Traditional Jewish Talmud - cover

p. 63



MISHNA I.: 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 put back upon it; Beth Hillel permits it.

GEMARA: The schoolmen propounded a question: “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 the more should it not be put there if it was once taken off?” Come and hear. There being two parts in our Mishna, if the point of controversy is the leaving (of the victuals on the stove, if they were there before), the Mishna is to be explained thus: 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? According to Beth Shamai such as are to be kept warm, but not such as improve by cooking. And according to Beth Hillel both. 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

p. 64

returning of the victuals to the stove the point of their differing–viz., what kind of victuals should be returned (to the stove), according to the former such as are to be kept warm, but not such as improve by cooking, and according to the latter, both. (If you put such a construction upon the text of the Mishna,) to what purpose is it repeated? “Beth Shamai says,” etc. It may be said even that they differ concerning putting back, and nevertheless there is no difficulty, as the Mishna is not complete, and should read thus: “If the stove was heated . . . 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 what 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 still a difference of opinion between the two schools, for according to the former they may be only taken off, and according to the latter they may be returned also.

Come 1 and hear. R. Helbo in the name of R. Hama b. Gorion, quoting Rabh, said: “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 difference would it make?

Do you think R. Helbo’s report refers to the first part of the Mishna? It refers to the second part, in which Beth Hillel allows it to be returned; and to this he says, even in this case, upon the stove it is permissible, but not into the stove.

The schoolmen propounded a question: “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 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. Itz’hak

p. 65

b. Na’hmani in the name of R. Oshia says: If the fire 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.

Is it to be inferred from this that, if victuals are improved by shrivelling (upon the fire), they may be left there? This is a different case, for the fire was damped. If such is the case, what came R. Itz’hak to teach? “Lest one say that if the fire got to glowing again, it is to be considered as a fire originally started?” R. Itz’hak 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) of 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 Rabha: “Were not both (propositions) expounded in the Boraithoth (that were cited)?” Aye, but R. Shesheth merely, wishes to exhibit his construction of the text of the Mishna.

R. Samuel b. Jehudah in the name of R. Johanan said: Upon a stove that was heated with pressed poppy seed or wood, victuals may be left standing, if they are sufficiently warmed and sufficiently cooked, even if shrivelling improves them. Said one of the schoolmen to him: “Did not Rabh and Samuel both say that if shrivelling improves them, it is not allowed? And he answered: “I said this in the name of R. Johanan and not in the name of the above mentioned, as I am aware of it.” R. Uqba 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 questioned R. Joseph: May victuals be left (on the stove)? And he answered: Did not R.

Jehudah leave (victuals on the stove), and eat them afterward? Rejoined Abayi: 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 permitted; but I ask about (healthy men like) you and me. R. Joseph answered: “In

p. 66

[paragraph continues] Sura they do leave. As R. Na’hman b. Itz’hak, who was exemplary in following religious ordinances, was wont to leave and to eat.”

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, or whether he thought that, because there was flour on his fish, continuous warming did not improve it.

R. Na’hman said: (Victuals) that improve by shrivelling must not (be left on the stove); such as deteriorate may. The rule is that all victuals which contain flour deteriorate by continuous warming.

R. Hyya b. Ahba was questioned: “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 lectured: Victuals cooked on the Sabbath unintentionally may be eaten; intentionally not, 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 acts intentionally; but when forgotten there was no act, and therefore he may eat it. But R. Na’hman b. Isaac says the above phrase of “it makes no difference” implies a prohibition. In the case of cooking there is no fear of craft; therefore if he has done it unintentionally, he is not fined; but in the case of forgetting (the pot in the fire) craft may be feared (it means that he may put it in intentionally saying that he forgot), and therefore even if he actually forgets he is not allowed to eat the victuals.

The schoolmen propounded a question: “What about one who had intentionally left (his victuals upon the stove)? Do the rabbis fine him or not?” Come and hear. Samuel b. Nathan in the name of R. Hanina said: “When R. Jose went to Ziporis, 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 prohibited. Shall we not assume that he forbade their use even on that Sabbath as a fine? Nay, he forbade their use for the following Sabbath.”

From this is to be inferred that shrivelled eggs improve by continuous heating. As R. Hama b.

Hanina said: “Rabbi and

p. 67

[paragraph continues] I were once stopping at a certain place. We were treated with eggs shrivelled like wild pears, and we ate many of them.”

“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. Oshia is also of the same opinion, for thus 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 said nothing.” And R. Hyya in the name of R. Johanan said: Even if (the warm pot taken off from the stove) was put upon the ground, it may (still be put back on the stove). Said Hyskiyah in the name of Abayi: “According to them who hold that if he puts it on the floor it may not be returned, it is said only when it was not his intention to return it. But if it was, he may. And from this it is to be inferred that if it was still in his hand, although his intention was not to place it again, he may do so on reconsideration.”

MISHNA II.: (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 to it (so that it touch the oven), the less so upon it, and still less so into it; so much the less shall (a pot) 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; with poppy-seed pulp or with wood it must not be put close to it. Said

R. Aha b. Rabha 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 it should not, 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. Jose b. 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 III.: An egg shall not be put close to a boiler to

p. 68

get it settled, nor must it be wrapped in a hot cloth. R. Jose permits it; also it must not be put into hot sand or in the (hot) dust of the road that it be roasted (by the heat of the sun). It once happened that the inhabitants of Tiberias had laid a pipe of cold water through the arm of their hot springs. But the sages explained to them that on the Sabbath this water is considered like any other warmed on the Sabbath, and must not be used either for washing or drinking; and should this be done on a feast day, it is like water heated by fire, which may be used for drinking only, but not for washing.

GEMARA: The schoolmen questioned: How is it if one has done so with an egg? Said R. Joseph: He is liable for a sin-offering. Said Mar b. Rabhina: This is to be understood also from the following Boraitha: 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 only be rinsed in it, excepting old herrings and Spanish (salted) fish, because with these, rinsing

completes their preparation. (The same is the case with an egg; the settling completes.)

“Nor shall it be wrapped,” etc. Now, the Mishna which states: “Cooked victuals may be put into a pit for preservation; drinking water into cold bad water to cool; cold victuals in the sun to warm.” Shall we assume that it is in accordance with R. Jose and not with the sages? Said R. Na’hman: As to the heat of the sun, all agree that it is allowed; the outcome of heating by fire, all agree that it is prohibited. The point of their differing is the outcome of sun-heating. The one master holds that the use of such heat is prohibited for fear lest one use also the heat that is generated by fire; the other master does not impose such a precautionary measure.

“It happened that the inhabitants of Tiberias,” etc. R. Hisda said: With the prohibition by the rabbis of the act of the Tiberians they have also abolished the permission to heat on Friday, even when it is yet day, in such places as increase heat. Said Ulla: “The Halakha prevails according to the Tiberians.” Rejoined R. Na’hman: “The Tiberians themselves have already destroyed their pipes.” “Washing with warm water,” how is this to be understood? The whole body? Is this prohibited only with water that was warmed on Sabbath? Is it not the same even when it was warmed on the eve of Sabbath? As the following Boraitha states: “With water which was warmed on the

p. 69

eve of Sabbath, on the morrow one may wash his face, hands, and feet, but not the whole body. And if it means the face, etc., how is the latter part to be understood? If it was warmed on a feast day,” etc.

Shall we then assume that our Mishna states in accordance with Beth Shamai, as they so state plainly elsewhere, to which the Beth Hillel opposed and permitted? Said R. Iyqa b. Hanina: Our Mishna treats of washing the entire body, and it is in accordance with the Tana of the following Boraitha: “One shall not rinse his entire body (on the Sabbath) either with warm or with cold water.” So is the decree of 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 strictly prohibited.

Rabba b. b. Hana in the name of R. Johanan said: “The Halakha prevails according to R. Jehudah.” Said R. Joseph to him: “Didst thou hear this explicitly, or dost thou derive 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 member separately (i.e., not plunge into it at once). Samuel, however, said: It was not allowed but of the face, hands, and feet. And the following Boraitha supports Samuel: “If water was warmed on Friday, one may wash his face, hands, and feet with it on the following day, but not his entire body, even member by member; and so much less 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 rabbis 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 rinse his hands in an adjoining room. R. Jehudah said: It happened in a bath-house of the city of B’nai Beraq, that its openings were stopped up on the eve of a feast day. The next day R. Eliezer b. Azariah and R. Aqiba entered it and took a sweat; then they left it and rinsed 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

p. 70

said, even if the warm water had not been covered with boards, they were also allowed (to do so). However, since transgressing began to increase, they began to prohibit. In bath-houses of large cities one may walk about without fear of people’s saying that he went to take a sweat.

What does the expression “transgressing” mean? As R. Simeon b. Pazi in the name of R. Joshua

b. Levi, quoting bar Qapara, said: 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 they 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. Seeing that people could not stand the last prohibition, it was therefore revoked, and bathing in the hot spring water of Tiberias was allowed. The prohibition of the sweating bath, however, remained. The rabbis taught: One may warm himself by a hearth-fire and afterwards rinse himself with cold water, but not bathe first in cold water and then warm himself by a hearth-fire, because he warms the water that is on him.

The rabbis taught: One 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 rabbis taught: One may put a pitcher of water before 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 boil it, but merely to temper it. R. Simeon b. 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 the hand is spontaneously withdrawn from it (feeling the scald) it is prohibited, but not otherwise. And what extent of heat is meant by it? Said Rabba: If the belly of a child is scalded by it.

p. 71

R. Itz’hak b. 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 we have inferred three things–viz.: First, that oil improves by warming, and it is a

prohibited act; second, that if anything is put into a second vessel (not directly into the boiling vessel) it is not considered cooking; third, 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. Itz’hak) to put the oil directly into the tank. Is that so? Did not R. Hisda say that he who has cooked in the hot spring water of Tiberias is not culpable? The culpability to be inferred (from the case of Rabbi) extends only as far as blows of correction 1 are concerned.

R. Zera said: “I have seen R. Abuhu swimming in a tank, and I know not whether he raised (his feet from the ground) or not. Is it not self-evident that he did not raise them, as there is a Boraitha: One shall not swim about in a pond, even if (that pond) is stationed in a yard. This presents no difficulty. In a pond it is prohibited, because it is similar to a river, while in a tank it is allowed, because it is similar to a vessel. 2

R. Zera once found R. Jehudah in the bath. He (R. Jehudah) ordered his servant (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 R. Zera: “If I had not come but to hear this, it were enough for me.”

It is correct that he ordered things in the Hebrew language, as private affairs may be said in the same language. The same is with the second order, for Samuel said that heat (from without) drives out heat (from within). But what good is in the order, “Drink of the water of the bath”? It is also correct, as we have learned in the following Boraitha: “If one washed

p. 72

himself with warm water and did not drink of it, he is like an oven that was heated from without but not from within.”

MISHNA IV.: The hot water contained in a “Muliar” (caldron), 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? A Boraitha states: “It 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. Na’hman b. Itz’hak 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. Na’hman: “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 V.: 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 permitted to pour water into the kettle, or into a cup, for the purpose of making such water lukewarm.

GEMARA: How is this to be understood? Said Abayi: It means thus: “Into a kettle, the fire of which has been removed, which still contains hot water, a small quantity of cold water may not be poured, for the purpose of warming; but a large quantity, to make the hot water lukewarm is, however, permitted. Into a kettle, the hot water of which has been entirely removed, no cold water at all may be poured, because it tempers the vessel. And it is in accordance with R. Jehudah, who holds that an act which pleases one, if done even unintentionally, is prohibited.

Said Rabh: “Even the above-mentioned large quantity is allowed only to make the water lukewarm; but not such a quantity as will entirely neutralize the hot water and tend to temper the vessel.” Samuel, however, permits any quantity.

Shall we assume that Samuel is in accordance with R. Simeon (who opposes the above theory of

R. Jehudah), but did he not say that it is permitted to extinguish live dross on public ground (to prevent injury), but not charcoal? And if he agrees with R. Simeon, this also should be permitted? As regards labor tending to the accomplishment of a work (prohibited on the

p. 73

Sabbath), he holds with R. Simeon; but as to the performance of labor, not for its own sake, he sides with R. Jehudah. Said Rabina: “Since it is permitted to perform labor (prohibited by rabbinical law), in order to prevent injury, it is also permitted to remove thorns from public ground, little by little, in distances of less than four ells at a time (in order to prevent injury); but upon unclaimed ground it may be done in greater distances.”

“But it is permitted,” etc. The rabbis taught: One may pour hot water upon cold, but not cold upon hot water, so is the decree of Beth Shamai; Beth Hillel, however, allows 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. But R. Simeon b. Menassiah forbids it. And Na’hman said that so the Halakha prevails. R. Joseph was about to say that a bucket is under the same ruling as a bathing-tub. Said Abayi to him: “So taught R. Hyya, that a bucket is not in this category.”

Said R. Huna b. R. Joshua: “I observed that Rabha 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 o r vice versa.” Said R. Huna to R. Ashi: “Perhaps this was a different case altogether, it being that there was a vessel within a vessel!” But the latter retorted: “It says: ‘To empty’; as it was taught: It is permitted to empty out a pitcher of water into a bucket of water, be it either warm water into cold or vice versa.”

MISHNA VI.: In a saucepan or a pot that was removed from the fire, 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 schoolmen propounded the following question: Does R. Jehudah refer to the first part of the Mishna, which is lenient, or does he refer to the latter part, which is rigorous? Come and hear. We have learned 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 was about to say that salt comes under the same ruling as spices, because in his opinion salt becomes cooked in a

p. 74

first vessel (i.e., the vessel used for cooking), but not in a second vessel. 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. Na’hman, who said: There is a saying that the dissolving of salt requires thorough boiling, the same as beef.

MISHNA VII.: It is not permitted to place a vessel under a lamp 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.

GEMARA: Said R. Hisda: “Although it was said that the placing of a vessel under a hen (laying on sloping ground) to receive the egg is forbidden, yet to cover the egg so as to prevent it from being crushed is permitted.”

Said Rabba: The reason of R. Hisda is because he holds that hens being in the habit of laying eggs on level ground, in order to prevent the egg from being stepped upon, it is permitted to cover it with a vessel; but as liens are not in the habit 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 therefore it is permitted.) He was told 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 receive 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 R. Huna b. R. Joshua answered: “Sparks have nothing substantial about them (therefore the vessel containing them is not made useless on the same Sabbath).”

R. Itz’hak 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.

All the objections of Abayi being raised against R. Itz’hak’s statements, he answered: “In that case there was a lack of space.” (If the space occupied by a vessel is needed, that vessel

p. 75

may be removed, and while being removed may be used for any purpose.)

Come and hear (another objection). An egg laid on the Sabbath or a festival, 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. Shesheth (to his disciples): Go ye and tell R. Itz’hak 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 b. Jehudah and also Shila Mari taught: In the case of a corpse lying in the sun (on the Sabbath), (to prevent the corpse from decomposing) 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 excessive, 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 positions; thus a screen (canopy) is formed of itself.

It was taught: “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 b. Shalmi in the name of Rabh said: A loaf of bread or an infant should 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; they differ only where there is none. One holds that indirect transportation must be considered transportation, and the other opines that indirect transportation is not transportation (and therefore permitted).

Shall we assume that on this point the following Tanaim differ? “It is not permitted to save a corpse from a fire.” R. Jehudah b. Lakish, however, says: “I have heard that it may be done.” How is the case if there was a loaf of bread or an infant? Why should the first Tana prohibit it? And if there was none, what is the reason of Lakish’s decision? Do they not differ in the point of transportation stated above? Nay; all agree that such a transportation is considered; the

p. 76

reason, however, of Ben Lakish is that usually one is concerned about his dead, and if it would not be permitted to remove it, he will extinguish the fire. Said R. Jehudah b. Shilah in the name of R. Ashi, quoting R. Johanan: The Halakha prevails according to Ben Lakish concerning a corpse.

MISHNA VIII.: A new lamp maybe handled on the Sabbath, but not an old one; R. Simeon, however, says all lamps are permitted to be handled except such as are still burning.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: A new lamp may be handled, but not an old one; such is the decree 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 extinguished); but R. Simeon says, except a lamp which is still burning. If extinguished, it may be moved; but a goblet, bowl, or lantern (used as lamps, must

not be removed from their respective places). R. Eliezer b. R. Simeon, says: It is permitted to make use of an extinguished lamp and of the oil dripping, from it, even while the lamp is burning.

Said Abayi: R. Eliezer b. 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), 1 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 burning lamp may be moved. “But a goblet, bowl, or lantern must not.” Wherein do these things differ from the others? Said Mar Zutra: 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); but these are large, and not apt to become extinguished for some time. R. Zera said: All the schoolmen agree on prohibiting the handling of a candelabrum which had been lit up on Sabbath, but the handling of the candelabrum which was not lit up on the Sabbath is unanimously permitted.

R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh said: “It is not permitted to handle 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

p. 77

was on the bed). If the money, however, had not previously been deposited on the bed, the handling is permitted. If a bed was not designated for the keeping of money, but contained money, 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). And Rabh says this because he holds with R. Jehudah concerning Muktza.

And it seems that so is the case, as 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 the same on a biblical feast day. (It is permitted to place a lamp on a palm tree on the Sabbath because there is no 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.)

And this is correct only in accordance with the theory of R. Jehudah; but should Rabh hold with

R. Simeon, why does he make a distinction between the Sabbath and a biblical feast day? The law of Muktza does not exist at all according to R. Simeon.

Is that so? Did not Rabh decide, when he was questioned whether one may remove an extinguished ‘Hanukah light on the Sabbath for fear of the Magi (this has already been mentioned in a previous connection), that it may be done? The time of danger is different. 1 R. Kahana and R. Assi then questioned him: “Does the Halakha so prevail?” and he answered: “R. Simeon is worthy to be relied upon in times of danger.”

Resh Lakish questioned 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: “There is no Muktza in his theory but the oil in a burning lamp, because if poured in a lamp for the purpose of keeping the Sabbath-light commandment it 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. But does not R. Simeon hold that the

p. 78

same is the case with other things which were designated for their religious purposes? Is it not a fact that the ornaments of the tabernacle on that festival must not be used, even in accordance with R. Simeon’s theory? As R. Hyya b. R. Joseph taught in the presence of R. Johanan: “One must not remove wood from a booth on 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 expressly for that feast, on all the seven feast days. However, if there was a stipulation it may be done accordingly” (because the wood is set aside for the ritual purpose). Hence even according to him the designation for ritual purposes must not be used. Why, then, is this different from the oil in question? The Boraitha is to be understood thus: All the ornaments of the booth in question are prohibited so far as all things bearing similitude to the oil in the burning lamp are concerned. And so also it was taught by R. Hyya b. Ahba in the name of R. Johanan, that there is no Muktza in the theory of R. Simeon, but in cases which are similar to the oil of the lamp while burning, being designated for the ritual purpose, they are also designated not to be used. 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 b. b. Hana in the name of R. Johanan: “It was said the law remains in accordance with R. Simeon. When R. Itz’hak b. 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 b. Levi said the law prevails with R. Simeon. Said R. Joseph: Now is understood what Rabba b. b. Hana said in name of R. Johanan, it was said that the Halakha. prevails according to

R. Simeon, which means that R. Johanan himself did not agree with their decision. 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? 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

p. 79

different matter altogether, for R. Ahai b. Hanina in the name of R. Assi said: Resh Lakish has decided in Zidon, a candelabrum which can be removed with one hand may be handled, but if it has to be removed with both hands it may not; 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 hands, it is prohibited. And why so? Both Rabba and R. Joseph said: Because a separate place must be designated for it.

Said Abayi to R. Joseph: “Have we not observed the case of a baldaquin prepared for a bride and groom, for which a place must be designated? And yet Samuel said in the name of R. Hyya that such may be put up and taken apart on the Sabbath.” Said Abayi: The prohibition 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 b. Lakish for allowing this? Say: Not a candelabrum made of

various parts, but if it looks like a candelabrum 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. And the point of their differing is: With a small candelabrum which looks as if made of several parts, one takes the precautionary measure lest one handle that which is really made of several parts, while the other does not care for such a precaution.

R. Malkia chanced to be in the house of R. Simlai and handled a candlestick, the light in which had been extinguished, and R. Simlai became angry on that account. R. Jose the Galilean happened to be in the town of R. Jose b. Hanina and did the same, whereupon R. Jose b. Hanina became angry. R. Abuhu, however, when he happened to be in the place of R. Jehoshua b. Levi, handled, but when he came to the place of R. Johanan he did not handle a candlestick in question out of respect to R. Johanan. R. Jehudah said: 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 account of its bad odor). Both Rabba and R. Joseph also permit this.

R. Avia once came to the house of Rabha with muddy shoes and sat on the bed in the presence of the latter. This made

p. 80

[paragraph continues] Rabha angry, and he tried to disconcert R. Avia with questions. Said he (Rabha): “Can you tell me why Rabba and R. Joseph both said that a lamp filled with naphtha may be handled?” Answered R. Avia: “The reason of their decision is because the lamp is fit to cover a vessel with after being extinguished.” And he rejoined: “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” (and brought a Boraitha which states that nose jewels, rings, etc., are considered among the vessels which may be handled on Sabbath, and Ulla explained the reason why, because they are considered as vessels). Said R. Na’hman b. Itz’hak: “Praised be the Lord that Rabha did not put

R. Avia to shame.”

Abayi pointed out to R. Joseph the following contradiction: “Did R. Simeon say that a light may be handled only when extinguished, but if burning it must not be handled? For what reason?

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 committed unintentionally is permissible.” Such is the decision of R. Simeon? (This presents no difficulty.) One 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. Now, the wearing of a mixture of wool and cotton is biblically prohibited, still R. Simeon permits it to be done temporarily. Therefore said Rabha: “Discard the case of the lamp, oil, and wick; there is another reason entirely–viz., because one becomes a basis of a thing the handling

of which is in itself prohibited (i.e., the light in itself cannot be handled).”

Said R. Zera in the name of R. Assi, quoting R. Johanan, who said in the name of R. Hanina that he was told by R. Romnas: “Rabbi permitted me to handle a pan containing glowing ashes.”

p. 81

And R. Zera himself was deliberating: Did indeed R. Johanan say so? Have we not heard that Rabba b. b. Hana said in his (R. Johanan’s) name, referring to our Mishna, which states that a man may handle a box containing a stone: “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. Na’hman’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.

The schoolmen raised the following objection: R. Simeon 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; and Levi questioned: “Is it allowed to fold the beds of travelling coppersmiths on a Sabbath?” They answered: “Yea.” In allowing this the two rabbis held with (the opinion of

R. Simeon b. Gamaliel in a) following Boraitha: It is not permitted to put together a bed 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 b. Gamaliel, however, 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 questioned Rabha: “What reason is to be found for this act? Is it because of indirect building; granted that there is no biblical prohibition to this effect, there surely is a rabbinical?” Answered Rabha: “I think that the reason is the decision of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel (with whom I agree) that it is permissible to put a bed together if the bed is loose.”

MISHNA IX.: 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 become extinguished.

p. 82

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.”

“He shall not put any water into it,” etc. Shall we assume that this anonymous Mishna is in accordance with R. Jose, who said that it is prohibited even to cause light to be extinguished? How can you explain this in this way? R. Jose spoke of the Sabbath itself; have you heard him saying so about the eve of Sabbath? And should you say that here is also meant on Sabbath itself, there is a Boraitha which states plainly: A vessel may be put under the lamp to receive sparks on Sabbath, and so much the more on the eve of Sabbath; but water must not be put in, even on the eve of Sabbath, and much less on the Sabbath itself. Therefore said R. Ashi: “It may be said that it is in accordance even with 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.”


64:1 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.

71:1 “Blows of correction” were inflicted by the rabbis not for an actual sin, but for disobedience to the laws enacted.

71:2 We have translated in accordance with Rashi’s second view, as it seems to us to be correct.

76 :1 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.

77:1 The Talmud here refers to Persian festivals, when the burning of lights was prohibited except in sacred shrines.

Next: Chapter IV: Regulations Concerning Victuals, Where They May or May Not Be Deposited to Retain Their Heat for the Sabbath