Translation:Talmud/Seder Moed/Tractate Shabbat/Chapter 22

MISHNA: Should a cask break open, sufficient may be saved for three meals. The owner may also call to others: "Come and save for yourselves (whatever you can)." No portion of the leakage, however, may be sponged up (soaked up with a sponge). One must not press fruit in order to extract the juice; and if it ooze out by itself, it must not be used. R. Jehudah said: "If the fruit is for eating, the juice which oozes out may be used; but if it is for beverage, it must not be used." If honeycombs be broken on the eve of Sabbath and the honey ooze out, the honey must not be used. R. Eliezer, however, permits this.

GEMARA: We have learned, that wine must not be soaked up with a sponge, and oil must not be dipped with a spoon, in the same manner as it is done on week-days (there must be a slight change).

The rabbis taught: If fruit becomes scattered in a courtyard (private ground) it may be gathered up and eaten, but this must not be done as on a week-day; i.e., gathered in a basket.

"One must not press fruit," etc. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: "R. Jehudah (of the Mishna) agrees with the sages in the case of olives and grapes." Why so? Because this class of fruit is intended only for pressing, and the juice which must of a necessity ooze out might be calculated upon by the owner for a beverage. Ula said in the name of Rav, that R. Jehudah differed with the sages even in the case of olives and grapes. R. Johanan said, that the Halakha prevails according to R. Jehudah as far as other fruit is concerned, but not as regards olives and grapes.

Said R. Aba in the name of R. Jehudah, quoting Samuel: "R. Jehudah subsequently agreed with the sages as regards olives and grapes, and the sages also agreed with him later concerning other fruit." Said R. Jeremiah to R. Aba: "Wherein do they differ?" and R. Aba answered: "Go and seek, and thou wilt find it!" Said R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak: "It seems to me that they differ concerning berries and pomegranates, for we have learned in a Boraitha: The juice of olives or grapes, which after having been pressed and brought into the house had oozed out by itself, must not be used, whether the fruit had been brought in for eating or beverage. If a man squeezed out the juice of berries and pomegranates and brought the pressed fruit into the house to eat, if any more juice oozed out, he might drink it; but if he brought the fruit expressly for eating purposes or for beverage, or without any express design, he must not drink the juice that had oozed out, so said R. Jehudah. The sages, however, prohibit the use of the juice under any circumstances."

And R. Jehudah holds that without any express design it is forbidden? Why, we have learned: The milk of a woman defiles with desire and without desire. The milk of an animal defiles only with desire. Said R. Akiva: It is an argumentum a fortiori: If the milk of a woman, which is specific only for minors, defiles with desire and without desire, the milk of an animal, which is specific both for minors and for adults, should surely defile both with desire and without desire! Said they to him: If the milk of a woman defiles without desire, for the blood of her wound defiles, shall the milk of an animal defile

without desire? For the blood of its wound is clean! Said he to them: I am stringent with milk more than with blood for he who milks for medical purpose defiles and he who lets blood for medical purpose is clean. Said they to him: Baskets of olives and grapes shall demonstrate, for the juice that ooze out from them – with desire defiles; without desire is clean. Isn't the intention: With desire – that it is satisfactory for him; without desire – without any express design? And if olives and grapes, which are meant for pressing, if it was without desire, it is nothing, berries and pomegranates, which are not meant for pressing, isn’t it certainly so? Nay! With desire – without any express design; without desire – that he revealed his mind; that he said: It is not satisfactory for me. And if you request, I will say: Baskets of olives and grapes differ: Because they stand to waste, he abandons them from the beginning. We find R. Jehudah, that he agrees with the sages in the case of olives and grapes. The sages – that they agree with R. Jehudah concerning other fruit – from where do we know? For we learned: One presses

with plums, with quinces, and with crataeguses; but not with pomegranates; and the household of Manassia, son of Menahem, would press with pomegranates. And from where [do we know] that it is the sages? Perhaps it is R. Jehudah! And let it also be R. Jehudah! When did you hear according to R. Jehudah? If it ooze out by itself! “One presses to begin with” did you hear him? But what can you say? Because they are not meant for pressing, even to begin with! You can even say: “[it is] the sages” – because they are not meant for pressing, even to begin with! Hear from it: It is the sages? Hear from it.

"The household of Manassia, son of Menahem, would press with pomegranates." Said R. Nahman: "The Halakha prevails as the household of Manassia, son of Menahem." Said Rabha to R. Nahman: "Is Manassia, son of Menahem, a tanna? And if you shall say: The Halakha prevails as the Tanna who holds as that of Manassia, son of Menahem, and because he holds as that of Manassia, son of Menahem, the Halakha prevails like him? Is Manassia, son of Menahem, most of the world?" Yes. For we learned: "He who retains thorns in a vineyard – R. Eliezer says: it is forfeited. And the Sages say: nothing forfeits unless it is something whose like it is to retain." And R. Hanina said: "What is the reason of R. Eliezer? For in Arabia, they retain thorns of fields for their camels."

....

Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: "A man may squeeze out a bunch of grapes directly into a pot, but not into a bowl. (Why not? Because if he squeezed it into the pot it is proof positive that it will be used for food, but if squeezed into the bowl it might be used as a beverage.) Said R. Hisda: "From the decree of our master we can learn, that a man may milk a goat right into the pot, but not into a bowl." Thus we see that Samuel holds, that beverages when mixed with eatables are also regarded as eatables.

Asked Rami bar Hama: "A zav who milks the goat – the milk is unclean." And if you say: "beverages when mixed with eatables are also regarded as eatables", with what was it qualified? Like R. Johanan said: "in the case of a drop that is dirtied at the mouth of the breast"; here too – in the case of a drop that is dirtied at the mouth of the breast.

Asked Ravina: "One who was defiled by a corpse who squeezed olives or grapes

exactly like the size of an egg, it is clean." But more than an egg, it is unclean. And if you say: "beverages when mixed with eatables are regarded as eatables", with what was it qualified? He asked it and he answered it: When he squeezes into a bowl.

Said R. Jeremiah: "It is like tannaim": "He who smooths with grapes, it was not qualified. R. Judah says: It was qualified." Aren't they arguing about this? One sage maintains: "beverages when mixed with eatables are regarded as eatables", and one sage maintains: "they are not regarded as eatables".

Said R. Papa: "The whole world maintains: beverages when mixed with eatables are not regarded as eatables. And here they are arguing about beverages that go to waste. One sage maintains: they are regarded as beverages, and one sage maintains: they are not regarded as beverages." And [they are arguing] with the argument of these tannaim: for we have learned:

...

Said R. Zera in the name of R. Hyya bar Ashi, quoting Rabh: "A bunch of grapes must be squeezed directly into the pot, but not into the bowl, but the oil of fish [may be pressed out] even into the bowl." R. Dimi sat and repeated this decree. Said Abayi to R. Dimi: "Ye teach this in the name of Rabh, hence ye have no objection; [but] we learn this in the name of Samuel, hence we have the following objection: 'Could Samuel have said [that] the oil of a fish [may be squeezed out] even into the bowl? Were we not taught, that if a man squeezed out herbs which were soaked [in wine and vinegar], Rabh said: If the herbs were to be eaten, it is permitted to commence with. If the juice [only] was to be used, the man would not be liable [for a sin-offering], but he may not do it to start with. However, if the herbs were cooked, whether the man wished to eat them or [only] use the juice, he may [squeeze them out into a bowl]. However, Samuel said that be the herbs raw or cooked, if he intends to eat the herbs, one may do this, [but] not if he [only] intends to use the juice; however, if he does, he is not liable [for a sin-offering].'"

[R. Dimi] answered: "The Lord! My eyes have seen, and not a stranger, that I heard this decree from the mouth of R. Jeremiah, and R. Jeremiah from R. Zera, and R. Zera from R. Hyya bar Ashi, and R. Hyya bar Ashi from Rabh."

In regard to the quoted Boraitha concerning the herbs that one had squeezed out, Rabh said: "If they were to be eaten, it is permitted to commence with. If the juice [only] was to be used, the man would not be liable, but he may not do it to start with. However, if the herbs were cooked, whether the man wished to eat them or [only] use the juice, he may [squeeze them out into a bowl]." And Samuel said: "Be the herbs raw or cooked, if he intends to eat the herbs, one may do this, [but] if he [only] intends to use the juice, if he does, he is not liable, but he may not do it to start with." R. Johanan said: "Be they raw or cooked herbs, if he intends to eat the herbs, he may do so to commence with; [but] if he [only] desires the juice [he must not do so, and if he does] he is liable for a sin-offering." All this however, is opposed by the following Boraitha: "One may squeeze out herbs which were soaked [in wine and vinegar] on the Sabbath for use on the Sabbath, but not for later use; but one must not press olives or grapes, and if he did press, he is liable for a sin-offering." This is in opposition to Rabh, in opposition to Samuel, [and] in opposition to R. Johanan. Rabh explains this in accordance with his teaching, Samuel explains this in accordance with his teaching, [and] R. Johanan explains this in accordance with his teaching. Rabh explains this in accordance with his teaching: The herbs may be pressed on the Sabbath, for use on the Sabbath and not later, providing he uses the herbs for eating; but if he wishes to use the juice he may not do so, but if he does he is not liable [for a sin-offering]; and cooked herbs he may squeeze out, whether he requires the herbs or the juice; and olives and grapes he should not press; and if he did press them, he is liable for a sin-offering. Samuel explains it according to his own opinion: A man may squeeze out herbs on the Sabbath for the Sabbath, [but not for later use]; [and] the same law applies to cooked herbs, provided they are used for eating, but if the juice is wanted, the man would not be liable, but they may not be pressed to start with. And olives and grapes he should not press; and if he did press, he is liable for a sin-offering. R. Johanan explains the Boraitha in accordance with his teaching: Be the herbs cooked or soaked, they may be squeezed out on the Sabbath for the Sabbath, but not for later use, if intended for eating; but if the juice is required he may not squeeze out, and if he did squeeze out it is equal to one who pressed olives or grapes, and he is liable for a sin-offering.

Said R. Hyya bar Ashi in the name of Rabh: "According to biblical law one cannot be culpable except for pressing olives and grapes." And so have taught the disciples of Menasseh: "According to biblical law one cannot be culpable except for pressing olives and grapes; also [according to biblical law], a witness that testifies from hearsay must not be accredited, with the exception of a case where he testifies to having heard that a woman's husband had died."

They queried: "Can a witness that testifies from hearsay be accredited concerning a firstborn?" R. Ammi forbade and R. Assi permited. Said R. Ammi to R. Assi: "Why, the disciples of Menasseh have taught: a witness that testifies from hearsay must not be accredited, with the exception of a case where he testifies to having heard that a woman's husband had died." Say: with the exception of a testimony for which a woman is valid. R. Yemar permitted a witness that testifies from hearsay concerning a firstborn. Maremar called upon him: Yemar permitted a firstborn. And the halacha is: A witness that testifies from hearsay may be accredited concerning a firstborn.

"[If] honeycombs [be broken on the eve of Sabbath]."

When R. Hosea came from Neherdai, he came and brought a new Boraitha; viz.: "Olives and grapes which were crushed before the Sabbath, and [the juice] oozed out by itself, it must not be drunk; but R. Eliezer and R. Simeon both permit it." Said R. Joseph: "He just tells us of another man [in addition to R. Eliezer]!" Said Abayi to him: "He taught us a great deal; for from our Mishna I would say, that [honeycombs] were eatables before [being crushed] and eatables also afterwards; [therefore R. Eliezer permits the use of the honey], but in the case of [olives and grapes] which were previously eatables and subsequently became beverages, it might be presumed that [even R. Eliezer] would not permit their use. Hence we were instructed [by R. Hosea to the contrary]."

MISHNA: Whatever has been dressed with hot water on the eve of Sabbath, may be soaked in hot water on the Sabbath; and whatever has not been dressed with hot water on the eve of Sabbath, must only be passed through hot water on the Sabbath: excepting only stale salt fish and Spanish kolias (a kind of fish which was generally cured to make it eatable), for passing these through hot water is all the dressing required for them.

GEMARA: What does [the Mishna] refer to? Said R. Safra: "For instance, the hen of R. Aba!" [He would cook a hen, then soak it in water, and when it would fall to pieces he would eat it.] And R. Safra said: "I was there at one time and he served us with some of that dish, and had R. Aba not given three-year-old wine immediately after it, I would have been forced to vomit."

R. Johanan would spit every time be was reminded of Babylonian Kutach (a dish made of small salt fish boiled in milk). Said R. Joseph: "Yea, and let us spit when we think of R. Aba's hen." And R. Gaza said: "I was there at one time, and made that same dish (Babylonian kutach); so they begged me to give them some for all the sick in The West."

"Whatever has not been dressed with hot water," etc.

What is the law concerning one who had passed [kolias or stale salt fish] through hot water? Said R. Joseph: "One who had passed these through hot water is liable for a sin-offering." Said Mar the son of Rabhina: "We have understood it so from the Mishna, [because the last clause is:] 'excepting only stale salt fish and Spanish kolias, for passing these through hot water is all the dressing required for them,' [and the finishing of a certain kind of labor is equivalent to hammering]. Hear from it.

R. Hyya bar Aba and R. Assi once sat in the presence of R. Johanan, and R. Johanan sat and dozed off. So R. Hyya bar Aba asked R. Assi why the fowls of Babylon are fat. [R. Assi] answered: "Go to the desert of Aza, and I will show thee fatter ones." "Why are the Babylonians so merry during the festivals?," [asked R. Hyya again]. "Because they are poor (and during the entire year they have no pleasures, so they take advantage of the festivals)," was the answer. "Why are the scholars of Babylon so well dressed?" [queried R. Hyya]. "Because they are ignorami" (and must wear good clothes in order to command respect), [answered R. Assi]. "Why are the star-worshippers contaminated?" "Because they eat execrations and insects." At that moment R. Johanan awoke, and said to them: "Youngsters! Did I not tell you, [that it is written] [Proverbs vii. 4]: 'Say unto wisdom, Thou art my sister,' [which means:] If [a thing] is as certain to thee as [the fact] that thou canst not marry thy own sister, then say it? And otherwise, thou shalt not say it. (Then why speak such foolishness?)" Then said they to him: "Let Master tell some things (which would benefit us)!" [Said R. Johanan:] "Why are the fowls of Babylon fat? because they were never driven away [from home], as it is written [Jeremiah xlviii. 11]: 'Moab was ever at ease from his youth, and he was resting on his lees, and had not gone into exile.' And here, whence do we know that they were driven? For we have learned: R. Judah says: For 52 years a man has not passed by Judah, as it says [ibid. ix. 9]: 'On the mountains will I take up a weeping and wailing etc., both the fowls of the heavens and the beasts are fled; they are gone away.' The numerical value of בהמ"ה (beasts) is 52. R. Jacob said in the name of R. Johanan, that they all came back with the exception of the Spanish kolias, for Rabh said: These slopes of Babylon return the water to the Spring of Etam, and this one, because its spine is not hard, it cannot go up. 'Why are the Babylonians merry during the festivals?' Because they were not included in that curse that is written [Hosea ii. 13]: 'And I will cause to cease all her mirth, her festival, her new moon, and her Sabbath, and all her appointed feasts.' And it is written [Isaiah i. 14]: 'My soul has hated your new moons and your appointed feasts; they were unto Me for a burden'." What does it mean "they were unto Me for a burden"? Said R. Eleazar: "Said the Holy One, Blessed is He: 'Isn't it enough for Israel that they sin before Me, but they burden Me to know which harsh decree I will bring upon them'."

Said R. Itz'hak: "[Indeed it was so.] There was not a single feast that the military did not come to Sephoris"; and R. Hanina said: "There was not a single feast that captains, guards, and supervisors did not come to Tiberias."--"Why are the scholars of Babylon so well dressed?" "Because they are all strangers. As the people say: In a city [where a man is known], he may wear whatever he chooses; but not in the city, [where he is not sufficiently known], he should dress well."

[Isaiah xxvii. 6]: "In the future shall Jacob yet take root: Israel shall bud and blossom." R. Joseph taught: These are the scholars of Babylon, who wind blossoms and wreaths around the Thorah.

"Why are the star-worshippers contaminated? Because they did not stand at Mount Sinai. For at the time that the snake came unto Eve, he placed in her contamination. Israel that stood at Mount Sinai – their contamination ceased. Star-worshippers that did not stand at Mount Sinai – their contamination did not cease. Said R. Aha, son of Rava, to R. Ashi: "What is with converts?" Said he to him: "Even though they weren't there, their destiny was, as is written: [Deuteronomy xxix. 14]: With him that is here with us, standing today before God, our Lord, and with him that is not here, etc." And he argues with R. Abba bar Kahana. For R. Abba bar Kahana said: "Until three generations, contamination did not cease from our forefathers: Abraham begot Ishmael. Isaac begot Esau. Jacob begot twelve tribes which had no slander.

MISHNA: A man may break open a cask, to eat dry figs therefrom; provided, he does not intend using the cask afterwards as a vessel. He must not pierce the bunghole of a cask, such is the decree of R. Jehudah (or R. Jose); the sages permit this to be done. And one must not bore a hole in the side of it; but if it was already perforated, he must not fill it up with wax, because he would smoothen the wax thereby. Said R. Jehudah: "Such a case was brought before R. Johanan ben Sachai, at Arab, and he observed: 'I doubt whether that act does not involve liability to bring a sin-offering.'"

GEMARA: Said R. Oshea: "This [that a man may hold a dirk to open a cask of figs] was only learnt when [the figs] are very tightly packed [for then he would have to use a knife or a dirk to get the figs out]; but if they were packed loose he must not [use a knife to open the cask]."

And if they were packed loose he must not [use a knife to open the cask]? An objection was raised: [We have learned:] R. Simeon ben Gamaliel said: "A man may bring in the cask of wine, and cut off its bung-head with a knife, and serve it to the guests on Sabbath with impunity." This [Boraitha] is [in accordance with the opinion of] the sages, [while] our Mishna is [in accordance with the decree of] R. Nehemiah [who holds that no vessel may be used for any other purpose but that for which it was originally intended]. And what impelled R. Oshea to make the [entire] Mishna conform with [the dictum of] R. Nehemiah, and when they are tightly packed? Let him say that [the cask may be opened with a knife even if] they [the figs] are loose, and [thus be in accord with] the sages? Answered Rabha: "He [R. Oshea] could not comprehend the Mishna: Why did [the Mishna] specify figs: it could have said fruit, and on that account he reasoned that they are tightly packed."

In one [Boraitha] we have learned: Palm-leaf baskets containing dried figs and dates may be untied, taken apart, or cut; and in another [Boraitha] we were taught: They may be untied, but not taken apart or tied. This presents no difficulty; for one [Boraitha] is [in accordance with the opinion of] the sages, [and] the other is [in accord with] R. Nehemiah. For we have learned: R. Nehemiah says: Even a spoon and even a tallit and even a knife are not taken except for the need of their use.

A question was asked of R. Shesheth: "May a cask be bored with an auger on the Sabbath? [Shall we assume that] one intended to make an opening [in the cask] and [hence] it is prohibited, or [that] he intended [merely] to make a larger space [for the flow of the wine] and it is [therefore] permitted?" He answered them: "The intention was to make an opening, and it is prohibited." An objection was raised: "R. Simeon ben Gamaliel says: 'A man may bring in a cask of wine and cut off its bung-head with a knife.'" [The answer was:] "There the intention certainly was to make the space larger, [while] here, [it is obvious that the intention was to make an opening; for] if intention was to make the space larger, he would have broken open [the cask with a knife]."

"One must not pierce the bunghole, etc."

Said R. Huna: "They differ [only] in reference to the top [of a bunghole of a cask]; but [as] for the side, all agree that it is not allowed, and this is carried out by the [later] clause in the Mishna; viz.: 'he must not bore a hole in the side of it.'" And R. Hisda said: "They differ [only as far as boring a hole] in the side [of the bunghole is concerned] but as for the top, all agree that it is permitted; and the [later] clause of the Mishna means to state that one must not bore a hole in the side of the cask itself."

The rabbis taught: One must not bore a new hole on Sabbath, but if [it was already made and] he comes to enlarge it, he may enlarge it; and others say, that he must not enlarge it; but all agree, that if the hole was merely stopped it may be reopened. And the first Tana, why does it differ from [the boring of] a new hole, which is prohibited, because thereby an opening is made; does not enlarging a hole improve the opening? Said Rabba: According to biblical law, an opening through which one cannot enter or go out is not considered a door, but the rabbis made this a precaution on account of chicken-coops, [the holes of which] are made for the purpose of admitting fresh air and emitting the foul. (Therefore making a hole in a coop is equivalent to making a whole coop, for without holes it is of no value.) Enlarging a hole, however, is permitted, because one would not enlarge a hole in a chicken-coop, lest an ichneumon [should enter and kill a chicken]. And some say [that holes] should not [even] be enlarged [because] it might be that one did not make the hole [in a chicken-coop] large enough, and would come to enlarge it. R. Na'hman taught in the name of R. Johanan: The Halakha remains according to Some who Say.

“And all agree, that a hole which had been stopped up may be reopened.”

Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: This was said only in the case of where [a hole had been stopped] to preserve [the aroma of the wine], however, [if the hole was stopped up in order] to strengthen [the cask], it is forbidden [to reopen]. What is meant by preserving, [and] what is meant by strengthening? Said R. Hisda: "[If the hole was] on top of the cask, it was for the purpose of preserving; [but if] at the bottom of the cask, it was for the purpose of strengthening." Rabha said: "[If it was] at the bottom of the cask, it was also only for the purpose of preserving; and what is meant by strengthening? [Only] if the hole was stopped up underneath the lees [of the wine]."

Said Abaye to Rabha: We have learned [a Baraitha] that assists you: A closed house has four cubits. [If] he breached its boards, he does not have four cubits. A closed house does not defile all around it. [If] he breached its boards, it defiles all around it.

[Concerning inserting] a faucet [into a cask]: Rabh prohibits [it], and Samuel permits [it]. [Concerning] cutting a fresh hole [in the cask for the purpose of inserting a faucet] all do not differ, [agreeing] that it is prohibited, [and concerning] replacing [the faucet, if once removed], all do not differ, [agreeing] that it is permitted. They differ [only] when a hole had already been made [in the cask before the Sabbath], but it was not quite fit [for the faucet]. Those who say that it is prohibited, do so as a precaution lest one cut a fresh hole, while those that permit [this] to be done [say] no precautionary measure is necessary.

This is like [the following difference between] Tanaim: [We have learned:] A screw must not be fitted on a festival, much less on a Sabbath; [but] if it fall out it may be replaced on Sabbath, and so much more on a festival; and R. Yashia makes the ordinance more lenient. What does R. Yashia make more lenient? Shall we assume, that he refers to the first part [and permits a screw to be cut]? In that event, he would be improving a vessel [and that is certainly not allowed]! Shall we assume, on the other hand, that he refers to the second part; the first Tana alone permits this! We must say, therefore, that they differ when [the screw] was already cut, but did not quite fit. One says it is [prohibited as] a precaution, while one says no precautionary measure is necessary. R. Shesha the son of R. Idi in the name of R. Johanan said: "The Halakha prevails according to R. Yashia."

"But if it was already perforated," etc.

[To fill it up with] oil, Rabh prohibits and Samuel permits. [According to] the one who prohibits, we decree [as a precaution] lest [he fill it with] wax. And the one who permits does not deem a precautionary measure necessary. Said R. Samuel bar bar Hana to R. Joseph: "Thou hast told us distinctly in the name of Rabh, [that] oil is permitted." Answered [R. Joseph]: "Thou hast caught me in a trap."

Said Samuel: "The leaf of myrtle must not [be put in the bunghole of a cask, so that the wine flow over it]." What is the reason? R. Yimar of Diphti said: "As a precaution lest a groove (channel) [be made]." R. Ashi said: "As a precaution lest [the leaf] be broken off [from its stem]." What [difference] is there between them? The [difference] between them is in the case of [a leaf] that had already been broken off [from its stem]. [The precautionary measure of R. Yimar remains, while that of R. Ashi falls to the ground of itself.]

[Is it permitted] to wrap one's self in a bolster in public ground and bring it into private ground? Rabh prohibits [this] and Samuel permits [it]. If [the bolster] were soft [and could be folded], they do not differ, all [agreeing] that it is permitted. If it were hard [and could not be folded], all do not differ, [agreeing] that it is prohibited. They differ only concerning [a bolster that was neither soft nor hard, but] a medium [between the two]. The one who prohibits [says, that] it appears like a burden [and should not be carried], while the one who permits [holds that] it does not appear like a burden [and may be carried]; and the opinion just ascribed to Rabh was not stated by him expressly, but was merely inferred from [the following incident]: "Rabh came to a certain place [and found] that he lacked room; so he went out and sat in a lane (unclaimed ground), [and when] a bolster was brought to him he would not sit down [on it]. Those who saw this inferred therefore that he did not hold it to be permissible." And this was not so. For Rabh had it proclaimed that a bolster was allowed to be used, but in honor of our masters [who were with him] he would not sit down on [that bolster]. And who were they (those masters)? R. Kahana and R. Assi.

MISHNA: One may put cooked victuals into a cave (or cellar) for the purpose of preserving them; also put clean water (contained in a vessel) into water that is not drinkable, in order to keep it (the former) cool; likewise cold water (in a vessel) into hot water, in order to warm the former. One whose clothes have dropped into the water while on the road, may unhesitatingly go on with them. As soon as he arrives at the outmost court (of the city or village), he may spread his clothes in the sun to dry, but he must not do this publicly.

GEMARA: [Is this not] self-evident? One might say, that there should be a precaution against grading (smoothening) any incavations [that might be in the cave]; hence we are told [that such is not the case].

"And the clean water into water that is not drinkable," [etc.]

[Is this not] self-evident? [Yea; but] this is taught on account of the later clause [in the Mishna, i.e.,] and [putting] the cold water into hot. Is this also [not] self-evident? One might say, that this should be [prohibited as] a precaution lest one also put [a vessel containing cold water] into glowing cinders [to warm]; so we are told [that such a precaution is not necessary].

"One whose clothes have dropped into the water," etc.

Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: "All things which the sages forbade on account of causing suspicion among the people (that one is committing a wrongful act) should not be done, [not only publicly, but] even in the innermost recesses of one's rooms." [Is this not contradictory to] our Mishna, which says, [that] one may spread them (his clothes) in the sun, but not publicly? This is [a difference between] Tanaim, for [in reference to this Mishna] we have learned [in a Boraitha]: One may spread them in the sun, but not publicly. R. Eliezer and R. Simeon prohibit [even when not done publicly].

Said R. Huna:

"He who dusts his clothes on a Sabbath is liable for a sin-offering. And this refers only, however, to new garments, but not to old ones, and [the new garments] only when they are black; but [garments] of white or red may be [dusted]. And [referring to a black garment,] it is only then [prohibited to be dusted] if [its possessor] is particular about it (to such a degree, that he never puts it on without dusting it)."

Ula once came to Pumbaditha. He saw the rabbis dusting their clothes [on a Sabbath]. Said he: "The rabbis are violating the Sabbath!" Said R. Jehudah to them (to his disciples): "Dust [your clothes] right before his face: we are not at all particular."

Abayi stood before R. Joseph. Said [R. Joseph] to him: "Give me my hat." Seeing that there was dust upon it, he (Abayi) hesitated to give it to him. So he (R. Joseph) said to him: "Take hold of it and dust it: we are not at all particular."

Said R. Isaac bar Joseph: Said R. Johanan: He who goes out with folded clothes placed on his shoulder on Sabbath is liable for a sin-offering.

We have also learned so [in a Boraitha]: Those who deal in clothes, who carry them folded on their shoulder on Sabbath, are liable for a sin-offering: and this refers not only to clothes-dealers, but [also to] every person; however [clothes-dealers are mentioned], because the usual custom of clothes-dealers is to go out like that. And a merchant who carries out a bag of money wrapped up in his linen is liable for a sin-offering; and this refers not only to a merchant, but [also] every person; but [merchants are mentioned] because it is the wont of merchants to carry [money] in that manner. And the sprinters go out with the kerchiefs that are on their shoulder; and this refers not only to sprinters, but every person; but [sprinters are mentioned] because the way of sprinters is to go out like that.

Said R. Jehudah: "It once happened with Hyrcanos, the son of R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanos, that he went out on Sabbath with a kerchief folded on his shoulder, but a piece of twine was tied to his finger (in order that it might not fall down); and when the sages heard this, they said [that the twine was unnecessary, for he could have carried the kerchief] even without a piece of twine tied to his finger." R. Nahman, son of R. Hisda, preached in the name of R. Hisda: The halakha is: Even without a piece of twine tied to his fingers.

It happened that Ula came to the house of Assi bar Hini, and he was asked whether it was allowed to make a groove [of the clothes] on Sabbath. (The Babylonians wore long garments, and by turning them up at the bottom a quasi-groove was made.) [Ula] answered to them: "So said R. Ilai: It is prohibited to make a groove on Sabbath." What is a groove? Said R. Zera: "A groove made of the clothes of the Babylonians." R. Jeremiah sat before R. Zera. Said he to him: "What's if like this?" Said he to him: "It is forbidden." "And what's if like this?" Said he to him: "It is forbidden." Said R. Papa: "Bear this rule in your hand: Whenever [the clothes are turned up] for the purpose of preventing their becoming soiled, it is prohibited; [but] whenever [they are turned up] to improve their appearance, it is allowed, as R. Shesha the son of R. Idi would arrange his cloak (toga) tastefully (on a week-day, hence it is customary and may also be done on Sabbath)."

When R. Dimi came, he related: It once happened that Rabbi went out into the field, and both ends of his toga hung on his shoulders. Said Jehoshua the son of Ziruz, the son of R. Meir's father-in-law, before [Rabbi]: "Did not R. Meir say, that in a case of this kind one is liable for a sin-offering?" Said [Rabbi] to him: "Was R. Meir so particular, [that he determined just how far down the ends of one's toga should reach]?" [Still] Rabbi let down his toga. When Rabhin came [from Palestine] he said: It was not Jehoshua ben Ziruz, but Jehoshua ben Kepusai, the son-in-law of R. Aqiba; he said: "Did not R. Aqiba say, that in a case of this kind one is liable for a sin-offering?" Said [Rabbi] to him: "Was R. Aqiba so particular?" [Still] Rabbi let down his toga. When R. Samuel ben R. Jehudah came, he said: [Rabbi] was only asked [concerning such a case] (but not that he himself was the party referred to).

MISHNA: One who bathes in the water of a cavern or in the hot springs of Tiberias, though he wipe himself with ten towels, must not carry them off in his hand; but if ten persons wiped themselves, their faces, their hands, and their feet, with one towel, they might carry it off in their hands.

One may anoint and rub the stomach with the bands, but not so as to cause fatigue. One must not brush the body with a flesh-brush or descend into a kurdima. One must not take an emetic, or stretch the limbs of an infant, or put back a rupture; one who has strained his hand or foot must not pour cold water on it, but he may wash it in the usual way: if he thereby becomes cured, it is Well.

GEMARA: The Mishna teaches, "the water of a cavern," in connection with the hot springs of Tiberias; [hence it must be, that] just like the water of Tiberias is hot, so too, the water of a cavern is also hot. [It says:] "One who bathes," [and not "one may bathe," from which we see:] that if he already does it, it is allowed, [but] to commence with, it is not allowed. Hence, merely to rinse one's wholebody is permitted, even to commence with. Whose opinion is this? R. Simeon's. For we learned: A person should not rinse himself, neither with hot nor with cold. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Simeon permits. R. Judah says: With hot it is forbidden; with cold it is permitted.

"Though he wipe himself with ten towels."

The first part of this clause [in the Mishna] imparts something new and the latter part of the clause imparts something new. The first part imparts something new [in that it teaches], that, although [if one man wipe himself with ten towels], there will not be much water [contained in the towels], still, since he is one individual, he might [through thoughtlessness] wring them; and the latter part of the clause [also] imparts something new, [stating, as it does, that] even [if ten men wipe themselves with one towel], although the towel will contain a great deal of water, still, since they are many, they will mutually remind each other [that it must not be wrung].

The rabbis taught: "A man may wipe himself with a towel and leave it at the window [of a house that is nearest to the wall of the bathhouse]; but he must not give it to the bathhouse employees, because they are suspected of that thing (wringing it on the Sabbath)." R. Simeon, [however], says: "He may wipe himself with one towel and carry it in his hand to his house." Said Abayi to R. Joseph: "How is the law?" [and] he answered: "Here is R. Simeon; here is Rabbi; here is Samuel; here is R. Johanan. R. Simeon – this that we said. Rabbi – for we learned: Said Rabbi: When we were learning Torah at R. Simeon’s in Tekoa, we used to bring up oil and a towel from a yard to a roof and from a roof to an enclosure until we would reach a spring in which we would wash. Samuel – for R. Judah said in the name of Samuel: A man may wipe himself with a towel and carry it in his hand to his house. R. Johanan – for R. Hyya bar Aba said in the name of R. Johanan: The law prevails: A man may wipe himself with a towel and carry it in his hand to his house." And did R. Johanan say this indeed? Did not R. Johanan say [elsewhere], that the Halakha prevails according to the anonymous teachers in the Mishna, and the Mishna teaches, that even if one man wiped himself with ten towels he must not carry them off in his hand? [R. Johanan teaches], that the Mishna concludes with, "So said the son of Hakhinai." (hence it is the teaching of one individual).

R. Hyya bar Aba in the name of R. Johanan said: "The bathhouse employees may carry [on the street] the sheets of women [with which they wipe themselves in the bathhouse] to the bathhouse [by wrapping them around their bodies]; provided they wrap them over their heads and the greater part of their [body]."

A large veil [which is worn by women] should have the two ends that hang down [in the back] tied. R. Hyya bar Aba said in the name of R. Johanan: [They should be tied] underneath the shoulders.

Rabha said to the inhabitants of Mehuzza: "If ye [must] carry clothes for the men of the military [on Sabbath], wrap them around you underneath the shoulders."

"One may anoint and rub [his stomach]."

The rabbis taught: "The stomach may be rubbed and anointed on the Sabbath, provided it is not done the same as on week-days." How should it be done? R. Hama bar Hanina said: "He should [first] anoint [it] and then rub [it]"; [but] R. Johanan said: He might both anoint and rub at the same time.

"But so as not to cause fatigue."

Said R. Hyya bar Aba in the name of R. Johanan: "It is not allowed to stand on the bed of [Lake] Deumseth, because [the loam at the bottom is saline and immersion in the lake] causes fatigue and cures." Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: "All the days of Deumseth (on which a cure in that lake for bodily ills may be effected) are [only] twenty-one days, and Pentecost occurs during those [twenty-one] days." The school-men asked: "Does Pentecost fall at the beginning [of the twenty-one days] or at the end?" Come and hear: For Samuel said: All waters [taken for a cure] are effective [only] from Passover to Pentecost. Perhaps [Samuel's words are only concerning waters taken internally], because during cool weather [one takes more exercise and thus the waters] are effective, but [for bathing it would seem] that warm weather is more effective, [and hence Pentecost should be the commencement].

Said R. Helbo: "The wine of [the land of] Purgaitha and the waters of [the lake] Deumseth robbed Israel of the ten tribes (because indulgence in these pleasures are detrimental to spiritual welfare)." R. Elazar ben Aroch happened to be there, and indulged in those luxuries to such an extent that he forgot his learning. When he returned, he came and stood up to read the Book. He wanted to read (Exodus 12:2): "This month is for you", but he said: "Was their heart deaf?" The sages prayed for him and his learning returned. And this is as we have learned (Aboth): R. Nehurai says: "Go into exile to a place of learning and say not that she (the Law) will follow thee, [or] that thy comrades will preserve it in thy hands, and do not depend upon thy acquired knowledge." We learned: R. Nehurai is not his name, but R. Nehemiah is his name; and others say: R. Elazar ben Aroch is his name, and why was he called R. Nehurai? Because [this signifies (in Hebrew) "light of the eyes"; for] he enlightened the eyes of scholars in halakha.

"But one must not brush himself."

The rabbis taught: One must not brush [the body] with a flesh-brush on Sabbath. R. Simeon ben Gamaliel says: "If one's feet were soiled with mud and with filth, he might brush them the same [as on week-days] unhesitatingly." The mother of R. Samuel the son of Jehudah made for him a silver brush.

"Or descend into a kurdima," etc.

What is the reason? Because [the bottom of a kurdima is] slippery (and one might fall and wet his clothes, and thus be tempted to wring them).

"And one must not take an emetic on Sabbath."

Said Rabba bar bar Hana in the name of R. Johanan: "One must not take a medicament [as an emetic], but may thrust his finger [down his throat and thus cause vomiting]." We learned: R. Nehemiah says: Even on a weekday it is forbidden because of the waste of food.

"Or stretch the limbs of an infant."

Said Rabba bar bar Hana in the name of R. Johanan: "To swathe a child on Sabbath is allowed." Why we have learned in the Mishna that it's not allowed? That is concerning the vertebrae of the spine, for it looks like one who is building.

"Or put back a rupture."

Said R. Hana of Bagdad in the name of Samuel: "The Halakha prevails: ‘One may put back the rupture’." (Samuel learns in the Mishna, instead of "it is not allowed," "it is allowed.")

Rabba bar bar Hana came to Pumbaditha, but did not go into the college of R. Jehudah. So R. Jehudah sent for Ada, the officer of the college, and said to him: "Go and take a pledge of Rabba bar bar Hana." The officer went and took a pledge of him. [Afterwards] he (Rabba bar bar Hana) came to the college. When he came, he heard him (R. Jehudah) teach: "The rupture must not be put back [on the Sabbath]". Said he to him: "So said R. Hana of Bagdad in the name of Samuel: ‘The Halakha prevails: One may put back the rupture’." Answered [R. Jehudah]: "It is our Hana and our Samuel, and [yet] we never heard of this before. Now thou canst see that I was right in demanding a pledge for thy appearance. Hadst thou not come, we would never have heard this."

"One who has strained his hand," etc.

R. Ivia sat in the presence of R. Joseph, [and] he dislocated his hand. Said he to him (to R. Joseph), [making a motion to replace it]: "May I [replace it] thus?" "Nay," [said R. Joseph]. "And thus may I?" [asked R. Ivia, making another motion]. "Nay," was the answer again. Meanwhile, he succeeded in replacing his hand. Said he (R. Joseph) to him: "What didst thou ask [me] for? It is [expressly] stated in our Mishna: One who has strained his hand or his foot must not pour cold water on it, but he may bathe it in the usual way. If he thereby becomes cured, it is well."

"Did we not learn in our Mishna: ‘The rupture must not be put back’, and [still] R. Hana of Bagdad said in the name of Samuel: ‘The Halakha prevails: One may put back the rupture’." he (R. Ivia) asked. Answered he (R. Joseph): "Canst thou weave everything into one garment? What we have learned, we have learned; [but] what we have not learned, we have not learned."