while standing in one place).

72 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
What does the expression "transgressors" mean?
Thus said R. Shimeon ben Pazi in the name of R. Joshua ben
Levi, who taught in the name of bar Qapara : In former times the
people were accustomed to bathe (on the Sabbath) in water that
was warmed on Friday. The bath-keepers then began to warm
the water on the Sabbath, and to tell the people that it had been
warmed on Friday. Hereupon the rabbis prohibited bathing in
warm water, but still they placed no restriction upon taking a
sweating (in the bath-room). The people then would come and
bathe, but pretend to merely take a sweating. Then sweating
was also prohibited, but washing in the hot-spring water of Tiberias
was still allowed. The people, however, would come and wash
themselves in water that was warmed by the fire and say that
they washed in the hot-spring water. Subsequently warm water
was prohibited for bathing altogether, but bathing in cold water
was allowed. The last prohibition, however could not be enforced.
It was therefore revoked, and bathing in the hot-spring water of
Tiberias was allowed. Still the prohibition of the sweating bath
still holds good. One may warm himself by a hearth-fire and go
out and wash himself in cold water, but he cannot bathe first in
cold water and then warm himself by a hearth-fire, because he
dries the water that is on him.
The masters taught : A man may warm a sponging- cloth and
put it upon his bowels (on the Sabbath) ; but he must not do so
with a boiling-hot vessel, for this is dangerous even on week days.
The masters taught : A man may put a pitcher of water be
fore a blazing fire, not to warm it, but to temper the coldness of
the water. R. Judah said : A woman may put an oil flask before
a blazing fire, not to warm it but merely to temper it. R. Simeon
ben Gamaliel says : A woman may unhesitatingly put oil on her
hand, warm it before the fire, and anoint her little son with it
without any fear.
Said R. Judah in the name of Samuel : Whether it be oil or
water, if (it is so warm that) the hand recoils from it, it is pro
hibited ; if the hand does not recoil from it, it is allowed.
R. Isaac bar Abhdimi said : " I once followed Rabbi into the
bath-house (on the Sabbath). I wanted to put a bottle of oil for
him into the tank (that contained hot-spring water). Said he
unto me : " Take out some warm water from the tank and put it
into another vessel (to warm the oil in). From this three ordi-

TRACT SABBATH. 73
nances may be adduced, viz. : ist, That oil improves by warming
and hence warming it is a prohibited act (on the Sabbath) ; 2d,
that if anything is put into a second vessel (not directly into the
boiling vessel) there is no danger of cooking it; 3d, that the
mere tempering of oil is analogous to cooking it.
Said Rabhina : From this story it may be inferred that if one
cooks in the hot-spring water of Tiberias on the Sabbath, he is
culpable, for the case happened after the rabbis had imposed the
precautionary measure, and yet Rabbi would not allow him (R.
Isaac) to put the oil directly into the tank. Is this really the
case? Did not R. Hisda teach that he who has cooked in the
hot-spring water of Tiberias is not culpable ?
The culpability to be inferred (from the story of Rabbi) ex
tends only as far as blows of correction * are concerned.
R. Zera said : " I have seen R. Abuha swimming in a tank (on
the Sabbath) and I know not whether he raised (his feet from the
ground) or not.
He certainly did not raise them, for thus we have learned : A
man shall not swim about in a pond, even if (that pond) is stationed
in a (private) yard.
This teaching has no bearing upon the case (of R. Abuha). A
tank has no shallow places at its sides, while a pond has.
R. Zera once found R. Jehudah in the bath. He (R. Jehudah)
ordered his attendants (in the Hebrew Aramaic tongue), " Bring
me the comb ; hand me the soap ; open your mouths and exhale
the warm air from within you ; drink of the (warm) water of the
bath." Said he (R. Zera) : "If I had not come but to hear this,
it were enough for me."
The orders, "bring the comb, hand me the soap," were indeed
well worth hearing, for from them the inference can be made that
profane things may be spoken of in the holy tongue. The order
that they should "open their mouths" was also worth hearing, for
it showed (that R. Jehudah held the same opinion) as Samuel,
that heat (from without) drives out heat (from within). But
what was there in the order, " drink of the water of the bath " ?
Aye, there was in it (a confirmation of that) which we have
learned : " If one washed himself with warm water and did not

* " Blows of correction " were inflicted by the rabbis not for an actual sin, but
for a careless act, which might lead to sin or appear as such.

74 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
drink of it, he is like an oven that was heated from without but
not from within."
MISHNA : The hot water contained in a " Muliar" (teakettle),
the live coals of which have been cleared away before the Sabbath
set in, may be used on the Sabbath ; but the hot water contained
in an " Antikhi" (another kind of kettle), even if cleared of live
coals, is not to be used on the Sabbath.
GEMARA : What is a " Muliar " ? It is taught in a Boraitha :
A Muliar is a vessel provided with an attachment for live coals,
used for keeping water ; as for an Antikhi, Rabba says, it is a
Bekiri (a vessel similar to a Muliar, but of heavier construction
and continually in use). R. Nahman ben Itzhak says it is a
Bedude (a large kettle with an attachment underneath for live
coals). There is a Boraitha in support of the opinion of R. Nah
man as follows : " The hot water in an Antikhi, even if the coals
thereof are cleared away or damped, is not permitted to be used,
for the heavy bottom keeps the heat.
MISHNA: Into a kettle, the hot water of which has been spilt
out and which has been removed from the fire, cold water is not
permitted to be poured, for the purpose of heating ; but it is per
mitted to pour water into the kettle, or into a cup, for the purpose
of making such water lukewarm.
GEMARA : How is this teaching of the Mishna to be ex
plained? Said Abayi, It is to be thus understood : " Into a kettle,
the fire of which has been removed, but which still contains hot
water, cold water may not be poured, for the purpose of warming.
The addition of sufficient water to make the hot water lukewarm,
however, is permitted. Into a kettle, the hot water of which has
been entirely removed, no cold water at all may be poured, because
by such an act the vessel would be tempered." This is in accord
ance with the opinion rendered by R. Jehudah, stating that while
the accomplishment of the act (of tempering the vessel) was not
intended, its involuntary consummation (as in this case) is also
prohibited. Said Rabh : " The Mishna allows only enough cold water to
be poured into a kettle still containing hot water, to make the
water lukewarm ; but not such a quantity as will entirely neu
tralize the hot water and tend to temper the vessel." Samuel,
however, maintains that, providing the kettle contains some hot
water, any quantity of cold water may be added.

TRACT SABBATH. 75
Should it be presumed from this that Samuel is of the opinion
of R. Simeon, whose dictum it is that the performance of all labor
(on Sabbath), which although done was not intended, is permis
sible ? but did he not say that it is permitted to extinguish live
dross on public ground (to prevent injury), but not charcoal? Is
it to be assumed that he holds to the opinion of R. Simeon, that
even to extinguish charcoal should be permitted, as it is not labor
which is performed with the intention of extinguishing the coals
(but merely to prevent injury) ?
As regards labor tending to the accomplishment of a work,
(prohibited on the Sabbath), he holds with R. Simeon; but as to
the performance of labor, not for its own sake, he sides with R.
Jehudah. Said Rabhina : " Since it is permitted to perform labor
(prohibited by rabbinical law), in order to prevent injury, it is there
fore also permitted to remove thorns from public ground, little by lit
tle, in distances of less than four ells at a time (in order to prevent
injury) ; but upon unclaimed ground it may be done at one time.
"But it is permitted, etc."
The Rabbis taught : It is the decree of the school of Shamai,
that it is permitted to pour hot water upon cold, but not cold upon
hot water; the decree of the school of Hillel is, that it is per
mitted both ways, provided a cup is used ; but in a bathing-tub
hot water upon cold is permitted, but cold water upon warm is not
permitted ; and the opinion of R. Simeon ben Menassiah is that
even hot water upon cold in a bathing-tub is forbidden. Said R.
Nahman : " The ordinance according to R. Simeon ben Menas
siah prevails." R. Joseph wanted to put a bucket under the same
ruling as a bathing-tub, but Abayi objected and said: " R. Hyya
taught that a bucket does not come under the ruling applicable
to a bathing-tub."
Said R. Huna ben R. Joshua : " It was observed, that Rabba
was not scrupulous with regard to the use of vessels, because R.
Hyya taught, one may put a pitcher of water into a bucket of
water ; it makes no difference whether it be hot water into cold or
vice versa." Said R. Huna to R. Ashi : " Perhaps this was a
different case altogether ; being that there was a vessel within a
vessel !" But the latter retorted : " It says : ' To empty ; ' for we
have learned : It is permitted to empty out a pitcher of water
into a bucket of water, be it either warm water into cold or cold
into warm water."

76 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
MISHNA: In a saucepan or a pot, that were removed from
the fire before the Sabbath set in, no spices shall be put after
dusk (on Friday) ; but spices may be put into a plate or a
bowl. R. Jehudah is of the opinion, that spices may be put in all
vessels or cooking-utensils except in such as contain vinegar or
fish-brine. GEMARA : The following question was propounded : Does
R. Jehudah refer to the first part of the Mishna and maintain
that it is permissible (to put spices into a saucepan) or does he
refer to the latter part and prohibit it ?
Come and hear : It has been taught in a Boraitha that R.
Jehudah says : " One may put (spices) into all saucepans and
cooking- pots, except such as contain vinegar and fish brine."
R. Joseph wished to say that salt comes under the same ruling
as spices, because in his opinion salt becomes cooked in a first
vessel (i.e., the vessel used for cooking), but not in a second vessel
(i.e., the vessel whereon the victuals are served). Said Abayi to
him : R. Hyya distinctly taught, that salt does not come under
the ruling applicable to spices, because it does not become cooked,
even in a first vessel.
This is corroborated by R. Nahman, who said : There is a say
ing that the dissolving of salt requires thorough boiling, the same
as beef. MISHNA : It is not permitted to place a vessel under a lamp
(on the Sabbath), so that the oil of the lamp drip into it. If a
vessel was placed under a lamp before the Sabbath set in, it may
remain there ; but the use of such oil on the same Sabbath is not
permitted, as it was not previously prepared (for the Sabbath).
GEMARA : Said R. Hisda : " Although it was said that the
placing of a vessel under a hen (laying on sloping ground) to re
ceive the egg is forbidden, yet to cover the egg so as to prevent
it from being crushed is permitted."
Rabba (commenting on the above statement of R. Hisda) gave
his reasons for it as follows : It is permitted to save anything (on
the Sabbath) which is ordinarily liable to become injured, but
nothing, which could become so only under extraordinary circum
stances ; (hens being in the habit of laying eggs on level ground,
in order to prevent the egg from being stepped upon, it is per
mitted to cover it with a vessel; but as hens are not in the habit

TRACT SABBATH.

77

of laying eggs on sloping ground, the placing of a vessel under
the hen to receive the egg was not allowed) .
Abayi objected to this, stating: "Were we not taught in the
Mishna, that it is permitted to place a vessel under a lamp in order
to take up the (dropping) sparks?" (This seldom occurs and still
it is permitted.) He was tolcl that the dropping of sparks by a
lamp is also of frequent occurrence.
R. Joseph, commenting on the statement of R. Hisda, gave
another reason, viz : That the vessel (placed under a hen to re
ceive an egg) is made useless for that same Sabbath.
Abayi raised the same objection, (intending to) prove by it,
that the vessel placed under a lamp is also made useless on that
same Sabbath, and yet it is permitted. Said R. Huna ben Joshua :
" Sparks have nothing substantial about them (therefore the vessel
containing them is not made useless on the same Sabbath)."
R. Itzhak said : In the same manner as it is not permitted
to place a vessel under a laying hen, so is it also not permitted to
cover the egg laid ; for the reason that a vessel must not be
handled on the Sabbath except for the use of such things as are
themselves permitted to be handled on the Sabbath.
Abayi's objection being made to R. Itzhak's teaching, he said:
" In that case there was a lack of space." (If the space occupied
by a vessel is needed, that vessel may be removed and while being
removed may be used for any purpose.)
Come and hear (another objection) : An egg laid on the Sab
bath, to prevent it from being (accidentally) cracked may be
covered with a vessel ? Here the case is, also, when the space
where the vessel is placed is needed.
Said R. Sheshbeth (to his disciples) : Go ye and tell R. Itzhak
that the above doctrine has already been interpreted by R. Huna
in Babylon as follows : It is permitted to make a partition on the
Sabbath, to (isolate) a corpse for the sake of the living, but it is
not permitted to make a partition for the sake of the corpse.
How is the latter clause to be understood? R. Samuel ben
Jehudah and also Shila Mari taught : In the case of a corpse lying
in the sun (on the Sabbath) (to prevent the corpse from decom
posing) two persons are brought to sit on the floor, each on one
side (in order to bring about the making of a screen). When the
ground underneath them becomes hot, each of them is to bring a
cot bed to sit upon, and when the heat above them becomes ex-

78 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
cessive, they are to bring a sheet and spread it over their heads
(leaving part of the sheet loose) ; both now raise their cots (which
take up the loose part of the sheet) and move to their former posi
tions ; thus a screen (canopy) is formed of itself.
We have learned: "A corpse lying in the sun." R. Jehudah
in the name of Samuel says : The same must be turned over from
one bed into another, until it arrives at a shady place. R. Hinna
ben Shalmi in the name of Rabh said : A loaf of bread or an infant
must be put on the corpse and then the corpse may be moved.
There is no difference of opinion as to the removal of a corpse
(on the Sabbath), which is permitted when a loaf or an infant is
put upon it ; the difference of opinion only arises where there is
no infant or loaf. One holds that indirect transportation must
be considered transportation (and is therefore prohibited), and
the other opines that indirect transportation is not transportation
(and therefore permitted).
Shall we assume that concerning this there is a difference of
opinion among the Tanaim ? As we have learned : " It is not
permitted (on the Sabbath) to save a corpse from a conflagration."
R. Jehudah ben Lakish says : " I have heard that it is permitted
to save a corpse from a conflagration for the reason that a man is
(naturally) excited about his dead." Nay ; R. Jehudah holds :
" Should the saving of the corpse be prohibited, one might in his
excitement extinguish the fire." Said R. Jehudah b. Shilah in
the name of R. Ashi, who quoted R. Johanan, saying : The ordi
nance regarding the saving of a corpse from a fire prevails accord
ing to the opinion of R. Jehudah ben Lakish.
MISHNA : It is permitted to remove a new lamp on the Sab
bath, but not an old one ; but R. Simeon says all lamps are per
mitted to be moved except such as are still burning.
GEMARA : The Rabbis taught : It is permitted to remove a
new lamp but not an old one ; such is the opinion of R. Jehudah.
R. Mair, however, says that all lamps may be moved, except
a lamp which was lit for the Sabbath (though the light is ex
tinguished) ; and R. Simeon says, except a lamp which is still
burning. If it be extinguished it may be moved ; but a goblet,
bowl, or lantern (used as lamps, must not be removed from their
respective places.) R. Eliezer, son of R. Simeon, says : It is per
mitted to make use of an extinguished lamp and of the oil drip
ping from it, even while the lamp is burning.

TRACT SABBATH. 79
Said Abayi : R. Eliezer, the son of Simeon, holds in one case
to the opinion of his father; but differs with him in the other.
He holds with his father in disregarding Muktza (designation),*
and differs with him in the other case ; for his father is of the
opinion, that when a lamp is extinguished it may be moved ; but
not while it is burning; but he is of the opinion that even a burn
ing lamp may be moved.
" But a goblet, bowl, or lantern must not be removed from their
respective places." Wherein do these things differ from the
others ? Said Mar Sutra : R. Simeon allows a small lamp (to
be handled), because one will wait until it is extinguished (and
then it may be used for another purpose) ; in the above, things
are not permitted to be handled because they are large, and not
apt to become extinguished for some time. R. Zera said : All
the school-men agree on prohibiting the handling of a candelabrum
which had been lit up on Sabbath, but the handling of the can
delabrum which was not lit up on the Sabbath is unanimously per
mitted. R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh : " It is not permitted
to handle (on the Sabbath) a bed, that has been designated as a
place to put money in, if the money had already previously been
placed upon it (on Friday during twilight) (even if on the Sabbath
no money was on the bed). If the money, however, had not pre
viously been deposited on the bed, the handling (of the bed) is per
mitted. If a bed was not designated for the keeping of money, but
contained money (on the Sabbath) it must not be handled. If it
contained no money, it may (providing no money was deposited on
the bed during twilight of the preceding Friday). Rabh says this
because he holds with the opinion of R. Jehudah (who is in favor
of the law of Muktza).
Another instance tending to show that Rabh holds to the opin
ion of R. Jehudah is the fact that Rabh said one may place a lamp
upon a palm tree at any time while it is yet day on Friday, in
order that it may burn on the Sabbath ; but one may not put a
lamp upon a palm tree on a biblical feast day. (It is permitted to
place a lamp on a palm tree on the Sabbath because there is no
* Muktza (designation) refers to such objects as are set aside and designated for
non-use on the Sabbath. Thus, all materials that are used in the performance of
manual labor (prohibited on the Sabbath) are called Muktza. R. Simeon, however,
holds there is no such thing as Muktza.

80 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
fear of the tree, which is Muktza [designated], being used; but
on a biblical feast day it is prohibited for fear that one while
depositing or removing the lamp will also use the palm tree ; and
that is prohibited.)
Now, if we admit that Rabh holds to the opinion of R. Jehu
dah (that " Muktza" on the Sabbath is prohibited), a distinction
must be made between the law of Sabbath and that of a biblical
feast day ; but if we assume that Rabh holds to the opinion of R.
Simeon (that Muktza on the Sabbath is not prohibited), why does
he make a distinction between the Sabbath and a biblical feast
day? (In that event he would be permitted to remove the lamp
when extinguished and the palm tree will of necessity be used.)
But how can we assume that Rabh holds to the opinion of R.
Jehudah ? When he (Rabh) was asked whether one may remove an
extinguished Hanukah light on the Sabbath for fear of the Persian
(this has already been mentioned in a previous connection), he
replied, that it is permissible. He only permitted such removal
of the light at times of danger.* Because, did he not answer the
query of R. Kahana and R. Ashi, whether such was the law
(permitting the removal of the light) by saying : " R. Simeon de
serves that one act according to his ruling in times of danger" ?
Resh Lakish asked of R. Johanan : " May wheat that has been
sown but that has not yet sprouted, or eggs that are still under the
hen, be eaten on the Sabbath? Does he (R. Simeon) disregard
the law of Muktza only in such cases where the objects were put
aside with no intention of ever being used again, or does he disregard
Muktza under all circumstances ?" He (R. Johanan) replied : " R.
Simeon regards the law of Muktza only so far as the oil in a burn
ing lamp is concerned, because the oil poured in a lamp for the
purpose of keeping the Sabbath-light commandment is designated
for that express function, and as it is not permitted to extinguish
that light, the intention not to use the oil for any other purpose is
self-evident. (Let us suppose that the light may be extinguished on the
Sabbath.) Does R. Simeon hold that in that event the oil may
be used for other purposes, and thus he disregards the law of
Muktza ? Did not R. Hyya bar R. Joseph teach in the presence
of R. Johanan that one must not remove wood from a booth on
* The Talmud here refers to Persian festivals, when the burning of lights was pro
hibited except in sacred shrines.

TRACT SABBATH. 81
any biblical feast day, but he may remove it from any place near
by? R. Simeon, however, permits this to be done. Still, they
all agree that wood must not be removed from a booth built ex
pressly for the Feast of Booths, on those same feast days, because
the wood is set aside for the ritual purpose of keeping the Feast
of Booths. (This proves then that R. Simeon also regards the
setting aside of things for ritual purposes as valid.) How can he
say that the oil may be used for other purposes even when the
light is extinguished ? Nay ; the statement of R. Johanan that
R. Simeon regards Muktza only " so far as oil, etc.," really means :
as far as all things bearing similitude to the oil in the burning
lamp are concerned. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel :
" In the opinion of R. Simeon no law of Muktza exists except in
the case of raisins and dates, which were placed on the roof to be
dried." (In such a case there certainly was no intention to use them
on the same Sabbath.) Said Rabba bar-bar Hana in the name of
R. Johanan : " They (the schoolmen) said the law remains ac
cording to the opinion of R. Simeon. When R. Itzhak, the son of
R. Joseph, however, came from Palestine he said in the name of
R. Johanan that the law (of Muktza) according to R. Jehudah
prevails, and R. Jehoshua, the son of Levi, said the law is accord
ing to R. Simeon. Said R. Joseph : " The statement of Rabba
bar-bar Hana in the name of R. Johanan, that they (the school
men) said the law is according to R. Simeon, must be construed
to mean that such was the opinion of the school-men, but not of
R. Johanan himself. Said Abayi to R. Joseph : " Didst thou not
know before this that R. Johanan holds with the opinion of R.
Jehudah ? Is it not a fact that when R. Abba and R. Assi met in
the house of R. Abba of the city of Heifa and a candelabrum fell
upon the coat of R. Assi, he (R. Assi) did not remove it ? Why
not ? Was it not because he was a disciple of R. Johanan and
acted according to the opinion of his master?"
Answered R. Joseph : " Thou art speaking of a candelabrum. A
candelabrum is a different matter altogether ; for R. Ahai, the son
of Hanina, said in the name of R. Assi : Resh Lakish has decided in
Zidon, a candelabrum which can be removed with one hand may be
handled on the Sabbath, but if it has to be removed with both
hands it may not be handled (on the Sabbath) ; and R. Johanan
said : We only hold with R. Simeon in the matter of a lamp ; but
as for a candelabrum, whether it can be removed with one or both
VOL. I. — 6

82 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
hands, it must not be handled (on the Sabbath). And why so?
Both Rabba and R. Joseph said, because a place must be des
ignated for it.
Said Abayi to R. Joseph : " Have we not observed the case of
a baldequin prepared for a bride and groom, for which a place
must be designated ? And yet Samuel said in the name of R. Hyya :
A baldequin may be put up and taken apart on the Sabbath."
Why do you assert that the candelabrum must not be handled on
account of the designation of its place ? Said Abayi : The prohibi
tion to handle the candelabrum holds good only in a case where the
same is made of several parts. If this be the case, what reason
has R. Simeon ben Lakish for allowing this ? Say : Not a cand-
labrum made of various parts, but like a candelabrum of various
parts. (One which is marked by cuts and appears to be made of
various parts.) Therefore : A candelabrum, made of several parts,
be it large or small, must not be handled. The handling of a large
candelabrum, even if not made of several parts, is also prohibited on
account of its marked lines, for fear one may handle such as are
made of several parts. But on what points do R. Johanan and R.
Simeon ben Lakish disagree? A small candelabrum which has
such marks, one holds, should not be handled for fear that it is
made of several parts ; while the other holds, no fear need be en
tertained on that score.
R. Malkia chanced to be in the house of R. Simlai. He
handled a candlestick, the light in which had been extinguished,
and R. Simlai became angry on that account. R. Jose, the Gali
lean, happened to be in the town of R. Jose bar Hanina and also
handled a candlestick containing an extinguished candle, where
upon R. Jose bar Hanina became angry. When R. Abuhu came
to the place of R. Jehoshua ben Levi he handled the candlestick
with the extinguished light, but when he came to the place of R.
Johanan he did not do so out of respect to R. Johanan. Said R.
Jehudah: A lamp which has been filled with oil may be handled
after the light has been extinguished (because it emits no bad
odor), but one which contained naphtha may not be handled on
the Sabbath (on account of its bad odor). Both Rabba and R.
Joseph said that one filled with naphtha may also be handled on
the Sabbath.
R. Avia once came to the house of Rabha with muddy shoes
and was seated on the bed in the presence of the latter. This

TRACT SABBATH. 83
made Rabha angry, and he tried to disconcert R. Avia with ques
tions. Said he (Rabha) : " Can you tell me why Rabba and R.
Joseph both said that a lamp filled with naphtha may also be
handled on the Sabbath?" Answered R. Avia: "The decision of
Rabba and R. Joseph was given on account of (the lamp) also
being fit to cover a vessel with after being extinguished." Asked
Rabha again : " If this is so one may also handle shavings scattered
in the yard because they also can be used to cover a vessel with."
Answered R. Avia : " A lamp being a vessel itself can be used to
cover other things with, but shavings are not vessels in themselves
and therefore cannot be used singly as covers." Said R. Nahman,
the son of Itzhak : " Praised be the Lord that Rabha did not put
R. Avia to shame (implying that the latter was able to answer all
questions) .
Abayi asked R. Joseph concerning the following contradiction :
" Did R. Simeon say that a light may be handled only when extin
guished, but if burning it must not be handled ? For what rea
son? Because there is a chance of extinguishing it while it is
being handled ?" Have we not learned that R. Simeon said : " An
act which is liable to be committed unintentionally is permissible."
Such is the decision of R. Simeon ? A man must not take chances
with an act which, if done intentionally, would cause a violation
of a biblical ordinance ; but if the violation would be only that of
a rabbinical ordinance, chances may be taken.
Objected Rabha : " We have learned dealers in clothing may
sell clothes made of wool and cotton mixed. They are permitted
to try on such clothes or to carry them (temporarily) on their
shoulders, provided the intention to use them as a protection
against the sun and rain does not exist. (The very pious, how
ever, in order to prevent any unintentional violation of the ordi
nance against the wearing of wool and cotton mixed, used a stick,
which they carried on their shoulders to suspend clothes on, while
exhibiting them to purchasers. ) Now, the wearing of a mixture of
wool and cotton is a violation of a biblical ordinance, still R. Si
meon permits it to be done temporarily, although an unintentional
violation of such ordinace may be committed !"
Said Rabha, however, in answer to Abayi's previous ques
tion : " Discard the case of the lamp, oil, and wick ; it is not pro
hibited on account of the possibility of committing a prohibited
act, either intentionally or unintentionally ; but it is forbidden by

84 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
reason of its being the basis of a thing, the handling of which is
in itself prohibited (i.e., the light in itself cannot be handled).
R. Zera said in the name of R. Assi, who spoke in the name
of R. Johanan, who said in the name of R. Hanina, that R.
Romnas said : " Rabbi permitted me to handle a pan containing
glowing ashes" (on the Sabbath).
Afterward said R. Zera to R. Assi : " Is it possible that R.
Johanan made the above statement? Have we not heard that
Rabba bar-bar Hana said in his (R. Johanan's) name, referring to
Mishna, which states that a man may handle a box containing a
stone (on the Sabbath) : ' He may do so providing the box also
contains fruit.' How then could R. Johanan permit a pan with
glowing ashes to be handled?" R. Assi was astounded for some
time, but finally answered : " The pan referred to still contained
some grains of incense."
But Rabha said : While we were in R. Nahman's house we
handled a fire-pot on account of its ashes (the ashes were needed
for some purpose, therefore the pot was allowed to be handled),
although there were some broken sticks of wood upon it.
They (the school-men) raised the following objection : R. Sim
eon and R. Jehudah agree that if there are broken pieces of wick
in a lamp it is prohibited to handle the lamp. Said Abayi : " This
was taught in Galilea" (Galilea is a state where linen cloth is
scarce, for which reason the broken pieces of wick are valuable,
and the lamp, being the receptacle of prohibited valuables, is not
permitted to be handled on the Sabbath).
Levi, the son of Samuel, met R. Abba and R. Huna, the son
of Hyya, standing at the entrance of R. Huna's house ; he (Levi)
said to them : " Is it allowed to fold the beds of travelling copper
smiths on a Sabbath?" They answered : "Yea; it is allowed."
In allowing this the two rabbis held with (the opinion of R.
Simeon b. Gambiel in a) following Boraitha : It is not permitted to
put together a bed (on the Sabbath) which has been taken apart,
but if one did so, he is not culpable. One must not fasten the bed
with pegs, but if he did so he only lays himself liable to bring a
sin-offering. R. Simeon ben Gamaliel said : " If the bed was loose
it may be fastened."
R. Hama had a folding-bed in his house. He put it together
on a biblical feast day, and one of the young rabbis asked :
" Rabha, what is thy opinion (concerning the action of R. Hama) ?

TRACT SABBATH. 85
Is this not a case of indirect building and therefore not permissi
ble ; granted that there is no biblical prohibition to this effect,
there surely is a rabbinical?" Answered Rabha: "I hold to the
opinion of R. Simeon ben Gamaliel, who said that it is permissi
ble to put a bed together if the bed is loose."
MISHNA : One may put a vessel underneath a lamp for the
purpose of receiving the sparks falling from the lamp, but he shall
not put water into the vessel, because thereby the sparks would be
come extinguished.
GEMARA : Would this act not render the vessel useless ?
Said R. Huna, the son of R. Jehoshua : " The vessel is not made
useless, because sparks do not amount to anything;" and it is said
in the Mishna, " He shall not put any water into it, because there
by the sparks would become extinguished." Is it to be assumed
that this anonymous teaching is in accordance with the teaching of
R. Jose, who said that it is prohibited even to cause light to be
extinguished ?
Said R. Ashi : " We may assume that it is in accordance even
with the opinion of the rabbis, who do not mind the causing of
light to be extinguished through indirect means on the Sabbath.
In this case, however, the sparks are extinguished (through direct
means, i.e.), by placing water underneath the lamp."

CHAPTER IV.
REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE DEPOSITING OF VICTUALS
ON THE SABBATH.
MISHNA: What may be deposited (victuals) in (after re
moval from the stove, in order to keep them warm, without increas
ing their temperature), and what may they not be deposited in?
The use of Gepheth (olive-waste), dung, salt, lime, and sand,
either wet or dry, is not allowed. Nor is it permitted to deposit
them in wet straw, grape-skins, wool-flocks or grass ; but when
they are dry it is permitted.
GEMARA: A question was propounded: "Is the use of
olive-waste only prohibited, but the use of the oil-cakes allowed ;
or does the Mishna allude to oil-cakes and still more so to olive-
waste (for it produces more heat) ?" For the purpose of deposit
ing in, both kinds are not allowed ; (but if the victuals have been
deposited in a permissible thing and were subsequently placed on
oil-cakes no wrong was done, because) oil-cake does not produce
heat ; (hence depositing in olive-waste would have been a wrongful
act, because) olive-waste produces heat.
Rabba and R. Zera once met at the Exilarch's house ; they
saw there a slave putting a can (with warm water) on top of a kettle
(containing cold water) and Rabba rebuked him for this. Said
R. Zera to Rabba : " In what particular does this case differ from
that of putting one pan on top of another?" Answered Rabba:
" In the former case heat is produced, but in the latter it is only
preserved." Another time they saw him (the slave) spreading a
turban over a pitcher and putting a cup on top of it. Again
Rabba rebuked him. R. Zera asked for the reason and Rabba an
swered : " You will soon see him wringing-' the turban," which he
did. R. Zera again asked : " In what particular does this case
differ from that of a spread cloth ?" Answered Rabba : " In the
former case one is particular (lest it become wet and he will wring
it) while in the latter case one is not."
* Wringing (in Hebrew, Se'hitah) is prohibited on the Sabbath.
86

TRACT SABBATH. 87
" In Straw." R. Adda bar Masna put a question to Abayi :
" May wool-flocks, in which (victuals) were deposited, be handled
on Sabbath?" Abayi answered : " Because of a lack of straw would
a man sacrifice a valuable lot of wool-flock?" (When placing
victuals in straw no intention to make further use of the straw
exists, and it becomes part of the pot itself ; with wool-flocks the
case is different, for they are intended for further use and there
fore must not be handled on Sabbath).
R. Hisda permitted the replacing of waste (fallen out) of a
pillow on Sabbath.
R. Huna bar Hisda objected : " We have learned that untying
the opening (for the neck) of a shirt is permitted on Sabbath, but
cutting it is prohibited, and waste must not be placed into a pillow
or bolster on a biblical feast day, much less on a Sabbath."
There is no difficulty in this ; placing new waste in a pillow
case is not allowed, but replacing old waste that has fallen out of a
pillow is allowed.
R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh : " Whosoever makes an
opening (for the neck in an unfinished shirt) on Sabbath is culpa
ble of a transgression that requires a sin-offering.
R. Kahana strongly objected : What is the difference between
an opening for the neck and a bunghead (in a barrel) ? Rabha an
swered : " A bunghead is not attached to the barrel (i.e., it forms
no part of it), but an opening for the neck is made by an incision
in the shirt and hence is part and parcel of same. In Sura the
following teaching was taught in the name of R. Hisda and in
Pumbeditha the same was taught in the name of R. Kahana or
Rabha : " Who was the Tana, in whose name the sages taught that
the part and parcel of a thing is on a par with the thing itself?"
Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh : " Such is the opinion of R.
Meir, who explained (in the Tract Kelim) [chapter viii., Mishna
3] that the attachment built on a hearth is on a par with the
hearth itself and becomes unclean when touched by an unclean
thing." "When wet." A question was propounded: Naturally or
artificially wet ?
Come and hear : The Mishna says : " Not with straw, nor
with grape-skins, nor with wool-flocks, nor with grass when wet."
It is right only if we accept the theory that they became wet, but
should we venture to think them naturally wet, how is this to be

88 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
imagined ? Can wool-flocks be naturally wet ? The sweaty wool
under the hips may be meant. Did not R. Oshaya teach we may
deposit in dry cloth and dry fruit but not in wet cloth or wet
fruit ? How is naturally wet cloth to be imagined ? This may
also mean cloth made from the sweaty wool under the hips of the
sheep. MISHNA : It may be deposited in cloth, fruit, pigeon feathers,
shavings, and fine flaxen tow. R. Jehudah forbids the use of fine
but permits the use of coarse flaxen tow.
GEMARA : " Shavings." A question was propounded :
Does R. Jehudah forbid the use of fine shavings or fine flaxen
tow ? Come and hear : We were taught in a Boraitha, R. Jehudah
says, fine flaxen tow is the same as dung which increases heat ;
therefore the conclusion is that he means flaxen tow.
MISHNA: It may be deposited (wrapped) in skins, and they
may be handled ; in shorn wool, but the wool must not be handled.
How can this be done? The lid is raised and it (the shorn wool)
falls down. R. Elazar ben Azarya says : The vessel is bent side
ways and taken out lest it be taken out and cannot be replaced,
but the sages say it may be taken out and replaced.
GEMARA : A question was propounded by R. Jonathan ben
Akhinayi, R. Jonathan ben Elazar, and R. Hanina ben Hama:
Does the Mishna allude to skins belonging to private men only,
hence skins belonging to an artisan, who is particular with them,
may not be handled under any circumstances ; or perhaps the
Mishna allows even an artisan's skins. Answered R. Jonathan ben
Elazar : It is reasonable to accept that it applies only to those be
longing to private men but not to artisans, because they (the arti
sans) are particular. But R. Hanina bar Hama said, Thus said R.
Ishmael ben Jossi : " My father was a tanner and he said, 'Bring
some skins here to sit on.' "
To this an objection was offered : Boards of private men may
be handled, but not those of artisans (if the intention is to serve a
meal on them to strangers both kinds may be handled) ? With
boards it is different. Even private men are particular with
boards. There is a difference of opinion between the teachers : Skins
belonging to private men may be handled, but not those of artisans.
R. Jossi says both kinds may be handled.
While they were sitting together another question was pro-

TRACT SABBATH. 89
pounded by them : Whence do we derive the summing up of the
thirty-nine principal acts of labor? Said R. Hanina bar Hama:
" From the acts of labor performed at the tabernacle." R. Jona
than ben Elazar said : Thus said R. Simeon ben Jossi ben La-
gunia : From the thirty-nine times the words " work," " his work,"
and "work of" are to be found in the Pentateuch.
R. Joseph asked of Rabba: Is the word "his work" to be
found in the passage " and Joseph came into the house to do his
work" [Gen. xxxix. 12] also of the number or not? Abayi an
swered him : " Let us bring the book and count," and he rejoined :
"I am in doubt whether the verse 'and the work was enough'
[Ex. xxxvi. 7] is of the number, and the former verse is to be ex
plained 'he came in to do his business,' or whether the former is
of the number and the latter is to be explained 'the task was com
pleted.' " (Both verses cannot be counted among the thirty-nine,
because if they are there will be forty in all.) This question
remains unanswered.
It is proven by a Boraitha that the adduction of the thirty-nine
acts is made from the acts performed at the Tabernacle, for we
were taught : One is culpable only for the performance of such
work as was done at the building of the Tabernacle. They have
sown, but ye must not sow ; they have harvested, but ye must not ;
they have loaded the boards from the ground upon wagons, but ye
must remove nothing from public into private ground ; they have
unloaded from the wagons to the ground, but ye must not remove
from private into public ground ; they have transferred from one
wagon into another, but ye must transfer nothing from private into
private ground.
" From private into private ground;" what wrong is committed
by that ?
Abayi and Rabha answered (and according to others R. Addi
bar Ahabha) : " From private into private ground by way of pub
lic ground." " fn shorn wool and may not be handled!'
Rabha and Rabhin in the name of Rabbi (Jehuda Hanassi)
said : " It is only taught, when not designated for the purpose of
depositing in them, but if designated for that purpose they may be
handled." Rabhina says that the teaching of the Mishna is ap
plicable to shorn wool taken from stock (of a store).
The following Boraitha is in support of this : Shorn wool taken

90 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
from stock is not to be handled, but if prepared by a private man
for a purpose it may be handled.
Rabba bar- bar Hana taught before Rabh : Palm branches, if
cut off for use as fuel and finally intended for sitting purposes,
must be tied together (before the Sabbath). R. Simeon ben
Gamaliel said, it needs no tying. The same Rabba bar-bar Hana
himself taught this in the name of R. Simeon ben Gamaliel and
said that the decision of the latter prevails.
We have learned elsewhere : (In relation to sitting on palm
branches cut off for use as fuel) Rabh said (it must be) tied (be
fore the Sabbath). Samuel said : The intention (alone) to sit on
them (is sufficient) and R. Assi said, sitting (on them before the
Sabbath) even if not tied nor previously intended for sitting pur
poses on the Sabbath, is sufficient. It is clear that Rabh holds
with the first teacher and Samuel holds with R. Simeon ben
Gamaliel, but whom does R. Assi's opinion agree with ? He is
of the opinion of the following Boraitha : It is permitted to go
out (on Sabbath) with a flax or wool plaster (on a wound) when
dipped in oil and tied with a string, but it is not permitted when
the plaster is not dipped in oil or tied with a string ; but if one
went out with it only a little before the Sabbath, even if not
dipped in oil and tied, it is permissible. Said R. Ashi : " We
were also taught in a Mishna in support of this; but who is the
teacher that does not agree with R. Simeon ben Gamaliel?" It
is R. Hanina ben Aqiba ; for when R. Dimi came from Palestine
he said in the name of R. Zera : R. Hanina bar Aqiba once went
with his disciples to a place and found some palm branches tied
together to be used as fuel ; he said to his disciples : " Make up
your minds to sit on them to-morrow." I do not know whether
there was to be a wedding or a funeral that following day, but the
inference from this narration is : Only in the case of a wedding or
funeral, when people are busy (and could not tie them up), the
intention is sufficient, but otherwise tying together is necessary.
R. Jehudah said : " One is permitted to carry in a box of sand
on the Sabbath for the purpose (of covering up an unclean place)
and use the remainder for any purpose whatever. Mar Zutra, in
the name of Mar Zutra the great, interpreted this — providing he
singled out a corner for it. Said the Rabbis before R. Papa:
"This teaching (of the great Mar Zutra) is in accord only with the
opinion of R. Simeon ben Gamaliel, but not with that of the

TRACT SABBATH. 91
Rabbis who require action rather than intention." R. Papa an
swered : " It may even be in accord with the Rabbis, who require
action only where it is possible, and this action (tying together or
sitting on sand) is impossible."
R. Jehudah permits the use of the dust of incense on the
Sabbath. R. Joseph permits poppy-seed waste. Rabha permits
pepper dust and R. Shesheth " Barda," to wash the face with.
What is Barda ? Said R. Joseph, a powder of one-third aloe, one-
third myrrh, and one-third violet. R. Nehemiah bar Joseph also
permits Barda, provided it does not contain more than a third part
of aloe. R. Shesheth was asked if it was permitted to crush olives on
Sabbath? He answered: "Is it permitted on week days?" He
is of the opinion that the spoiling of food is not allowed.
Barda was brought to Ameimar, Mar Zutra, and R. Ashi.
Ameimar and R. Ashi washed themselves with it, but Mar Zutra
did not. They asked him : " Do you, Master, not hold with R.
Shesheth, who permits the use of it ?" Said R. Mordecai to them :
" Leave out the Master in this question, for he does not even use
Barda on week-days. He holds, as we were taught : " One is
permitted to scratch off crust of excremation and of wounds only
for the purpose of relieving pain, but not for the purpose of beau
tifying the person." And they (Ameimar and R. Ashi) ? They
agree with the teaching in another Boraitha, viz. : A man should
wash his face, hands, and feet daily out of respect for his Creator,
as it is written in Prov. xvi. 4.
R. Elazar ben Azarya says : " The vessel is bent sideways,
etc." Said R. Aba in the name of R. Hyya b. Ashi, who spoke
in the name of Rabh, that if the cavity formed by the vessel got
out of shape it is not permitted to replace (the vessel).
We were taught : " And the sages say it may be taken out and
replaced." How shall this be understood? If the cavity re
mained intact the Rabbis did well by telling us that the replacing
of the vessel was allowed ; but if the cavity got out of shape is
it not self-evident that replacing is not permitted ? Nay ; they
still maintain that the cavity did not get out of shape, and the
controversy (in the case) is as regards precaution. One is of the
opinion we must use precaution (lest we replace the vessel when
the cavity is out of shape), while the others contend this is not
necessary.

9 2

THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

MISHNA: (A vessel) not covered during daylight must not
be covered after dark. If, after having been covered, it became
uncovered, it is permitted to cover it again (even on the Sabbath).
A pitcher may be filled with cold victuals and put under a pillow
(to keep it cool).
GEMARA : R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said : " It is
permitted to store cold victuals (to protect them from the sun)."
Said R. Joseph : " Have we not learned this in the above Mishna ?
What information does he give us?" Abayi answered: "A
great deal ! From the Mishna I would infer that only such things
as are not usually stored are permissible (for in that case no pre
caution lest one put warm victuals under a pillow or bolster for
the purpose of generating heat is necessary) ; he informs us, how
ever, that even such things as are usually stored are permissible
also." R. Huna in the name of Rabbi however says : It is forbidden
to store cold victuals. Were we not taught that Rabbi has per
mitted this ? This presents no difficulty ; in the former instance
he was not aware of the decision of R. Ishmael ben Jossi and in
the latter he was. This is the instance : Rabbi at one time de
cided that it is forbidden to store cold victuals. Said R. Ishmael
ben Jossi in his presence : " My father permitted it," whereupon
Rabbi said : " The Elder once having pronounced the decree it
must prevail." Said R. Papa : Come ye and note the mutual re
spect : Had R. Jossi been alive, he would have had to show respect
to Rabbi ; R. Ishmael, who succeeded his father and was of no
lesser rank, also had to acknowledge Rabbi's superiority. Still
Rabbi said : " The Elder long ago decreed it."
R. Nahman said to his slave Doru : " Store some cold victuals
for me and bring me warm water from a Gentile cook-shop." R.
Ami heard this and was angry. Said R. Joseph : " What was
the reason of his anger? Did not R. Nahman act in accordance
with the teachings of the great masters, Rabh and Samuel ?" R.
Jehudah in the name of Samuel said : It is permitted to store cold
victuals, and R. Samuel b. R. Itzhak said in the name of Raph :
Anything that may be consumed raw is not included in the prohi
bition relating to cooking by a Gentile ; he (R. Ami) however was of
the opinion that, although it is allowed, a man of note should not
practise it (because the layman seeing such things of the scholar
he might allow himself still more).

TRACT SABBATH. 93
The Rabbis taught : " Although they (the sages) said it is not
allowed to deposit (warm victuals) after dark, even in such recep
tacles as do not increase the heat, still, if already deposited, it is
permitted to add more cover (even if the heat is increased). How
can this be done ? R. Simeon ben Gamaliel says : " In cold weather
a sheet (used as a cover) may be taken off and a blanket substi
tuted ; in warm weather the blanket may be taken off and a sheet
substituted." Moreover, R. Simeon ben Gamaliel said: "They
(the sages) prohibited (to deposit warm victuals) only in the same
pan in which they were cooked, but if emptied to another pan it
is permitted ; and there is no fear of one coming to cook (on the
Sabbath) ; for (the act of) emptying (the victuals) from the cook
ing-pan (into another) proves (that there is no such intention).
If one deposited a pot (containing victuals) in material that
may be handled on the Sabbath, and covered it with the same, or
even deposited it in non-permissible material, but covered it with
permissible, he may take out the pot and replace it ; but if he de
posited it in non-permissible material and covered it with the
same, or even deposited it in permissible, but covered it with non-
permissible material, he may take out the pot, but can replace it
only if the pot was but partly covered. Otherwise, he must not
replace it at all.
It is permitted to put one cooking-pan upon another and also
one earthen pot upon another, but not an earthen pot upon a cook
ing-pan, or a cooking-pan upon an earthen pot. (Even on Sab
bath) the cover of a pot may be fastened down with dough
(kneaded on Friday before dusk). In the case of putting one pan
or pot upon another, this may be done only to preserve the heat,
but not for the purpose of heating the upper pot by means of the
lower one.
The same as it is forbidden to store warm (victuals), so it is
also forbidden to store cold (victuals) on the Sabbath ; but Rabbi
permitted the latter to be done. Even so is it prohibited to chop
ice on Sabbath in order to obtain cold water, but ice may be put
into a vessel or a pitcher without fear of the consequences.

CHAPTER V.
REGULATIONS CONCERNING GEAR WHICH MAY AND MAY NOT BE
WORN BY ANIMALS ON THE SABBATH.
MISHNA: What gear may we let animals go about in (on
the Sabbath) and what not ?* The male camel in a bridle ; the
female camel with a nose-ring; Lybian asses in a halter, and a
horse in a collar. All (animals) that are used to collars may go
out in and may be led by the collar. Such gear (when it becomes
defiled) can be sprinkled and submerged without being removed
from its (proper) place (on the animal).
GEMARA : R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said :
" Rabbi was asked, How is it when the reverse is the case ? i.e.,
when the female camel is bridled and the male camel is invested
with a nose-ring ? May they be allowed to go about ? There is
no question as to a bridle on a female camel. Not being for the
purpose of guarding her, it is considered a burden and is not
allowed ; as to a nose-ring on a male camel : shall we assume that
it is merely an additional safeguard, and thus becomes permissi
ble, or is it an unnecessary safeguard and hence not allowed?"
R. Ishmael ben Jossi answered : " Thus my father said : Four
animals may go about with a bridle on — the horse, the mule, the
camel, and the ass."
We were taught in a Boraitha : Lydda asses and camels may
go about with a bridle on. There is a difference of opinion
among the Tanaim (teachers) (whether a superfluous safeguard is
a burden or not) ; one maintains that no animal may go about bur
dened with a chain ; but Hananya says a chain or anything else,
that is intended as a safeguard, though superfluous, is permitted.
Said R. Huna bar Hyya in the name of Samuel : " The deci
sion of Hananya prevails."
Levi, the son of R. Huna bar Hyya and Rabba bar R. Huna
once travelled together; arriving at an entrance the former's ass
*See Exodus xx. io and Deut. v. 14, where it is prohibited to have cattle per
form work on the Sabbath. The Mishna considers the carrying of burdens work and
defines what gear constitutes a burden for cattle and what does not.
94

TRACT SABBATH. 9S
ran ahead of the latter's. Rabba bar R. Huna became uneasy (at
the lack of respect shown him, supposing it to have been done in
tentionally). Thought Levi to himself : " I see Rabba is uneasy.
I will pacify him with a question." So he asked ; " Is it permitted
to put a halter on an unmanageable ass like mine on the Sab
bath?" Rejoined Rabba: "Thus said your father in the name of
Samuel : 'The decision of Hananya prevails.' ''
At the school of Menashyah it was taught : A goat with a bri
dle fastened (riveted) to his horns is permitted to go about on
Sabbath (but not if the bridle was simply tied to the horns, as it
may slip off and a man may be forced to carry the bridle).
An objection was interposed : " Were we not taught in a
Mishna that it is not allowed to let a cow go about with a strap
tied between her horns ?"
Said R. Irmya bar Aba : There is a difference of opinion be
tween Rabh and Samuel ; the one holds that it is prohibited when
the strap serves either as an ornament or as a safeguard, and the
other holds that it is prohibited when intended for an ornament,
but as a safeguard it is permitted. Said R. Joseph : " It has been
ascertained that it was Samuel who said 'forbidden as an orna
ment, but permitted as a safeguard, for R. Huna bar Hyya said
in the name of Samuel, the decision of Hananya prevails." Said
Abayi to R. Joseph : " It can be proved to the contrary, namely,
that it is Samuel who said, ' It is forbidden either as an ornament
or as a safeguard,' for R. Jehudah said in his name: Rabbi was
asked, how is it when the reverse is the case, etc. The answer
was, four animals may go out, etc. Did this answer intend to
exclude a male camel with a ring (for the reason that an addi
tional safeguard is prohibited as a burden) ? Nay ; we must say
that the intention was to exclude the female camel with a bridle
(because it is considered an ornament), as it was reported : " R.
Hyya b. Ashi said in the name of Rabh that either as an orna
ment or as a safeguard it is forbidden ; and R. Hyya bar Abhin
in the name of Samuel said, It is forbidden as an ornament but
permitted as a safeguard."
An objection was made to Samuel's opinion : If the owner tied
the (red) heifer with a halter, she may nevertheless be used.
Should you assume that this (halter) is a burden (how could she
be used) ? (Do not) the Scriptures say [Numbers xix. 2] : " Upon
which there was no yoke" ? Answered Abayi: " (It is to be un-

96 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
derstood ) when the owner leads her from one town to another,
(the halter is a necessary safeguard, hence no burden)." Rabh
said : " There is quite a difference in the case of the red heifer,"
as she is very valuable (and must be guarded). Rabhina said :
" She must have a halter on account of her stubbornness."
" The horse with a collar." What is meant by "go about" or
led?" R. Huna said: "It makes no difference whether the strap
hangs loose on the animal's neck or is used as a rein ; but Samuel
said they may go about if led (by the strap) but not (with the
strap) hanging loose.
A Boraitha teaches : " They may go about with the halter tied
round their necks in order that they may be led whenever neces
sary." Said R. Joseph : " I have seen the calves of R. Huna
going out on a Sabbath with their halters round their necks."
R. Samuel ben Jehuda, when coming from Palestine, said in the
name of R. Hanina that Rabbi's mules also went out on a Sab
bath with their halters tied around their necks.
" And are sprinkled," etc. Is this to say that they are subject
to defilement? Were we not taught that only rings (worn by
human beings) are subject to becoming defiled, but harness rings,
rings of utensils, and all other rings are not ? Said R. Isaac of
Naph'ha : * The collar-ring, having at one time been used by men
for personal purposes and become defiled, still retains its defiled
character ; but R. Joseph argues it is not necessary to claim this.
The fact that the collar-ring is used by man for the purpose of
guiding the animal lays it subject to becoming defiled, as we have
learned in the Boraitha which taught us : A metal whip is subject
to defilement ; for the reason that man uses it to manage the animal
with ; so also in the case of the collar-ring, because man guides the
animal with it.
" And submerged without removing it from its place." Would
this not constitute a case of " Chatzitzah" (intervention). f Said
R. Ami : " (Intervention of the bridle between the neck and the
water) is avoided by loosening the bridle." A Boraitha teaches :
" Intervention is avoided by the size of the bridle."

* Naph'ha is Aramaic for "smith." According to the opinion of Dr. I. M.
Wise, the reviser of this Tract, Naph'ha refers to the city whence R. Isaac came.
f When any article of apparel, worn by a person or animal while bathing, inter
venes between the body and the water, i.e., bars the admission of the water to the
body, it constitutes a case of " Chatzitzah."

TRACT SABBATH. 97
MISHNA: The ass may go out with a rug fastened around
him ; rams may go out with leather bandages tied around their
privates ; sheep may go out with their tails tied up or down and
wrapped (to preserve its fine wool) ; she-goats may go out with
their udders tied up. R. Jossi forbids all this except sheep
wrapped up. R. Jehuda says : She-goats may go out with their
udders tied up to stop the lactation, but not to save the milk.
GEMARA : Said Samuel : The Mishna means ; " Only when
the (rug) is fastened before the Sabbath eve." Said R. Nahman :
It is proven also by the following Mishna that an ass may not go
out with a rug unless fastened. How should this be understood ?
Shall we say that (the rug) is not fastened? Then it would be
self-evident (that it is forbidden), lest it fall off and will have to
be carried by a man. Consequently we must assume that the
Mishna's meaning of "not fastened" signifies "not fastened before
the Sabbath." Hence it is conclusive that where the Mishna
says " fastened" it means fastened before the Sabbath.
This is supported by the Boraitha : " The ass may go out with
a rug fastened before the Sabbath eve, but not with a saddle, even
though fastened before the Sabbath eve." R. Simeon ben Gamaliel
says : " (The ass may go out) even with a saddle, if fastened before
the Sabbath eve, provided, however, no stirrups are attached to
the saddle, and a crupper under the tail."
R. Assi ben Nathan asked of R. Hyya bar R. Ashi : Is it per
mitted to put a rug on an ass on the Sabbath?" " It is," was the
answer. He then inquired : " What is the difference (in the Law)
between a rug and a saddle ?" No answer was given. (Misinter
preting the silence) R. Assi objected: "A Boraitha teaches, it is
not allowed to remove the saddle from the ass directly, but one
may move it to and fro until it falls off ; if you say it is forbidden
to handle the saddle, is there any question as to putting it on ?"
Said R. Zera to him : " Let him be ! He is of the opinion of his
teacher (Rabh), in whose name R. Hyya bar R. Ashi related that
he (Rabh) permitted putting a feed-bag on an animal on Sab
bath." A feed-bag, which is nothing but an accommodation, is
permitted ; so much the more a rug, which is a relief ! Samuel
however permitted a rug but prohibited a feed-bag. R. Hyya
bar Joseph reported the opinion of Rabh to Samuel, whereupon
the latter said : " If thus holds my colleague, he knows nothing of
the laws of Sabbath."
VOL. 1. — 7

98 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
When R. Zera came (to Palestine) he heard R. Benjamin ben
Japheth stating in the name of R. Johanan that it is permitted to
put a rug (but not a feed-bag on an ass on Sabbath). He thanked
him for it and, continuing, remarked : " Thus has the Arioch (King
of Laws) in Babylon decided." Who is meant by the title (Ari
och) ? Samuel.
From the foregoing it is evident that all agree that it is per
mitted to cover an ass with a rug on Sabbath. Why should the
saddle differ (in Law) from the rug ? It differs therein, that a
saddle may drop off (and involve the necessity of handling). R.
Papa gave another reason : " To cover an ass with a rug is an act
of relief, for it is said that an ass feels cold even in summer, but
to remove a saddle from an ass's back in order to cool off the ass
is not necessarily an act of relief."
An objection was raised. We have learned : " The horse
shall not go out with a fox-tail (for a pompon) and calves with the
feed bags on public ground." Shall we not assume that (in the
case of the calves) they may not go out on public ground, but
they may on private ground, and it refers even to large calves
(whose necks are long enough to reach the ground with their
mouths easily) ; thus feed-bags are merely an accommodation ?
Nay; the permission to carry feed-bags applies only to small
calves (whose necks are short and legs long, and to whom reaching
down to the ground with their mouths would entail a hardship)
and must be considered as a necessary relief.
A Boraitha taught : " She-goats must not go out with a bag
attached to their udders." Were we not taught in a Boraitha
that they may go out in this manner? Said R. Jehuda: "This
presents no difficulty ; in the former case the bag is not tied fast,
in the latter the bag is tied fast (and there is no reason for appre
hension lest it drop off and will have to be carried)." Said R.
Joseph : " Why, you have entirely done away with the teachers of
our Mishna ! There is a difference of opinion between the teach
ers in this very Mishna (and the teachers of the two preceding
Boraithoth each hold in accordance with the respective opinions
of the teachers of the Mishna) : ' She goats may go out with a
bag tied to their udders.' " R. Jossi forbids all except sheep with
covers on to protect the wool. R. Jehudah says : " She-goats
may go out with their udders tied up for the purpose of prevent
ing lactation, but not for the purpose of saving the milk."

TRACT SABBATH. 99
We have learned : R. Jehuda related the case of she-goats
which he saw in Antioch. Their udders were so large that bags
had to be made for them in order to prevent their dragging on
the ground and becoming mutilated. (These bags were worn also
on the Sabbath.)
The Rabbis taught : " It happened with one man whose wife
died and left him a nursing child, he was so poor that he could
not pay a wet-nurse. A miracle happened to him; his breasts
opened and he nursed his child." Said R. Joseph : Come and see
how great the man must have been that such a miracle was wrought
for him. Said Abayi to him : On the contrary, Behold how bad
the man must have been that the nature of mankind changed in
him and nothing occurred to enable him to earn enough money to
pay a nurse. Says R. Nachman : Aye, it is so. From this you
can see that a miracle can easier happen, than for a man to earn a
livelihood. The Rabbis taught : " It happened once that a man wedded a
woman with a mutilated hand and did not discover it until she
died." Said Rabh : " Behold how chaste this woman must have
been, for even her husband did not discover it." R. Hyya re
torted : " This is nothing ! It is natural with women to hide their
defects, but note the modesty of the man, who did not discover it
in his wife."
" Rams may go out with (leather) bands around their privates."
What kind of bands? Said R. Huna, "hobbles." Ulla said they
were leather bands tied around their breasts to prevent them from
the attack of wolves. Do wolves attack only the males and never
the females? It is because the males always go ahead of the
flocks. Do wolves attack only the advance of a flock and never
the rear ? It is because the males are usually fat. Are there no
fat sheep among the females ? moreover, how can the wolves know
which is which? It is because the males generally lift their
heads and look around cautiously. R. Nahman bar Itz'hak said
they wore leather bands tied around their privates to prevent
them from having coition with the females. Whence this infer
ence ? From the last clause of the Mishna, " The sheep may go out
with their tails tied up," in order that the males may have coition
with them ; hence we infer that the first clause is for the purpose
of preventing them.
" She-goats may go out with a bag tied around their udders."

ioo THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
It was said that Rabh held the ordinance to be in accordance with
the opinion of R. Jehudah and Samuel held it to be in accordance
with the opinion of R. Jossi. Others taught : Rabh and Samuel
did not directly cite the opinions of R. Jehudah, respectively R.
Jossi, but they themselves decreed as follows : Rabh held that she-
goats may go out with their udders tied up for the purpose of pre
venting lactation but not to save the milk. Samuel, however,
prohibited this in both cases. Others again say : R. Jehuda ben
Bathyra long ago decided the same as Rabh, but added that on
account of the impossibility of determining what purpose the
tying up of the udders would serve, it is entirely prohibited.
Thereupon Samuel decided that the decree of R. Jehuda ben
Bathyar prevails. Rabhin upon his arrival in Babylon reported that
in Palestine the ordinance of the case was decided by R. Johanan in
accordance with the opinion of the first Tana (Rabh or R. Jehuda).
MISHNA: And what gear must (animals) not go about in?
The camel must not go about with a crupper, nor with hobbles
on both legs, nor with the front leg hobbled with the hind. This
law is applied to all other animals. It is not allowed to tie camels
together with a rope and then lead them ; but one is permitted to
hold in his hand the several ropes on the camels and lead them,
provided the ropes are not twisted into one.
GEMARA : We have learned in a Boraitha : " Must not go
out with a crupper." If the crupper is fastened to the hump as
well as to the tail of the camel, the camel may go about. Rabba
bar R. Huna says : A camel may go about with a pad under its
tail (to prevent friction).
" One is not to tie camels." What is the reason ? It looks
like leading them to market.
" But one is permitted to hold in his hand." Said R. Ashi :
" This law they (the Rabbis) taught only concerning (Kilaim) a
mixture of different cords (viz., woollen and flaxen), and hence the
teacher means to say, provided he does not tie or twist them.
Samuel said : " And provided the cords do not protrude from his
hand as much as a hand's width. Was it not taught at the
school of Samuel, two hands' width ? Said Abayi : " From the
existing difference, namely : Samuel teaching one hand's width
only, while his school two hands' width, we infer that Samuel
taught the practice of the law (to be one hand's width, although
two hands' width is permissible) . Were we not taught : " Provided

TRACT SABBATH. 101
he lifts (the cords) from the ground one hand's width (but there
is no restriction as to the quantity protruding from his hands) ?
The non-restriction of the quantity of cord applies only to the
amount of cord used for the distance between the animal and the
man's hand. (In that case the quantity is unlimited. The quan
tity of cord, however, protruding from the man's hand must not
exceed one hand's width ; so also the distance from the ground to
the cords must be at least one hand's width.)
MISHNA : The ass is not to go out with a rug, unless fas
tened, neither with a bell that has been muffled, nor with a collar
on his neck, nor with ankle-boots. The hens are not to go out
with cords tied to them, nor with straps on their feet. Rams are
not to go out with carts tied to their tails, nor sheep with sneez
ing-wood. The calf is not to go out with the reed yoke, nor the
cow with the skin of a hedgehog (tied to the udder), nor with a
strap (between her horns). The cow of R. Elazar ben Azarya
went out with a strap between the horns against the approval of
the Rabbis.
GEMARA: "Neither with a bell that has been muffled."
For it looks like bringing it to market.
" Nor with a collar on his neck." Said R. Huna : With a
collar underneath his jowls. What was the collar intended for ?
To prevent irritation of any wounds that may have been on the neck.
" Nor with ankle-boots." To prevent injury from kicking one
foot against the other.
" The hens with cords." As a distinguishing mark.
" Nor with straps on their feet." To prevent damage arising
from jumping.
" The rams with carts." To prevent their tails from damage
through trailing on the ground.
"Nor sheep with sneezing- wood." (What is it?) Said R.
Huna : " In seaports there is to be found a kind of tree called
'Hanun, which produces sneezing- wood, which, when held under a
sheep's nose, produces sneezing, and while sneezing such vermin as
may have lodged in the sheep's head are expectorated. If such be
the case, may rams not go out with it either ? For rams sneezing-
wood is not used at all. They butt with their heads ; therefore
vermin drops out of its own accord.
" Nor the cow with the skin of the hedgehog," etc. To pre
vent leeches from sticking to the udder.

102 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
" Nor with the strap between the horns." Why not ? Neither
in accordance with the opinion of Rabh, who forbids it both as an
ornament and safeguard, nor in accordance with the opinion of
Samuel, who forbids it as an ornament, but permits it as a safe
guard. " The cow of R. Elazar ben Azarya," etc. Had he only one
cow? Did not Rabh, or R. Jehuda in the name of Rabh, say that
R. Elazar ben Azarya gave yearly as tithes from his herds as
many as twelve thousand calves? We have learned (in a Bo
raitha) : The cow in question was not his, but a neighboring
woman's. It is only ascribed to him because he did not protest
against it.
Rabh, R. Hanina, R. Johanan, and R. Habiba (some say R.
Jonathan instead of R. Johanan), all four taught in all the sec
tions of Moed (Festivals) : He who has the power to protest
against wrong in his house and does not do so, is punished for
(the sins of) every one in his house. In the city (where his protest
would be recognized), he is punished for the sins of every one of
the inhabitants of the city ; and if he is such a great man that
his word would be respected in the whole world, he is punished
for (all the sins of) mankind. Said R. Papa : " And the Exilarchs
are punished for the sins of all Israel." In this same sense taught
R. Hanina, who said : " How is the following passage to be ex
plained: 'The Eternal will enter into judgment with the Elders
of his people and with the princes thereof [Isaiah iii. 14]. If the
princes sinned, what have the Elders to do with it ? The intent
is to say : Because the Elders did not protest against the princes.
R. Jehudah sat before Samuel, when a woman came in com
plaining and Samuel paid no attention to her. Said R. Jehudah to
him : " Is Master unaware of the passage : Whosoever stops his
ears at cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself and not be
heard"? [Prov. xxi. 13]. Samuel retorted : " Ingenious scholar !
Your head-master (meaning himself) is on safe ground, but our
Chief is responsible." Mar Ukba, being at that time Chief of the
Judges (it was his affair), for it is written [Jerem. xxi. 12] : " O
House of David ! Thus hath said the Lord : Exercise justice on
(every) morning, and deliver him that is robbed out of the hand of
the oppressor ; lest my fury go forth like fire, and burn so that
none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings."
Said R. Zera to R. Simon : " Let Master reprove the Exilarch's

TRACT SABBATH. 103
retainers." He answered: "They care not for me." Rejoined
R. Zera : " Even if they do not care, reprove them anyhow ; for
R. Aha b. Hanina said : The Holy One, blessed be He, never
issued a benevolent decree, which He subsequently reversed into
malevolence, except in this sole instance, which is written [in
Ezekiel ix. 4 :] " And the Lord said unto him, Pass through the
midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and inscribe a
mark upon the foreheads," etc. Thus said the Eternal to Gabriel :
" Go and set the mark (the Hebrew letter Tabh) in ink upon the
foreheads of the righteous, that the angels of destruction have no
power over them ; and the same mark in blood upon the foreheads
of the wicked, that the angels of destruction may have power over
them." Justice pleaded before the Eternal, blessed be He, in
these terms : " Sovereign of the Universe, what is the difference
between the two ?" He answered : " The ones are perfectly right
eous and the others completely wicked." Again Justice pleaded :
" Sovereign of the Universe ! It was in their power to protest
(against wickedness) and they did not." And the Lord answered :
" It is known to me, that had they protested their protest would
have been of no avail." Once more Justice pleaded: "It is
known to Thee; but was it known to them?" (Therefore) thus
it is written (further) : " Slay utterly old and young, both maids,
little children, and women [Ezek. ix. 17]; and it is written
(further) : " Then they began with the old men who were before
the house" [ibid., ibid.].
" And behold, six men came from the direction of the upper
gate" [Ezek. ix. 2]. Who are the six men (messengers)? Said
R. Hisda : " Anger, wrath, rage, destruction, devastation, and ruin."
Why just the letter Tabh? Said R. Simeon ben Lakish:
" The Tabh is the last letter on the seal of the Holy One, blessed
be He ; for R. Hanina said (the inscription on) the seal of the
Holy One, blessed be He, is Emet (truth) (and the last letter of
the Hebrew word Emeth is a Tabh).
It being evident from the verse [Ezek. ix. 2] that Sechuth
Aboth* no longer existed, at what time shall we assume that it
ceased ?
* Sechuth Abot his a term implying the benefits bestowed upon men in considera
tion of the virtues and righteousness of their ancestors, and is based upon the passage
in the Bible : " Keeping kindness unto the thousandth generation," etc. (Ex. xxxiv.
7), and also upon the verse Ex. xxxii. 13.

104 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
Said Rabh : From the time of the prophet Hosea ben Beeri,
as it is written [Hosea ii. 12] : " And no man will deliver her out
of my hand," meaning that even the righteousness of the ancestors
will be of no avail.
Samuel said : From the time of the King Chazael of Syria, as
it is written [Kings xiii. 23] : " And the Lord became gracious
unto them, and had mercy on them, and turned His regard unto
them, because of His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
and would not destroy them, and He cast them not off from His
presence until now." Thus, He will remember His covenant only
" until now," but not after that.
R.Jehoshua ben Levi said : From the time of Elijah the prophet :
as it is written [Kings xviii. 36] " Elijah the prophet came near
and said, O Lord, God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Israel, this
day let it be known that Thou art God in Israel," etc., and means
to infer that only " this day" the Lord will remember Sechuth
Aboth and not after this day.
R. Johanan says : From the time of Hezekiah the King, as it is
written [Isaiah ix. 6] : " To establish it and to support it through
justice and righteousness, from henceforth and unto eternity: the
zeal of the Lord of Hosts will do this," implying that after that
the favors of the Lord will not be bestowed by virtue of Sechuth
Aboth, but through His zeal.
R. Ami said : Death is the result of sin, and affliction the
result of transgression ; death the result of sin, for it is written
[Ezekiel xviii. 20], " The soul that sins, it shall die," etc. ; afflic
tion the result of trangression, for it is written [Psalms lxxxix. 33],
" And I will visit their transgressions with a lash and their iniquity
with stripes."
An objection was made: One of the teachers said: The
angels (once) said to the Holy One, blessed be His Name:
" Sovereign of the Universe ! Why didst Thou punish Adam with
death?" The Lord answered : " Because I gave him a light com
mandment, and he failed to observe it." The angels again said unto
him : " Why did Moses and Aaron die, did they not observe all the
laws of the Torah (Pentateuch) ?" And He answered [Eccl. ix.
2] : " The same fate befalls the righteous as the wicked." Hence
death is not the result of sin ! He (R. Ami) is of the opinion of
the teacher who taught : " R. Simeon ben Elazar said : Even the
death of Moses and Aaron was the result of their sins, for it is

TRACT SABBATH. I05
written [Num. xx. 12] : Because you had no faith in Me," (and
the inference thereof is) if they had faith, they would not have
died. Another objection was made : (There is a tradition) Four men
only died in consequence of original sin. They are : Benjamin,
the son of Jacob; Amram, the father of Moses; Jesse, the father of
David ; and Kilab, the son of David. Whose opinion does this
Boraitha agree with ? The Tana who related the legend of the
angels holds that Moses and Aaron also died in consequence of
-original sin. We must assume then that the Boraitha agrees
with R. Simeon b. Elazar, who says that Moses and Aaron died
on account of their own sins. Thus we see that although Moses
and Aaron died on account of their own sins, still death without
sin is possible and consequently affliction without transgression;
hence R. Ami's theory is hereby refuted.
R. Samuel bar Nahmeni in the name of R. Jonathan said :
" Whoever says that Reuben (the patriarch Jacob's son) sinned
with his father's wife is in error, becaues it is written [Gen. xxxv.
22], " Now the sons of Jacob were twelve." This proves to us
that they were all equal (in righteousness) ; but what does the
verse [ibid, ibid), which states that he did lie with Bilha, his
father's concubine, signify? It signifies that he (Reuben) de
ranged his father's bed, and this the verse holds as being equal to
lying with his father's wife. This may be supported by a Boraitha
in the name of R. Simeon ben Elazar : That righteous man
(Reuben) is innocent of the crime. The act with his father's
wife was never consummated ; because is it possible that a man,
whose descendants will stand on the Mount Ebol and proclaim :
"Cursed be he who lies with his father's wife" (Deut. xxvii. 20),
would commit such a crime ? What explanation, however, can I
attach to the verse accusing him ? He (Reuben) resented the
injustice done his mother and said : " When my mother's sister
lived and proved a vexation to my mother, it was bearable; but to
have my mother's servant prove a vexation to her, this is unbear
able !" Therefore he removed the bed of Bilha from his father's
bedroom (which the verse holds tantamount to lying with her).
Rabh said : Pin'chas (son of Eli) is not guilty of adultery, for
it is written : " And Ahiya, the son of Ahitub, Ichabad's brother,
the son of Pinchas, son of Eli, was priest to the Eternal at Shilah"
[1 Samuel xiv. 3]. Is it possible that the Scriptures would

106 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
describe minutely the (progeny) or pedigree of an adulterer ? Is
it not written : " The Eternal will destroy the man that does this,
the master and the scholar out of the Tabernacles of Israel, and
him that offers an offering to the God of Hosts"? [Mal. ii. 12.]
That was explained to mean, if he be simply an Israelite, he shall
have here no master among the teachers and no scholar among
disciples, and if he is a descendant of priests, he shall have no son
who may offer the offering. From this we must conclude that
Pinchas is innocent of guilt. Is it not written, however, "sons
of Belial" (and thus Pinchas is included) ? Aye ; because he
should have protested against it and did not, the Scriptures con
siders it as if done by himself.
The above Samuel ben Nahmeni says again : He who thinks
the sons of Samuel sinned, is also in error. It is written : " And
they (his sons) did not walk in his ways" [Sam. viii. 3]. True;
they did not walk in his ways, but they sinned not. How then is
the passage to be upheld : " And they but turned aside after lucre
and took bribes" ? [ibid. ibid.]. They did not act as their father;
for Samuel, the righteous, travelled through all Israel and dispensed
justice in every city, as it is written : " And he went from year to
year in circuit to Beth-El and Gilgal and Mizpah and judged
Israel" (ibid., vii. 6) ; but they did not act in this way. They
dwelt in their respective places in order to increase the fees of
their messengers and scribes.
There is a difference of opinion among the teachers (as to the
nature of the sins whereof they, the sons of Samuel, are accused).
R. Meir says they (who were Levites themselves) claimed their
priestly allowance personally (and thereby deprived the poor priests
and Levites of their shares ; for being also judges they were never
refused). R. Jehuda says : They had commercial relations with
private people (and were sometimes compelled to pervert justice).
R. Aqiba says : They took tithes (to a greater extent than they
were allowed to do) by force. R. Jossi says : They took by force
the (priests') portions (shoulder-blades, jowls, and stomachs of a
slaughtered animal) to which they had no right.
"The same error is made concerning David," said the above
Rabbi. Said Rabh : (R. Jehudah Hanassi) Rabbi, a descendant
of the house of David, endeavored to interpret favorably the pas
sage : " Wherefor hast thou despised the word of the Eternal to do
what is evil in His sight?" [2 Samuel xii. 9]. He said: This

TRACT SABBATH. 107
evil deed is different (in words and language from other evil
deeds, whereof mention is made in the Scriptures). In all other
instances it says, " and he has done," but here it says, " to do."
This implies that he "wanted to do" (but did not do). "Uriah
the Hittite thou hast slain with the sword" [ibid. ibid.]. (As a
rebel) he should have had him " tried" by the Synhedrion, which
he did not. " And his wife thou hast taken to thee for a wife." He
had a right to her, for R. Samuel ben Nahmeni in the name of R.
Jonathan said : Whoever went to war with David divorced his wife
previously. " Him thou hast slain with the sword (used) for the
children of Amon." As he will not be punished on account of
the children of Amon, so will he also not be punished for the
death of Uriah. What is the reason ? He (Uriah) was a rebel.
Said Rabh : " Note well the life of David, and you find nothing
blamable save the affair of Uriah; as it is written [1 Kings xv.
5], " Save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite."
Abayi the elder offered a contradictory question : " Did Rabh
say this ? Did he not say also that David lent an ear to slander ?"
This difficulty remains.
The text says : Rabh asserted that David did lend ear to
slander, for it is written [2. Samuel ix. 4] : " And the King said
unto him, Where is he ? And Ziba said unto the King, Behold,
he is in the house of Machir, the son of 'Ammiel, in (V) Lo-
debar;" further on it is written [ibid., 5] : "And the King David
sent, and had him taken out of the house of Machir, the son of
Ammiel, from (m) Lo-debar."* (Thus, when David found him
" doing something (good)" whereas Ziba informed the King that
he was " doing nothing (good)," of a necessity Ziba must have
been lying to David ; why, then, did David give heed to his in
formation, for it is written [ibid. xvi. 3]: "And the King said,
And where is thy master's son ? And Ziba said unto the King,
Behold, he remaineth at Jerusalem ; for he said, To-day will the
house of Israel restore unto me the kingdom of my father." But
whence the adduction that David lent an ear to slander ? From
what is written further [ibid. 4] : " Then said the King to Ziba,
Behold, thine shall be all that pertaineth to Mephibosheth. And
* The literal translation of the Hebrew word Blo-debar is : he does nothing
(good) ; of Mlo-debar : he is very busy (doing something good) . Upon the differ
ence in the two literal meanings of the two words Rabh bases the untruth of Ziba's
statement.

108 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
Ziba said, I prostrate myself ; let me but find grace in thy eyes,
my lord, O King."
Samuel said : David did not lend ear to slander. He (himself)
saw in Mephibosheth' s conduct that which corroborated Ziba's
calumny; as it is written [ibid. xix. 25] : "And Mephibosheth the
(grand-) son of Saul came down to meet the King, and he had not
dressed his feet, nor trimmed his beard, nor washed his clothes."
(This was considered disrespect) ; further it is written [ibid. 28] :
" And he slandered thy servant unto my lord the King," etc., and
further [ibid., 31]: " And Mephibosheth said unto the King, Yea,
let him take the whole, since that my lord the King is come (back)
in peace unto his own house." Now, this last verse (read between
the lines) really means : " I have anticipated your safe arrival
home with anxiety, and since you act toward me in such a man
ner, I have nothing to complain of to you but to Him (God) who
brought you safely back."
R. Jehuda in the name of Rabh said : " Had David not given
heed to slander, the kingdom of the house of David would never
have been divided, neither would Israel have practised idolatry,
nor would we have been exiled from our land."
The same Rabbi said : He who believes Solomon guilty of
idolatry is in error. Whence does he adduce this ? He agrees
with R. Nathan, who points to a contradiction between the two
following passages : It is written [ 1 Kings xi. 4] : " And it came
to pass, at the time when Solomon was old, that his wives turned
away his heart," etc., and further on [ibid, ibid.] it says: "Like
the heart of David his father." While his heart was not as per
fect as that of his father David, still he did not sin. The passage
means, his wives turned away his heart toward idolatry, but still
he did not practise it. This is supported by a Boraitha : Said R.
Jossi. It is written [2 Kings iii. 13] : " And the high places, that
were before Jerusalem, which were to the right of the mount of
destruction, which Solomon the King of Israel had built for
Ashthoreth, the abomination of the Zidonians," etc. Is it possi
ble that neither Assa nor Jehosophath had cleared them out before
Josiah ? Did not Assa and Jehosophath abolish idolatry in Judea ?
It follows then, that as Josiah is given credit by the verse in the
Scriptures for having abolished the worship of Ashthoreth, the
abomination of the Zidonians, although at his time it had been out
of existence for a long time, this was done merely because he

TRACT SABBATH. 109
(Josiah) had abolished other later forms of idolatry; the same
rule is followed in the case of Solomon ; while he himself did not
build the Ashthoreth of the Zidonians, the fact that he did not
prevent his wives from doing so makes him responsible in the same
measure as if he had committed the deed himself. Is it not writ
ten [1 Kings xi. 6] : " And Solomon did what is evil in the eyes
of the Lord." This is also written merely because it was in his
power to protest against the actions of his wives, and he did not
do so ; hence the Scriptures ascribe the deed to him, as if he him
self had committed it.
Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel : It would have been
better for him (Solomon) to have been an actual hireling to idol
atry, than to be accused of doing what is evil in the eyes of the
Lord. Again R. Jehudah said in Samuel's name : At the time Solo
mon took in wedlock the daughter of Pharaoh, she brought to him
about a thousand different musical instruments. Each of these was
used for separate idols, which she named to him, and still he did
not protest against it.
The same Rabbi, quoting the same teacher, said : At the time
Solomon took in wedlock Pharaoh's daughter (the angel) Gabriel
came down and planted a cane in the sea ; on the sand, that ac
cumulated around the cane, a great' city was afterward built ; but
in a Boraitha we were taught that the miracle occurred on the day
that Jeroboam introduced the two golden calves, one each in Beth-
El and Dan, and that great city was Italia of Greece.
R. Samuel said: Whoever says Josiah sinned is also in error.
It is written [2 Kings xxii. 2] : "And he did what was right in
the eyes of the Lord and walked in the ways of David his father
and turned not aside to the right or to the left." Is this not con
tradictory to the verse [2 Kings xiii. 25], "that returned to the
Lord with all his heart." How is the "returned" to be under
stood? He must have sinned in order to return? Nay; from
this it must be inferred that after Josiah attained the age of eigh
teen, he refunded from his private purse all amounts paid by such
as he had declared guilty (bound to pay) from the time he was
eight years old (when he became King). This is the interpreta
tion of "returned to the Lord."
The above differs from Rabh's statement : " None is greater
among repenters than Josiah in his time and one in our own time.

no THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
Who is he (the latter) ? Aba, the father of Jeremiah b. Aba.
Others say Aha, the brother of Aba, father of Jeremiah b. Aba,
for the aforesaid teacher said Aba and Aha were brothers. R.
Joseph said : There is yet another in our own time. Who is he ?
Ukban b. Ne'hemiah, the Exilarch. " Once while studying," said
R. Joseph, " I dozed off and saw in a dream an angel stretching
out his hands and accepting his (Ukban's) repentance.

CHAPTER VI.
REGULATIONS CONCERNING WHAT GARMENTS (SERVING AS ORNA
MENTS) WOMEN MAY GO OUT WITH ON THE SABBATH.
MISHNA: In what (ornamental) apparel may a woman go
out and in what may she not go out ? A woman is not allowed to
go out (even in private ground) either with woollen or linen bands
or with straps on her head to keep her hair in tresses, (as a precau
tion lest she enter public ground and take off the bands to show
to her friends, thereby becoming guilty of carrying movable prop
erty for a distance of four ells or more). Nor is she to bathe her
self with the bands on unless loosened. Nor is she to go out with
either Totaphoth or Sarbitin on, unless they are fastened.* Nor
with a hood in public ground, nor with gold ornaments, nor with nose
rings, nor with finger- rings that have no seal, nor with pins. But
if she did go out with these things, she is not bound to bring a
sin-offering (as they are ornaments and not burdens).
GEMARA : " Bathing." Where is bathing referred to (and
what has it to do with the Sabbath) ? Said R. Nahman b. Itz'hak
in the name of Rabba b. Abuha : The Mishna means to say :
What is the reason that a woman is not allowed to go out with
either woollen or linen bands ? Because the sages have decided
that she is not to bathe herself with them on, even on week-days,
unless loosened ; therefore she shall not (go out with them on) on
the Sabbath at all, lest it happen that she become in duty bound
to bathe herself, f and, while untying her hair, be forced to carry
the bands in public ground for a distance of four ells or more.
R. Kahana propounded a question to Rabh : " What about a
* In the Mishna the Hebrew word for " fastened " is " Tephurim," literally mean
ing " sewed " or " embroidered " i.e., the Totaphoth and Sarbitin as worn bythe
wealthy were ornaments made of gold or silver with inscriptions engraved on them,
but the poor made them of various colored materials (as explained in the Gemara
further on) and embroidered the inscriptions on them. The prohibition of the
Mishna therefore refers only to the wearing of such ornaments before the inscriptions
were either engraved or embroidered on them. Such is our explanation in our " His
tory of Amulets," pp. 11-15.
f See Leviticus xv. Duties of women to bathe after menstruation.
in

112 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
hair-net?" Answered Rabh: "You mean to say a woven one?
Everything woven has not been restricted." This was also taught
in the name of R. Huna, son of R. Joshua.
An objection was made : " We have been taught in a Mishna
that when a person bathes the following objects cause 'intervention'
(Chatzitzah) : Woollen and linen bands and headstraps (used by
maidens) ?" R. Jehudah says woolen and hair bands do not cause
" intervention," because water soaks through them. " (Now we see
that although woollen and linen bands are woven and yet are an
intervention.) Said R. Huna: "All this concerns only maidens."
(And they are an intervention only because they are particular
about it.)
R. Joseph in the name of R. Jehuda said that Samuel asserted :
" The law according to R. Jehudah holds good only in the case of
hair-bands." Rejoined Abayi : " Thou sayest the law according
to R. Jehudah holds good. Is there any controversy between R.
Jehudah and the Tana of the above Boraitha? (The Tana said
nothing about hair-bands)." Shall we assume that because R.
Jehudah declares hair-bands not to be objects of "intervention," he
must have heard the previous Tana mention them ? Even if such
be the case, it is not probable that R. Jehudah heard that the Tana
agrees with him on that point and hence he says : " If he agrees
with me on this point why not in the other instances also?"
Said R. Nahman in the name of Samuel : Let us say the sages
agree with R. Jehuda with respect to hair-bands.
This is supported by a Boraitha. Woollen bands cause inter
vention, but hair-bands do not. Said R. Jehuda : " Neither cause
intervention." Said R. Nahman b. Itz'hak : This can be proven by a Mishna
further on, which teaches that a woman may go out with hair-
bands, be they her own or her friends'. Whose opinion does this
Mishna represent ? Can we say R. Jehudah's ? He permits even
woolen bands ! We must say it represents the opinion of the
other teachers also ; hence it is conclusive that they do not differ
as regards hair-bands.
" Nor with Totaphoth." What are " Totaphoth" ? Said R.
Joseph: "A balm bandage for sanitary use (Humrate diqetiphta)."
Said Abayi to him : " Then let it be permitted as an amulet
made by a reliable expert." (During Abayi's time this difficulty
was not solved.)

TRACT SABBATH. 113
R. Jehudah said in the name of Abayi : * " It is an Absayim" (a
gold ornament). This is supported by a Boraitha : A woman may
go out with a gilded hair-net and Totaphoth or Sarbitin when
fastened to the hair-net. What are Totaphoth and what Sarbitin ?
Said R. Abuha : " The former are bands that reach from ear to
ear and the latter bands that reach from temple to temple." R.
Huna said : " The poor make them of all kinds of colored material
and the rich make them of gold or silver."
" Nor with a hood," said R. Yanai : " I cannot understand
what kind of a hood the Mishna means ; is it a slave's hood that
it prohibits and permits a woollen hood, or does it prohibit woollen
hoods and so much more slave's hoods ? Said R. Abuha : It is rea
sonable to hold that a woollen hood is meant. This is also proven
by the following Boraitha : A woman may go out with a hood and
head ornament in her yard. R. Simeon ben Elazar says, with a
hood even in a public ground. " It is a rule," said he, " that any
thing below the ' Shebha'ha' (hair-net) is permitted to be worn, but
anything above it is not. Samuel, however, said the Mishna al
ludes to the slave's hood.
This was objected to. Did Samuel indeed say so? Did he
not say the slave may go out with the mark (he wears) around his
neck, but not with the mark on his clothes ? This presents no dif
ficulty. The former applies to the mark made for him by his mas
ter (in which case there is no fear of the slave removing and
carrying it), while the latter applies to the mark made by himself.
What meaning do you attach to Samuel's statement ? If he per
mits the wearing of the mark on the slave's neck because the master
made it and the slave will fear to remove it ; could not the master
also make the mark on the slave's clothes ? Yea ; but the slave
might lose the mark and for fear of his master he will fold up his
coat and carry it on his shoulders (in public ground). This is also
supported by a Boraitha, which teaches us distinctly that the slave
may go out with the mark on his neck but not on his clothes. In
like manner Samuel once said to R. Hinna bar Shila : " None of the
Rabbis that call on the Exilarch should go out with their insignia
on their clothes (on the Sabbath) save you. He would not be
angry with you were you to go to him without them (hence, not being
a necessary burden, you may wear them or not, as you choose) .
*This R. Jehudah is probably R. Jehudah of Diphta, for the R. Jehudah gener
ally cited died on the day of Abayi's birth. See our " History of Amulets," etc.
vol. 1.— 8

n4 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
The former teacher said " Not with a bell (mark on his neck,
but with a bell (mark) attached to his clothes." Why not with a
bell on his neck ? Lest it break off and he may carry it. Why
not apprehend the same in regard to a bell attached to his clothes ?
Here a bell is treated of that was made by an expert and was
woven right in with the cloth. This is also in accord with what
R. Huna, son of R. Joshua, said : " Everything that is woven they
did not restrict."
" Nor with a golden ornament." What was this golden orna
ment ? Said Rabba bar bar Hana : "A golden (ornament with an
engraving of the city of) Jerusalem on it," such as R. Aqiba made
for his wife.
The Rabbis taught : A woman shall not go out wearing a
golden ornament ; but if she did so, she becomes liable to bring a
sin-offering. This is the opinion of R. Meir, but the sages say :
She must not go out wearing it ; if she did, however, she is not
culpable ; but R. Eliezer said : A woman may go out wearing a
golden ornament to commence with. Wherein do they differ?
R. Meir holds it to be a burden and the Rabbis hold it to be an
ornament ; then why should she not wear it to commence with ?
Lest she take it off to show it to her friends and thus happen to
carry it ; but R. Eliezer reasons differently. Who generally go
out with such valuable golden ornaments? Prominent women;
and prominent women will not remove them for the purpose of
exhibiting them to friends.
Rabh prohibits the wearing of a crown-shaped ornament and
Samuel permits it. Both agree that the wearing of a crown-shaped
ornament is permissible, as there is no fear that the woman will
remove it ; where they do differ, however, is as to a golden and
jewelled ornament. The former holds, that there is fear of her
removing it in order to exhibit it, and thus probably happen to
carry it, while the latter contends that as prominent women only
wear such costly ornaments no fear need be entertained on that
score. Said R. Samuel bar bar Hana to R. Joseph : You distinctly
told us in the name of Rabh that an ornament in the shape of a
crown may be worn.*

* R . Joseph passed through a severe illness and at times forgot his own teachings ;
hence it sometimes occurred that he was reminded of them by his disciples.

TRACT SABBATH.

"5

Levi taught in Neherdai that a crown-shaped ornament may
be worn ; whereupon twenty-four women in Neherdai went out
with crown-shaped ornaments on.
Rabba bar Abuha taught the same in Mehutza, and eighteen
women went out of one lane wearing those ornaments.
R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said : " A belt may be
worn." Some one said a leather belt (even if jewelled). Said R.
Saphra : " Why ! Even a golden belt jewelled, for is it not equal
to a golden garment ?"
Said Rabhina to R. Ashi : " How is it with a belt worn over a
sash?" Answered R. Ashi : "By this you mean two belts" (and
this is prohibited).
R. Ashi said : " A sash may be worn only when it is securely
fastened, but not otherwise."
" Nor with a nose-ring." What is a nose-ring? It is a nose
band. " Nor with finger-rings that have no seal ;" but if the ring
have a seal does the woman who wears it become culpable ? This
presents a contradiction. We have learned elsewhere : The follow
ing ornaments of women are subject to becoming defiled : Chains,
nose-rings, rings, finger-rings, either with or without a seal, and
nose-bands. Said R. Nahman bar Itz'hak : " You quote a con
tradiction in the laws of defilement as against the laws of Sab
bath. As for defilement the Thora (law) requires an utensil
[Numbers xxxi. 20], and such it is, but as for Sabbath it refers to
a burden ; hence a ring without a seal is an ornament, with a seal
it is a burden (for women)."
"Nor with a pin." For what purpose can a pin be used?
R. Ada from Narsha explained it before R. Joseph : Women part
their hair with it. Of what use is it on Sabbath ? Said Rabha :
On week days they wear a golden plate on their heads ; the pin is
used for parting the hair and holding down the plate ; but on Sab
bath the pin is put against the forehead.
MISHNA : A man is not to go out with iron-riveted sandals
nor with one (iron-riveted shoe) unless he has a sore on his foot,
nor with phylacteries, nor yet with an amulet, unless made by a
reliable expert, nor with a shield, helmet, or armor for the legs ;
but if he has gone out (with either of these) he is not culpable of
a sin (that requires a sin-offering).
GEMARA: "Iron-riveted sandal." What is the reason of

n6 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
its being prohibited ? Said Samuel : It happened toward the
close of the persecutions (of the Jews) that a party of men hid
themselves in a cave with the understanding that after once enter
ing no one was to go out. Suddenly they heard a voice on the
outside of the cave, and thinking the enemies were upon them,
they began crowding each other into the farthest recesses of the
cave. During the panic that ensued more men were trampled to
death by the iron-riveted sandals worn by the party than the ene
mies would have killed. At that time it was enacted that a man
must not go out (on Sabbath) with iron-riveted sandals." If this
be the reason, let it also be prohibited on week-days ! Nay ; the
reason is that the disaster occurred on a Sabbath.
Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel : This (the prohibition
of the use of iron-riveted sandals ) is taught only with regard to
such as are riveted for the sake of durability, but not with regard
to such as are riveted for the sake of decoration. How many
(rivets are considered to be for the purpose) of decoration ? R.
Johanan said, five in each. R. Hanina said, seven in each. Said
R. Johanan to R. Samon b. Aba : " I will explain to you the dif
ference between my opinion and that of R. Hanina. I mean two
rivets on each side of the sandal and one in the centre, while he
means three on each side and one in the centre. A certain shoe
maker asked of R. Ami : " How is it if the sandal is sewed from
the inside?" He answered : " I have heard that it is permitted to
be worn, but I can give you no reason." Said R. Ashi: "Does
master not know the reason ? Being sewed from the inside it is
no longer a sandal but a shoe ; and the Rabbis decreed against the
riveted sandal but not in regard to shoes."
We have learned : A man must not go out with iron-riveted
sandals and shall not walk in them from one room to another, not
even from one bed to another (in the same room) ; but such san
dals may be handled to cover vessels with or to support one of the
bed-stands with them. R. Elazar b. Simeon prohibits even this,
unless the majority of rivets fell out and but four or five re
main. Rabbi limits the permission to seven (rivets). If the
soles are made of leather and the uppers are riveted, it is per
mitted. If the rivets are made like hooks, or are flat-headed,
or pointed, or pierce through the sandal to protect the sole, it is
permitted. Said R. Massna, others say R. Ahadboy b. Massna, in the

TRACT SABBATH. 117
name of R. Massna : " The decision of R. Elazar b. Simeon does
not hold good." Is this not self-evident ? When one individual
opinion conflicts with a majority, the opinion of the majority
prevails. The statement of R. Massna, however, was made lest
one might suppose that it would be reasonable to accept in this
case the decision of R. Elazar b. Simeon (because handling it, he
might wear it) and he informs us (that it is not so).
Said R. Hyya : " Were I not called a Babylonian, who permits
what is prohibited, I would permit considerably more. How many
rivets are permissible ? In Pumbeditha they say twenty-four, and
in Sura they say twenty-two." Said R. Nahman b. Itz'hak : " It
seems by your remark that on the road from Pumbeditha to Sura
you lost two."
" Nor with one iron-bound shoe, unless his foot is sore." But
if his foot is sore he may go out. On which foot may he wear the
shoe ? On the foot that is sore (for protection) .
The Rabbis taught : When one puts on his shoes he should
commence with the right shoe ; when he takes them off he should
commence with the left. When one bathes he should wash the right
side first ; when he anoints himself he should anoint the right side
first, and whoever anoints the whole body should commence with
the head, for the head is the king of all the members (of the body).
" Nor with phylacteries ;" but if he went out with them on, he
is not culpable of a sin (that requires a sin-offering). Said R.
Saphra : This is not only in accordance with the opinion of the
teacher who says Sabbath is a day for (wearing) phylacteries, but
it is even in accordance with the opinion of the teacher who says
Sabbath is not a day for it ; yet it is not a sin (requiring a sin-
offering). What is the reason ? Because phylacteries are put on
in the same manner as a garment.
" And not with an amulet unless made by a reliable expert."
Said R. Papa : " Do not presume that both the maker and the
amulet must be reliable ; it is sufficient if the maker only is reli
able." This is corroborated by the teaching of the Mishna:
" And not with an amulet that was not made by a reliable expert."
It does not say with a reliable amulet.
The Rabbis taught : Which may be called reliable amulets ?
Such as have cured three times, no matter whether they contained
inscriptions (of mystic forms) or (certain) medicaments. If the
amulet is for a sickness, be it serious or not, or if it is for one

118 THE BABYLONION TALMUD.
afflicted with epilepsy, or only serves as a preventative, one may
fasten or unfasten it even in public ground; but he must not fas
ten the amulet to a bracelet or a finger-ring, and then go out with
it in public ground, lest those who see it think that it is being
worn as an ornament (and not for sanitary reasons). But were
we not taught in a Boraitha that only such amulets as cured three
different parties are reliable ? This presents no difficulty. Here
we are taught as to the reliability of the expert who made the
amulet, while in the latter Boraitha we are taught as to the reli
ability of the amulet itself.
Said R. Papa : It is certain to me that where three different
amulets were given to three different (human) sufferers at three
different times (and a cure was effected), both the amulets and
the expert who made them are reliable. Where three different
amulets were given to three different sufferers only once, the
expert is reliable but not the amulets. Where one and the same
amulet was given to three different sufferers, the amulet is reli
able, but not the expert ; but how is it with three different amu
lets given to one man for three different diseases ? Certainly,
the amulets are not reliable (for each cured only once), but how
is it with the expert ? Should he be considered reliable or not ?
If we say that the expert cured him, perhaps it was only the good
fortune of the sufferer that the amulets cured him ? This ques
tion was not decided.
A question was propounded : Is there any sanctity in an amu
let or not ? For what purpose are we to know this ? In order to
enter a privy ; if there is any sanctity in the amulet this would
not be allowed, otherwise it would.
Come and hear : We have learned in a Mishna : " Not with an
amulet unless made by a reliable expert." From this we see that
if made by a reliable expert one may go out with it. Now, if we
say that there is sanctity in the amulet, how can we say that one
may go out with it ? Perhaps he shall be compelled to enter a
privy, he will have to take it off, and thus be forced to carry it
four ells or more in public ground (hence we see that there is no
sanctity in an amulet).
MISHNA : A woman shall not go out with a pin, nor with a
ring that has a seal, nor with a Kulear, nor with a Kabeleth, nor
with a perfume bottle. If she goes out with these things, she
becomes liable (to bring a sin-offering). Such is the opinion of

TRACT SABBATH. 119
R. Meir. The sages say, for a Kabeleth and perfume bottle she
does not become liable to bring a sin-offering.
GEMARA : Said Ulla : " With men it is (concerning a finger-
ring) just the reverse." That is to say, Ulla is of the opinion that
what is right for women is not right for men, and what is right
for men is not right for women. Said R. J oseph : " Ulla is of
the opinion that women form a class of their own (where a finger-
ring is concerned.") Rabha, however, says it often happens that
a man gives his wife a ring with a seal on, to put away in a box,
and she puts it on her finger until she comes to the box ; again
it happens that a wife gives her husband a ring without a seal for
the purpose of having him give it to a jeweller to repair, and until
he comes to the jeweller he puts it on his finger. Thus it hap
pens that a woman may wear a man's ring and a man a woman's
(temporarily). What is Kabeleth? Cachous (for purifying the breath). The
Rabbis taught : A woman must not go out with a box of cachous,
and if she did so she becomes liable (for a sin-offering). This is
the opinion of R. Meir, but the sages say she should not go out
with it, but if she does she does not become liable. R. Eliezer,
however, says she may go out with it to commence with. Wherein
do they differ ? R. Meir is of the opinion that it is a burden ; the
sages, that it is an ornament ; and the reason that she should not
go out with it is lest she take it off to show to her friends, and
thus perchance carry it in her hand. R. Eliezer, however, per
mits it to be carried to commence with, because, said he, who gen
erally carries cachou boxes ? Women whose breath emits a bad
odor, and surely they will not take them off to show them ; hence,
there is no apprehension that they will carry them four ells or
more on public ground.
We were taught in a Boraitha that a woman must not go out
with a key in her hand, nor with a box of cachous, nor with a
perfume bottle, and if she goes out with them, she is liable (for
a sin-offering). Such is the opinion of R. Meir, but R. Eliezer
says that with a box of cachous and a perfume bottle she does not
become liable ; he says this, however, only when the box contains
cachous and the bottle perfume, but if they are empty, she is
liable (for then it is a burden). Said R. Ada b. Ahaba : " From
this Boraiha it is to be adduced that any one carrying less than
the prescribed amount of food in a vessel on public ground is cul-

120 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
pable (of a sin requiring a sin-offering), for the Boraitha teaches
that a woman becomes liable for going out with an empty cachou
box or perfume bottle, which is equal to a vessel containing less
than the prescribed amount of food (and that is according to the
Boraitha a sin requiring a sin-offering). Said R. Ashi : Generally
I can tell you that in such a case one is not culpable, but here it
is different ; the box and the bottle being empty are considered a
burden. (We read in the Scripture, Amos vi. 6 :) " And anoint them
selves with the costliest of ointments." Said R. Jehudah in the
name of Samuel : " This signifies perfumery."
R. Joseph objected : " R. Jehudah b. Baba said that after the
destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem the sages prohibited even
the use of perfumes, but the Rabbis did not concur in the decree.
If we say perfume used only for pleasure, why did not the Rabbis
concur?" Abayi answered : According to your mode of reasoning,
even drinking wine from bowls (pocals) is prohibited, for it is writ
ten further (ibid., ibid.) : " Those that drink wine from bowls." R.
Ami said, that certainly means pocals, but R. Assi claimed that it
means they clinked glasses one with another. Still Rabba b. R.
Huna once happened to be at the house of the Exilarch and drank
wine out of a pocal, but was not rebuked. It is, therefore, thus to
be understood : The Rabbis restricted only such pleasures as were
combined with rejoicing, but not pleasures unaccompanied with
rejoicing. Said R. Abuha, (others say we were taught in a Boraitha :)
" Three things bring man to poverty : Urinating in front of one's
bed when naked ; carelessness in washing one's hands ; and per
mitting one's wife to curse him in his presence." Said Rabha:
" Urinating in front of one's bed should be understood to signify,
'turning around so as to face the bed and then urinating,' but not
turning in the opposite direction and urinating, and even when
facing the bed it signifies only 'urinating on the floor in front of
the bed and not in a urinal.' Carelessness in washing one's hands
signifies 'not washing one's hands at all,' but not insufficient
washing, for R. Hisda said : " I washed my hands well and plenti
fully and am plentifully rewarded." Permitting one's wife to
curse him in his presence implies 'for not bringing her jewelry,'
and then only when one is able to do so but does not.
Rahava said in the name of R. Jehudah : The trees of Jerusa-

TRACT SABBATH. 121
lem were cinnamon trees, and when used for fuel the odor ex
tended over all the land of Israel ; ever since the destruction of
the second Temple the cinnamon trees disappeared ; but a morsel
as big as a barley-corn is still to be found in the treasury of the
Kingdom of Zimzimai.
MISHNA : A man must not go out with a sword, nor with a
bow, nor with a triangular shield, nor with a round one, nor with
a spear ; if he went out with them, he becomes liable (to bring a
sin-offering). R. Eliezer says they are ornaments to him but the
sages say they are nothing but a stigma, for it is written [Isaiah
ii. 4] : " They shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their
spears into pruning-knives ; nation shall not lift up sword against
nation, neither shall they learn any more war." Knee-buckles are
clean and a man may go out with them on the Sabbath. Stride
chains are liabel to become unclean ; a man must not go out with
them on the Sabbath.
GEMARA : " R. Eliezer says they are ornaments." We
were taught in a Boraitha : They (the sages) said unto R. Eliezer,
if they (the weapons) are ornaments to man, why will they cease
to exist in the post-messianic period ? He answered : " They will
exist then also." This is in accordance with the opinion of Samuel,
who said there will be no difference between the present time and
the post-messianic period save the obedience to temporal poten
tates, for it is written [Deut. xv. 11]: " For the needy will not
cease out of the land."
Said Abayi to R. Dimi, and others say to R. Joseph : What is
the reason of R. Eliezer, who says (weapons) are ornaments ? It
is written [Psalms xiv. 4] : " Gird thy sword upon thy thighs, O
Most Mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty."
Said R. Kahana to Mar, the son of R. Huna : Is not this pas
sage applied to the study of the Law (Thora) ? and he answered :
" Anything may be inferred from a passage, at the same time the
passage must not be deprived of its plain interpretation." Said
R. Kahana : " I am fourscore years old and have studied the six
sections of the Mishna with their explanations through, and did
not know until now that a scriptural passage has first to be inter
preted in its plainest form !" What information does he mean to
convey to us by this assertion ? That man has to study the Law
through first, and then reason upon it.
R. Kahana said : Two scholars who debate in the Law (not for

I22 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
controversy's sake), the Holy One, blessed be He, causes them to
prosper; moreover they become exalted, for it is written [Psalms
xiv. S], "be prosperous." One might say that this would be the
case even if they (debate) not for the purpose (of studying the
Law). Therefore it says further [ibid., ibid.], " because of truth."
Again, one might say that the same would be the case even if one
became arrogant and conceited. Therefore it says further [ibid.,
ibid.], "and meekness and righteousness." If they act thus
(humbly) they will be rewarded with (the knowledge of) the Law,
which was given with the right hand (of God), as it is further
written [ibid.], "and thy right hand shall teach thee fearful
things." R. Nahman says, they will be rewarded with the knowledge
of what is said of the right hand of the Law, for Rabha bar R.
Shila, according to others R. Joseph b. Hama in the name of R.
Shesheth, said : How is to be explained the passage [Proverbs
iii. 1 6] : "Length of days is in her right hand; and in her left
richness and honor" ? Shall one say that in the right hand is only
length of days, but not richness and honor? It is thus to be
understood : For those who study the Thora in the right way there
is long life and a fortiori richness and honor, but for those who
study it not in the right way, richness and honor only may be
given them, but not long life.
Said R. Jeremiah in the name of R. Simeon ben Lakish :
Two scholars who quietly discourse on the Thora among them
selves, the Holy One, blessed be He, hearkens unto them and
listens to their desires ; for it is written [Malachi iii. 16] : " Then
conversed they that fear the Lord one with the other," etc. ; con
versed means conversed quietly, as it is written (in Psalms xlvii. 4 :)
" He will subdue (quiet) people under us." (Subdue and converse
are expressed by the same terms in the two passages, hence the
similitude.)* What should be understood by the words: "that
thought upon His name?" Said R. Ami: "Even when one in
tended to observe a commandment, but was accidentally prevented
and could not accomplish it, it is credited to him, as if he had
actually observed it." Thus the passage " thought upon His name"
is interpreted. * The words conversed and subdue in the two passages are expressed in Hebrew
by " Nidberu " and "Yadber." Both are derived from the root Dibur = to speak
quietly.

TRACT SABBATH. 123
Said R. Hanina b. Ide : " Whosoever observes a commandment
as prescribed, will not be the recipient of bad tidings ; for it is
written [Eccl. viii. 5] "Whoso keepeth the commandment will
experience no evil thing." R. Assi, others say R. Hanina, said:
" Even if the Holy One, blessed be He, has so decreed it (that he
shall experience evil things) the decree is annulled through the
prayers of this man, as it is written [ibid. 4] : 'Because the word of
a king is powerful, and who may say unto him, what doest thou ?
and this immediately followed by the passage : ' Whoso keepeth
the commandment will experience no evil thing.' "
Said R. Aba in the name of R. Simeon ben Lakish : Two
scholars who mutually instruct themselves in the Law, the Holy
One, blessed be He, hearkens to their voices, for it is written
[Song of Solomon, viii. 13]: " Thou that dwellest in the gardens,
the companions listen for Thy voice, Oh, let me hear it;" but if
they do not do so, they cause the Shekhina (glory of God) to move
away from Israel, for further it is written [ibid. 14] : " Flee away,
my beloved," etc.
The same teacher said in the name of the same authority:
" The Holy One, blessed be He, loves two scholars who combine
to study the Law, for it is written [Solomon's Song, ii. 4] : " And
his banner over me was love." Said Rabha : " This is only meant
when they know something of Law, but have no instructor to
teach them at the place where they reside."
The same teacher said again : " The man who lends his money
is more deserving than the charitable man, and the most deserving
of all is he who gives charity surreptitiously or invests money in
partnership (with the poor)." Furthermore he said : " If thy
teacher is jealous (for thy welfare) and as spiteful as a serpent (if
thou neglect thy studies), carry him on thy shoulders (because
from him thou wilt learn), and if an ignoramus plays the pious, do
not live in his neighborhood."
R. Kahana said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish, according
to others R. Assi in the name of the same said : Whoso raises a
vicious dog in his house prevents charity to go out therefrom (for
the poor are afraid to go in), as it is written [Job vi. 14] : "As
though I were one who refuseth kindness to a friend." ("As
though /"were one who refuseth" is expressed in Hebrew by one
word, viz., lamos ; in Greek Xapo<s means dog, and hence R.
* R. Simeon ben Lakish was a Palestinian and knew the Greek language.

124 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
Simeon's* inference.) Said R. Nahman: "He even forsaketh
the fear of the Lord," for it is written at the end of the verse
[ibid, ibid.] : "And forsaketh the fear of the Lord."
Once a woman went into a certain house to bake, and a dog,
through barking at her, caused her to have a miscarriage. Said
the landlord of the house : " Fear him not, I have deprived him of
his teeth and claws;" but the woman answered: "Throw thy
favors to the dogs, the child is already gone !"
Said R. Huna : How is to be explained the passage [Eccl.
xi. 9] : " Rejoice, O young man, in thy childhood, and let thy heart
cheer thee in the days of thy youthful vigor, and walk firmly in the
ways of thy heart and in .the direction in which thy eyes see ; but
know thou that concerning all these things God will bring thee
into judgment." Up to the words "and know" are words of the
misleader, and from there on are words of the good leader. Resh
Lakish said up to " (and) know" the theoretical part of the law is
meant, and from there the good deeds.
" Knee-buckles are clean," etc.
Said R. Jehudah, this (Birith) means arm-bandages. To this
R. Joseph objected: "We have learned that a birith is (virtually)
clean and one may go out with it on the Sabbath. If it is an arm
band how can that be? The latter is subject to defilement." He
(the teacher) means to say that the birith is worn on the same
part of the leg as the arm-bandage on the arm.
Rabhin and R. Huna sat before R. Jeremiah, who slumbered,
and Rabhin said : " A birith is worn on one of the thighs and
kebalim on both shins ;" but R. Huna said both are worn on both
shins, but the chain attached to the birith on both shins is called
kebalim, and the chain makes them a perfect vessel. At this
point of the argument R. Jeremiah awoke and said : " I thank you.
Even so I heard R. Johanan say." Whence the adduction that any
ornament is subject to becoming defiled? From the Tzitz, the
golden plate on the forehead of the High Priest. And whence the
adduction that textile fabrics are also subject to becoming defiled?
From the passage (Lev. xi. 32), "or" raiment, which includes any
textile fabrics whatsoever.
The Rabbis taught : " Any piece of textile fabric or any trifle
of an ornament is subject to becoming defiled;" but how is it with
an article which is half texture and half ornament ? It is also
subject to defilement. As for an ornament which is carried in a

TRACT SABBATH.

125

bag, the bag being of woven material becomes defiled and with it
the ornament, but if the ornament was carried in a piece of cloth,
the cloth remains undefiled. Is a piece of cloth not a textile
fabric ? Yea ; but by that it is meant that the bag, even if not
made of a textile fabric, becomes defiled, because it is attached to
the garment. What is a bag used for ? Said R. Johanan : Poor
people use them for the purpose of putting some trifles in them
and then hang them on the necks of their daughters.
It is written : " And Moses was wroth with the officers of the
host" [Numb. xxxi. 14]. Said R. Nahman in the name of Rabba
b. Abu'ha : " Thus said Moses unto Israel : " Have ye then returned
to your first sin (that ye have let the females live) ?" They an
swered him [ibid. 49] : " Thy servants have taken the sum of the
men of war who have been under our command, and there lacketh
not one man of us" (implying that none had sinned). Said Moses
again : " If such be the case why need ye forgiveness ?" They
answered : " Nay ! We truly have not sinned, but we could not
keep our minds from being bent upon sinning ! We have there
fore [ibid. 50] brought an oblation unto the Lord." From this
the school of Ishmael adduces the following teaching : Why did
the Israelites of that generation require forgiveness? Because
they had feasted their eyes on strange women.
MISHNA : A woman may go out with plaits of hair, be they
made of her own hair or of another woman or of an animal ; with
Totaphoth or Sarbitin if fastened.* With a hood or with a wig in
her yard (private ground) ; with cotton wadding in her ear or in
her shoe ; or with cotton wadding prepared for her menstruation ;
with a grain of pepper or of salt, or with whatever else she may be
accustomed to keep in her mouth, provided she does not put it in
her mouth on the Sabbath to commence with ; if it fell out of her
mouth she must not replace it. As for a metal or golden tooth
Rabbi permits a woman to go out with it, but the sages pro
hibit it.
GEMARA : It has been taught : " Provided a young woman
does not go out with (plaits of hair belonging to) an old woman ;
nor an old woman with plaits of hair belonging to a young woman."
So far as an old woman is concerned, it would be nothing but
right, for the plaits of a young woman would be a source of pride
*See note to preceding Mishna.

126 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
to her (and there is fear of her taking them off to show to others) ;
but why should a young woman be prohibited to go out with
plaits belonging to an old woman? They are a disgrace to her
(and surely she would not take them off for exhibition) ! The
teacher while treating on plaits with respect to an old woman
also makes mention of the case of a young woman (for the sake of
antithesis). " With a hood or a wig in her yard." Said Rabh : " Everything
prohibited by the sages to be worn on public ground must not be
worn in the yard save a hood and a wig." R. Anani b. Sasson in
the name of R. Ishmael said : " Everything may be worn in the yard
like a hood. But why does Rabh discriminate in favor of these
objects?" Said Ulla: "In order that she may not become re
pulsive to her husband."
"And with cotton in her ears or in her shoes." Romi ben
Ezekiel taught only when tied to her ears or her shoes.
"And cotton wadding prepared for her menstruation." "In
this case," said Rabh, " even if it is not tied it may be worn, be
cause, being disgusting, it will not be handled."
R. Johanon went to the Academy with cotton wadding in his
ears on Sabbath, and his colleagues objected to it. R. Jossi went
into unclaimed ground with cotton wadding in his ears, and all of
his contemporaries objected.
"With a grain of pepper or a grain of salt." The former to
take away any bad odor of the breath and the latter as a remedy
for toothache. " Or with whatever else she is accustomed to keep in her
mouth," meaning ginger or cinnamon.
"A metal or a gilt tooth." Rabbi permits and the sages pro
hibit it. Said R. Zera : The difference of opinion only concerns a
gilt tooth, for a silvered tooth is unanimously permitted. This is
also proven by the following Boraitha : A silvered tooth is per
mitted by all, while as to a gilt one Rabbi permits it ; the sages
however prohibit it.
Said Abayi : Rabbi, R. Eliezer, and R. Simeon ben Elazar, all
three agree to the opinion that anything provoking disgust (or
ridicule) a woman will not wear for show. Rabbi's opinion was
just cited. R. Eliezer's is according to his own teaching, that a
woman going out with a box of cachous or a perfume bottle is not
liable (for a sin-offering). R. Simeon ben Elazar's opinion is also

TRACT SABBATH. ,27
according to his own teaching, that anything below the hair-net is
permitted to be worn outside.
MISHNA : Women may go out with a coin fastened to a
swelling on their feet ; little girls may go out with laces on and
even with screws in their ears. Arabian women may go out in
their long veils and Median women in their mantillas ; so, may
even all women go out, but the sages spoke of existing customs.
A woman may fold her mantilla around a stone, nut, or a coin
(used as buttons), provided she does it not especially on the
Sabbath. GEMARA: "Little girls may go out with laces." The
father of Samuel did not permit his daughters to go out with
laces nor to sleep together ; he made bathing-places for them dur
ing the month of Nissan and curtains during the month of Tishri.
" He did not permit them to go out with laces ?" Were we not
taught that girls may go out with laces? The daughters of
Samuel's father wore colored (fancy) laces and (lest they take
them off to show to others) he did not permit them to go out with
them. " Fold her mantilla around a stone, etc." But did not the first
part (of the Mishna) say that she may fold it, etc. ? Said Abayi,
the last part of the Mishna has reference to a coin (which is not
permitted). MISHNA : The cripple may go out with his wooden leg; such
is the decision of R. Meir, but R. Jossi prohibits it. If the wooden
leg has a receptacle for pads it is subject to becoming defiled.
Crutches are subject to defilement by being sat or trodden upon (by
a person suffering with venereal diseases) ; * but he may go out
with them on Sabbath and enter the outer court (of the Temple).
The chair and crutches of a paralytic are subject to becoming de
filed from being sat or trodden upon, and he must not go out with
them on the Sabbath nor enter the outer court (of the Temple).
Stilts are clean (not subject to becoming defiled), but one must
not go out with them on Sabbath.
GEMARA: Rabha said to R. Nahman: "How are we to
accept the teaching of the Mishna ? Did R. Meir permit the crip
ple to go out with a wooden leg on the Sabbath and R. Jossi pro-
* Wherever the expression " becomes defiled by being sat or trodden upon " occurs
in the Talmud it refers to being sat or trodden upon by a person afflicted with vene
real diseases.

128 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
hibit his doing so, or vice versa ? Answered R. Nahman : " I know
not." "Which ordinance should prevail?" Answered R. Nahman
again : " I know not."
" And if it has a receptacle for pads it is subject to becoming
defiled." Abayi said it becomes defiled by coming in contact with
a corpse, but not by being sat or trodden upon ; but Rabba said, it
becomes defiled even by being sat or trodden upon, and he adduced
it from what we were taught elsewhere, that a baby-carriage is sub
ject to defilement by being sat or trodden upon. Answered Abayi :
" In the case of the baby-carriage (the person who defiles it by
sitting or treading upon it) leans upon it, but in the case of the
crutches he does not lean on them. I adduce it from the case of
the staff of an old man, that is not subject to any defilement what
ever." Rabha, however, rejoined, the staff of the old man can
only be used to facilitate walking, while the crutches can also be
leaned upon.
" The chair and crutches of a paralytic are subject to becoming
defiled by being sat or trodden upon, and he must not go out with
them nor enter the outer court (of the Temple)." A teacher
taught before R. Johanan that one may go in with them in the
outer court. Said R. Johanan to him : I teach that a woman may
perform the " Chalitza"* with them (hence they are considered
shoes), and you say he may go in with them to the outer court.
Go and teach the contrary.
MISHNA : Boys may go out with bands and princes with
golden belts ; so may every one else, but the sages adduce their
instances from existing customs.
GEMARA : What kinds of bands ? Said Ada Mari in the
name of R. Nahman b. Baruch, who said in the name of R. Ashi
b. Abhin, who said in the name of R. Jehudah : " Wreaths of Puah
roots." Said Abayi: "My mother told me that three of such
wreaths give relief (in sickness), five of them produce a complete
cure, and seven of them are even proof against witchcraft."
Said R. Aha b. Jacob : " And this only if they (the wreaths)
have never seen sun, moon, or rain ; never heard a hammer fall or
a cock crow or the fall of footsteps."
Said R. Nahman b. Itz'hak : " Thy bread is cast upon the deep"
(meaning the remedy is an impossibility).

* See the law of Chalitza (Deut. xxv. 9) .

TRACT SABBATH. 129
The Rabbis taught : (Women) may go out with a Kutana stone
(to prevent miscarriage) on the Sabbath. It was said in the name
of R. Meir that they may even go out with the counterpoise of a
Kutana stone, and not only such (women) as have already once
miscarried, but even as a preventive to miscarriage, and not only
when a woman is pregnant, but lest she become pregnant and mis
carry. Said R. Jemar b. Shalmia in the name of Abayi : But the
counterpoise must be an exact one and made in one piece.
MISHNA : It is permitted to go out with eggs of grasshop
pers or with the tooth of a fox or a nail from the gallows where a
man was hanged, as medical remedies. Such is the decision of
R. Meir, but the sages prohibit the using of these things even on
week-days, for fear of imitating the Amorites.*
GEMARA : The eggs of grasshoppers as a remedy for tooth
ache ; the tooth of a fox as a remedy for sleep, viz., the tooth of
a live fox to prevent sleep and of a dead one to cause sleep ; the
nail from the gallows where a man was hanged as a remedy for
swelling. "As medical remedies; such is the decision of R. Meir."
Abayi and Rabha both said : " Anything (intended) for a medical
remedy, there is no apprehension of imitating the Amorites ; hence,
if not intended as a remedy there is apprehension of imitating the
Amorites ? But were we not taught that a tree which throws off
its fruit, it is permitted to paint it and lay stones around it ? It is
right only to lay stones around it in order to weaken its strength,
but what remedy is painting it ? Is it not imitating the Amorites ?
(Nay) it is only that people may see it and pray for misericord.
This is proven by the Boraitha: (We adduce) from [Leviticus
xiii. 45 :] " Unclean, unclean, shall he call out," that one must
make his troubles known to his fellow-men, that they may pray
for his relief.
Rabhina said : The hanging up of a cluster of dates on a date
tree (as a sign that the tree throws off its fruit) is in accordance
with the above-mentioned teacher.
If one says, " Kill this cock, for he crowed at night ; or kill this
hen, for she crowed like a cock ; or I will drink and leave a little
over," because of superstition, there is apprehension that he imi-
* See Leviticus xviii. 3 and 30, where the imitating of the customs of the
Canaanites and Amorites is forbidden.
vol. 1. — g

130

THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

tate the Amorites ; but one may put a splinter of " Tuth" or a
piece of glass in a pot, that it may boil the quicker. The sages, how
ever, prohibited pieces of glass as being dangerous. The Rabbis
taught : One may throw a handful of salt in a lamp that it may
burn the brighter, or loam and fragments of earthenware that it
may burn more slowly. The saying "to your health" at wine-
drinking is no imitation of the customs of the Amorites. It hap
pened that R. Aqiba gave a banquet in honor of his son, and at
every cup that he drank he said : " To the wine in the mouth and
to the health of the sages and their disciples."

CHAPTER VII.
THE GENERAL RULE CONCERNING THE PRINCIPAL ACTS OF LABOR
ON SABBATH.
MISHNA : A general rule was laid down concerning the Sab
bath. One who has entirely forgotten the principle of (keeping)
the Sabbath and performed many kinds of work on many Sabbath
days, is not liable to bring but one sin-offering. One who knew the
principle of Sabbath, but (forgetting the day) committed many acts
of labor on Sabbath days, is bound to bring a separate sin-offering
for each and every Sabbath day, (which he has violated). One
who knew that it was Sabbath and performed many kinds of work
on different Sabbath days (not knowing that such work was pro
hibited), is bound to bring a separate sin-offering for every principal
act of labor committed. One who committed many acts all ema
nating from one principal act is not bound to bring but one sin-
offering. GEMARA : What is the reason that the Mishna uses the ex
pression "a general rule"? Shall we assume that it means to
teach us a subordinate rule in the succeeding Mishna, and the
same is the case with the Mishna concerning the Sabbatical year,
where at first a general rule is taught and the subsequent Mishnas
teach a subordinate rule ? Why does the Mishna relating to tithes
teach one rule and the succeeding Mishna another rule, but does
not call the first rule a "general rule" ? Said R. Josiri b. Abhim :
In the Mishnas on Sabbath and the Sabbatical years principal and
minor acts of labor are treated of, but in those relating to tithes
no principal or minor subjects are discussed and hence no general
rule was laid down.
Rabh and Samuel both said : " Even a child that was taken
prisoner by idolators or a proselyte who remained among idolaters
is regarded as one who knew the principle (of keeping) the Sab
bath, but forgot it, and in case of a transgression (of the laws of
Sabbath) is not bound to bring but one sin-offering (for all the
Sabbaths) ; but R. Johanan and Resh Lakish both said that such
is the case only when one was cognizant of the (principle of) Sab-

132 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
bath and forgot about it ; a child in captivity or a proselyte among
idolaters is exempt.
To this an objection was made : We have learned in a Boraitha :
" A general rule was laid down concerning the observation of the
Sabbath. One who had entirely forgotten the principle of keep
ing the Sabbath and had performed many kinds of work on many
Sabbath days, is not bound to bring but one sin-offering. How is
(forgetting the Sabbath) to be understood? A child in captivity
among idolaters and a proselyte remaining with idolaters who had
performed many acts of labor on different Sabbaths are not in
duty bound to bring but one sin-offering. This is even the case
when they had eaten blood or (prohibited) fats, or had practised
idolatry ; only one sin-offering need be brought for the entire time
(of the captivity or the sojourn respectively) for each of the three
sins (enumerated). Munbaz, however, exempts them entirely, for
thus he decreed before R. Aqiba : Since the intentional transgres
sor and the unintentional are both called sinners, the conclusion is
that both are cognizant of their guilt (but the child and the pros
elyte, never having been in a position to know the principle of
Sabbath, cannot be called sinners). Said R. Aqiba to him : "I
will make an amendment to your decree ; say, even as the inten
tional transgressor is cognizant of his guilt at the time of action,
so also is the unintentional transgressor cognizant of his guilt at
the time of action" Answered Munbaz : " So it is and the more
so after your amendment." Thereupon R. Aqiba replied: "Ac
cording to your reasoning, one could not be called an unintentional
transgressor but an intentional" (yet the Scriptures speak of an
unintentional transgressor).
Now, we see from the Boraitha that a child and a proselyte
are (bound to bring a sin-offering). This is only right in the
opinion of Rabh and Samuel, but not according to the opinion of
R. Johanan and R. Simeon ben Lakish ! (This presents no diffi
culty, for) it can be said that the two latter hold with Munbaz. For
what reason, however, does Munbaz exempt them ? It is written
[Numb. xv. 29] : " A law shall be for you, for him that acteth
through ignorance," and the next verse says [ibid. 30], "but the
person that doeth aught with a high hand." He (Munbaz) com
pares the unintentional transgressor to the intentional ; even as the
intentional transgressor is cognizant (of guilt), so also must the
unintentional transgressor be cognizant (of some guilt).

TRACT SABBATH. 133
Another objection was made: We were taught in a Mishna:
Forty less one are the principal acts of labor (prohibited on the
Sabbath). We then ask of what good is the (mentioning) of the
number? (Are they not enumerated?) R. Johanan answered, if
one performed them all through forgetfulness, he is in duty bound
to bring a separate sin-offering for each act performed. How is such
a thing (as utter forgetfulness) to be imagined ? We must assume
that although cognizant of the (day being) Sabbath, one forgot
which acts of labor (were prohibited). This would only be in
accord with R. Johanan, whose decree reads : " If one is ignorant
of what acts of labor constitute (sin punishable with) Koroth (being
'cut off'), and commits one of those acts even intentionally, he is
only bound to bring a sin-offering." Hence we must imagine the
above-cited instance to be a case of one, who knew that those
acts of labor were prohibited on the Sabbath, at the same time not
knowing that they were acts which involved the punishment of
Koroth. But how shall we understand the opinion of R. Simeon
ben Lakish, who holds that one must be totally ignorant, both of
the acts involving the punishment of Koroth as well as of what
acts are prohibited on Sabbath, in order to be bound to bring only
a sin-offering ? What then did he know of the principle of Sab
bath ? He only knew of the law governing the going outside of
the boundaries of the city.
But who is the Tana that holds with the following Boraitha ?
The Scriptural passage, "Him that acteth through ignorance,"
refers to one who was ignorant both of the (principle of) Sabbath
and the prohibition of the acts of labor. One who was cognizant
of both is referred to by the Scriptures as " the person that doeth
aught with a high hand." If one, however, was cognizant of the
(principle of) Sabbath, but not of the prohibition of the acts of
labor, or vice versa, or even if he knew that the acts of labor were
prohibited, but did not know that they involved culpability requir
ing a sin-offering, (while he is not the Scriptural man " that acteth
through ignorance") still he is culpable of a transgression requir
ing a sin-offering. That Tana's opinion agrees with Munbaz's
teaching of the preceding Boraitha.
Said R. Huna : One who has been travelling in a desert and
does not know what day is Sabbath must count six days from the
day (on which he realizes) that he has missed the Sabbath, and ob
serve the seventh. Hyya b. Rabh said, he must observe that very

i34 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
day and then continue his counting from that day. What is the
cause of the dissension between the two teachers ? The former
holds that one must act in accordance with the creation (which
commenced six days before the Sabbath), while the latter holds
that one must be guided by Adam's creation (on the eve of Sab
bath). An objection was made : " If a man while travelling in a
desert forgot when the Sabbath arrives, he must count 'one day to
six' and then observe the seventh, does this not mean he must
count six days and then observe the seventh?" Nay; he must ob
serve that very day and continue his counting from that day. If
this be the case, why are we taught " he must count one to six" ?
Let it be taught (plainly) he must observe a day and continue
counting from that day ! Moreover, we were taught in a Boraitha :
" If one while travelling in the desert forgot when the Sabbath
arrives, he must count six days and observe the seventh." The
objection to R. Hyya b. Rabh is sustained.
Rabha said (referring to the traveller who forgot the Sabbath) :
" On every day, except the one on which he realizes that he has
missed the Sabbath, he may perform enough labor to sustain him
self." But on that should do nothing! and die (of hunger)?
Nay ; only in case he provided himself with his necessaries on the
preceding day. Perhaps the preceding day was Sabbath. In that
event he may labor even on that day to sustain himself. In what
respects is that day then to be distingushed from other days ? By
means of Kiddush and Habhdalah.*
Said Rabha again : " If he only recollects the number of days
he has been travelling, he may labor all day on the eighth day of his
journey, at all events" (for he surely did not start on his journey
on a Sabbath). Is this not self-evident? Nay; it might be said
that one would not only not start out on the Sabbath, but also not
on the day before Sabbath; hence, if he went out on the fifth day of
the week, he is permitted to work on both the eighth and ninth
days of his journey. We are informed, however, that only on the
eighth day of his journey would he be permitted to work, for fre
quently one comes upon a caravan on Friday and starts out even on
that day.
" One who has entirely forgotten the principle of (keeping) the

* Kiddush and Habhdalah are the benedictions recited at the commencement and
termination of the Sabbath, the former over wine or bread and the latter only over
some beverage.

TRACT SABBATH.

[3S

Sabbath." Whence the adduction? Said R. Nahman in the
name of Rabba b. Abuha : " From two passages in the Scriptures,
viz. [Exod. xxxi. 16] : And the children of Israel shall keep
the Sabbath,' and [Lev. xix. 3] : 'And my Sabbaths shall ye
keep.' How is this to be explained?" "And the children of
Israel shall keep the Sabbath" means the observance of the com
mandment of Sabbath generally, and " My Sabbaths shall ye keep"
means one observance of the commandment for each Sabbath.
" One who knew (the principle of) Sabbath." What is the
reason of a difference between the former and the latter part of
the Mishna? Said R. Nahman: For what transgression do the
Scriptures bind one to bring a sin-offering? For what is done
through ignorance? In the former part of the Mishna the case
of one who was not aware that it was Sabbath is dealt with, and
hence only one sin-offering is imposed, while in the latter the case
dealt with is of one who was aware that it was Sabbath but ignorant
as to the acts of labor, hence a sin-offering for each act is pre
scribed. " Bound to bring a sin-offering for every principal act of labor
committed." Whence the adduction for the distinction between
acts of labor? Said Samuel: From the passage [Exod. xxxi. 14J :
" Every one that defileth it shall be surely put to death," and the
Scriptures have provided many deaths * for defiling the Sabbath.
But this passage refers to one who defileth the Sabbath wantonly.
There is no use to apply it to a wanton defiler of the Sabbath, for
it is written in another passage [Exod. xxxv. 2] : " Whosoever doth
work thereon shall be put to death ;" therefore apply it to an un
intentional sinner ! How then will you explain the words " put
to death" ? That is only the pecuniary equivalent (of being
put to death) (viz. he shall bring a sin-offering which costs
money.) Why not advance the distinction between the acts of
labor, as R. Nathan (does elsewhere) ? Samuel is not of the opin
ion of R. Nathan but of R. Jossi, who says that the additional
commandment not to kindle a fire on the Sabbath was taught ad
ditionally for the special purpose of conveying to us that one who
does kindle a fire is not to be punished either with Koroth or
stoning ; for we were taught in a Boraitha : The additional com-
*The literal translation of the passage Exod. xxxi. 14 is: " Every one that de
fileth it [the Sabbath] many deaths shall he die."

136 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
mandment not to kindle a fire on the Sabbath was taught addi
tionally for the special purpose of conveying to us that one who
kindles a fire on the Sabbath is not to be punished either with
Koroth or stoning. Such is the opinion of R. Jossi. R. Nathan
says it is written for the sake of separation (from other acts). Let
then the separation of acts of labor be adduced whence R. Jossi
adduces them ; for we were taught in a Boraitha : R. Jossi explains
the passage [Lev. iv. 2], "And do (of) any (one) of them," as
follows : Sometimes one is only bound to bring one sin-offering
for all transgressions, and sometimes one is bound to bring a sin-
offering for each and every transgression separately.
Said R. Jossi b. Hanina: "Why does R. Jossi explain that
passage thus? The verse should read 'one of them' (Achath
mehenoh), but in reality it reads 'of one of them' (Meachath
mehenoh), or it should read 'of one them' (Meachath henoh), but
it reads 'of one of them.' Therefore he explains that 'sometimes
one is equal to many and sometimes many equal one.' " *
Rabha asked of R. Nahman : " How is it if one is ignorant of
both (of the day being Sabbath and the prohibition of the acts of
labor on that day) ? Answered R. Nahman : " Take one instance
at a time. You say he was ignorant of the day being Sabbath ;
then he is bound to bring a sin-offering. How would it be if on
the contrary I had said that he was ignorant of the prohibition of
the acts of labor first? Would you say that he becomes liable to
bring a sin-offering for each and every act performed?" Said R.
Ashi : " Let us see from the man's actions. How would it be if
one came to him and reminded him of its being Sabbath (without
calling his attention to the fact that he was working) ? If the
man immediately stopped his work, it is clear that he had actually
forgotten that it was Sabbath. If, however, the man was reminded
by a third party that he was working (without having his attention
called to the fact that it was Sabbath) and he immediately quit
his work, it is evident that he was not cognizant of the prohibition
of the acts of labor ; hence he would become liable to bring a sin-
offering for each and every act performed. Said Rabhina to R.
Ashi : " What difference does it make ? If one is reminded that it
is Sabbath and he quits work, he becomes aware that it is Sabbath,

* In that passage there is a superfluous Mem (the Hebrew prefix meaning of or
from). Hence its literal translation is "of one of them."

TRACT SABBATH.

i37

and if he is reminded of his working he also becomes aware that
the day is Sabbath; hence it makes no difference."
Rabha said (supposing the following case happened) : " One
reaped and ground the equivalent (in size) of a fig on a Sabbath,
without knowing that it was Sabbath, and on another Sabbath did
the same thing, knowing it was Sabbath, but not knowing that
such acts of labor were prohibited ; then remembered that he had
committed a transgression on the Sabbath through ignorance of
the day being Sabbath, and took a sheep and set it aside for a sin-
offering. Suddenly he recollected that he had also committed a
transgression on the other Sabbath, through his ignorance of the
prohibition of the acts of labor. What would the law be in such a
case ? I can say that the sheep set aside for a sin-offering for the
first transgression suffices also for the second, although in reality
two sin-offerings were required to atone for the second transgres
sion. The one sin-offering would suffice, because it is in truth
not brought for forgetting the Sabbath, but for reaping and grind
ing ; the reaping in the first instance carries with it the reaping
in the second, as also the grinding in the first instance carries with
it the grinding in the second, and one sin-offering atones for all.
Assuming, however, that in the second instance (when he for
got about the prohibition of the acts of labor) he (at some later
time) recollected only having reaped (but forgot that he also
ground), and having set aside the sin-offering he became liable for
on account of his transgression in the first instance (when he for
got about the Sabbath), he atones for the reaping and grinding on
the first Sabbath and for the reaping on the second Sabbath, but
not for the grinding on the second Sabbath ; hence (after also rec
ollecting that he had ground) he must bring an additional sin-
offering." Abayi, however, says : The one sin-offering atones for
all, because the grinding, which he atones for in the first instance,
also carries with it the grinding in the second instance. Why so ?
For the reason that in both instances the acts atoned for are anal
ogous. (When a sin-offering was brought, a confession was made.
In citing the sin committed in the first instance grinding was men
tioned and applies also to the grinding in the second instance.
Therefore no additional sin-offering is necessary.
We have learned : If one has eaten tallow (which is prohibited)
on two different occasions, and at both times the tallow was the
equivalent (in size) of an olive (or larger) ; and afterward he was

138 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
reminded of the first occasion and later on of the second occasion
also, what is the law in his case? R. Johanan says, he must bring
two sin-offerings. Why so ? Because he recollected the trans
gressions at different times. Resh Lakish says, he need bring
only one sin-offering. What is R. Johanan's reason? Because it
is written [Lev. iv. 28], " For his sin, which he hath committed,"
and he adduces therefrom that for every sin committed one must
bring a separate sin-offering, but Resh Lakish holds according to the
passage [ibid. 26], " Concerning his sin and it shall be forgiven
him," and claims that it being one and the same sin, only one sin-
offering is sufficient. But what will Resh Lakish do with the verse,
" For his sin which he hath committed" ? That refers to the sin-
offering which had already been brought and therefore could not
apply to a later sin. And what about R. Johanan and the passage
" Concerning his sin and it shall be forgiven" ? R. Johanan ex
plains this as follows : If a man ate tallow equivalent (in size) to
an olive and a half, and later ate another piece the size of half an
olive. Afterward he recollected having eaten tallow but thought
that it was the size of one olive, might some not say that the re
maining piece eaten in the first instance should be added to the
piece eaten in the second instance, and thus constitute another
piece the equivalent (in size) to an olive, and one thus becomes
liable to bring another sin-offering ? Therefore the passage says :
" Concerning his sin and it was forgiven him." After once having
obtained forgiveness for the transgression on the first occasion the
second cannot be counted in with the first.
We have learned : If one intended to pick up something not at
tached to the ground (for instance, a knife, that had fallen in a row
of vegetables), and while doing so (accidentally) cut off one of the
growing vegetables, he is not culpable.* If one intended to cut
*In the Tract Kritoth the reason of the man's non-culpability is explained as fol
lows: It is written [Lev. iv.23], " If now his sin wherein he has sinned come to his
knowledge, ' ' and this should be supplemented with ' ' but not the sin which he had not
in mind to commit at all." Whence we see plainly that the Scriptures designate as an
unintentional sinner only one who knows wherein he has sinned, for instance, if he
became aware that it was Sabbath, or that the acts performed by him were prohibited.
In our case, however, where a man intended to pick up a thing but accidentally cut
a thing, it is .evident that no intention to cut existed in the man's mind, and the intent
of the '•wherein he has sinned" in the Scriptures does not apply to him. Rabha
goef further and says that even if one actually accomplished an act he had in mind
and which was permissible on the Sabbath, but at the same time accidentally com
mitted a prohibited act (as illustrated in the above instance), even in such a case the

TRACT SABBATH. i39
something lying on (but not attached to) the ground, and instead
cut off something growing out of (attached to) the ground, Rabha
declares him not culpable, because no intention to cut off the grow
ing object existed in the mind of the man ; but Abayi declares him
culpable for the reason that, while the man did not intend to cut
off what he really did, still the intention to cut was prevalent
in the man's mind and he really did cut ; hence he is what the
Scriptures refer to as "one who acteth unintentionally."
Again we have learned: One who intended to throw (from
private ground into public) only for a distance of two ells, but
threw four, is held by Rabha to be not culpable, for the reason that
the original intention was to throw within a permissible distance
(throwing for a distance of two ells only was permitted) ; but
Abayi held him culpable, for the reason that the act originally in
tended was accomplished. If one threw in public ground mistak
ing it for private, Rabh holds him not culpable (for the same rea
son as before), and Abayi holds him culpable (also for the same
reason as he gave in the previous case). Both instances though
analogous are necessary : In the first instance (of cutting) where
Rabh holds the offender not culpable, the intention to cut off what
was prohibited did not exist, but in the second instance (throwing
four ells) it could not be accomplished without (carrying out the
intention of) throwing for two ells, and passing the two ells (the
object landing at a distance of four). Now, lest one might say
that Rabha coincides with the opinion of Abayi and from the latter
instance it might be assumed that the offender intended to throw
two but threw four ells, hence Rabha holds him not culpable, for
the intention to throw four ells did not exist ; but if one threw
four ells in what he thought was private ground, and which turned
out to be public ground, the intention was carried out, for the
object thrown reached its desired destination, and therefore lest
one say that in this case Rabha coincides with Abayi, the two in
stances are illustrated, and we are informed that not even in this
case does Rabha agree with Abayi.
MISHNA : The principal acts of labor (prohibited on the Sab
bath) are forty less one, viz. : Sowing, ploughing, reaping, binding
into sheaves, threshing, winnowing, fruit-cleaning, grinding, sift-
scriptural ' ' wherein he has sinned ' ' cannot apply, nor can he be accounted the
scriptural unintentional sinner who is liable for a sin-offering. Abayi, however, differs
with him, as will be seen further on.

140 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
ing, kneading, baking, wool-shearing, bleaching, combing, dyeing,
spinning, warping, making two spindle-trees, weaving two threads,
separating two threads (in the warp), tying a knot, untying a
knot, sewing on with two stitches, tearing in order to sew together
with two stitches, hunting deer, slaughtering the same, skinning
them, salting them, preparing the hide, scraping the hair off, cut
ting it, writing two (single) letters (characters), erasing in order
to write two letters, building, demolishing (in order to rebuild),
kindling, extinguishing (fire), hammering, transferring from one
place into another. These are the principal acts of labor — forty
less one.
GEMARA : For what purpose is the number (so distinctly)
given ? (They are enumerated !) Said R. Johanan : If one labored
through total ignorance of the (laws governing the) Sabbath, he
must bring a sin-offering for every act of labor performed.
" Sowing, ploughing." Let us see : Ploughing being always
done before sowing, let it be taught : Ploughing, sowing ! The
teacher (who taught as in Mishna) is a Palestinian, and in his
country they sow first and then plough. Some one taught that
sowing, pruning, planting, transplanting, and grafting is all one
and the same kind of labor. What would he inform us thereby?
That if one performs many acts of labor, all of the same class, he
becomes liable to bring only one sin-offering.
Said R. Aha in the name of R. Hyya b. Ashi, who said in the
name of R. Ami : " One who prunes is guilty of planting, and one
who plants, transplants, or grafts is guilty of sowing." Of sowing
and not of planting ? I mean to say of sowing also.
Said R. Kahana : One who prunes and used the branches for
fuel is bound to bring two sin-offerings, one for reaping and one
for planting. Said R. Joseph ; One who mows alfalfa (hay) is
guilty of mowing and planting both. Said Abayi : One who mows
clover hay (which sheds its seed when mowed) is liable (for a sin-
offering) or mowing and sowing.
" Ploughing." It was taught : Ploughing, digging, furrowing
is one and the same kind of labor. Said R. Shesheth : One who
removes a knoll of earth in a house becomes liable for building, and
if in a field he is liable for ploughing. Rabha said : Filling up a
hole in the house makes one liable for building and in the field for
ploughing. R. Aba said : Digging (the same hole) on Sabbath for
the purpose of making use of the earth alone, does not make one

TRACT SABBATH. 141
liable for digging. This is so even according to the opinion of R.
Jehuda, who holds that even the performance of an unnecessary
act of labor makes one culpable. He refers to labor that improves
an object and not to that which spoils it.
" Mowing." Some one taught : Reaping, vintaging, selecting
dates, olives, and figs are all one and the same kind of labor.
"Binding into sheaves." Rabh said: One who gathers salt
from salt works is guilty of the act of binding into sheaves. Abayi,
however, said that binding into sheaves applies only to produce of
the soil.
" Threshing." We were taught : Threshing, carding, and
hucking belong to one and the same class of labor.
"Threshing, winnowing, fruit-cleaning, grinding, and sifting."
Is not winnowing, fruit-cleaning, and sifting one and the same class
of labor ? Abayi and Rabha both answered : " Acts of labor ex
ecuted during the construction of the Tabernacle are enumerated
separately, though they are of an analogous nature." Let pound
ing then also be included (as labor, being that the spices for in
cense had to be pounded). Answered Abayi : " (It is true ! This
is also one of the acts of labor performed at the construction of
the Tabernacle.) But as the poor people do not pound their grain,
generally using it in its natural state, it is not included in the
prinicipal acts of labor. Rabha, however, said : " The Mishna
should be understood in the sense Rabbi expounded it : The
principal acts of labor are forty less one. Should pounding
be included there would be forty even." Let then one of the
principal acts (enumerated in the Mishna) be stricken out and
substituted by pounding! Hence it is best to accept Abayi's
reason. The rabbis taught : If there are several kinds of food before
a man on the Sabbath, he may select such as he desires and even
set it aside, but he must not separate the good from the spoilt. If
he does this, he becomes liable to bring a sin-offering. How is
this to be understood ? R. Hamnuna explained it thus : " One
may select the good from the spoilt for immediate or later con
sumption, but he must not pick out the spoilt, leaving the good for
later consumption. If he does this, he becomes liable (for a sin-
offering)." To this Abayi opposed: "Is there anything men
tioned (in the Mishna) about separating the good from the spoilt ?"
He therefore explained the Boraitha as follows : " Food may be

i42 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
selected for immediate consumption and setting aside, but not for
later consumption. If this is done, it is considered the same as
storing it and involves the liability of bringing a sin-offering."
This was reported to Rabha by the rabbis and he said : Na'hmeni
(Abayi) has explained it correctly.
When two kinds of food were before a man and he selected
part of one kind and ate it, then selected part of the other kind
and set it aside, R. Ashi learned in the Boraitha that the man is
not culpable, but R. Jeremiah, of Diphta, learned that he is culpa
ble. How can R. Ashi learn that he is not culpable, when the
Boraitha teaches that he is ? This presents no difficulty. R.
Ashi refers to food served in a basket or a bowl, but R. Jeremiah
learned that the man sifted the food in a sieve.
When R. Dimi came to Babylon he related : It happened on a
Sabbath, when R. Bibhi's turn came to entertain the disciples,
that R. Ami and R. Assi arrived. R. Bibhi placed before them
a basket filled with fruit (together with the leaves and sprigs).
What was his reason ? Was he of the opinion that it is forbid
den to separate food from trash, or was it his liberality ? I can
not tell.
'Hezkyah said: "One who shells pressed lupines (on the
Sabbath) is culpable." Does this mean to say that it is for
bidden to separate food from trash ? Nay ; there is quite a differ
ence where pressed lupines are concerned ; they must be scalded
just seven times and immediately shelled, for if they are not im
mediately shelled they become putrid ; therefore to shell them is
equal to separating trash from good food.
" Grinding." Said R. Papa : To chop beets is the same as to
grind. Splitting wood for kindling is the same as grinding. Said
R. Ashi : Splitting leather is the same class of work as cutting
by measure (if he is particular about it).
" Kneading, baking." R. Pappa said : " The Tana of the Mishna
omitted the cooking of spices that took place in the Tabernacle
and instead of that taught about baking." It is because the
Tana follows the order of baking (first comes kneading, then bak
ing, and cooking is included in the latter).
" Wool-shearing, bleaching." Said Rabba bar bar Hana in the
name of R. Johanan : Spinning wool from a live animal on the
Sabbath is a (transgression) involving the liability of three sin-
offerings ; one for shearing, one for carding, and one for spinning.

TRACT SABBATH. 143
R. Kahana said, however, this is not the way shearing, carding
and spinning is done (hence he is not at all culpable).
If one plucked quills, cut off their tops, and singed them on
both sides, the rabbis taugh that he is guilty of a transgression
requiring three sin-offerings.
"Tying, untying." What kind of tying and untying was
done at the construction of the Tabernacle ? Rabha, others say
R. Ilayi, said: This is the way of the (snail) fishers; to untie
their nets from one load and tie them on another.
" Sewing on with two stitches." But two stitches do not hold
(hence it can not be called work) ? Said Rabba bar bar Hana in
the name of R. Johanan, Provided two knots are made, one at each
end. "Tearing in order to sew together with two stitches." Was
there any tearing done at the Tabernacle ? Both Rabba and R.
Zera said : When a curtain became moth-eaten, they tore out the
moth-eaten part and sewed it together.
R. Zutra b. Tobiah in the name of Rabh said : " To rip a seam
on the Sabbath is (a transgression) requiring a sin-offering; to
learn from a magician is a sin involving capital punishment ; one
who knows the science of astronomy and does not make use of it,
is not worth being spoken of." What is a magician? Rabh says
a "wizard." Samuel says a "blasphemer." R. Simeon ben Pazi
in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi said : Whoever knows the
science of astronomy and does not practise it is the party alluded
to in Isaiah v. 12 : "But the deeds of the Lord they regard not
and the works of his hands they behold not." Said Samuel bar
Na'hmeni in the name of R. Jonathan : " Whence the adduction
that we are bound to learn astronomy?" From the passage (Deut.
iv. 6 :) " Keep, therefore, and do them, for this is your wisdom
and your understanding before the eyes of the nations." What
kind of wisdom is before the eyes of the nations ? You must say
that is astronomy.
"Hunting deer." The rabbis taught: To catch a snail and
squeeze it so that it bleed is a transgression involving only a sin
offering. R. Jehuda says, involving two sin-offerings, for R.
Jehuda holds that squeezing comes in the class of threshing, but
the rabbis told him that squeezing is not threshing. What reason
do the rabbis give for their opinion ? Said Rabha, Their reason
is that threshing can only be applied to produce of the soil.

144 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
"Slaughtering." What sin is committed by slaughtering?
Rabh said, "dyeing the throat," and Samuel said, "taking life."
Said Rabh : " I said something which may seem absurd, and so
as to prevent future generations from deriding me I will give a
reason for what I said: Butchers are in the habit of coloring
the throat of the carcasses with blood, in order that people may
see (that the meat is still fresh) and be induced to buy."
" Salting the hide, preparing the hide." Is not salting a hide
preparing it ? Both R. Johanan and Resh Lakish said : " Strike
out one of them in the Mishna and substitute it with 'marking.' "
"Scraping the hair off, cutting the hide." Said R. Aha bar
Hanina : To polish a floor on the Sabbath is a transgression of the
same order as scraping off the hair of the hide. Said R. Hyya
bar Abba : R. Ashi told me three things in the name of R. Joshua
ben Levy : Sawing rafters on the Sabbath (that they may be equal
in size and pointed) makes one guilty the same as "cutting."
Daubing a plaster on a piece of cloth makes one liable the same as
"scraping hair off." Smoothing a stone makes one culpable
of "hammering." R. Simeon ben Kisma in the name of R.
Simeon ben Lakish, said : Painting pictures on vessels or blowing
out glassware makes one culpable the same as hammering. R.
Jehudah said : Removing a border from cloth also makes one as
culpable as hammering ; but only in case one is particular about
having the border remain on his cloth.
"Writing two letters." The rabbis taught: "If one wrote
one large letter instead of two small ones, he is not guilty of any
transgression ; .but to erase a large letter, in the place of which
two small letters can be written, is a transgression involving the
liability of a sin-offering (for the erasing is done with the intent
to write and two small letters are evidently needed). Said R.
Mena'hem b. Jossi : " This is the only case where the law is
stricter with erasing than with writing.
" Building, demolishing, extinguishing, kindling a fire, ham
mering." Both Rabba and R. Zera said: All work which is done
in the last stages is considered the same as hammering (which is
generally the finishing work).
"These are the principal acts of labor." "These" to exclude
those which R. Eliezer taught involve the liability of a sin-
offering, even if coming within the class of a principal act of
labor.

TRACT SABBATH. I4S
Less one to exclude the work mentioned by R. Jehudah in the
following Boraitha : R. Jehudah adds to the chief acts of labor
also the extension of the warp or the woof ; but the rabbis said,
extending the warp is included in warping and extending the woof
is included in weaving.
MISHNA : Another rule they (the sages) laid down : Whoso
ever carries out on the Sabbath such things as are fit and proper
to be stored and in such quantity as is usually stored, becomes
liable to bring a sin-offering ; but whatever is not fit and proper
to be stored, nor in such a quantity as is generally stored, only
he who would also store this becomes liable to bring a sin-offering
for carrying it about.
GEMARA: "Whatever is not fit and proper." Said R.
Elazar : The latter part of the Mishna is not in accordance with
the opinion of R. Simeon b. Elazar, for we were taught in a
Boraitha : " A rule was laid down by R. Simeon b. Elazar, that
all which is not fit and proper to be stored nor in such a quantity
as is generally stored, if held by one man to be fit and proper for
storage and in a sufficient quantity, should be carried out by an
other man ; the latter becomes liable to bring a sin-offering, for in
the former man's mind it is a thing of value."
MISHNA : It is forbidden to carry about chopped straw in
quantities of a cow's mouthful, stalks in quantities of a camel's
mouthful, stubble in quantities of a lamb's mouthful, herbs in
quantities of a kid's mouthful, leek and onion leaves, if fresh,
equal in size to a dried fig and if dry in quantities of a kid's
mouthful. The different kinds of fodder are, however, not to be
counted together, as the fixed quantities are not equal for all.
GEMARA: "Chopped straw." What kind of chopped straw ?
Pease stalks. When Rabhin came to Babylon he said thus :
There is no diversity of opinion concerning the carrying out of
straw in quantities of a cow's mouthful for a camel. One doing
this is bound to bring a sin-offering, it being more than the pre
scribed quantity ; but there is a diversity of opinion concerning
the carrying out of stalks (which is not fit food for a cow) in
quantities of a cow's mouthful for a cow. R. Johanan says it is
no transgression, but Resh Lakish says it is and involves the
liability of a sin-offering. R. Johanan is of the opinion that unfit
food cannot be regarded as nutrition ; therefore (no work being
accomplished) it constitutes no transgression. Resh Lakish, how-
VOL. I. — IO

146 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
ever, is of the opinion that even unfit food is nutrition and hence
a transgression is committed.
" Stubble in quantities of a lamb's mouthful." But were we
not taught elsewhere equal in size to a dried fig ? Both quantities
are equal.
" Leek and onion leaves if fresh, etc." Said R. Jossi b.
Hanina : Inferior food is not to be counted in with superior (in
order to make out the prescribed quantity). Superior food, how
ever, may be counted with the inferior (in order to complete the
prescribed quantity).
MISHNA : The carrying out of an article of food equal in size
to a dried fig constitutes a transgression involving the liability of
a sin-offering. Different kinds of food may be counted together,
for the prescribed quantity is the same for all kinds, with the ex
ception of husks, kernels, and stalks ; likewise bran, both coarse
and fine. R. Jehudah says that the husks of lentils are not ex
cepted, because they are boiled with the lentils and are counted in
the same (as food).
GEMARA : " Except bran both fine and coarse." Is not fine
as well as coarse bran to be counted in (the same as food) ? Were
we not taught concerning the separation of the first dough, that
one is bound to separate the first dough made of flour mixed with
its fine or coarse bran ? Answered Abayi : " This is no contradic
tion. Poor people only generally use such mixed flour, (when Sab
bath is concerned something possessing real value is always
spoken of)."
" R. Jehudah says, that the husks of lentils are not excepted, be
cause they are boiled with the lentils." Husks of lentils only and
not of beans ? Were we not taught in a Boraitha that R. Jehudah
said, "husks of beans and lentils"? This presents no difficulty.
The Mishna refers to husks of new lentils and the Boraitha refers
to old lentils and beans. R. Abuha said : Because they (the
husks of lentils and beans) are black and when dished up look like
flies in a bowl (they are not eaten with the food and therefore are
not counted in).

CHAPTER VIII.
REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE PRESCRIBED QUANTITIES OF
VICTUALS AND BEVERAGES WHICH MUST NOT BE CARRIED
ABOUT ON THE SABBATH.
MISHNA : The prescribed quantities (of victuals and bever
ages) prohibited to be carried about on the Sabbath (are as fol
lows) : Sufficient wine in a goblet, which with the addition of a
certain quantity of water would make a full goblet of wine (fit to
drink) ; * milk to the quantity of a mouthful, honey sufficient to
cover a wound with, oil sufficient to anoint a small limb with, and
water in quantities sufficient for a medical bath for the eyes. For
all other liquids the prescribed quantity is a quarter of a lug (un
known measure, probably a quart). R. Simeon says, the prescribed
quantities for the liquids enumerated in this Mishna are also a
quarter of a lug, and the various prescribed quantities specified
apply only to those who store such liquids.
GEMARA : We were taught in a Boraitha : " Carrying about
wine sufficient to fill a proper goblet by addition of a certain
quantity of water (is prohibited)." What kind of a goblet may be
called a proper goblet. The goblet used in benedictionf after
meals. R. Nahman in the name of R. Abuha said : " A goblet used at
benediction after meals must contain no less than a fourth of a
quarter lug (of pure wine), so that when mixed with water the
prescribed quantity (a quarter lug) will be made." Said Rabha:
We have also been taught this in the Mishna : " Sufficient wine
in a goblet, which with addition of water would make a full goblet"
— commented on by the Boraitha to mean " which would make a
proper goblet." From the close of the Mishna we learn : " For all
other liquids the prescribed quantity is a quarter of a lug."
* The wines used in Palestine were so strong that they had to be mixed with
water in order to make them fit to drink.
t At the benediction after meals a goblet possessing certain qualities and which is
called a goblet of benediction must be used, as ordained in the Tract Benedictions.
M7

i48 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
Rabha's reason for this is, that, according to his principle, wine
which is not strong enough to be mixed with three parts of water
(to one of the wine) cannot be called wine at all. Said Abayi :
" There are two objections to this : Firstly, we have taught in a
Mishna, that wine fit to drink is such as has been mixed with two
thirds water, like the wine of Sharon; secondly, water in the
pitcher (intended for mixing with the wine) must be counted in
(with the wine and is not permitted to be carried about)." Why
should this be forbidden? (The mixture has not yet taken
place, hence there is as yet no prescribed quantity?) Rabha
answered: The objection raised concerning "two-thirds water to
one-third of Sharon wine" does not hold good. Sharon wine is
not a very strong wine, or should I assume that the Mishna (cited)
has reference to color (then two-thirds is right), but wine for con
sumption must be mixed with three-fourths water. As to the
second objection, concerning "water in the pitcher must be
counted in," it must be assumed that (where acts of carrying on
the Sabbath are considered) the quality or value of a thing is the
more important consideration than the quantity, and in this case
the quantity of the wine in the goblet, though only in fact a
quarter of the goblet, is equal in quantity to a full goblet of ordi
nary wine, on account of its quality, and it makes no difference
whether the water in the pitcher had already been added or
not. We were taught in a Boraitha that the prescribed quantity for
the extract of wine is the size of an olive. So said R. Nathan.
The rabbis taught : The prescribed quantity for animal milk
is the equivalent of a mouthful ; for human milk and the white of
an egg, as much as is used for the preparation of a salve for a sore
eye, when mixed with water, the prescribed quantity is as much
as is used to bathe both eyes with.
" Honey sufficient to cover a wound with." We were taught
in a Boraitha : " Sufficient to cover the mouth of a wound
with." Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh : The Holy One, blessed
be He, has created nothing useless in the world. He created
the snail as a remedy for a sore, the fly for the sting of a wasp,
the mosquito for the bite of a serpent, the serpent for the mange,
and the lizard for the bite of a scorpion.
The rabbis taught : There are five terrors through which the

TRACT SABBATH. 149
strong succumb to the weak. The Maphgia terrorizes the lion,*
the mosquito the elephant, the lizard the scorpion, the swallow
the eagle, and the kilbith (a small fish) the whale. Said R.
Jehudah in the name of Rabh : Where is the passage in the
Scriptures in support of this teaching ? [Amos v. 9] : " That
causeth wasting to prevail against the strong."
R. Zera once met R. Jehudah standing at the door of his (R.
Jehudah's) father-in-law in a very cheerful mood, and disposed to
answer a whole world full of questions. He asked him : " What
is the reason that (in a flock) the she-goats generally go ahead of
the sheep?" Answered R. Jehudah: "In accordance with the
Creation: At first darkness, then light" (she-goats are generally
dark and lambs [or sheep] white). R. Zera asked again : " Why
are she-goats not covered with a tail like sheep?" R. Jehudah
answered : " Those who cover us are (in turn) covered, and those
that do not cover us are not covered." (Because sheep provide
us with wool, they are also provided with cover.) " Why has a
camel a short tail?" "Because it feeds on thorns (in order that
the thorns may not catch in its tail)." " Why has an ox a long
tail ?" " Because he grazes in plains and must protect himself
from the gnats." "Why are the feelers of a locust soft?" " Be
cause the locusts swarm in fields ; were their feelers hard, the
locusts would be blinded by losing them in knocking against trees,
for Samuel said, all that is necessary to blind a locust is to tear
off his feelers." "What is the reason that the lower eyelids of a
hen are turned up (and cover the upper eyelids) ?" " Because a
hen soars to her roost and (in a house full of smoke) she might be
blinded by the smoke from below."
The rabbis taught : Three creatures grow stronger as they
grow older, viz. : Fishes, serpents, and swine.
"Oil sufficient to anoint a small limb with," i.e., a little finger.
At the school of R. Janai it was thus explained : " It means the
smallest limb of a one-day-old infant." This is also the opinion
of R. Simeon b. Elazar : Oil sufficient to anoint the small limb of
a one-day-old infant."
Water sufficient for a medical bath for the eyes. Said Abayi :
Let us see ! Of an article which is very often used for one pur-

* Maphgia is a species of insect, unknown to us at the present day, of which it was
said that its excremation was deadly poison to a lion.

iS°

THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

pose and seldom for another, the rabbis always leniently per
mitted the maximum quantity to be used, as the prescribed quan
tity, of the article much in use. Again, when an article is used
alike for several purposes, the rabbis restrict the prescribed
quantity to its minimum ; (to be more explicit) wine is frequently
used as a beverage and only at times as a medicament ; hence the
rabbis regard it solely as a beverage (and determine the maximum
quantity) ; the same is the case with milk ; honey, however, which
is used to a greater extent as a medicine than for nutritive pur
poses, is regarded as medicine and therefore restricted to the pre
scribed quantity for medicines (which is a smaller quantity than a
beverage). What is the reason, then, that the rabbis restrict
water, which is certainly more of a beverage than a medicament,
to the minimum quantity ? Rabha answered : They hold with
the opinion of Samuel, who declared that all liquids used as
medicine for the eyes inflame and blind, except water, which
soothes and does not blind (and in this case the Mishna has ref
erence to one who carried about water on the Sabbath as a medica
ment for the eyes).
" For all other liquids, the prescribed quantity is a quarter of
a lug." The rabbis taught: For blood and all other liquids the
prescribed quantity is a quarter of a lug. R. Simeon b. Elazar
said the prescribed quantity for blood is as much as is used to
apply to one eye ; because that quantity is used when the eye is
afflicted with a star.
All these prescribed quantities apply only to those who carry
(the victuals or beverages) about. To those, however, who store
them (the victuals or beverages) the carrying of even the least
imaginable quantity is prohibited (because from his storing them
we see that he considers them valuable) ; but R. Simeon says all
these prescribed quantities apply to such as stored (victuals and
beverages and hence considered them valuable), but as for persons
who only carried them out, all beverages (whether used also for
medical purposes or not) if carried out in any quantities less than
a quarter of a lug there is no culpability.
The former teacher said that " those prescribed quantities only
refer to those who carry out," but to " those who store them the
carrying of even the least imaginable quantity is prohibited." Is
the one who stores not also a carrier (he is culpable for carrying
and not for storing) ?

TRACT SABBATH.

i5'

Answered Abayi : The Boraitha treats of a case where a
master ordered his retainer to clear off the table. If the retainer
removed something of value to everybody from the table it con
stituted a quantity which must not be carried about on the Sab
bath. If the thing was of value only to the master and the re
tainer carried it out, he (the retainer) is culpable, in spite of the
fact that the thing was of value to his master alone. (Hence he
is called one who stores, and not a carrier) for it signifies that the
thing is worth storing.
Again, the former teacher said : " And the sages agree with R.
Simeon, that the prescribed quantity for slops is a quarter of a
lug." Of what use are slops? Said R. Jehuda: "To prepare
mortar with." But were we not taught that the prescribed
quantity for mortar is only as much as suffices to make the mouth
of a bellows-pipe with? Aye, but for the purpose of preparing
mortar, a man would not trouble himself to carry out so small a
quantity as is sufficient to make a mouth of a bellows-pipe, hence a
quarter of a lug would be the least that would be carried out to
make mortar with.
MISHNA : The prescribed quantity for rope is as much as
suffices to make a handle for a basket ; for reeds, as much as suf
fices to hang a fine or coarse sieve thereon ; R. Jehuda says (for
reeds) as much as is sufficient to take the measure of a child's
shoe ; for paper, as much as suffices to write a toll-bill on, a toll-
bill itself must not be carried out ; the prescribed quantity for
paper that has been erased is as much as will wrap the top of a
perfume bottle. The prescribed quantity for vellum is as much
as suffices for the covering of an amulet ; for parchment, as much
as suffices for the writing of the smallest portion of the phylac
teries, which is " Hear, O Israel ;" for ink, as much as is necessary
for the writing of two letters (characters) ; for paint, as much as
will paint one eye. The prescribed quantity for (bird) lime is as
much as will suffice to put on a lime twig ; for pitch or sulphur,
as much as will cover a hole (in a quicksilver tube) ; for wax, as
much a will fill up a small leakage (in a utensil) ; for loam, as much
as suffices to make an orifice for a pair of bellows used by gold
smiths ; R. Jehuda says the prescribed quantity for loam is as
much as will make a stand for a goldsmith's crucible ; for clay, as
much as will cover the mouth of a goldsmith's crucible; for lime,
as much as will cover the small finger of a maiden ; R. Jehudah

152 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
says for lime the prescribed quantity is as much as will cover the
temple of a maiden ; R. Nehemiah says as much as will cover the
nether part of a maiden's temple.
GEMARA : " For paper as much as suffices to write a toll bill
on." We were taught in a Boraitha: "The legal size of a toll
bill is a piece of paper large enough to contain two letters." Is
this not contradictory to the Boraitha which says that the carry
ing out of a piece of blank paper large enough for two letters of
ordinary size to be written on, constitutes a sin, requiring the
bringing of a sin-offering ? Answered R. Shesheth : " The two
letters referred to by the Mishna are the letters used by the toll-
master (usually extra large letters)." Rabha, however, said that
the piece of paper referred to is large enough for two letters and
has a margin by which it can be held.
The rabbis taught : If one carry out on the Sabbath an unpaid
promissory note he is liable to bring a sin-offering, but not so for
a paid one. But R. Jehudah said, the same is the case with a paid-
up note, for its value lies therein, that the owner may show it to a
prospective creditor in order to prove promptness of former pay
ments. " For vellum is as much as suffices to make a cover for an
amulet." Asked Rabha of R. Hanina: "Of what size?" and
the latter answered : " As we were taught in the Mishna, as much
as will suffice to make a cover for an amulet." And what is the
size in regard to tanning ? The same quantity.
" Parchment as much as suffices to write thereon the smallest
portion," etc. Is this not a contradiction to the Boraitha which
teaches that the prescribed quantity for parchment and double
parchment (du-Ziarus) is as much as suffices to write a Mezuzah
(inscription on the door-posts) on? The Mezuzah mentioned in
the Boraitha refers to the Mezuzah contained in the phylacteries.
Does the Boraitha call phylacteries Mezuzah ? Yea, it does. But
since the latter part of the Boraitha teaches explicitly that the
prescribed quantity for parchment is as much as is required for
writing the smallest portion of the phylacteries, which is " Hear,
O Israel," is it not to be assumed that in the former part of the
Boraitha which mentions that for double parchment, where a
Mezuzah is mentioned, it really means a Mezuzah proper and not
the Mezuzah of the phylacteries ? Say : What is the prescribed
quantity for parchment and double parchment ? For the latter as

TRACT SABBATH. iS3
much as is required for the writing of a Mezuzah, and the former
for the writing of the smallest portion of the phylacteries, which is
" Hear, O Israel."
Rabh said : " Double parchment is the same as parchment.
The same as we may write the portions of the phylacteries on
parchment, so may we also write them on double parchment."
Were we not taught that only parchment sufficient to write the
small portion of the phylacteries on, must we not assume, but not
double parchment ? Nay, it is only a better observance to write
on parchment than on double parchment.
" For ink, etc." We were taught : The prescribed quantity
for dry ink is as much as will suffice for the writing of two letters ;
for prepared ink as much as a quill or stub will require to write
the two letters with. Said Rabha : For carrying out sufficient ink
for two letters and writing the two letters while carrying the ink,
one is culpable ; for the writing is equivalent to depositing a thing
in a place. But for carrying out sufficient ink for one letter only,
and writing that letter while carrying the ink, afterward carrying
out another quantity of ink sufficient for one letter and writing
the other letter while carrying the ink, one is not culpable ; for by
the time the second letter was written (the ink of the first letter
dried out and) the prescribed quantity of ink was not visible.
Again Rabha said : For carrying out food to the size of one half
of a dried fig, laying it down, and then carrying out another quantity
of like size (one is not culpable), for it is considered as if the first
quantity had been consumed by fire. But why should it be thus
considered? Is it not lying there yet? Rabha' s saying is thus
to be explained : If one picked up the first before he laid down
the second, the first is to be considered as if consumed by fire and
hence one is not culpable.
"For paint, etc." Is it not a fact that people never dye one
eye only ? Said R. Huna : Modest women veil one eye and only
paint the other. To this explanation some one objected, viz. : For
paint as a remedy the prescribed quantity is as much as will dye
one eye, said R. Simeon b. Elazar, but as a means for beautifying
the prescribed quantity is as much as will dye two eyes. Hillel,
the son of R. Samuel b. Nahmeni, explained it by saying that R.
Simeon b. Elazar referred to country damsels who dye both
eyes. " For bird lime as much as is sufficient to put on a lime twig."

I54 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
We were taught in a Boraitha as much as was sufficient to put on
a twig for the purpose of catching birds.
" For pitch and sulphur," etc. We were taught in a Boraitha,
sufficient to fill up a hole in a quicksilver tube.
" For loam," etc. We were taught in a Boraitha, sufficient
to fill up the cracks in a small stove.
" For clay," etc. The rabbis taught : It is prohibited to carry
out hair for the purpose of mixing it with clay used to cover a
goldsmith's bellows-pipe with.
" For lime," etc. We were taught in a Boraitha, to cover the
smallest finger of a damsel.
R. Jehudah says as much as is sufficient to cover a maiden's
"Kalkub." What is meant by " Kalkub" and Andiphi? Rabh
answered : The upper and lower temples. Are we to understand
from the Mishna that the prescribed quantity permitted by R.
Jehudah is larger than that of the rabbis ? Is it not a fact that
the rabbis allow the larger prescribed quantity? Aye; R.
Jehudah allows a larger quantity than R. Nehemiah, but a smaller
quantity than the rabbis. Or it is possible than an Andiphi
means a forehead, from the following narration : " It happened that
a Galilean once came to Babylon and was requested to lecture on
metaphysics. The Galilean consented and began : I will interpret
to you something in the style of R. Nehemiah. Meanwhile a wasp
flew out of the wall, stung him on the Andiphi (forehead) and the
Galilean died on the spot. It was said that he died a merited
death." *
MISHNA : For sealing-wax the prescribed quantity is as much
as is required for the sealing of a bale of goods, is the opinion of
R. Aqiba. The sages, however, say, for the sealing of a letter.
For dung or fine sand as much as is required to fertilize (the soil
around) a cabbage stalk, according to R. Aqiba, but the sages
say as much as is required to fertilize (the soil around) a leek
stalk. For coarse sand as much as is required to fill a trowel, for
reed as much as is required to make a writing-pen from, or should
it be thick or split, as much as is required to fry the softest beaten
egg with, (which) mixed with oil, (lies) in a hot shell.
GEMARA: "Sufficient to fill a trowel." We were taught

* A Mishna teaches elsewhere that it is a sin to lecture on metaphysics, outside of
the University.

TRACT SABBATH. iS5
in a Boraitha : (For coarse sand the prescribed quantity is) as
much as is required to fill the trowel of a plasterer. Who is the
teacher who holds that sand is an improvement on plaster? Said
R. Jehudah, R. Hisda; but Rabha said it is even possible that
this is according to rabbis' opinion, as they hold that the spoiling
(of the whiteness) of the plaster (through the admixture of sand)
is an improvement (to the durability of the plaster).
" For reed as much as is required to make a writing-pen." A
Boraitha teaches : A pen that reaches the joints of the fingers.
" Or should it be thick." A Boraitha teaches : To fry a beaten
egg mixed with oil. Said Mar, the son of Rabhina, to his son :
" Didst thou ever hear what is understood bythe softest egg?"
He answered that R. Shesheth said it was a hen's egg. Why
does the Mishna call it a light (soft) egg? Because the sages
found that no eggs are cooked as quickly as chicken's eggs. Why
is it that all other prescribed quantities prohibited to be carried
out on the Sabbath are of the size of a dried fig, and here the
quantity is of the size of an egg ? Answered R. Nahman : " Even
here the prescribed quantity is of the size of a dried fig, which is
equal to a small egg."
MISHNA: It is not permitted to carry out a bone large
enough to be made into a spoon. R. Jehudah says large enough
to be made into a key; glass of sufficient size to be used for
scraping off the points of a weaver's spindles; a splinter or a stone
large enough to throw at a bird. R. Elazar b. Jacob says to throw
at an animal.
GEMARA : Are we to understand from the Mishna that the
prescribed quantity allowed by R. Jehudah is larger than that al
lowed by the rabbis ? Is it not a fact that the rabbis allow the
larger? Ulla answered : (R. Jehudah refers to) the tooth of a key.
" Glass of sufficient size to be used for scraping off," etc.
A Boraitha teaches, sufficient glass to cut two threads at once.
" A splinter or stone large enough to throw at a bird, but R.
Elazar," etc. Said R. Nahman in the name of R. Johanan : " Pro
vided it is large enough to hurt." But how large should it be?
R. Elazar b. Jacob teaches in a Boraitha : the weight of ten Zuz.
Zunin once came to a schoolhouse and questioned the teachers.
" What is the prescribed quantity for gravel used in privy for toilet
purposes?" He was answered: "The equivalent in quantity to
the size of an olive, a nut, or an egg." Said he: " It would then

156 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
be necessary to carry along a measure." Thereupon it was de
cided that the quantity should be a handful.
Rabba b. R. Shilla asked of R. Hisda : " Is it permitted to
carry up gravel to the roof (for the purpose cited above, as it is
extra trouble, which is prohibited on the Sabbath) ? He an
swered : " Precious is the honor of man. For honor's sake, even
a direct scriptural commandment may be circumvened !"
Said R. Johanan : It is forbidden to use fragments of earthen
ware for toilet purposes (after doing one's necessities) on the Sab
bath. What is the reason ? Is it to say, because it is dangerous,
then it is forbidden also on week days, or is it to say, because of
witchcraft, it would also be prohibited on week-days? What then
is the reason? Is it because it may remove the hair (from the
posterior) ? Would this not be an act performed without inten
tion (and work done unintentionally, he is of the opinion is per
missible) ? R. Nathan b. Ashia answered : " A great man made
the assertion and we must find a reason for it. There is no doubt
whatever that fragments of earthenware are prohibited to be used
on week days, when some other things can easily be obtained, but
on Sabbath, if nothing else happens to be on hand, nor may be
brought, the fragments might be considered as utensils, and, lest
one might be inclined to think that for this reason they would be
permitted to be used, he informs us that they are not. Can witch
craft be exercised through the agency of fragments? Aye; for
the following story proves it :
" R. Hisda and Rabba b. R. Hana once travelled in a ship, and
a prominent (Gentile) lady who wanted to go on the same ship
asked their permission to sit down near them, which they refused.
She pronounced a certain word and the ship stood still, but they
in turn pronounced a certain word and the ship moved on. She
then said : ' It grieves me sorely that I cannot inflict some punish
ment on you, being that you use no fragments for toilet purposes,
nor do you kill vermin in the garments, nor do you pull out
vegetables from a bundle (but cut the bundle first)." (Hence it
may be seen, that fragments can be used as a means for the exer
cise of witchcraft.)
R. Huna said to his son Rabba : Why do you not go more fre
quently to R. Hisda, who expounds the law so pointedly. An
swered the son : " Of what use would it be. He never taught me
but mere worldly knowledge, such as for instance : Not to sit down

TRACT SABBATH. 157
to excremate with a jerk nor to force myself too much, lest the in
testines come out and endanger life." R. Huna then rejoined:
"Thou sayest 'mere, worldly knowledge.' He is interested in
the life of the people, and you call it mere, worldly knowledge.
(Is not that also useful ?) Those laws you learned are of great
sanitary importance and thou shouldst by all means go to him.
R. Hisda and Rabhina differ as to the consequences of one
withholding to perform his necessities. One is of the opinion
that foul breath is the result, while the other holds that the en
tire body assumes a bad odor. The opinion of the latter is sup
ported by a Boraitha which teaches : " He who takes nourishment
while in need of performing his necessities is compared to a stove
in which a fire was built without previously removing the ashes,
which is invariably the cause of a bad smell. One who feels like
performing his necessities, but cannot do so, R. Hisda advises,
that he keep on sitting down and getting up until able. R.
Hanan from Neherdai advises him to look for another place, but
the rabbis say the sole remedy is to think of nothing else."
The rabbis taught : One who is about to eat a hearty meal
should walk ten times four ells or four times ten ells, then perform
a (natural) necessity, and after that go in and sit down to the meal.
MISHNA : The prescribed quantity for fragments (of earthen
ware) is the size of such as are placed between two boards, is the
opinion of R. Jehuda. R. Meir says of a size sufficient to stir a
fire with. R. Jossi, of a size to receive (hold) a quarter of a
lug. Said R. Meir, although no positive proof for my assertion
can be found in the Scriptures, still a vague reference can be de
duced from the passage [Isaiah xxx. 14]: "So that there can
not be found among their fragments a sherd to rake fire from a
hearth." R. Jossi, however, answered him: "Therefrom you
would adduce your proof? It says immediately after that (ibid.
ibid.) 'and to draw water from a pit.' "
GEMARA : We must assume that the prescribed quantity al
lowed by R. Jossi is larger than that alllowed by R. Meir ; but the
Scriptural text shows that R. Meir allows the larger ; because, is
it possible that the prophet will curse them with a larger object
after having cursed them with a smaller ? Said Abayi : R. Meir
also means a fragment used to stir a big fire with ; hence his frag
ment is larger than R. Jossi's.
" R. Jossi, however, answered him," etc. R. Jossi answered

158 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
R. Meir very correctly. What could R. Meir rejoin? R. Meir
might say that the prophet intends to convey that not only shall
they not have anything of the least value left, but they shall not
even have anything that is as valueless as a piece of fragment big
enough to contain a drop of water.

CHAPTER IX.
RABBI AQIBA'S REGULATIONS OF DIFFERENT SUBJECTS.
MISHNA : R. Aqiba said : Whence the adduction that one
who carries an idol is as unclean (ritually) as a woman suffering
from menstruation? From the passage [Isaiah xxx. 23] : "Thou
wilt cast them away as a filthy thing.* " 'Get thee hence !' wilt
thou say unto them." Thus, in the same manner as a woman
suffering from menstruation causes (ritual) uncleanness, so does
also an idol.
GEMARA : Rabba said : The passage mentioned in the
Mishna should be interpreted thus : " Estrange f them from thy
self as a stranger ; get thee hence, say unto him, but tell him not
to come in !" Further Rabba said : It is unanimously conceded
that the carrying of idols causes (ritual) uncleanness and hence it
is compared to menstruation, but there is a dissenting opinion
among the rabbis concerning a stone (used as a pedestal for an
idol or upon which a woman suffering with menstruation chanced
to sit) beneath which there were utensils. R. Aqiba holds that
idols are regarded the same as menstruating women and the vessels
beneath the stone become defiled (for the reason that the stone is
the basis of the idol and, the former becomes part of the idol, and
hence everything beneath it becomes defiled), but the rabbis regard
an idol as a reptile, i.e., as a reptile lying upon a large stone (in
which case any utensils chancing to be beneath the stone do not
become defiled). This decree is unanimously conceded.
R. Ahadbou ben Ami asked : What about an idol smaller in
size than an olive? R. Joseph objected to this question: "What
is the purpose of the query ? Does it refer to the prohibition of
idolatry? Even an idol the size of a fly, like the idol of the
*The Hebrew term used for " filthy thing " in the passage is " Davah," and in
Leviticus xx. 18 Davah is translated, " a woman suffering from her separation (men
struation)." f The word " Tizrom " (cast them away) Rabba holds to be a derivation of the
word " Zar " (strange) and not from " Zarah " (cast away).
159

160 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. .
Ekronites, which was called Zebub * (fly) is also prohibited ; for
we are taught it is written in the passage [Judges viii. 33] : " And
they made themselves Baal-berith for a god;" by Baal-berith is
meant the Zebub (fly) idol of Ekron, and every idolater (at that
time) made an image of his idol in miniature in order to keep it
constantly at hand and to be able at any time to take it out, em
brace, and kiss it ; hence there is no question as to size. Nay
the query of R. Ahadbou is in regard to causing defilement?
Either it is regarded as a reptile and defiles, even if only of the
size of a lentil, or it is considered as a corpse and causes defilement
if it is the size of an olive. (A part of a corpse the size of an
olive causes the person touching it to become defiled.) Answered
R. Ivia, and according to others Rabba b. Ulla : " Come and hear !
We were taught in a Boraitha that no defilement is caused by idols
smaller than olives, for it is written [2 Kings xxiii. 6] : " And
cast its powder upon the graves of the children of the people."
(The adduction is) that as a corpse can cause defilement only if a
part the size of an olive is come in contact with, so is it also with
idols, which are regarded as corpses.
MISHNA : (R. Aqiba says again :) Whence the adduction
that a ship, though a wooden vessel, is not subject to defilement ?
From the passage [Prov. xxx. 19] : "The way of a ship is in the
heart of the sea."
GEMARA : It is certain f that R. Aqiba intends to convey to
us that the reason the passage cited in the above Mishna informs
us of a fact known to all is because the sense is to be construed
thus : In the same manner as the sea itself cannot become defiled,
so also a ship can never become defiled.
We were taught in a Boraitha : Hananyah said : We make the
adduction from a sack (which is subject to defilement) that every
thing which can be carried after the manner of a sack, sometimes
full and at other times empty, is subject to defilement, except a
ship, which cannot be carried at all, full or empty. What are the
points of difference in the two adductions (of R. Aqiba and Ha
nanyah) ? They are concerning a small (river) boat. One holds
that all boats (ships) must be regarded as the sea itself (hence not
* See 2 Kings i. 2.
t The term " it is certain " (peshitah) is generally used by the Gemara in the sense
of the question, " Is it not self-evident ?" In the above case, however, it is intended
for an explanation of the reason for R. Aqiba's adduction. See Rashi.

TRACT SABBATH. 161
subject to defilement), while the other is of the opinion that a
small (river) boat must be regarded as a sack because it is carried
to the place whence it is launched and hence is subject to defile
ment ; as R. Hanina b. Aqa'bhia said : " Why did the rabbis say
that a small (river) boat is subject to defilement? Because it is
usually loaded in the dry dock and then carried into the river.
Rabbi Johanan in the name of Rabh said : " Man should not
absent himself from the house of learning even for one hour. Be
hold this teaching (concerning a river boat) has been taught in
the schools for many years and no one knew the reason for it until
R. Hanina b. Aqa'bhia came and explained it.
R. Jonathan said : Man should never absent himself from the
house of learning or abstain from learning the law, even when at
the point of death, for it is written [Num. xix. 14] : "This is the
law, when a man dieth in his tent ;" (i.e.) even at the point of
death man must occupy himself with the study of the law. Resh
Lakish however adduces from the same verse that man does not
retain (in memory) the law, unless he is ready to die for it.
MISHNA : (R. Aqiba said) : Whence do we adduce that in a
patch of ground six spans long by six spans wide five different
kinds of seed may be planted, — one kind each in each of the
four corners and one in the centre of the patch ? From the pas
sage [Isaiah lxi. 11]: " For as the earth bringeth forth her growth,
and as a garden causeth what is sown therein to spring forth."
(We see then) it is not written "as a garden causeth its seed to
spring forth," but what is sown therein.
GEMARA : What does R. Aqiba adduce from that passage ?
Said R. Jehuda : The passage cited in the above Mishna is to be
thus explained : " The earth bringeth forth her growth. " " Bringeth
forth" (which is in the singular) can be counted for " one" (kind
of seed). Her "growth" (also singular) can also be counted for
" one" (kind of seed). (Now we have two.) " What is grown there
in" (evidently plural) can be counted for two more (making four),
and "to spring forth" (in the singular again) can be counted as
one, making five in all ; and (as far as the six spans square are con
cerned) the rabbis are quite certain (through tradition) that five
different kinds of seed in a patch six by six spans square do not
interfere with each other. But whence do we know that the assur
ance of the rabbis can be depended upon ? Answered R. Hyya
b. Aba in the name of R. Johanan, from the passage in Deut. xix.
VOL. I. — II

t62 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
14 : " Thou shalt not remove the landmark of thy neighbor, which
they of old time have set" which is to be explained : " Thou shalt
not go beyond what is limited by those of old." But what have
those of old limited ? Answered R. Samuel bar Na'hmeni in the
name of R. Jonathan : " It is written [Gen. xxxvi. 20] : '" These
are the sons of Seir the Chorite, who inhabited the land." Only
they inhabited the land ? Did the rest of mankind inhabit heaven ?
It simply means to state that they made the earth inhabitable by
their knowledge of agriculture and their experience as to what
ground is adapted for the planting of olive trees, vines, date trees,
etc. R. Assi said : " The teaching of R. Aqiba in the Mishna refers
to a patch of ground six by six spans square, excluding the corners."
Rabh said : " The above Mishna has reference only to an iso
lated patch (or furrow) of ground, but in a furrow surrounded by
others one can not sow five kinds of grain, (as it is necessary to
have a space of three spans dividing one kind from the other.)
Are there not corners, however, (to the furrow) ? " The school of
Rabh explained, in the name of Rabh, that reference is made to
furrows into the corners of which grain had been sown.
Samuel, however, said even in a furrow surrounded by other
furrows. But will not the seeds interfere one with another?
Samuel refers to furrows which are planted alternately from north
to east and from south to west. \
MISHNA : (R. Aqiba says again) : Whence the adduction
that a woman, from whom seed of copulation f escapes only on the
third day (after lying with her husband), is unclean ? From the
passage [Exodus xix. 15]: "And he said unto the people, Be
ready against the third day. Approach not unto a woman."
Whence the adduction that a child may be bathed on the third
day of its circumcision, even if that day fall on a Sabbath ? From
the passage [Gen. xxxiv. 25] : " And it came to pass on the third
day, when they were sore." Whence the adduction that a string
of crimson wool must be tied on the head of the goat that was to
be sent away.;); From the passage [Isaiah i. 18] : "Though they
* Rashi declares this to be the best possible explanation of Samuel's opinion, and
says that many others offered many different explanations, none of which are compre
hensible. t See Leviticus xv. 16, 17, 18, and ibid. xxii. 4.
X See Lev. xvi. 21.

TRACT SABBATH. 163
should be red like crimson, they shall become (white) like wool."
Whence do we adduce that anointing one's self on the Day of
Atonement is equal to drinking? Although no positive proof is
apparent, still a reference can be adduced from the passage
[Psalms cix. 18] : "And it cometh like water on his body and oil
into his bones."
GEMARA : The first part of the Mishna (treating of a woman)
is not in accordance with the opinion of R. Elazar b. Azaryah,
who declares her (the woman) clean in that case ; the second part
of the Mishna, however, (treating of bathing on the third day after
circumcision) is in direct accord with his own words, (as will be
seen in Chapter XIX.) Therefore some rabbis claim that the
first part of the Mishna reads clean instead of unclean, i.e., that
the whole Mishna is according to the opinion of R. Elazar b.
Azaryah, but other rabbis claim that the first part of the Mishna
is according to the opinion of other Tanaim, who differ with
Elazar b. Azaryah (and the word unclean is correct).
" And they shall be ready against the third day" [Ex. xix. 11].
R. Ada bar Ahbha said : " Moses went up (to the Mount Sinai)
at daybreak, and descended the following break of day." He
went up at break of day ; as it is written [Ex. xxxiv. 4] . And
Moses rose up early in the morning and went up unto Mount
Sinai, he descended on the following daybreak, as it is written
[ibid. xix. 24] : " Go get thee down, and then shalt thou come up,
thou, and Aaron with thee." We see that the Scripture compares
the descending to the ascending, and as the ascending was early
in the morning, so was also the descending early in the morning.
The rabbis taught : The decalogue was given to Israel on the
sixth day of the (third) month, but R. Jossi said on the seventh
day. Said Rabba: All agree that on the first day of the (third)
month the Israelites arrived at the wilderness of Sinai. It is
adduced from the analogy of the word "this" in Ex. xix. 1, "on
this day they arrived at the wilderness of Sinai," and in Ex. xii.
2, "this month to be to you the first of months." So as in the
latter instance the "this" referred to the first, so does it also in
the former; furthermore (he said), all agree that the law was
given to Israel on a Sabbath ; this is to be adduced from the an
alogy of the word "remember" in [Ex. xx. 8] : "Remember the
Sabbath day to keep it holy;" and [in ibid. iii. 3] : " Remember this

1 64 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
day on which ye came out from Egypt." As in the latter instance
the very day of their coming out of Egypt is referred to, so is it
also in the former instance. Where the rabbis do differ is what
day was the first of the month. R. Jossi holds that the first of
the month was set on the first of the week, and on that day no com
mandments were given, because the children of Israel were tired
from their long journey. On the second day (of the week) the
Lord said to them : " Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests"
[Ex. xix. i]. On the third of the week He commanded them to
keep away from the mountain. On the fourth to separate them
selves from their wives. The rabbis, however, hold that the first
of the month was set on the second of the week ; that on that day
nothing was commanded the Israelites, they being tired ; on the
third the cited passage [Ex. xix. i ] was said ; on the fourth day
they were to keep away from the mountain, and on the fifth to
separate themselves from their wives.
An objection was made : It is written [Ex. xix. io] : " Go
unto the people, and sanctify them to-day and to-morrow." Is
this not contradictory to the statement of R. Jossi (in whose
opinion the sanctification lasted three days) ? R. Jossi may ex
plain this thus : "Moses added one day upon his own authority,"
as we have learned in a Boraitha : " Three things were done by
Moses upon his own authority and the Holy One, blessed be He,
agreed thereto. They are : He added one day (to the period of
sanctification), he separated himself from a woman, and he broke
the tablets into pieces." " He added one day upon his own au
thority." What was his object ? The Lord said unto him : " To
day and to-morrow," and he construed the words as follows : " To
day must be equal (in duration) to to-morrow; to-morrow also
including the night, to-day must also include night ; the night,
however, having already passed, another day must be added in
order to make up for the lost night." Whence do we know that
the Lord agreed to this ? Because the Shekhina did not appear
on Mount Sinai until the Sabbath morn. What was the object
of Moses in separating himself from a woman ? He applied the
order given the Israelites (to separate themselves from their wives)
to himself in a so much larger degree (i.e., the order having been
issued to the Israelites for the reason that they would shortly
hear the word of the Lord, it would be so much more proper for
him, who frequently was spoken to by the Lord, to separate him-

TRACT SABBATH. 165
self entirely from a woman.) Whence do we know that the Lord
agreed to this also? It is written [in Deut. v. 27 and 28] : "Go,
say to them, Return you unto your tents. But as for thee, re
main thou here by Me." " He broke the tablets." What was his
object? He thought: "Concerning the Passover sacrifice, which
is only one of the six hundred and thirteen commandments, it is
written [Ex. xii. 43] : 'No stranger shall eat thereof,' how can I
give the tablets, which contain all the commandments to the chil
dren of Israel, who are now all renegades ?" Whence do we know
that the Holy One, blessed be He, agreed even to this? It is
written [Ex. xxxiv. 1 ] : " And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew
thyself two tables of stone like unto the first ; and I will write
upon these tables the words which were on the first tables which
thou didst break." Said Resh Lakish: "'Which thou didst
break,' really means 'which thou didst break rightfully' "
Another objection was made: It is written [Ex. xix. 11]:
"And they shall be ready against the third day." According to
R. Jossi it would be the fourth day. This is no objection ! We
have just learned that Moses added another day upon his own au
thority. Again, come and hear : We have learned in a Boraitha :
"The sixth means the sixth of the week and of the month." Is
this not contradictory to the statement of the rabbis, who say :
"The first of the month was the second day of the week?" Yea,
(it may be that) this Boraitha holds to the opinion of R. Jossi.
Come and hear : On the fourteenth day of the month of Nissan,
during which (month) the Israelites went out of Egypt, they killed
the Passover sacrifice and on the fifteenth day they went out. On
the night before that the first-born of the Egyptians were slain.
That day (the fifteenth) was the fifth of the week. Now, if the
fifteenth of Nissan was the fifth of the week, we must certainly
say that the first of the next month (Iar) was Sabbath and the
first day of the following month (Sivan) was the first day of the
week. Is this not contradictory to the statement of the rabbis,
that the first day of the month was the second day of the week ?
The rabbis might have assumed that the month of Iar was an in
tercalary month.
Said R. 'Havivi of 'Huzunah to R. Ashi: Come and hear: It
is written [Ex. xl. 17] : "And it came to pass in the first month
in the second year, on the first of the month, that the tabernacle
was reared up," and a Boraitha teaches that this day was crowned

1 66 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
tenfold, viz. : " That day was the first of the six days of the crea
tion ; the first of the days on which the first prince presented his
offering before the altar ; the first of the days on which the priests
(Aaron and sons) did their work in the sanctuary ; the first day on
which the children of Israel brought their sacrifices in the taber
nacle ; the first of the days on which the heavenly fire descended
upon the altar; the first of the days on which the priests were
permitted to eat the sacrifices in the tabernacle; the first of the
days on which the Shekhina appeared in the tabernacle ; the first
day on which Aaron the High Priest blessed the Israelites in the
tabernacle ; the first of the days on which sacrifices were no more
permitted to be brought on the high places outside of the taber
nacle, and the first day of the first of the months." Now, if
the first day of this year was the first day of the week, we must
say the first of Nissan of the preceding year fell on the fourth
day of the week, because we have learned in another Boraitha :
Anonymous teachers say that there can be not more than four
days' difference between one New Year's day and another. If a
leap year intervened then there may be a difference of five days.
Is this not contradictory to the opinion of both the rabbis and R.
Jossi ? According to R. Jossi there were seven short months (of
twenty-nine days) in that year, but according to the rabbis there
were eight such months, (consequently the difference from the last
year was only in two days), as this year was an extraordinary one.
(And the first day of the month Iar of the last year was on
Friday). Another objection was made : We have learned in the Tract
Seder Aulim that on the fourteenth day of the month of Nissan,
during which (month) the Israelites went out of Egypt, they killed
the Passover sacrifice ; on the fifteenth they went out, and that day
was Friday. Now, if the first of the month of Nissan of that year
was Friday, we must say that the first day of the following (Iar)
month was on the first day of the week and the first of the suc
ceeding month (Sivan) was on Monday. Is this not contradictory
with R. Jossi ? R. Jossi will then say that this Boraitha is in
accordance with the opinion of the rabbis.
One more objection was made : Come and hear : R. Jossi says,
" On the second day Moses went up on the Mount Sinai and came
back. The same he did on the third day, but on the fourth day,
when he came back, he remained." Came back and remained?

TRACT SABBATH. 167
Whence did he come back — it does not say that he went up at all ?
Say, then, on the fourth day he went up, came back, and remained.
On the fifth he built an altar and offered a sacrifice. On the sixth
he had no time. Shall we assume that he had no time because on
that day the Israelites received the Thorah? (If we say that the
second refers to the second day of the week, it must be a fact that
the Thorah was given on Friday, and would this not be contradic
tory to his [R. Jossi's] own opinion?) Nay; he had no time be
cause the Sabbath was at hand.
A Galilean lectured in the presence of R. Hisda : Praised be
the merciful God, who gave a triple law (the Pentateuch, Prophets,
and Proverbs) to a triple people (Kahanites, Levites, and Israelites)
through a man who was the third child of his parents (Miriam,
Aaron, and Moses), on the third day of sanctification and in the
third month. We see from this that the Galilean held in accord
ance with the teachings of the rabbis.
It is written [Ex. xix. 17]: " And they placed themselves at
the foot of the mount." Said R. Abhdimi bar Hama bar Hassa:
" It appears from this passage that the Holy One, blessed be He,
inclined the mountain toward the children of Israel and gave
them the choice of either accepting the Thorah or being buried
right under the mountain." Said R. Aha b. Jacob: "This would
accord us the right to protest against any punishment inflicted
upon us for violating the law. (For we were compelled to accept
it.") Said Rabha: Although (at that time they were compelled to
accept it), at the time of Ahasuerus (King of Persia) they ac
cepted it voluntarily. For it is written [Esther ix. 27] : " The
Jews confirmed it as a duty, and took upon themselves and upon
their seed." This must be explained: "They took upon them
selves voluntarily what at one time they were compelled to accept."
R. Elazar said : At the time the Israelites said, " We will do"
and afterward "We will obey" a heavenly voice (Bath-kol) was
heard, which said unto them : " Who unfolded unto my children
this mystery known only to the angels ?" For it is written [Psalm
ciii. 20] : " Bless the Lord, ye his angels, mighty in strength,
that execute his word, hearkening unto the voice of his word," and
from this we see that only angels can execute first and then obey.
A Sadducee once noticed Rabha studying and observed that he
in his absent-mindedness held his (Rabha' s) finger underneath his
knee and pressed it so hard that blood spurted from the finger.

168 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
Said the Sadducee to him : " Impetuous people ! Whose mouths
precedes your ears ! Ye are still of the same vehemence ! Ye
must first hear the Thorah before you accept it and not accept with
out knowing its prescriptions !" Answered Rabha : We who are
upright men trusted Him, as it is said of us in [Proverbs xi. 3] :
"The integrity of the upright guideth them," but to those men
who are continually fault-finding the latter part of the same verse
(ibid, ibid.) can be applied, viz. : " But the cunning of the treach
erous destroyeth them."
R. Samuel b. Na'hmeni in the name of R. Jonathan said : It
is written (Solomon's Song iv. 9) : " Thou hast ravished my heart,
O my sister, (my) bride ! thou hast ravished my heart with one of
thy eyes." This means : When thou didst but receive the Thora,
it was with one of thy eyes. When thou wilt obey it, it will be
with both of thy eyes.
R. Johanan said: It is written [Psalms lxviii. 12]: "The
Lord gave (happy) tidings; they are published by female mes
sengers, a numerous host." This implies, that every word ema
nating from the mighty God was heralded in seventy languages.
The school of R. Ishmael, however, (adduced the same from an
other passage) : It is written [Jeremiah xxiii. 29] : " Is not thus
my word like the fire ? saith the Lord, and like a hammer that
shivereth the rock?" As the hammer that strikes emits a multi
tude of sparks, so is every word emanating from the Holy One,
blessed be He, heralded in seventy different languages.
R. Hananel b. Papa said : It is written [Proverbs viii. 6] :
" Hear ! for of noble things will I speak." Why are the words of
the Thorah compared to a noble ? To inform us that inasmuch
as a noble has in his power the disposal over life and death, so
have also the words of the Thorah. This is the same as Rabha
said : To those who walk in the right ways of the law, it is an
elixir of life, but to those who pursue not the right way, it is the
poison of death.
R. Jehoshua ben Levi said : It is written [Solomon's Song i.
12] : "A bundle of myrrh is my friend unto me, that resteth on
my bosom." Said the Congregation of Israel : " Creator of the
Universe! Although my friend chastiseth* me, still he resteth
on my bosom !"
* The Hebrew term for bundle is Tzror, and for oppressor is Tzoror; hence R.
Johanan interprets Tzror as if it were Tzoror.

TRACT SABBATH. 169
The same rabbi said: "It is written [Solomon's Song v. 13] :
" His cheeks are as a bed of spices, as turrets of sweet perfumes."
Every word emanating from the Holy One, blessed be He, fills
the whole world with the aroma of spices. If the world was filled
with the aroma arising from the first word, where could the second
word go? The Holy One, blessed be He, sent forth a wind from
His supply, which cleared off the aroma of each word, as it is
written (ibid.) : " His lips like lilies, dropping with fluid myrrh."
Do not read Shoshanim (lilies) but Sheshonim (learned men).
The same said again : When Moses ascended into Heaven,
said the angels before the Holy One, blessed be He, " Creator of
the Universe ! What has one born of a woman to do among us ?"
The Lord answered : " He came to receive the Thorah." Said
the angels again : " Wouldst Thou give a precious thing that Thou
hast preserved since nine hundred and seventy-four generations
before the creation of the world to a being of flesh and blood ?
(It is written, [Psalms viii. 5]) : What is the mortal that thou
rememberest him? and the son of man that thou thinkest of
him?" Said the Holy One, blessed be He, unto Moses: "Give
thou them an answer !" Answered Moses before the Lord : " Crea
tor of the Universe ! What is written in the law, which Thou
givest unto me?" [Ex. xx. 2.] "I am the Lord thy God, who
have brought thee out of the land of Egypt." Moses then said to
the angels : Were ye in Egypt ? Have ye served Pharaoh ? Of
what use can the Thorah be unto you ? Further, what is written
in the Thorah [ibid. 3] : " Thou shalt have no other gods before
me." Are ye among the nations that worship idols ? And further
more, what is written in the Thorah ? [ibid. 8] : " Remember the
Sabbath day to keep it holy." Do ye any labor on the week-days ?
[ibid. 7] : " Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God
in vain." Are ye merchants that ye must swear? [ibid. 13]:
" Honor thy father and thy mother;" have ye fathers and mothers
to honor? [ibid. 12] : "Thou shalt not kill," etc. Is there any
jealousy among you ? Have ye any evil intent ?
Then the angels confessed and praised the Holy One, blessed
be He; as it is written [Psalms viii. 10] : "O Eternal One, our
Lord, how excellent is thy name on all the earth !" but the ending
of the verse [ibid. 2], "Thou who hast set Thy majesty above the
heavens," is not cited in this verse. Then every one of the angels
befriended Moses and each of them disclosed some mystery to

170 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
him, as it is written [Psalms Ixviii. 19] : "Thou didst ascend on
high, lead away captives, receive gifts among men," which means
that because at first the angels called Moses one born of a woman
(man), they at the close gave him gifts and even the Angel of
Death disclosed a mystery to him, as it is written [Num. xvii. 12
and 13]: " And he put on the incense, and made an atonement for
the people. And he stood between the dead and the living."
Now if the Angel of Death had not disclosed unto Moses this
mystery, how could he have imparted it to Aaron ?
Said R. Jehoshua b. Levi again : When Moses descended
from Heaven, Satan came before the Holy One, blessed be He,
and said: "Creator of the universe! Where is the Thorah?"
And the Lord answered: "I have given it to the earth." Satan
descended to earth and said to it : "Where is the Thorah?" And
the earth answered [Job xxviii. 23]: "God (alone) understandeth
her way, and he knoweth her place." Satan then went to the sea
and the sea said: "She is not with me." He then went to the
deep, and the deep answered : " Not in me is she," as it is written
[ibid. 14] : The deep saith, " Not in me is she" ; and the sea,
saith, " She is not with me" [ibid. 22]. "Perdition and death
say: With our ears have we heard a report of her." Satan then
ascended before the Holy One, blessed be He, and said : " Creator
of the universe! I have looked for the Thorah on the whole
earth and could not find it." Then said the Lord unto him : " Go
unto the son of Amram." And Satan went to Moses and said to
him : " Where is the Thorah which the Holy One, blessed be He,
gave unto thee?" And Moses answered: "Who am I, that the
Holy One, blessed be He, should give me the Thorah?" Said
the Lord unto Moses : " Moses, art thou a liar?" Said Moses be
fore the Lord : " Creator of the universe ! Shall I claim that
Thou hast given unto me a precious thing which Thou didst fondle
every day?" Said the Holy One, blessed be He, unto Moses:
" Because thou hast humbled thyself, the Thorah shall bear thy
name," as it is written [Malachi iii. 22] : "Remember ye the law
of Moses, my servant."
The same rabbi said again : When Moses ascended unto
Heaven (and he was silent), the Lord said unto him : " Moses, is
there no peace in thy city?" And Moses answered: "Is it then
proper that a slave should salute his Master?" Said the Lord:
"Still thou shouldst have wished me well." Then said Moses

TRACT SABBATH. iy,
before the Lord [Numbers xiv. 17] : "And now, I beseech Thee,
let the greatness of the power of the Lord be made manifest as
thou hast spoken."
" Whence the adduction that a string of crimson wool must be
tied on the head of the goat that was to be sent away." Did not
the passage say (Kashanim)* " like years" and not like crimson, for
were it like crimson it would read (Kashani) ? Said R. Itz'hak :
"The passage is thus to be explained: "The. Lord said unto
Israel : If your sins all lie before me as the years that have passed
since the creation, they shall nevertheless become white as snow."
Rabha reasoned: It is written [Isaiah i. 18] : " Gof now, and
let us reason together, saith the Lord." It should not read "go
now" but "come now," and not "saith the Lord" but "said the
Lord." The passage should be explained : In the future the Lord
will say unto Israel : Go to your ancestors and they shall rebuke
you ; and Israel will say before the Lord : Creator of the uni
verse, to whom shall we go ? Shall we go to Abraham, to whom
Thou hast said : " Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stran
ger in a land which is not theirs, and they will make them serve,"
and he did not pray for us ? Shall we go to Isaac, who, when bless
ing Esau, said [Gen. xxvii. 40] : " And it shall come to pass that
when thou shalt have the dominion thou canst break his yoke
from off thy neck," and he also did not pray for us ? Shall we go
to Jacob, to whom Thou didst say [Gen. xlvi. 4] : "I will go down
with thee into Egypt," and not even he prayed for us? To whom
shall we go now? Then the Lord will say unto Israel: "Inas
much as ye have attached yourselves to me, though your sins
should be as scarlet, they shall become white as snow."
Said R. Samuel b. Na'hmeni in the name of R. Jonathan : " It
is written [Isaiah lxiii. 16] : " For Thou art our Father; for Abra
ham knoweth nothing of us, and Israel recognizeth us not ; Thou,
O Lord, art our Father, our Redeemer from everlasting is thy
name." In the future the Holy One, blessed be He, will say to
Abraham : Thy children have sinned before me," and Abraham will
answer : " Let them be wiped off (the face of the earth) for the sake

*Shanah in Hebrew means year (Shanim, plural, years). Sliany means crimson,
but the latter is used only once (Prov. xxxi. 21) in plural ; the former, however, is
generally used in plural, as, for many years. As here it is in plural (Kashanim) he de
clares it like years.
f In Isaac Lesser's translation of the Bible, which we use in all biblical citations,
this passage is rendered " Come now," but the literal translation is "Go now."

172 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
of the holiness of thy name." The Holy One, blessed be He, will
then say : " I shall tell this to Jacob, who had trouble in rearing
his own children ; perhaps he will pray for the present generation."
The Lord said to Jacob : " Thy children have sinned before me,"
and Jacob gave the same reply as Abraham. Then said the Lord :
" Not with the aged can feeling be found, nor with the young wise
counsel." The Lord then said to Isaac : " Thy children have sinned
before me." Then said Isaac before the Lord: " Creator of the
universe ! Thou sayest my children, are they not Thine ? When
they answered before Thee, 'We will do,' and (then) 'obey,' Thou
calledst them 'My son, my first born,' and now they are my chil
dren and not thine ! And furthermore, how long a time have they
sinned before Thee ? Let us see ; what is the duration of a man's
life ? Only seventy years. Take off the twenty years that Thou
dost not punish for sin, and only fifty remain. Take off the
nights and only twenty-five full years remain. Deduct again
twelve years and six months spent in praying, eating, and in the
performance of other necessities, only twelve and one-half years
remain. If Thou wilt bear the whole it is well, but if not let me
bear half and Thou the other half. If Thou wilt say that I must
bear the whole, did I not sacrifice myself for Thee?" Then Israel
said (unto Isaac) : " For thou (alone) art our father." Said Isaac
unto them : " Instead of praising me, praise ye the Holy One,
blessed be He," and he pointed on high to them with his finger.
Here is the Lord ! Then they lifted up their eyes unto Heaven
and said : Thou, O Lord, art our Father, our Redeemer from ever
lasting is thy name.
R. Hyya b. Aba said in the name of R. Johanan : " Jacob de
served to go down into Egypt in iron shackles (because that is
the usual way of going into exile), but his merits precluded such
a thing, as it is written : " With human cords I ever drew them
forward, with leading strings of love ; and I was to them as those
that lift off the yoke from their jaws, and I held out unto them
food" [Hosea xi. 4].
MISHNA : The prescribed quantity for wood is as much as
suffices to cook an (easily boiled) egg; for spices as much as
would suffice to spice such an egg ; and the different spices are
counted together; nut-shells, pomegranate peel, isatis, and cochi
neal as much as suffices to dye the edge of a small piece of cloth ;
alum, alkali, Cimolia chalk, vegetable soap, as much as suffices to

TRACT SABBATH. 173
wash the edge of a small piece of cloth. R. Jehuda says as much
as will suffice to remove a blood stain.
GEMARA : Have we not learned this already ? Reeds, split,
as much as will suffice to cook an egg? In that case we must
assume that the reeds could not be used for any other purpose,
but wood which can be put to a multitude of uses, as for instance,
to make the handle for a key, (should be limited to a smaller
quantity.) We are informed that the same quantity also ap
plies in this case.
" Nut-shells," etc. Is this not a contradiction to what we
have learned elsewhere, that dyes may not be carried in quantities
sufficient to exhibit a sample of the color in the market ? Said
R. Na'hman in the name of Rabba b. Abuha : " Nobody will take
the trouble to make dye sufficient only for a sample."
" Vegetable soap" (Ashleg). Said Samuel: " I have inquired
of a number of seafaring men and they told me that the name for
it is Ashalgoh; it is found in the shells of a pearl-oyster and it is
extracted with iron needles."
MISHNA: The prescribed quantity for (aromatic) pepper
(pimento) is the least possible amount ; for tar it is the same ;
for different kinds of spices and metals it is also the same ; for
the stone and the earth of the altar, torn pieces of the scroll of
laws, or its cover it is also the same, because such things are
generally preserved by men. R. Jehudah said : The same quan
tity applies to everything pertaining to the worship of idols, be
cause it is written [Deut. xiii. 18] : "And there shall not cleave
to thy hand aught of the devoted things."
GEMARA : To what use can such a small quantity of pepper
be put? It may be used by one whose breath is foul.
" For tar." For what purpose can tar in so small a quantity
be used ? It may be used by one who has the sickness Tzilcha-
thah (an illness where only one-half of the head aches).
"For different kinds of spices." The rabbis taught: The
prescribed quantity both for aromatic spices as well as for ill-
smelling oils is the same (least possible quantity) ; for purple dye
also the same, and for roses only one rosebud.
"And metals." Of what use are they? We have learned,
R. Simon b. Elazar said : They can be used to make a goad.
"The torn pieces of the scroll of laws." Said R. Jehudah:
Book-worms, silk-worms, vine-worms, date-worms, and pomegranate-

174 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
worms are all dangerous to human life. There was a disciple sit
ting before R. Johanan eating dates, and the disciple said to him :
"Rabbi, there are thorns in the dates." Said the rabbi: "The
date-worm (Pah) has killed this man."
MISHNA: One who carries the chest of a spice dealer be
comes liable for one sin-offering only, although there may be many
spices in the chest. The prescribed quantity for garden seeds is
the equivalent in size to a dried fig. R. Jehudah b. Bathyra said :
Five different seeds. The prescribed quantity for cucumber seeds
are two, for pumpkin seeds the same, for Egyptian beans the
same ; a living locust (which may be eaten), be it ever so small,
must not be carried, but dead locusts may be carried in quantities
less than a dried fig. The prescribed quantity for vineyard birds*
living or dead is the smallest possible quantity, because they were
preserved for medicinal purposes. R. Jehudah said: One must
not carry out a living locust, (which must not be eaten), be it ever
so small, because such locusts were kept as playthings for small
children. GEMARA: "Cucumber seeds." The rabbis taught: The
prescribed quantity for seeds used for planting is two, but for
seeds used for food it is the equivalent of a pig's mouthful. How
much is a pig's mouthful ? The seeds of one cucumber. For
cucumber seeds used as fuel the prescribed quantity is as much as
will suffice to cook an egg ; for cucumber seeds used as counters
(for figures) only two. Anonymous teachers say five.
The rabbis taught : One who carries two hairs from the tail
of a horse or a cow is culpable, because the hairs are always pre
served for making nets. The prescribed quantity for hog bristles
is only one; for willows (used for wickerwork) two; for tree-bark f
one strip.
" R. Jehuda says : A locust (which must not be eaten)," etc.
Why did not the first Tana of the Mishna mention this? Because
in his opinion it is forbidden to carry it even on week-days, lest
one eat it. If such is the case, why should an eatable locust be
allowed to be carried? Did not R. Kahana stand before Rabh
and a small locust lighted on his lips : Rabh said to him (R.

* None of the commentators can explain what kind of birds are meant.
t Rashi declares in his commentary that he does not know what it is nor for what
purpose it is used. See Aruch.

TRACT SABBATH. 175
Kahana), Take it away lest people say that thou hast eaten it and
thou hast violated the commandment (in Leviticus xi. 43) : " Ye
shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing
that creepeth" ? Nay ; there was no fear that the locust would be
eaten alive, but they apprehended lest it die and then be eaten.
(An eatable locust would not matter, but an uneatable locust would
be a violation of the law.) If that is the case, why does R. Je
hudah permit this? R. Jehudah holds that there is no fear of the
locust being eaten when dead, as the child will mourn its death.

CHAPTER X.
FURTHER REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE PRESCRIBED QUANTITY
OF THINGS TO BE STORED.
MISHNA: One who had stored anything for planting, sam
pling, or medicinal purposes (before the Sabbath) and carried some
of it out (into public ground) on the Sabbath, be it ever so small a
quantity, becomes liable for a sin-offering. Any one else, how
ever, is culpable only then if (he carried out) the prescribed quan
tity. Even the one who had stored is culpable only for the pre
scribed quantity, if he brought the thing carried out by him back
(to private ground).
GEMARA : For what purpose is it said in the Mishna, " one
who stored anything" ? Would it not be sufficient to say, " one
who carried out things intended for planting, sampling, or medi
cinal purposes, be the quantity ever so small, is culpable" ? Said
Abayi : The Mishna treats of the case of a man, who, after storing
the thing, forgot for what purpose he had stored it, and then car
ried it out into the street for any purpose whatever. We might
say that the original intention (to store it) is void, and now the
thing carried out has for him only the same value as for others,
and he would be culpable only for carrying out the regularly pre
scribed quantity ; we are therefore informed (by the Mishna) that
one who commits a deed executes his original intention.
R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel : R. Meir declares one
who carried out only a single wheat grain, intended for sowing,
culpable. Is this not self-evident ? The Mishna taught " be it
ever so small." One might presume that the term "be it ever so
small" denotes something smaller than a dried fig but not smaller
than an olive. R. Meir therefore informs us (that it refers even
to one wheat grain). R. Itz'hak, the son of R. Jehudah, opposed
this : " (We see that) the Mishna declares one culpable for an act
originally intended to be performed, but now, supposing a man in
tended to carry out his entire household at once; is he then not
176

TRACT SABBATH. 177
culpable until he had accomplished the entire task, even if he had
carried out part of it ?" The answer was : If a man has an absurd
intention it is void, and he is culpable for carrying out" the pre
scribed quantity.
" Any one else, however, is culpable only then if (he carried
out) the prescribed quantity." The teaching in the Mishna is not
in accordance with that of R. Simeon b. Elazar (on page 145).
Rabha said in the name of R. Na'hman : " If one carried out a
thing the size of a dried fig with the intention of eating it, but
changed his mind in the mean time and then intended to sow it, or
on the contrary, first intended to sow it and then to eat it, he is
culpable. Is this not self-evident ? The prescribed quantity for
both eating and sowing was carried. We might say that the re
moving and the depositing of a thing must be done with an origi
nal intention in order to make one culpable, and as in this case
the intention was changed the man is not culpable at all ; therefore
we are informed (that he is culpable).
" If he brought the thing carried out by him back (into private
ground)," etc. Is this not self-evident? (for he did not sow it, we
then see that his original intention is void). Said Abayi : " The
Mishna speaks of a case where the man took the thing brought from
his house, and threw it into the place where his full supply was
kept, and the place where he threw it remained conspicuous. One
might say, if the place is conspicuous, his original intention is not
yet void, because he took the same thing again. We are there
fore informed that the throwing of the thing among his other sup
plies annulled his original intention.
MISHNA : If one intended to carry out victuals and deposited
them on the doorstep, whether he afterward carried them out
(into the street) himself, or this was done by some one else, he is
not culpable, because he did not accomplish the deed at one time.
If one deposited a basket of fruit on the outside doorstep, even if
the majority of the fruit was on the outside (in the street), he is
not culpable, unless he carried out the entire basket (into the
street). GEMARA : What kind of a doorstep does the Mishna have
reference to? Shall we assume that the doorstep was public
ground, how can the man be not culpable ? He carried out from
private into public ground. Shall we assume that the doorstep
was private ground, why does the Mishna teach that if he carried
VOL. I. — 12

t78 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
it out (into the street), or any one else, he is not culpable ? It is
again a case of carrying out from private into public ground?
We must therefore assume that the doorstep was unclaimed ground,
and we are informed that only when the victuals were deposited
on the unclaimed ground the man is not culpable, but if they had
been carried out from private into public ground, even by way of
unclaimed ground, he is culpable. And the Mishna does not
agree with the opinion of Ben Azai, as we have learned before in
a Boraitha : " One who carries out from his store into the market
by way of the alley is culpable, but Ben Azai says he is not."
" If one deposited a basket of fruit," etc. Said Hezkyah : The
case in question treats only of a basket filled with cucumbers and
beets, but if full of mustard seeds he is culpable. From this we
see that Hezkyah considers a vessel no support* (i.e., the cucum
bers are encircled by the basket and need no support, but the mus
tard seeds, which are heaped up, are outside of the basket proper
and not supported by it ; therefore, when the basket with mustard
seeds is carried outside, part of the mustard seeds are already on
the outside and the carrier is culpable. R. Johanan, however,
says, even if the basket contained mustard seeds, he is also not
culpable. Thence we see that R. Johanan does consider a vessel
a support. Said R. Zera: "How is it with the Mishna? It is
neither of the opinion of Hezkyah nor of R. Johanan." Hezkyah
learned the Mishna in accordance with his own views and R.
Johanan with his own. Hezkyah explains the Mishna which said
"unless he carries out the entire basket." This is the case if the
basket is filled with cucumbers and beets, but if filled with mus
tard seeds it is equal to putting out the entire basket into the
street, and he is culpable, but R. Johanan explained the Mishna
thus : Although the majority of the fruit is on the outside, even
if all the fruit were on the outside, the man would not be cul
pable, unless the entire basket was put on the outside. So also
said Rabha: The Mishna treats only of a basket filled with cu
cumbers and beets, but if filled with mustard seeds the man is
culpable. Whence we see that he does not consider a vessel a
support. Abayi, however, said even if the basket contained mus
tard seeds the man is also not culpable. Whence we see that he

* The Talmudical term for " support" is " Agad," literally " bind." In the above
the sense demands its rendition by " support."

TRACT SABBATH.

179

does consider a vessel a support. Shall we say that Abayi adopted
the system of Rabha and Rabha of Abayi, or Abayi contradicts
himself and Rabha does the same ? For we have learned as fol
lows : One who carried out fruit into public ground, Abayi
said, is culpable only if he carried it out with his hand (although
the body remained in public ground), but if in a vessel, he is not
culpable. (Why ? Because Abayi does not consider the body a
support to the hand, in spite of the fact that the hand is attached
to the body, but if he carried out the fruit in a vessel and part of
the vessel still remained in private ground, he is not culpable).
And Rabha says on the contrary : If he carried the fruit out in
his hand he is not culpable (because he considers the body a sup
port and the hand is part of the body), but if he carried it out in
a vessel he is culpable (because, although the vessel is still in
private ground some of the fruit is in public ground). The an
swer is : Reverse the case. (Say Abayi's statement should be
Rabha' s and Rabha' s Abayi's).
MISHNA : One who carries out anything in the right or in
the left hand or in his bosom or on his shoulder is culpable.
This was the manner in which the sons of Kehath carried (their
burdens).* But one who carries out a thing on the back of his
hand or with his foot, with his mouth, with his elbow, with his
ear, with his hair, with his waist bag, the opening of which is at
the bottom, or between his belt and his shirt, with the edge of
his shirt, with his shoe or sandal, is not culpable, because he car
ries it in an unusual manner.
GEMARA : R. Elazar said : " One who carries out a burden
ten spans above the ground [not on his shoulder, but in the air]
is culpable, because in this manner the sons of Kehath carried
their burdens." Whence do we know that the sons of Kehath
carried their burdens in this way? It is written [Numb. iii. 26]
" Which is by the tabernacle and by the altar round about." The
tabernacle is compared to the altar. As the tabernacle was ten
ells, so was also the altar ten ells, and whence do we know that
the tabernacle itself was ten ells? Because it is written [Ex.
xxvi. 16] "Ten ells shall be the length of the boards." Or we
may say that we know that the sons of Kehath carried their bur
dens in this manner from the ark. The Master said : The ark

* Numb. iv.

180 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
was nine spans high, and with the cover, which was one span
high, it was ten. The experience is to the effect that when a
burden was carried on the shoulders by means of poles, one-third
of the burden was above the poles and two-thirds below ; then as
the ark was ten spans high and one-third of it was carried above
the shoulders, it was certainly more than ten spans above the
ground. We have learned : One who carries a burden on his head is
not culpable. And if one will say that the inhabitants of the
city of Hutzal do so, we may assume that their deed is void for
the rest of mankind, who do not carry burdens on their heads.
MISHNA : One who intends to carry something in front, but
the thing moved to his back, is not culpable, but if he intends to
carry it on his back and it moves to the front he is culpable. Of
a truth it was said : A woman who wears a girdle, whether she
carries something in the front or in the back of it, is culpable,
because the girdle invariably turns around. R. Jehuda says the
same rule applies to letter-carriers.
GEMARA: Where is the difference ? The main object (here
is the intention). In either case his intention was not carried
out ; why is he not culpable if the thing moved from the front to
the back and culpable if it moved from the back to the front ?
Said R. Elazar : " Divide the Mishna into two parts. The sec
ond part was not taught by the same Tana as the first." Said R.
Ashi : " This is no question at all. Perhaps the Mishna may be
explained thus : Not only did the man intend to carry it on his
back and did so, which would make him culpable, because his in
tention was carried out, but even if he intended to carry it on his
back and it moved to the front, in which case his intention was
not carried out, he is also culpable, because his intention was to
carry it on his back, which is only of little safety, and the thing
moved to the front, which made it perfectly safe and he would be
benefited by it; hence he is culpable."
" Of a truth it was said." It was taught in a Boraitha : Wher
ever it is said " Of a truth it was said," it remains as an ordinance.
" R. Jehuda says the same rule applies to letter-carriers." We
were taught in a Boraitha that this was done by the clerks of the
government. MISHNA : One who carries out a large loaf of bread into
public ground is culpable. If two persons do this together they

TRACT SABBATH. 181
are both innocent ; but if the one could not do it himself and both
carried it, they are both culpable. R. Simeon, however, declares
them not culpable.
GEMARA : Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh, according
to others Abayi said, and others say that it was taught in a Borai
tha : " If of both men who carried the loaf, either was able to
carry it himself, R. Meir makes them both culpable, but R. Je
hudah and R. Simeon declare them both innocent. If of the two,
neither was able (to do it himself,) R. Jehuda and R. Meir declare
them culpable and R. Simeon declares them innocent. If one of
the two, however, was able, and the other unable, all agree that
the able man is culpable." Whence do we know this? From
what the rabbis taught : It is written [Lev. iv. 2] : " If any person
sin," etc., i.e., if he committed the whole deed but not a part of
it. How so ? If two persons held one pitchfork and threw grain
with it, or a weaver's spindle and wove with it, or a quill and
wrote with it, or a reed and carried it into public ground, one
might say that they are culpable. It is written [ibid.] : " If any
person sin," etc. But if two persons held a date-press, or a log,
and carried them out into public ground, R. Jehudah says, if one
of the two was not able to carry it himself and they both carried
it, they are both culpable, but if either of them was able, both are
not culpable. R. Simeon says, even if one alone is not able to
carry it and they carried it out together, they are also free. For
only referring to such an instance the Scriptures say : " If any
person," etc., and it is plain that one is culpable if he performs
work alone, but if two persons did one thing they are both free.
The master said : If one of the two was able to perform the work
alone and the other unable, all agree that he is culpable. Which
of them was culpable ? R. Hisda said, the one who was able. Then
shall we assume that the one who was unable is culpable ? Why ?
What did he ? Said R. Hamnuna to R. Hisda : " Why not ? Did
he not assist the one who was able ?" Answered R. Hisda : Assist
ing is not of consequence (because if he alone is not able to per
form the work himself, his assistance is of no value). Said R.
Zbhid in the name of Rabha : " We have also learned in a Borai
tha in support of this argument : If one suffering from a ve
nereal disease rides an animal, the feet of which are encased in
four pieces of cloth, the pieces of cloth are not subject to defile
ment, for the reason that the animal is able to stand on three

182 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
feet." Why are they not subject to defilement? Was not one
foot a help to the other three ? Hence we must assume that one
of the feet must be regarded as a help to the other three ; a mere
help, however, not having any legal consequence cannot become
defiled, and as it is impossible to determine which one of the
three feet is to be regarded as a help, all four pieces of cloth en
casing them are not subject to defilement.
Again the master said : If either of the two were able, R.
Meir holds them both to be culpable. The school-men asked :
" Must the object carried out by them be of double the prescribed
size, i.e., a prescribed size for each of them, in order to make
them culpable, or does the prescribed size for one man suffice to
make them both culpable? R. Hisda and R. Hamnuna (both an
swered) : One of them held that one prescribed size suffices, and
the other that it must be double in order to make them culpable,
(and it is known which of them held to the former opinion and
which to the latter). Said R. Ashi : " We have also learned in a
Boraitha : " Two men who carried out a reed used by a weaver
(into the street) are both culpable." Why so? Was not double
the prescribed quantity necessary in order to make both culpable ?
Hence we must assume that the Boraitha holds one prescribed quan
tity to be sufficient." Said R. Aha, the son of Rabba, to R. Ashi :
" What proof do you derive from this Boraitha? Perhaps it refers
to a reed that was of sufficient size to cook an egg for one and an
other for the other?" R. Ashi answered: If such were the case,
the Boraitha would say merely a " reed" and not a " reed used by
a weaver." Said R. Aha again: "Perhaps the Boraitha refers to
a reed of sufficient size to weave a napkin each for both of them ?
Therefore it were better to say that from this Boraitha we can de
rive no support either for one opinion or the other."
A certain scholar taught in the presence of R. Na'hman : " Two
men who carried out a reed used by a weaver (into the street) are
both not culpable." R. Simeon, however, declares them culpable.
How can this be ? (Is this not contrary to R. Simeon's usage ?)
Say then (on the contrary), the scholars said they are culpable
and R. Simeon said they are not.
MISHNA : If one carry victuals of less than the prescribed
quantity in a vessel (out into the street) he is not culpable even
of (carrying) the vessel, for the vessel is of no consequence to the
victuals. If he carried a person on a litter he is not culpable even

TRACT SABBATH. ,83
of (carrying) the litter, because the litter is of no consequence to
the person. If he carried a corpse on a cot he is culpable. The
same is the case if (he carries) a part of the corpse of the size of
an olive or of a carcass the size of an olive and of a reptile the
size of a lentil. R. Simeon, however, declares him not culpable.
GEMARA : The rabbis taught : " If a man carry out victuals
of the prescribed quantity in a vessel, he is culpable of carrying
the victuals, but not of (carrying) the vessel, because the vessel is
of no consequence to the victuals, but if the victuals are such that
they cannot be carried otherwise than in a vessel, he is culpable
of (carrying) the vessel also." Shall we assume from this teach
ing that if one ate two pieces of tallow each the size of an olive at
different times through forgetfulness (and was not reminded of his
sin between both times of eating), he is bound to bring two sin-
offerings ? Said R. Ashi : In the case of the man who is culpable
of (carrying) both the victuals and the vessel, it must be assumed
that he carried them through forgetfulness and was subsequently
reminded of having carried only one of them (but forgot about the
other) ; later he was reminded of having carried the other also,
and according to the opinion of the teacher of this Boraitha, he is
culpable and bound to bring two sin-offerings, one for each time
he was reminded. The same difference of opinion exists here as
we have seen existed between R. Johanan and R. Simeon ben
Lakish (in the chapter concerning the general rule of Sabbath).
" If he carried a person in a litter, he is not culpable even of
(carrying) the litter." Shall we assume that the Mishna is of the
opinion of R. Nathan and not of the rabbis ? We have learned in
the following Boraitha : " If one carried out an animal or a bird
(into the street), whether alive or slaughtered, he is bound to bring
a sin-offering. R. Nathan, however, says : " For (carrying out) a
slaughtered (animal or bird) he is culpable, but not for one that is
alive, because a live creature carries itself." Said Rabha: "We
can also say that the rabbis agree with the teaching of the Mishna
concerning the (carrying) of a person, because while in the case of
of (carrying) a live animal they hold a man to be culpable, it is be
cause an animal or bird always struggles to get loose and thus be
come a burden ; but a person who is carried agrees to being car
ried, and virtually carries himself."
Said R. Ada b. Ahbha to Rabha : How will, in your opinion,
the following teachings be made plain: We have learned in a

184 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
Mishna : " Ben Bathyra permits the selling of a horse to a Gentile,
and a Boraitha says the reason that Ben Bathyra permits this is
because the Gentile will not perform any work with the horse on
a Sabbath that would involve the liability of a sin-offering (for a
horse is used for riding only, and when a person rides a horse the
person virtually carries himself, and hence is no burden to the
horse), and R. Johanan says that Ben Bathyra and R. Nathan said
(practically) the same thing." Now, if in your opinion the rabbis
differ with R. Nathan only in the matter of animals and birds, be
cause when carried they struggle for freedom, but agree with him
in the matter of a person, why does R. Johanan say that only Ben
Bathyra and R. Nathan say the same thing. Did not the rabbis
also hold to the same opinion? (The answer was) R. Johanan
said that Ben Bathyra in permitting a horse to be sold to a Gentile
referred to one who was used only for carrying falcons. Are
there then such horses? Yea; they are to be found in Be-
Vaidon.* R. Johanan said : Even R. Nathan holds a man culpable if
he carries a person, animal or bird that is bound.
" If he carried a corpse on a cot he is culpable." Said Rabba
bar bar Hana in the name of R. Johanan, and the same was said
by R. Joseph in the name of R. Simeon ben Lakish : R. Simeon
does not hold a man culpable, even if the man carries out a corpse
for burial. Said Rabba: "Even R. Simeon concedes that if a
man carry out a spade to dig a grave with, or a scroll to read from,
he is culpable." Is this not self-evident? Should we then assume
that according to R. Simeon's opinion even this kind of labor is
not labor for its own sake, how can we find any labor for its own
sake which in the opinion of R. Simeon would involve the liabil
ity of a sin-offering ? One might think that R. Simeon does not
hold a man culpable of carrying a thing unless the work done with
the thing is both for the man's sake and also for the sake of the
thing itself ; for instance, if the spade was needed for digging and
also had to be sharpened, or the scroll had to be examined and
used for reading ; hence he informs us that such is not the case.
There was a corpse in Drokra f and R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak
permitted it to be carried out into unclaimed ground. Said R.
* A city where falconers plied their trade.
f Name of a city.

TRACT SABBATH. T8S
Johanan, the brother of Mar, son of Rabhina, to R. Na'hman b. Itz
'hak : " According to which Tana's opinion do you act ? Accord
ing to R. Simeon? Did R. Simeon allow this? He only stated
that the act does not involve the liability of a sin-offering, but he
did not permit it to start with?" R. Na'hman answered: By
the Lord! You yourself, and even R. Jehuda, would allow this
to be done the same as I did ; did I say that it was to be carried
into public ground ? I said unclaimed ground ! Do not forget,
that this was also for the sake of the honor due a human being.
Precious is the honor of man, and for its sake even a direct com
mandment of the Scriptures may be circumvened !
MISHNA : One who pares his finger-nails, either by means
of his fingers or by means of his teeth ; also one who plucks hair
from his head, beard, or lip; also a woman who braids her hair, or
paints her eyebrows, or parts her hair, is, according to R. Eliezer,
culpable. The sages, however, declare this to be (prohibited only
by rabbinical law) as a precautionary measure.
GEMARA : Said R. Elazar : " The difference of opinion ex
ists only in the case of paring the finger-nails by means of the
fingers, but if taken off with an instrument (all agree) that he is
culpable." Is this not self-evident? Is it not plainly written in
the Mishna, if he pares his finger-nails by means of his fingers ?
One might think that the difference of opinion is also concerning
an instrument, and the reason the Mishna does not mention an in
strument is only to show the firmness of R. Eliezer in prohibiting
the paring of finger-nails even with one's own fingers. He in
forms us that the difference of opinion is concerning the fingers
only. R. Elazar said furthermore : The difference of opinion is
only concerning a man's paring his own finger-nails, but if he
pared another's all agree that he is not culpable. (The reason
for this is because when paring one's own finger-nails a man
can make them look as if trimmed with an instrument, but when
trimming another's this not possible). Is this not self-evident?
Did not the Mishna say plainly: "His own finger-nails" ? Nay.
One might think that according to the opinion of R. Eliezer the
trimming of another's finger-nails also makes one culpable, but the
Mishna, stating plainly " his own finger-nails," intends only to show
the firmness of the rabbis in making not culpable even those who
pare their own nails ; therefore he informs that such is not the
case.

186 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.
" Also one who plucks hair from his head," etc. We have
learned : " One who cuts off a scissorsful of hair from his head on
the Sabbath is culpable. How much is a scissorsful supposed to
be? Two hairs. R. Eliezer says: "One." The rabbis agree
with R. Eliezer that in case one gray hair is plucked from a num
ber of black hairs a man is culpable even for one, and not only on
Sabbath but even on week-days this is prohibited, as it is written
(Deut. xxii. 5) : " And a man shall not put on a woman's gar
ment." We have learned in a Boraitha R. Simeon b. Elazar said : " If
a finger-nail became separated from the finger of its own accord, a
man may remove the adhering part, providing the greater part of
the nail was separated. He may do this with his fingers, but not
with an instrument. If he did it, however, with an instrument,
he is not liable for a sin-offering. If the smaller part only was
separated, he may not remove it. If he did so, however, with his
fingers, he is not culpable, but with an instrument he is. Said R.
Jehuda, The ordinance according to R. Simeon ben Elazar pre
vails. Said Rabba bar bar Huna in the name of R. Johanan.
This is the case if the nail was bent upward and was trouble
some. "Also a woman who braids her hair," etc. In what category
can her work be counted ? Said R. Abuha : It was explained to
me by R. Jossi bar 'Hanina: Painting the eyebrows comes in the
class of work enumerated as dyeing, braiding and parting the hair
in the class of building. Is this the manner of building? Yea;
as R. Simeon b. Menassia taught : It is written (Gen. ii. 22) :
" And the Lord God formed * the rib which he had taken from
the man." From this may be adduced that the Holy One, blessed
be He, braided the hair of Eve and brought her to Adam. For
in the seaports hair braiding and dressing is called building.
We have learned in a Boraitha R. Simeon b. Elazar said :
" Braiding the hair, painting the eyebrows and parting the hair, if
done for herself, does not make her culpable (because it cannot be
termed properly building) ; but if done for another it does make
her culpable." Furthermore, R. Simeon b. Elazar said in the
name of R. Eliezer : " A woman shall not put red dye on her face,
because that constitutes painting."
* The Hebrew word for "formed " is " Vayiven," literally " built."

TRACT SABBATH. 187
The rabbis taught: If one milked a cow and then made
cheese of the milk to the size of a dried fig; if he swept a floor
or dampened a floor (to lay the dust) ; or if he removed honeycombs
from a bee hive, his case is as follows : If he performed these acts
unintentionally on Sabbath, he is bound to bring a sin-offering,
and if he did all this intentionally on a biblical feast-day, he shall
receive forty stripes. Such is the opinion of R. Eliezer, but the
sages said : " All this is only prohibited by rabbinical law as a
precautionary measure." (Says the Gemara:) Now the ordinance
having prevailed according to the opinion of R. Simeon, all these
acts are not prohibited at all.
MISHNA : One who plucks something from a perforated
flower-pot is culpable ; from a flower-pot that is not perforated he
is not culpable R. Simeon held him not culpable in both cases.
Abayi put a contradictory question to Rabha, according to
others R. Hyya bar Rabh to his father Rabh : " The Mishna
states that R. Simeon holds one not culpable in either case.
From this we see well that to R. Simeon a perforated or a solid
flower-pot is one and the same thing. We have learned in an
other Boraitha : R. Simeon said that there is no difference be
tween a perforated and a solid flower-pot except to make the seeds
grown in the flower-pot subject to defilement (i.e., in a solid flow
er-pot the seeds are not accounted as seeds). Hence there is a
difference between the pots in the opinion of R. Simeon." The
answer was : In all cases except defilement R. Simeon regards
seeds in either a perforated or a solid flower-pot as loose (i.e.,
detached from the ground). In the case of defilement, however,
it is different, because the Scriptures themselves added a special
provision regarding defilement of seeds, as it is written (Lev. xi.
37) : " And if any part of their carcass fall upon any sowing-seeds
which hath been sown, it shall be clean.

END OF VOLUME I.

3 9002 051

:

iilllll

SHHB

1