diff --git "a/txt/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Moed/English Explanation of Mishnah Shabbat/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.txt" "b/txt/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Moed/English Explanation of Mishnah Shabbat/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.txt" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/txt/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Moed/English Explanation of Mishnah Shabbat/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.txt" @@ -0,0 +1,1196 @@ +English Explanation of Mishnah Shabbat +ביאור אנגלי על משנה שבת +Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp +http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/ + +English Explanation of Mishnah Shabbat + +Introduction + +Most of tractate Shabbat goes into great detail as to what type of work is prohibited on Shabbat. There is not a lot of information about this in the Torah itself. Indeed the only four activities specifically prohibited in the Torah are plowing and reaping (Exodus 34:21), fire (Exodus 35:3) and gathering wood (Numbers 15:32). The paucity of verses and the volume of rabbinic halakhah led the rabbis to conclude that “the laws of Shabbat are like mountains hanging by a thread” (Hagigah 1:8). There is a little bit of information in the prophets about the observance of Shabbath, but this does not add up to much. However, from the literature that remains from the Second Temple period it seems that Jews were very stringent about the observance of the Sabbath. From Josephus and the books of the Maccabees we learn that some Jews did not even want to engage in battle on Shabbat, and rather than do so gave up their lives, until Mattathias taught them that engaging in battle to save one’s life was permitted. The Book of Jubilees, a rewritten version of Genesis popular among certain groups of Second Temple Jews is very stringent on Sabbath observance. So too were the groups that composed the Dead Sea scrolls. However, in this period the concept of prohibited “work” on the Sabbath was somewhat ill-defined. In contrast, the Rabbis define “work” in great detail. There are 39 categories of work, and anything that is considered to be prohibited from the Torah must fit somehow into one of these categories. These will not be listed until chapter 7, mishnah two. These are called “avot” or arch-categories of work. Anything derived from one of these arch-categories is either an arch-category in and of itself or is a “toldah”, a derivative. Anything that does not fit into one of these categories, and yet is still prohibited is considered to only be prohibited from “rabbinic law”—derabbanan— and not from “toraitic law”—deoraita. I should emphasize that a law’s being “derabbanan” does not necessarily make it less important. It only means that the rabbis could not somehow tie it into one of the 39 categories. These laws are also called “shvut” which means “rest”. The rabbis prohibited certain activities so that a person would be able to rest on Shabbat. +There are some terms we should know before we begin learning. 1. Liable—this means that a person who does a certain activity has transgressed a biblical prohibition. S/he is liable to either bring a sacrifice if the transgression was done without intention, or for the death penalty if done with intention. We should not get ourselves caught up with “did this really happen/did the rabbis execute people for Shabbat infractions?” The point of “liable” is merely to define what the prohibitions are. Their enforcement is a totally different issue. 2. Exempt—this almost always means that the activity is prohibited but that one who has done so has not transgressed a biblical prohibition. 3. Permitted—this means that an activity is completely permissible. +A couple of words of warning before we begin learning. Shabbat observance still plays a major role in the life of observant Jews. The prohibitions that we learn about in the Mishnah are the foundations of an incredibly complex system of halakhah that is codified throughout the ages. The system is perhaps the most complex areas of halakhah still observed today. Learning the Mishnah is not equivalent to learning how halakhah is observed, certainly not in its minutae of detail. Halakhah is not derived directly from the Mishnah, but rather from the Talmud and from its codifiers. Hence, while learning the Mishnah we should refrain from expecting a direct correlation to how the Shabbat is observed today. Furthermore, I am not a “posek” an arbitrator of Jewish law. I will try not to answer many questions of modern halakhah in this forum and instead will refer you to other sources and especially to your local rabbi. Second, I realize that people reading this commentary have different levels of observance. However, this realization will not impact my commentary on the mishnah, at least not regularly. Whether you personally “keep Shabbat” or don’t, the rabbis of the Mishnah firmly believed it to be mandatory. Thirdly, the Conservative movement has in the past made certainly leniencies regarding Shabbat observance, most famously allowing under certain circumstances driving to synagogue on Shabbat. This teshuvah (responsa) will not be relevant to our learning of the Mishnah. Even those rabbis who supported this responsa would agree that a simple reading of the sources would lead to prohibiting driving on the Sabbath, mostly because of the prohibition of fire. Fourthly, we should remember that “work” has a specific legal definition. It is not a nebulous idea but carefully defined through exhaustive definitions. A person who says that driving to the golf course and enjoying a game of golf, or going shopping, is not breaking Shabbat because to him/her these activities are not “work” may be stating a subjective truth, but it is a truth that does not fit into the more objective and impersonal halakhic system. The famous example is that you can lift a heavy piece of furniture in your house and you have not performed a prohibited labor, but if you lift a feather outside and carry it four cubits you have. Finally, the Mishnah talks almost exclusively of prohibitions. It is my firm belief that the rabbis did not see the Sabbath only as a day of prohibitions, but also as an opportunity—an opportunity to pray, to study, to rejoice and to be with the people who one wants to be with. These other aspects just were not as fruitful for halakhic material and hence are rarely discussed in the Mishnah. Nevertheless, if Shabbat is to be an integral part of one’s life, it must be regarded not only as a day of things one can’t do, but a day of wonderful opportunities. It is a time to refrain and thereby allow ourselves to experience the joy of just being. + + + + + +Chapter 1 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +Tractate Shabbat begins with a formulaic teaching about the prohibition of carrying. The remainder of the chapter discusses preparations before Shabbat, but it seems that the Mishnah’s editors wanted to begin with a mishnah that contains the formula “two which are four”. This is the same way that tractate Shevuoth began, and it seems that this type of opening was often preferred by the Mishnah. Indeed, Abraham Goldberg (whose Hebrew critical commentary on Shabbat I will use from time to time published by the Jewish Theological Seminary of America) notes that about half of the tractates of the Mishnah begin with numbers or an issue related to numbers. Goldberg also believes that opening the tractate with a mishnah concerning carrying something from one domain to another was intended as a polemic against the Sadducees who did not agree with the Pharisees in all of the details of these laws. +The prohibition of carrying will be further discussed later on in chapter five and will continue to be discussed through chapter eleven. +The mishnah lists eight slightly different scenarios in which an object is brought from outside in the public domain to inside the house, the private domain. These scenarios can be divided twice. In the first four examples a person has performed a complete action, taking something from one domain and bringing into another and is therefore liable. In two of these cases the object is brought in and in two it is taken out. In the second four cases, the two people share in bringing the object in or taking it out and hence they are both exempt (remember that this does not mean that this is permitted.) These cases can also be divided into two subcategories. The mishnah probably uses the example of a poor person standing outside and a householder inside because this is a realistic situation and it will be easier to remember. +The carryings out of Shabbat are two which are four from the inside, and two which are four from the outside. How is this so? The poor man stands outside and the householder stands inside:
If the poor man reaches his hand inside and places [something] into the hand of the householder, The poor man is liable because he took something from the public domain and brought it in. +or if he takes [something] from it and carries it out, the poor man is liable, and the householder is exempt. The poor man is liable because he took something out. In both cases the householder has not done anything and hence he is exempt. +If the householder reaches his hand outside and places [an object] in the poor man's hand, The householder has brought something out and is liable. +or takes [something] and carries it in, the master is liable, while the poor man is exempt. The householder brought something in. +If the poor man reaches his hand inside and the master takes [an object] from it, The poor man brought something in, but is not liable because he didn’t put it down in the private domain. Rather the householder took it out of his hands. Both are exempt even though together they have performed a forbidden act of work. We now learn that in order to be liable the person must uproot something from one domain and put it down in another domain. One is not liable for half of an activity. +or places [an object] in it and he carries it out, both are exempt; The poor man didn’t pick the object up so he’s not liable and the householder didn’t bring it out so he’s not liable. Both are exempt. +If the householder stretches his hand outside and the poor man takes [an object] from it, The householder picks up an object and brings his hand out of the house but the poor man takes the object out of his hand. Both have performed half of a forbidden labor and both are exempt. +or places [an article] in it and he carries it inside, both are exempt. Finally, the poor man puts the object in the householder’s hand and the householder brings it inside, so again both have performed half of a forbidden labor and again both are exempt. + +Mishnah 2 + +Introduction +After an introductory mishnah, the Mishnah continues with laws relevant to the day before Shabbat. Our mishnah deals with things that one shouldn’t do once the time for the afternoon prayer, minhah, has arrived. The problem is that if one becomes engaged with one of these activities, he may become swept away and forget to pray minhah. +These laws apply not only to the day before Shabbat, but to any day of the week. +The minhah referred to here is from the time of 9 1/2 hours, the day being divided into 12 daylight hours. So on a day where daylight begins at 6 AM and ends at 6 PM, minhah is from 3:30 in the afternoon. In the Northern Hemisphere the hours will be longer in the summer months and shorter during the winter. We should note that one can also pray minhah at an earlier time of day, from 6 1/2 hours. +One may not sit down before a barber near Minhah until he has prayed. One shouldn’t begin to get a hair cut right before Minhah, lest the hair cut take a long time and he forget that he must pray his minhah prayers. After the sun has set, he will not be able to pray minhah. +One may not enter the baths or a tannery, or [sit down] to eat or [begin] a court case. Similarly, a person shouldn’t begin any of these activities close to minhah time, lest he forget to pray. A tannery is an example of any type of work which is somewhat complicated and may cause him to forget that the time to pray has arrived. +But if they began, they need not break off. However, if he began one of these things, then he need not stop in order to pray. Rather he may complete his haircut, etc. and then pray afterwards. +One must break off for the reading of the Shema, but not for prayer. This section explains that one must stop what he is doing to recite the Shema but one doesn’t have to stop for “prayer”, otherwise known as the Shmoneh Esreh, or the Amidah. The reason is that the obligation to say Shema is from the Torah whereas the obligation to recite the Shmoneh Esreh is only derabbanan, of rabbinic origin. + +Mishnah 3 + +Introduction +The mishnah continues to deal with laws that are concerned with the day before the Sabbath. However, through associative thought, this mishnah also includes one law that is not concerned with the Sabbath eve and one law that is concerned with another topic altogether. +A tailor must not go out with his needle near nightfall, lest he forget and go out. Nor a scribe with his quill. On the Sabbath itself, it will be prohibited for the tailor to carry his needle around (or anything else). Therefore, even as nightfall draws near, he should take his needle out of his coat where he typically stores it, lest he forget and accidentally carry it on the Sabbath. Similarly, a scribe should not go out on the Sabbath eve with his quill. Both of these things, the scribe’s quill and the tailor’s needle are small items that can easily be carried without a person knowing. Therefore, he should make sure he puts them away before the Sabbath. In essence, this is part of his Shabbat preparation. +And one may not search his garments [for lice or fleas], nor read by the light of a lamp. This halakhah is concerned not with the eve of Shabbat but with Shabbat itself. It is brought here because the nature of the halakhah is similar to the nature of the other halakhot. They are all “gezerot” that is prohibitions created to prevent a situation which might cause a person to transgress. A person should not check his clothes for lice or fleas or read by candlelight on Shabbat lest he tilt the candle to bring more oil to the wick an activity considered to be prohibited due to the prohibition of lighting a fire. +In truth it was said, the hazzan may see where the children are reading from, but he himself must not read. Although a person shouldn’t read by candlelight, children may do so because their teacher will stop them from tilting the candle. The Palestinian Talmud explains that children want the candle to go out so that they won’t have to read anymore, hence they won’t tilt it. Their teacher, the hazzan (today the word is used to refer to the cantor, but in the Mishnah it has a different meaning), may also help them read with the candlelight. However, he must not use the candle for his own reading. A note on the phrase “in truth” be’emet: According to Goldberg, this phrase is used to introduce an exception to the previous rule which was taught above. The Talmud claims that this phrase means that the law was given directly to Moses on Sinai. +Similarly, a zav must not eat together with a zavah, because it may lead to sin. This section contains another “gezerah” a prohibition meant to keep a person from transgressing. A zav and a zavah are a man and woman who have abnormal genital flows. They are both impure. A pure person should not eat together with a zav or a zavah because the zav or zavah will cause the food they share to become impure. Seemingly, there should be no problem with a zav eating with a zavah, because they are both impure. However, in order to prevent people from becoming accustomed to eating with zavim, even this is prohibited. + +Mishnah 4 + +Introduction +This mishnah does not actually teach any halakhah. Rather it places the halakhot which we learned above in an historical context. +And these are of halakhot which they stated in the upper chamber of Hananiah ben Hezekiah ben Gurion, when they went up to visit him. They took a count, and Bet Shammai outnumbered Beth Hillel and on that day they enacted eighteen measures. This mishnah begins by teaching that the halakhot which were taught in the previous several mishnayot were stated on a famous, somewhat legendary and obscure, day in the history of the rabbis when the Sages visited the upper chamber of Hananiah ben Hezekiah ben Gurion. According to the Rambam, the “eighteen measures” mentioned in section two refer to eighteen halakhot stated from the beginning of the tractate until this point. According to this interpretation, these were eighteen prohibitions about which Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel agreed. Mishnah 1 lists eight things, and there are five in both mishnayot 2 and 3 (these could be counted in different ways). The Rambam holds that on that day they made eighteen enactments, which are not listed in our mishnah. They also disagreed over eighteen issues, and thirteen of these will be listed in the upcoming mishnayot. The remainder of the disagreements are listed elsewhere. There are several other ways to understand this mishnah, but the Rambam’s seems to be straightforward. Some explain that the mishnah does not refer to those things halakhoth that are found in the above mishnayot but that it refers to a list preserved in the Talmud. However, we understand the mishnah, we should note how unusual it is. Rarely do mishnayoth provide us with information about where or when they were taught. Although we cannot be sure of what happened on that day in the upper chamber, it certainly was a day that became legendary in the mind of the rabbis. + +Mishnah 5 + +Introduction +The next four mishnayot contain disputes between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel over things that can be done before the Sabbath. +Most of the disputes revolve around one central issue: can a person’s vessels perform work for them on the Sabbath? It is clear that a person herself cannot perform a forbidden act of work on the Sabbath; the debate is whether a person can set in motion a process which will cause work to be done on the Sabbath. Today it is clear to us that this is permitted. For instance, I can set a timer on my clock and it can go on on Shabbat and light my house. Bet Shammai, however, would say that such an act is forbidden. +We should note, the it seems that the sect of Jews who lived in Qumran and produced the Dead Sea Scrolls probably held like Bet Shammai. According to this understanding, work may not be done for a Jew on the Sabbath. The verse from the Ten Commandments which reads, “Six days you shall labor and do all your work” (Exodus 20:9) is interpreted to mean that all of a person’s work must be done within six day. In contrast, the Hillelites would hold that a Jew may not perform work on the Sabbath. They interpret the verse to mean that a person can do work for only six days, not that all of a person’s work must be done in six days. Although these positions might seem similar, they are based on different understandings of the Sabbath and indeed of halakhah in general. +Beth Shammai says: ink, dyes and vetch may not be soaked [on Friday afternoon] unless they can be fully soaked while it is yet day; And Bet Hillel permits it. Inks, dyes and vetch (a legume soaked and then used as animal food) are all processed by soaking a plant in water to soften it. According to Bet Shammai it is forbidden to start such a process on Friday unless the person can sure that she can complete the process before Shabbat. As we learned above in the introduction, Bet Shammai forbids a person from having her “things” work for her on Shabbat. Bet Hillel permits this. + +Mishnah 6 + +Introduction +Today’s mishnah contains two more debates between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel over whether work may be begun on Friday before Shabbat, if that work will continue on its own throughout Shabbat. +Beth Shammai says: bundles of wet flax may not be placed in an oven unless they can begin to steam while it is still day, nor wool in the dyer’s kettle unless it can [absorb the color] such that [the color] is visible. But Bet Hillel permits it. Bet Shammai prohibits putting flax in the oven or wool in the dyer’s kettle if the work will continue to be performed on Shabbat. If the essential part of drying the flax or dying the wool has been done before Shabbat, then she may leave her things over Shabbat. But if not, Bet Shammai prohibits. Bet Hillel again permits this. +Bet Shammai says: traps for wild beasts, fowl, and fish may not be spread unless they can be caught while it is still day; But Bet Hillel permits it. This is in essence the same debate as above. The one innovation is that Bet Hillel permits even though the whole work might end up being done on the Shabbat, as opposed to the other cases where the work began on Friday. Similarly, Bet Shammai forbids this, even though there is no certainty that the traps will catch anything on Shabbat. + +Mishnah 7 + +Introduction +This mishnah is related to the last couple of mishnayot in that again Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel debate and yet the subject is different. In this mishnah a Jew gives something to a non-Jew before Shabbat for the non-Jew to carry away on Shabbat. +Bet Shammai says: one must not sell [something] to a non-Jew, or help him to load [a donkey], or lift up [an article] upon him unless he can reach a near place [before Shabbat]. But Bet Hillel permits it. Bet Shammai holds that one shouldn’t create a situation where it will look like the non-Jew is doing forbidden work for the Jew on Shabbat. A non-Jew may not perform work for a Jew on Shabbat. Despite the prevalence of the “shabbes goy”, a non-Jew who does things for a Jew on Shabbat that the Jew cannot herself do, this is actually prohibited. Bet Shammai says that if a Jew sells something to a non-Jew on Friday or helps the non-Jew load up a donkey or the non-Jew himself, it will look as if the non-Jew is setting out to do the Jew’s work. Therefore, it is prohibited. In order for it to be permitted, he must arrive either at his own home (according to one opinion in the Talmud) or at least to his home city (according to another opinion). Bet Hillel is not concerned with creating such an appearance, and hence this is permitted. + +Mishnah 8 + +Introduction +This is the final debate between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel over work that is begun on Friday. +Bet Shammai says: hides must not be given to a [non-Jewish] tanner, nor clothing to a non-Jewish launderer, unless they can be done while it is yet day; But in all these [cases] Bet Hillel, permits as long as the sun is still shining. Like yesterday’s mishnah, this mishnah continues to deal with a Jew giving things to a gentile with which the gentile will work on the Sabbath. In the case of today’s mishnah we might have thought that Bet Hillel would prohibit because it looks like the non-Jew will be doing work for the Jew on the Sabbath. The last part of the mishnah refers to all of the debates above. In all of these cases, Bet Hillel permits the Jew to set the motion in process as long as the sun has not yet set. The addition of “as long as the sun is still shining” also signals that this is the end of the series of debates. + +Mishnah 9 + +Introduction +The first section of this mishnah is a continuation of the previous mishnayot. Here we learn that Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel’s house behaved like Bet Shamma and refrained from doing work on Friday if that work would continue onto Shabbat. +The second section begins to list things that may be done on Friday, even according to Bet Shammai. +Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: My father’s house was accustomed to giving white clothing to a non-Jewish launderer three days before Shabbat. The custom of Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel’s house was that of Bet Shammai. In the Tosefta (a text from the same time period as the Mishnah) it is related that they would give colored laundry on Friday, because colored laundry is easier to clean than white laundry. +And these and these agree that they lay down an olive press beams and wine press rollers. Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel agree that one can begin the process of pressing olives and grapes on Friday, even though the work will continue on Shabbat. Since as soon as she lays down the beams, most of the good juices will come out and the grapes and olives are crushed, the continuation of such a process is not considered to be work forbidden by the Torah on Shabbat. Therefore, Bet Shammai allows this. Even on Shabbat, crushing already crushed grapes and already pressed olives is not considered to be work forbidden by the Torah, but rather only prohibited by rabbinic law derabbanan. + +Mishnah 10 + +Meat, onion[s], and egg[s] may not be roasted unless they can be [fully] roasted while it is still day.
Bread may not be put into an oven just before nightfall, nor a cake upon coals, unless its surface can form a crust while it is still day. Rabbi Elazar says: there must be time for the bottom to form a crust.
In today’s mishnah we learn that Bet Hillel agrees with Bet Shammai that food may not be put into an oven on Friday in order for it to cook on Shabbat, unless it has already been fully cooked before Shabbat begins.
Note that in yesterday’s mishnah we learned of a case where Bet Shammai agrees with Bet Hillel and in today’s mishnah we learn of a case where Bet Hillel agrees with Bet Shammai.
We can explain both of these sections together, since they are both in essence the same halakhah. Bet Hillel does not allow food to be left in the oven if the food is uncooked lest someone rakes the coals in the oven in order to increase the heat and cook the food faster. Since unlike the items in the previous mishnayot, the person will want her food on the Shabbat itself there is a fear that she will do something to hurry the food’s cooking. Raking the coals is forbidden on Shabbat under the category of lighting a fire. Hence, to “keep one away from sin” it is prohibited to even have uncooked food in the fire.
Cooking cakes or bread involved placing them on the sides of ovens. The bottom would crust before the top. Rabbi Elazar is therefore more lenient. He allows leaving the bread in the oven as long as the bottom has already crusted over, which will be before the top. + +Mishnah 11 + +Introduction This mishnah continues to discuss lighting fires in ovens on Friday so that they will stay lit over Shabbat. Since the prohibition of putting something into an oven on Friday was only “derabbanan”—of rabbinic origin—and intended to prevent a person from committing a transgression of biblical law, there are cases where this prohibition may be suspended. This is generally the case with rabbinic law—it is more flexible than toraitic law. + The passover sacrifice may be lowered into the oven just before nightfall; In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that one is not allowed to put meat into an oven on Friday unless it will already be cooked before Shabbat begins. Today’s mishnah relates an exception to this rule: the Passover sacrifice. The reason that one is not allowed to put meat into an oven is that we are concerned lest on Shabbat itself she come to rake the coals in order to speed up the cooking, which is prohibited on Shabbat. However, in this case, since people eat the passover sacrifice in a group setting, we are not concerned that one of them will rake the coals, because others will stop her. These people are engaged in fulfilling a commandment and it is unlikely that they would transgress a commandment at this time. In addition, because of the quantity of people who had to sacrifice their passover sacrifices, not everybody could roast theirs before the Shabbat began. Hence the usual restrictions did not apply. +And the fire may be lighted in the fireplace of the Chamber of the Hearth. The Chamber of the Hearth was where the fire was kept constantly lit in the Temple. The priests would gather around there to keep warm. Hence, they could add to the fire there on Friday without fear that someone would stoke the fire, since the priests would make sure that would not happen. +But in the provinces there must be time for the fire to take hold of its greater part. Outside of the Temple it is forbidden to light a fire on Friday unless it the fire has time to take hold before the Shabbat. Small fires need to be stoked, and therefore the fire must be fully lit before Shabbat begins. +Rabbi Judah says: in the case of charcoal, just a little [is sufficient]. Rabbi Judah adds in a leniency concerning lighting coals on Friday. Once coals are lit, they will stay lit and therefore there is little fear that he will stoke them. Hence it is permitted to light them on Friday afternoon as long as they will be at least a little bit lit before Shabbat begins. + +Chapter 2 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +This chapter deals with candle lighting on Friday eve before Shabbat. Candle lighting is part of the joy that we are commanded to experience on Shabbat. Today, with electric lights in abundance we no longer appreciate the function of a simple candle on Friday eve. In the time of the Mishnah, on most nights people would have gone to sleep at nightfall. It was just too expensive to use up oil for light on normal occasions. On Friday night they lit candles, stayed up late, ate a festive meal and studied Torah. +Most of the chapter deals with the technical details of lighting wicks, oils, lamps, etc. +With what may they kindle [the Shabbat light] and with what may they not kindle them?
They may not kindle with cedar fiber, uncarded flax, a raw silk, a desert wick, or seaweed, The list in this section is of material which may not be used for wicks in lighting the Sabbath candles. The reason that we do not light with these types of wicks is that they don’t absorb the oil well, and someone might tilt the lamp on Shabbat to try to get more oil on the wick. Such tilting is prohibited because it is like lighting a fire. Also, since they are not good wicks they might go out, forcing the family to sit in the dark. +And not with pitch, wax, castor oil, [terumah] oil [which must be] burnt, tail fat, or tallow. Nahum the Mede says: they may kindle with melted tallow. And the sages say: whether melted or not, they may not kindle with it. The same reason that the above-mentioned wicks were prohibited is why most of these types of oil are also prohibited. The exception is terumah oil which must be burned. This refers to terumah oil which has been made impure and therefore has to be burned. It is prohibited to burn unclean sacrifices or terumah on Shabbat and on holidays. The final debate is on whether all types of tallow are prohibited or just tallow that has not been melted. + +Mishnah 2 + +Introduction +This mishnah continues to discuss oils which may be used for lighting the Shabbat lights. +They may not kindle [the Shabbat light] with [terumah] oil [which must be] burnt on festivals. This section deals with festivals. Of all of the forbidden oils listed at the end of yesterday’s mishnah, this is the only one prohibited on festivals. The other oils are permitted. They are prohibited on Shabbat because they don’t light well and someone might come to tilt the lamp. Tilting the lamp is prohibited on Shabbat but not on festivals. Hence, on festivals there is no reason to prohibit these types of oils. +Rabbi Ishmael says: they may not light with tar, because of the honor of the Shabbat. Rabbi Ishmael says that tar may not be used because it smells bad. Furthermore, if the smell is really bad the person might extinguish it, which is prohibited on Shabbat. +But the sages permit with all oils: with sesame oil, nut oil, radish oil, fish oil, gourd oil, tar and naphtha. The sages allow the use of any type of oil, even tar and naphta. It seems that the reason that most of the sages were so lenient is to keep the costs down, especially in places where good olive oil is not abundant. +Rabbi Tarfon says: they don’t light with anything but olive oil. Olive oil is the best type of oil for lighting a lamp. That is why it is customary to use olive oil on Hannukah (despite our modern custom of using wax candles). Rabbi Tarfon demands only the best for Shabbat. In the Talmud the Sages respond by asking Rabbi Tarfon what people in lands outside of Israel who don’t have access to olive oil do. + +Mishnah 3 + +Introduction +This mishnah returns to discussing what may be used as wicks for Shabbat lights. +Whatever comes from a tree they may not light [the Shabbat light] except for flax. The only type of material which comes from a tree which may be used as a wick is flax, which is used to make linen. Although we would not consider flax to be a tree, it is called a tree in Joshua 2:6. +And whatever comes from a tree cannot be defiled with tent-uncleanness except linen. There is a connection between what type of material can be used as a Shabbat candle wick and what type of material contracts tent-uncleanness. If a corpse or piece thereof is under a tent and something else is under the tent is well, the corpse transmits its impurity to the other thing under the tent. Any type of material except linen which covers both the corpse and the other thing will carry the impurity but it itself will remain pure. A tent made of linen not only causes the impurity to go from the corpse to the other thing but it itself becomes impure. +A wick made of cloth which was twisted but not singed: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is unclean, and one may not light with it; Rabbi Akiva says: it is clean and one may light with it. They would make wicks by twisting cloth and then singing them. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiba debate the status of twisted cloth that has not been singed. According to Rabbi Eliezer it is still considered to be a cloth and hence it can still receive impurities. Since it has not been singed it should not however be used as a wick. Rabbi Akiva holds that since it has been twisted it is no longer considered cloth, but even though it has not been singed one may light with it. + +Mishnah 4 + +Introduction +This mishnah teaches that it is forbidden to set up a lamp such that someone might take away some of its oil. Taking away oil is like extinguishing it because it will cause it to go out earlier. Extinguishing, like kindling, is a labor prohibited by the Torah. +One may not pierce an egg shell, fill it with oil, and place it over the mouth of a lamp, in order that it should drip, and even if it is of clay. And Rabbi Judah permits it. But if the potter connects it beforehand it is permitted, because it is one utensil. This section describes a person who fills an egg shell or piece of clay with oil and pierces a tiny hole in the bottom so that it should drip into the lamp. We should note that he does this before Shabbat; during Shabbat it would clearly be strictly forbidden since this is considered to be the forbidden work of “kindling”. The problem is that since this is a vessel separate from the lamp itself, a person may think that it is permitted to take from it and use the oil. However, the oil is “muktzeh” set aside for the use in the lamp and may not be used for other purposes. It is also considered to be extinguishing the lamp, because by taking oil away he is causing the light to go out early. “Muktzeh” is a broad category which usually means that something may not be used or even touched on Shabbat. We will learn more about muktzeh throughout the tractate. Rabbi Judah is not concerned lest someone take the oil from the external vessel and hence permits this. If the egg shell or external clay vessel was attached to the lamp (before Shabbat) then it is permitted. We are only concerned lest someone take the oil from an external vessel, reasoning that she is not really taking it from the lamp itself. People know that it is forbidden to take oil out of a lamp and hence will not do this. +One may not fill a dish of oil, place it at the side of a lamp, and put the wick end in it in order that it should draw. And Rabbi Judah permits it. In this case a person has a wick which has several ends. She puts the lit end into one lamp and then the other end extends out of the lamp into another vessel so that it can draw more oil. This is prohibited for the same reason as above. Since the other vessel is external, a person might think that it is okay to take oil from it. Again, the problem is that the other oil is muktzeh and by taking it away she is causing the lamp to go out early. As above, Rabbi Judah is not concerned lest she take away from the oil. + +Mishnah 5 + +Introduction +Our mishnah introduces an abstract concept called “work which is not needed for its own sake.” This refers to someone who performs a prohibited labor on Shabbat but does not need the results of the labor itself but a side result. The tannaim debate whether someone who does this activity is liable for having transgressed the Shabbat. We shall see an illustration of this in the mishnah. +The immediate topic is laws concerning extinguish lamps. +One who extinguishes the lamp because he is afraid of non-Jews, robbers, or an evil spirit, or so that a sick person may sleep, he is exempt. Extinguishing a fire is forbidden on Shabbat. However, saving a life always takes precedence over the laws of Shabbat. Hence, any of the activities listed in this mishnah are permitted. We should note that the mishnah states “exempt.” Exempt usually means that one who does such a thing is not liable for a penalty, but the activity is still not permitted. This mishnah is an exception exempt means that it is totally permitted. The sick person referred to in this mishnah is someone with a potentially life-threatening disease. It is forbidden to extinguish a lamp for someone who only has a slight headache, or similar non life-threatening illness. +If [he does so because] he wants to spare the lamp, the oil, or the wick, he is liable. Rabbi Yose exempts in all cases, except for the wick, because he makes charcoal. According to the first opinion, if a person puts out a lamp not because she wants it to be dark, but because she wants to save the material used in the lamp she is still liable. This is “a work not needed for its own sake.” According to this opinion a person who does this type of work is liable. Rabbi Yose holds that one who performs “a work not needed for its own sake” is generally exempt. The exemption is one who puts out a lamp because she wants to singe the wick. Singing the wick makes it into a type of charcoal and therefore this is no longer “work not needed for its own sake” but rather work for its own sake and hence she would be liable. + +Mishnah 6 + +Introduction +This mishnah provides a quite strongly worded exhortation to women to be scrupulous in the observation of three mitzvoth with which they are strongly associated: lighting Shabbat candles, separating hallah (a percentage of dough which has to be taken from all bread) and niddah menstrual purity. The mishnah says that women die in childbirth for not observing these mitzvoth correctly. +I should add a personal note. Loss of life is always difficult, and a woman’s death while giving birth is probably one of the most difficult losses a husband and his and her family could experience. Thankfully, the number of women who die in childbirth is drastically lower in the modern western world than it was in the past. In the time of the Mishnah, it would have been fairly common. The rabbis were struggling to understand why so many women died while giving birth. This must have been especially difficult for them since having children was on of their most important values. While we may have difficulties with their answer, and I don’t think that we should go around saying that people die for non-observance of commandments, we nevertheless can appreciate the difficult theological problem with which the rabbis were trying to cope. +Finally, lest you think that the rabbis “had it out for women” the Talmud discusses at great length all types of travails that afflict the world and why they come to the world. The idea that people are punished for sins is normative biblical theology, with no special connection to women. +For three sins women die in childbirth: because they are not observant of [the laws of] niddah, hallah, and the kindling of the [Shabbat] lights. A midrash connects this mishnah with the sin of Eve. Eve caused Adam’s blood to be spilled (by bringing death into the world), therefore she is commanded in the laws of niddah. By sinning she extinguished the light of the world and therefore she is commanded in lighting the Shabbat candles. She lost the “hallah” of the world by causing the death of Adam, who was the “hallah” of the Garden of Eden; therefore she is commanded in the laws of hallah. + +Mishnah 7 + +Introduction +The final mishnah of this chapter discusses what last minute preparations should be double-checked right before Shabbat begins. The mishnah then proceeds to discuss what things may be done during twilight, a time which the rabbis were unsure whether to consider night or not. +A person must say three things in his house on the eve of Shabbat just before night: Have you separated tithes? Have you prepared the ‘eruv? Kindle the [Shabbat] lamp. There are three things a person should check before Shabbat begins. The first is that his food has been tithed. Tithes may not be separated on Shabbat and therefore food which has not been tithed will not be able to be eaten on Shabbat. He should also ask if the “eruv” has been set up. There are two types of eruvin (the plural of eruv): one which allows a person to go further out of the city than he would otherwise be allowed to go and one which allows a person to carry things in places where it would normally be prohibited. The tractate which follows Shabbat is tractate Eruvin so we will reserve in-depth discussion of these issues until later. Setting up both types of eruvin is an important part of Shabbat preparation. When all other preparations have been made, he tells his wife to light the Shabbat candles. +If it is doubtful, whether it is night or not, they do not tithe that which is certainly [untithed], they do not immerse utensils, and they do not kindle the lights. The mishnah now begins to discuss what things may be done during twilight, the period after sunset before it is completely dark. It is forbidden to tithe produce which we know has not been tithed. Tithes are part of a forbidden labor called “completing” something’s preparation (metaken). Similarly, immersing an impure vessel in a mikveh is considered completing its preparation and is forbidden. Finally, if the candles have not yet been lit, they do not light them. All three of these activities are prohibited by the Torah (deoraita) and hence cannot be done even during twilight. +But they can tithe doubtfully tithed produce, and they can set up an eruv, and they can store hot food. However, the following three activities are permitted. It is permitted to tithe doubtfully tithed produce (demai) because according to Torah law he doesn’t even need to separate tithes from demai in the first place. Since the entire obligation is only a rabbinic stringency, the rabbis allowed it to be done during twilight, although not on Shabbat. One can still set up an eruv. Finally, it is permitted to cover hot food with something that will maintain the food’s warmth. On Shabbat it is forbidden to do so lest by doing so she cooks, an activity which is prohibited. This last clause also functions as a transition to the next chapter which is devoted to the important prohibition of cooking on Shabbat. + +Chapter 3 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +Yesterday’s mishnah ended with a halakhah concerning covering hot food before Shabbat so that it would stay hot during Shabbat. Our mishnah continues to discuss halakhot of a similar nature. +This mishnah refers to leaving a dish of cooked food on a stove during Shabbat in a case where it was put there before Shabbat. The potential problem here is not the prohibited labor of cooking, since the dish is already cooked. Rather the problem is that he might rake the coals to make them get hotter and raking coals is prohibited because it lights a fire. +If a double stove was heated with stubble or straw, they may put a cooked dish on it. If a dish of cooked food was put on a stove before Shabbat it is permitted to leave it on the stove during Shabbat as long as the stove was heated with stubble or straw. Since stubble and straw do not become coals, there is no fear that a person may come to rake coals. +If it was heated with peat or wood, one may not place [a dish on it] until he sweeps it out or covers it with ashes. If the stove was heated with peat or wood, then the dish may not be left on it during Shabbat. Peat is refuse left over from olive production and it was used in cooking. Both peat and wood turn into coals and therefore if she doesn’t do some sort of preparation to the stove before Shabbat we are concerned lest she come to rake them on Shabbat, a prohibited act. What she needs to do is either remove the coals or cover them with ashes so that they will cool down and she will not come to rake them on Shabbat. +Bet Shammai says: hot water, but not a dish; And Bet Hillel says: both hot water and a dish. The debates in this section and in the next refer to cases where it is permitted to leave food on the stove. Bet Shammai says it is permitted to leave only hot water but not a dish of cooked food. Bet Shammai holds that since people really want their food to be cooked the halakhah is more stringent for food than it is for water. Bet Hillel says that the halakhah is the same for both food and water. +Bet Shammai says: one may remove it, but not put it back; But Bet Hillel says: one may even put it back. Bet Shammai says that it is permitted to leave the water on the stove but if she takes it off she may not put it back. Bet Shammai thinks that putting it back on the stove looks too much like cooking. Bet Hillel holds that it is permitted even to put the water or food back. + +Mishnah 2 + +Introduction +In yesterday’s mishnah we learned about leaving a cooked dish on a double stove during Shabbat. Today’s mishnah discusses ovens and single stoves. To understand these mishnayot we need to understand a little bit about how these things were made. Double stoves are as wide on top as they are below and therefore they do not preserve heat particularly well. Ovens are wider below than they are up top and are the best at preserving heat. Single stoves have only one opening up top they are hotter than double stoves but cooler than ovens. +If an oven was heated with stubble or straw, one may not place [a dish] either inside or on top. Since the heat of an oven is greater than that of a stove, it is forbidden to leave anything in or on top of an oven. Even if there is only a little fire, we are concerned lest she come to rake the coals on Shabbat. The mishnah states that this is prohibited when the oven is lit with stubble or straw; all the more so it is prohibited if the oven is lit with peat or wood. +If a single stove was heated with stubble or straws, it is like a double stove; With peat or wood, it is like an oven. If a single stove is heated with stubble or straw then we can treat it like the double stove and leave a dish on it on Shabbat. However, if it was heated with peat or wood then it is like an oven and it is forbidden to leave dishes both on top and inside. The Talmud adds that even if the coals had been removed or covered with ash it is still prohibited. + +Mishnah 3 + +Introduction +This mishnah discusses cooking eggs in ways that might not be considered to really be cooking. +They may not place an egg at the side of a boiler for it to be lightly roasted and one must not break it into a [hot] cloth. And Rabbi Yose permits it. Placing an egg next to a hot boiler will not suffice to really cook the egg, but it can lightly roast it, perhaps like a soft-boiled egg. Similarly, putting the egg into a hot cloth can make it lightly cooked. The first opinion in the mishnah holds that these actions are considered cooking and are therefore prohibited. Rabbi Yose holds that this is not cooking and is hence permitted. +And one may not put it away in hot sand or road dust for it to be roasted. Burying the egg in hot sand or dust will really cook it and hence even Rabbi Yose agrees that it is prohibited. + +Mishnah 4 + +Introduction +This mishnah discusses heating water on Shabbat. +It once happened that the people of Tiberias conducted a pipe of cold water through an arm of the hot springs. The sages said to them: if this happened on the Shabbat, it is like hot water heated on the Shabbat, and is forbidden both for washing and for drinking; If on a festival, it is like water heated on a festival, which is forbidden for washing but permitted for drinking. In Tiberias before Shabbat the people set up a pipe of cold water to flow through the hot springs so that the water in the pipe would heat up on Shabbat and they would have hot water for drinking and bathing. This is not actually cooking because there is no fire, but it is similar enough to cooking such that this is prohibited on Shabbat. Therefore on Shabbat it is forbidden to use this water for either cooking or washing. On festivals (Yom Tov) it is permitted to cook in order to eat. Therefore, if they did this on the festival they may use the water for drinking, but not for washing. It is not permitted to heat water for washing on a festival. +A miliarum which is cleared of its ashes--they may drink from it on Shabbat. A miliarum is a clay vessel for water which has a pipe in it in which they would put hot coals to heat water. One can drink the water from a milarium only if the coals were removed before Shabbat. +An antiki even if its ashes have been cleared--they may not drink from it. An antiki is a copper pot which has a large place to put coals in it so that the water would get very hot. It retains its heat better than a mililarum. Since it retains its heat so well, it is forbidden to use it on Shabbat even if the coals have been removed before Shabbat. + +Mishnah 5 + +Introduction +The previous mishnayot dealt with leaving things on the fire. Today’s mishnah deals with things that are prohibited because they are considered cooking, even if the dish has been taken off the fire. +A kettle which was removed [from the fire]: one may not pour cold water into it so that it should warm up, but one may pour it [water] into or into a cup in order to temper it. This section discusses a hot water kettle which has been removed from the fire. It is forbidden to pour a small amount of water into the kettle because the hot water that it is in the kettle will cook the water which is put in. However, she may put a large quantity of cold water into the kettle because this will not cause the cold water to be cooked but rather the hot water to be cooled down. If the water from the hot water kettle has been poured into a cup she may also put in cold water in order to cool the hot water down. +The pan or pot which was removed [from the fire] while it is boiling, one must not put spices into it, but one may put [spices] into a dish or a tureen. This section discusses a pan or pot with boiling hot contents which was removed from the fire right before Shabbat began. On Shabbat it is forbidden to put spices directly into the pan or pot because in this way the spices will be cooked. However, if she moves the contents of the pan into a dish or tureen which is not on the fire, then she may put into the dish anything she wants. Once the contents have been moved from their original pan, they will not cook any spices put into them. +Rabbi Judah says: he may put [spices] into anything except what contains vinegar or brine. Rabbi Judah holds that she may put spices into any dish, even one that is boiling and was just removed from the fire. The only thing that is prohibited is putting something into a dish with vinegar or brine. According to Rabbi Judah, the spiciness of the vinegar and brine aid in cooking the food in the dish. [I must admit that I have a wish to say fish in dish, but that is probably because I have been reading Dr. Seuss to my children.] + +Mishnah 6 + +Introduction +This mishnah deals with the concept of “muktzeh” things set aside that cannot be used on Shabbat. It is forbidden to move anything that is muktzeh on Shabbat. The opposite of muktzeh is “mukhan”, things which are prepared to be used on Shabbat. As an aside, we should note that the laws of Shabbat are intimately connected with the intentions of the person performing the act. The same activity has different consequences depending on what intention the activity was performed with. This also shows us that these mishnayot are addressed to audiences who already “buy into the system” that is to say they are not looking to get away with things that are actually forbidden on Shabbat. Otherwise, a person could always lie about her intention or about what actually happened. This is an important point that in my opinion applies to a large percentage of halakhah. +They may not place a vessel under a lamp to catch the oil. But if it was placed there before sunset it is permitted. Yet one may not benefit from it because it is not prepared (. The oil that was in the lamp is “muktzeh” since it had been set aside for lighting the lamp. While the oil is in the lamp she could not take any. Once the muktzeh oil falls into the vessel the vessel itself also becomes muktzeh. Anything that holds something that is muktzeh is itself muktzeh. Hence putting the vessel there to catch the oil is forbidden for she will be holding something which is muktzeh. However, she may put the vessel there before Shabbat and we are not concerned lest she take oil from the vessel or move the vessel itself on Shabbat. Even in a case where it was permitted to put the vessel under the lamp it is still forbidden to use the oil on Shabbat because the oil itself is always muktzeh. +They may handle a new lamp but not an old one. Rabbi Shimon says: all lamps may be handled, except a lamp [actually] burning on Shabbat. It is permitted to handle a new, unused lamp on Shabbat. Such a lamp is not muktzeh. However, an old lamp may not be handled on Shabbat even if it is not lit because it is muktzeh. The reason that it is muktzeh is that it is repulsive. An old lamp may be caked with oil and shmutz and hence people will not like handling it. Repulsive things are muktzeh on Shabbat because people don’t intend to handle them. Rabbi Shimon does not hold that things which are “muktzeh” may not be handled on Shabbat. Therefore in his opinion an old lamp may be handled. The only type of lamp that may not be handled is one that it is already lit lest by carrying it he causes it to go out. +A vessel may be placed under a lamp to catch the sparks, but one must not pour water into it, because he extinguishes [them]. Above we learned that it is forbidden to put a vessel under a lamp to catch the oil. Here we learn that it is permitted to put a vessel under a lamp to catch the sparks that might fly out of the lamp. The rabbis considered the sparks to not be “material” and therefore they are not muktzeh and they do not make the vessel muktzeh. However, it is forbidden to put water into the vessel since this extinguishes the sparks and extinguishing is prohibited on Shabbat. + +Chapter 4 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +This brief chapter deals with covering up hot food with something that will preserve its heat. The general rule is that the rabbis allowed storage in something that would preserve the heat but not in something that would increase the heat. The reason is that if this were allowed she might store the food in hot coals and then rake the coals to make them hotter. Raking coals is prohibited. When storage is prohibited it is prohibited even if she stores the dish before Shabbat begins. +In what things may they cover up [food], and in what things may they not cover it up?
They may not cover up [food] in peat, compost, salt, lime, or sand, whether moist or dry; The material in this section adds heat to the dish whether it is moist or dried out. +Nor in straw, grape-skins, rags or grasses, when they are moist; but they may cover up [food] in them when they are dry. The material in this section adds heat if it is still moist but not when it is dry. Hence it is permitted to cover up food with these things when they are dry. +They may cover up [food] in garments, produce, doves’ wings, carpenters’ sawdust and thoroughly beaten flax. Rabbi Judah forbids [storing] in fine [flax], but permits [it] in coarse [flax]. The material in this section does not add heat and only preserves it. Hence it is permitted to cover up food with these things. Rabbi Judah holds that fine beaten flax adds heat and it is therefore forbidden to cover up food with it. + +Mishnah 2 + +Introduction +The second (and last) mishnah of this brief chapter teaches that sometimes one may use certain material to cover up food to preserve its heat and yet the material is “muktzeh” and hence cannot be handled on Shabbat. +They may cover up [food] with hides, and they may be handled; Hides only preserve heat and do not add heat and therefore they may be used to cover up food on Shabbat. The hides also can be used as mats for sitting or lying down. Since they can be used on Shabbat they are not muktzeh and they may be handled. +[They may cover up food] with wool shearings, but they may not be handled. Wool shearings may be used for covering up food but they may not be handled. Normally wool shearings are used for spinning wool and making cloth, an activity prohibited on Shabbat. Hence, they are muktzeh. +What then is done? The lid [of the pot] is lifted, and they [the shearings] fall off of their own accord. The mishnah now addresses the problem of a pot that was covered with wool shearings before Shabbat: how does she get to the pot when it is covered by material which is muktzeh? The answer is that she may simply pick up the lid and allow the wool shearings to fall by the side. +Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says: the basket [holding the pot] he turns on its side and [the food] is removed, lest one lift [the lid of the pot] and is unable to replace it. But the Sages say: one may take [out the pot] and replace [it]. This section refers to a situation where a person put a pot into a basket. The basket was filled with material (wool shearing in this case) to preserve the heat of the pot. She made space in the shearings so that the pot could fit in. The problem is that if she removes the pot she won’t be able to make space in the basket so that it can be returned. Rabbi Elazar says that she tilts the basket to the side and takes directly from the pot while it is in the basket. She is not allowed to remove the pot lest she move the muktzeh wool shearings in order to return it. The Sages hold that we are not concerned lest there not be space to return the pot and therefore she may take it out. However, if she takes it out and there is no space to return it, she may not move aside the wool shearings in order to return it. +If he did not cover it [a pot] while it was yet day, it may not be covered after nightfall. If it was covered but became uncovered, it may be recovered. It was permitted to cover up food only before Shabbat began. Once Shabbat has begun covering up is prohibited lest someone find that her food has grown cold and come to actually cook it on Shabbat. However, it is permitted to return food to where it had been covered and therefore if the covering comes off, it is also permitted to return the covering. +One may fill a jug with [cold water] and place it under a pillow or blanket [to keep it cool]. There is no prohibition to cover cold things in order to preserve their coolness on Shabbat. The entire prohibition of “covering up” only referred to hot foods because of the concern that someone might come to cook on Shabbat. + +Chapter 5 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +Exodus 23:12 reads, “Six days you shall do your work and on the seventh day you shall cease, in order that your ox and donkey will rest.” From here we see that on Shabbat a Jew may not have his animals do work on her behalf. Just as it is forbidden for a person to carry things in the public domain, so too it is forbidden for a Jew’s animal to carry things for the Jew. Our chapter deals with things that an animal may carry or wear. Anything needed to guard the animal is permitted, as is anything needed for the animal’s own protection from heat or cold. However, anything which is not really necessary for the animal itself (such as loading up a donkey with one’s personal belongings) may not be placed on an animal on Shabbat. +With what may an animal go out [on Shabbat], and with what may it not go out?
A camel may go out with a bit, a female camel with its nose-ring, a Libyan donkey with an iron bridle, a horse with its chain, and all chain-wearing animals may go out with their chains and be led by their chains. All of the things in this section are normally worn by animals and they are used to lead the animals around. Therefore, the animal may wear them on Shabbat. In a sense they are to the animal like clothes are to human beings. By carrying them the animal is not performing a labor for someone else. Rather they are part of the animal’s normal gear. +And they may sprinkle upon them [with purifying waters], and they may be immersed in their place. This section is an aside about the chains mentioned in the previous section. If these chains become impure they can be made pure without removing them from the animal. If they become impure with corpse impurity, they can sprinkle purifying waters on the chains while they are in their place. If they contract a lesser impurity, the chains may be immersed while still on the animal. + +Mishnah 2 + +Introduction +This mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah. +A donkey may go out with its saddle-cloth if it is tied to it. If the saddle is put on the donkey before Shabbat, the donkey may go out on Shabbat with it on its back and it is not considered carrying but rather “wearing” which is permitted on Shabbat. +Rams may go out with hides tied to them. Some explain that these hides were put on the rams’ chests to protect them. Others explain that they were put on their genitals, also for protection. +Ewes may go out with their tails tied up, tied down, or covered. If the ewe’s tail was tied up, that is so males can mount them. If the tail was tied down it was so males could not mount them (there has to be some humor in this, but I won’t be the one to try). The tail was covered for general protection. +Goats may go out [with their udders] tied up. The goats’ udders were sometimes covered up in order to dry them up and sometimes covered up in order to preserve their milk. +Rabbi Yose forbids in all these cases, save ewes that are covered. Rabbi Yose forbids all of the above cases except covering the ewes because all of the rest of them are for human benefit and not for the benefit of the animal. If the covering was for human benefit then the animal may not go out with that covering on Shabbat. +Rabbi Judah says: goats may go out [with their udders] tied in order to dry them up, but not to save their milk. Rabbi Judah is slightly more lenient than Rabbi Yose but less so than the first opinion. He adds that goats’ udders may be tied up in order to dry them up because that is for the sake of the animal. However, if the intent is to preserve their milk, that is for the sake of the goats’ owners and it is therefore considered carrying on Shabbat. + +Mishnah 3 + +Introduction +In the previous two mishnayoth we saw cases where t was permitted for an animal to carry certain things on Shabbat. In today’s mishnah and tomorrow’s we see examples where it is forbidden. +And with what may it not go out?
A camel may not go out with a pad The pad referred to her is put on top of its hump. Sometimes it was tied underneath its tail so that it wouldn’t scratch the camel’s skin. The reason that it is forbidden is that these often fall and we are concerned lest the pad falls off the camel and the owner carries the pad herself. +Or with forelegs bound together or with hind legs bound together; And the same is true for other animals. One is not allowed to tie the animal’s legs together on Shabbat because this is considered overly cautious protection. While it is permitted to offer reasonable protection so that the animal doesn’t run away, tying its legs together is beyond normal and hence this is considered “carrying.” This prohibition applies not only to camels but to all animals. +One should not tie camels together and pull [one of them]. But one may take the cords in his hand and pull [them] providing he does not twist them together. Tying camels together and pulling them together makes it look like they are going to market. To prevent this appearance it is forbidden to do so on Shabbat. However, if she just takes the cords of several camels together in her hand and leads them together it is permitted because it doesn’t look like they are going to the market. + +Mishnah 4 + +Introduction +The final mishnah of this chapter continues to provide examples of things that an animal may not carry on Shabbat. +A donkey may not go out with a saddle-cloth, when it is not tied to it, If the saddle-cloth is not tied to the donkey, we are concerned lest it fall off and the owner picks it up on Shabbat. Above in mishnah two we learned that if it is tied to the donkey, it is permitted. +or with a bell, even if it is plugged, Putting the bell on the donkey makes it look as if its owner is bringing it to the market to sell it. Hence, even if the bell is plugged up and doesn’t make a sound it is prohibited. +or with a ladder[-shaped yoke] around its neck, This yoke was placed on the donkey when it had sores on its back. The yoke prevents the donkey from biting its sores. +or with a strap around its foot. If the donkey’s legs rub each other when it walks they would place a thong around its feet to keep the legs apart. +Fowls may not go out with ribbons, The ribbons were placed on its legs so that people could tell their fowl apart from those of others. +or with straps on their legs. Straps were placed on their legs to prevent them from hopping too far and damaging other people’s things. +Rams may not go out with a wagon under their tails. These little wagons were placed under their tails to keep them from dragging on the ground. +Ewes may not go out with a hanun. According to the Talmud a “hanun” was a certain herb that they would place in the nose of female sheep so that the worms would come out (sounds like Vick’s vapor rub for sheep!). Since males butt each other and the worms will come out when they do so, they don’t need this herb. Hence it is forbidden to place this herb on a ram. +A calf may not go out with a small yoke. They would place a small yoke on the calf to accustom it to being yoked. +Or a cow with the skin of a hedgehog, They would attach the skin of a hedgehog to the udders of a cow to prevent other animals from suckling from the cow when she is asleep. +or with the strap between its horns. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah’s cow used to go out with a strap between its horns, not with the approval of the rabbis. The strap was purely decorative. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah let his cow go out with this strap, meaning that this is permitted. All of these are prohibited because putting them on an animal is considered carrying or because we are concerned that the thing will fall and someone will pick it up on Shabbat. + +Chapter 6 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +As we learned in the first mishnah to the tractate, it is forbidden for a person to carry something from the private domain to the public domain or vice versa. However, people are obviously allowed to wear clothing and thereby “carry” their clothing through the public domain. Wearing jewelry on Shabbat would not be considered carrying and therefore it should be permitted. However, the sages were concerned lest the jewelry fall or lest someone remove the jewelry to show others so they prohibited it. Our mishnah deals with jewelry which a woman may not wear out of her home on Shabbat. +With what may a woman go out and with what may she not go out?
A woman may not go out with wool ribbons, linen ribbons, or straps around her head; The words “around her head” refer to all of the ribbons or straps in this section. With all of them we are afraid that they may fall off her head and that she may thereby come to carry them on the Shabbat. +Nor may she immerse while wearing them, until she loosens them. This halakhah is an aside which does not deal directly with Shabbat. It teaches that when a woman immerses in a mikveh if she has a ribbon on her head she must loosen it. Otherwise the ribbon will prevent the water from having direct contact with her head. The Talmud connects this small discursion to the previous section’s prohibition. Since a woman who goes to the mikveh on Shabbat will have to loosen her ribbons, she might forget to tie them back tightly and therefore they might drop off her head on Shabbat. +[She may not go out] with frontlets or head-bangles if they are not sewn, Frontlets or head-bangles are types of tiaras which go on her forehead. She can’t go out with them if they are not tied to her head covering because they might fall off. +Or with a hair-net into the public domain, A hair-net would be placed under the frontlets or head-bangles. According to Maimonides the words “into the public domain” refer to all of the prohibitions above. While she may not go out into the public domain, she may go out to her courtyard. +Or with a golden city, or with a necklace or with ear-rings, or with a finger-ring [even if it has] no signet, or with a needle [even if it] is unpierced. The things in this section are all jewelry. She may not go out with them lest she take them off to show them to someone else or lest they fall off and she carry them in the public domain. By the way, “city of gold” is where the phrase “Jerusalem of gold” or “Yerushalayim shel zahav” originally comes from. +But if she goes out with these, she is not liable to a sin-offering. The prohibition of going out with any of the things listed in this mishnah is only a rabbinic (derabbanan) prohibition. Therefore, even if she does go out with one of them she is not liable to bring a sin-offering, as she would be if she carried something in the public domain that was biblically prohibited (deoraita). In other words, going out wearing any of these things is not considered to be “carrying”, and therefore she is not liable if she does so. + +Mishnah 2 + +A man may not go out with a nail-studded sandal,
Nor with a single [sandal] if he has no wound on his foot;
Nor with tefillin,
Nor with an amulet, if it is not from an expert;
Nor with a breastplate,
Nor with a helmet;
Nor with iron boots.
Yet if he goes out with these, he is not liable for a sin-offering.
In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that a woman may not go out into the public domain wearing certain types of jewelry, but that if she does she has not transgressed a biblical commandment. Today we learn the parallel laws for a man.
Section one: Albeck suggests that nail-studded sandals were part of a soldier’s gear and therefore just as the mishnah forbids breastplates, helmets and iron boots, so too it forbids nail-studded sandals. Interestingly, Josephus, Wars of the Jews Book VI, I, VI, refers to soldiers wearing such sandals.
Section two: He shouldn’t go out with one sandal because people will think that he is holding the other sandal. However, if he has a wound on his other foot everyone will see that he is wearing one sandal because of his wound. Therefore, if he has a wound on one foot he may go out with one sandal. In both talmuds they debate whether he wears the sandal on his wounded or healthy foot.
Section three: The sages debated whether or not tefillin are worn on Shabbat (today we don’t wear tefillin on Shabbat). For those who held that tefillin are not worn on Shabbat it was obvious that he can’t wear them out into the public domain. Since they are prohibited there is no reason to wear them around. However, even for the sages who hold that tefillin are worn on Shabbat, he should not wear them in the public domain lest he need to remove them and thereby come to carry them. He would need to remove them if he needed to relieve himself or if he came into a dirty place.
Section four: The sages believed in the efficacy of amulets, but only if they were made by expert amulet-makers. If an amulet was made by an expert then a person could wear it around on Shabbat, but if it was not made by an expert it is useless and forbidden to wear in the public domain. We should note that there are many descriptions of amulets in the Talmud and that many manuscripts describing amulet formulas and how to make amulets exist in ancient, medieval and even modern Jewish literature.
Sections 5-7: Anything that is clothing specifically designed for war may not be worn out into the public domain on Shabbat. Since he shouldn’t be going out to war (except in self-defense) on Shabbat, there is no need to wear these types of clothing and hence wearing them is considered carrying.
Section eight: The prohibition of wearing all of these things is only from the sages (derabbanan). From the Torah wearing them is not prohibited and hence if he wears one of the above listed things he is not liable to bring a sin-offering. + +Mishnah 3 + +A woman may not go out with a needle that is pierced,
Nor with a ring bearing a signet,
Nor with a cochlea brooch,
Nor with a spice tie,
Nor with a perfume vial; And if she does go out, she is liable to a sin-offering, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say that she is not liable in the case of a spice tie and a perfume vial.
The previous two mishnayot listed things which it was permitted according to Torah law to wear into the public domain but which the sages nevertheless prohibited for various reasons. Today’s mishnah lists things which are prohibited even according to Torah law.
Section one: A pierced needle is one which is used for sewing, an activity which is prohibited on Shabbat. Therefore it is prohibited from the Torah for a woman (or a man, for that matter) to go out carrying one on Shabbat.
Section two: A ring with a signet is for signing, which is prohibited from the Torah on Shabbat.
Section three: This is a type of crown not commonly worn. Since it is not common attire, carrying it is considered “carrying” and not “wearing.”
Sections 4-5: Spice ties and perfume vials are only worn by women with extraordinarily bad smells. Rabbi Meir says that since most women don’t wear these things, they are considered “carrying” and hence prohibited by the Torah. The sages disagree and hold that the spice tie and perfume vial are not really carrying and hence there is only a rabbinic prohibition to carry them into the public domain. + +Mishnah 4 + +Introduction +The first section of our mishnah contains a fascinating debate concerning carrying weapons of war on Shabbat. The second section discusses garters used to hold up hose worn on legs. +A man may not go out with a sword, bow, shield, club, or spear, and if he does go out, he incurs a sin-offering. Rabbi Eliezer says: they are ornaments for him. But the sages say, they are nothing but a disgrace, as it is said, “And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” (Isaiah 2:4). According to the sages weapons are disgraceful to a human being. While the sages would not deny that weapons are necessary in times of war, they should not be worn as mere decorations, meant to make a person look tougher. The sages derive this opinion from the famous messianic vision in Isaiah. As an aside, it seems to me that this is an approach deeply emblematic of Judaism war and it accoutrements are necessary evils not to be celebrated during times of peace. On the other hand, Rabbi Eliezer holds that weapons are ornaments for men. The word “ornaments” is the same word in Hebrew as “jewelry” for women. Just as women may wear jewelry for its intent is to improve their image, so too men may wear their weapons. +A garter is clean, and they go out [wearing] it on Shabbat. Knee-bands are unclean, and they may not go out with them on Shabbat. A garter is worn on the thighs to hold up the hose (socks). “It is clean” means that it is not receptive to impurities. The reason is that it is not considered an article of clothing in and of itself; rather it is part of another piece of clothing. Since it is not itself an article of clothing it cannot receive impurity. It may be worn on Shabbat since it is necessary to hold up a person’s hose. “Knee-bands” refers to chains attached to the garter to keep the legs from spreading to far apart. According to the Talmud these were typically worn by women. Since they have chains, they are considered to be in and of themselves an article of clothing and hence susceptible to impurity. They may not be worn on Shabbat lest the woman wearing them takes the chain off and carries them in the public domain. + +Mishnah 5 + +Introduction +Most of this mishnah is the opposite of the first mishnah of this chapter. There we learned what things a woman may not wear into the public domain. Here we learn things that she may wear. +A woman may go out with ribbons made of hair, whether they are of her own hair or her friend’s, or an animal’s; In the first mishnah we learned that a woman may not go out with ribbons of wool or flax since she might take them off and carry them in the public domain. Also, since she had to remove them before immersing in a mikveh we feared that she may remove them on Shabbat in order to immerse. Here we learn that she may wear ribbons of hair, since she need not remove them when immersing. +And with frontlets or head-bangles if they are sewn, Since these are sewn to her hair-net, she may wear them out on Shabbat and we are not concerned lest she remove them. +And with a hair-net and with a wig into a courtyard; She may wear her wig and hair-net into a courtyard but not into the public domain. +And with wool in her ear, with wool in her sandals, and with wool which she prepared for her menstruation; She may go out with pieces of wool cloth in her ear (to keep in the puss from an infection), in her sandal (if her feet are sore) and as a tampon. Since these are necessary and we are not concerned that she will remove them in the public domain, she may go out with them. +With a peppercorn, with a lump of salt and anything that is placed in her mouth, providing that she does not put it in her mouth in the first place on Shabbat, And if it falls out, she may not put it back. People put peppercorns in their mouths to improve their breath and salt to heal a wound. The mishnah teaches that a woman may go out with these things in her mouth on Shabbat and it is not considered “carrying.” However, she may not put them in her mouth on Shabbat itself because they are like medicines. As we shall learn, taking medicine was prohibited on Shabbat lest someone come to grind their own drugs. Grinding is a labor prohibited by the Torah. Furthermore, even if it was in her mouth before Shabbat and then fell out, she may not put it back in. +A false tooth or a gold tooth: Rabbi permits but the sages forbid it. According to the sages, she may not wear false teeth lest her friends laugh at her or admire them and she removes them to show her friends. Rabbi is not concerned with this possibility and hence permits wearing false teeth. +With a peppercorn, with a lump of salt and anything that is placed in her mouth, providing that she does not put it in her mouth in the first place on Shabbat, And if it falls out, she may not put it back. Sections five and six are addressed to women (as is the entire mishnah) but it is likely that the same rules would also apply to men. The reason that these sections are addressed to women is probably that these things were more customarily done by women. + +Mishnah 6 + +She may go out with the sela on a callus.
Young girls may go out with threads, and even with chips in their ears.
Arabian women may go out veiled.
Medean women may go out with their cloaks thrown over their shoulders.
Indeed, all people [may do likewise] but that the sages spoke of prevailing custom.
This mishnah continues to list things which may be worn on Shabbat.
Section one: They would put a coin on a callus to help heal it. Since it was tied to the foot, the rabbis were not concerned lest it be removed and the owner carry it in the public domain.
Section two: Threads and chips were used in piercing girls’ ears. After the initial piercing, they would put a thread in to begin the hole and eventually they would put in a wood chip to widen the hole. When the hole was large enough they would put in an earring. Since the strings and chips are not regularly removed, they may be worn in the public domain.
Sections 3-4: These sections refer to the customs of certain women from certain origins. Women from Arab lands would wear veils and those from Medea (Persia) would wear cloaks over their shoulders (like capes). The straps of the cloaks were connected by a tie with a nut, coin or small stone.
Section five: Although sections three and four single out Arabian and Medean women, anyone may wear these things. The only reason that these women were singled out is that these were commonly worn by certain women. + +Mishnah 7 + +Introduction +At the end of yesterday’s mishnah we learned that a Medean woman may wear her cloak on Shabbat. We explained that these cloaks were tied with a stone, nut or coin. Today’s mishnah is based on that ruling. +A woman may weight [her cloak] with a stone, nut, or coin, providing that she does not attach the weight in the first place on Shabbat. As we learned yesterday, a woman may wear a cloak that is tied with one of these things. However, she may not attach the weight itself on Shabbat. The Talmud explains that this prohibition refers only to the coin. Since coins may not be handled on Shabbat (they are muktzeh) she may not tie her cloak with one. However, if the tie was made before Shabbat she may wear the cloak. According to the Talmud she may make the tie with a nut or stone even on Shabbat. + +Mishnah 8 + +Introduction +Most of this mishnah deals with a person lacking a leg going out on Shabbat with his stump. This stump was not really an artificial leg rather a support for his stump leg. The mishnah also uses this opportunity to discuss a few other laws concerning artificial legs and arms. +A crippled person [lacking a leg] may go out with his wooden stump, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose forbids it. According to Rabbi Meir, a wooden stump made for a crippled person is like his shoe and hence the person lacking a leg may go out with it on Shabbat. Rabbi Yose holds that the crippled person doesn’t really use the stump like a shoe; rather he relies mostly on his crutches. Hence the stump is considered to be “carrying” and it is prohibited. +And if it has a receptacle for pads, it is unclean. If the stump has a hollow place inside not only for his stump leg but pads, then it can receive impurity. Generally speaking, wooden things which have receptacles are susceptible to impurity. +His supports are unclean through midras, and one may go out with them on Shabbat, and enter the Temple court while wearing them. “Supports” are like crutches. They can receive impurity through “midras”, which means pressure by a zav (a person with unusual genital discharge). If a zav sits, leans or lies on them they are impure. Anything which is meant to be stepped on is susceptible to this type of impurity. He may go out with them on Shabbat since they are like his shoes. It is forbidden to enter the Temple while wearing shoes. However, the crippled person’s supports are not included in the category of “shoes” as far as entering the Temple is concerned. +His chair and its supports are unclean through midras, and one may not go out with them on Shabbat, and one may not enter the Temple court with them. Similarly, a crippled person’s chair and its supports (this is kind of like a walker) are all susceptible to midras impurity, since they are made for sitting and leaning. According to talmudic commentators it is prohibited for him to go out on Shabbat with the supports, since the chair itself is sufficient. He may, however, go out with the special chair on Shabbat. If he has a chair he shouldn’t enter the Temple court with his supports since in this case they are like shoes. +An artificial arm is clean, but one may not go out with it [on Shabbat]. An artificial arm is not susceptible to impurity since it is not considered to be a vessel. It is forbidden to go out with it on Shabbat. Others explain that the word for artificial arm here (ankatmin) refers to a piece of equipment which clowns use. + +Mishnah 9 + +Introduction +This mishnah teaches things that young boys may wear out on Shabbat. +Boys may go out with garlands and children of royalty children may go out with bells, and all people [may do likewise], but the sages spoke of the usual practice. Boys may go out with garlands, which according to the Talmud were made to protect them from evil. Children of royalty may go out with bells. The mishnah adds that anyone may go out with a bell. The mishnah mentioned royalty because they were the ones who typically did so. + +Mishnah 10 + +Introduction +The final mishnah of chapter six deals with carrying things which were believed to have healing powers. +One may go out with a locust’s egg, a fox’s tooth, and a nail from [the cross of] a crucified convict for purposes of healing, the words of Rabbi Meir’s view. But the sages say: even on weekdays this is forbidden on account of “the ways of the Amorite” [which Israelites are forbidden from adopting]. The three things listed in this mishnah were believed to have healing powers. The locust’s egg was believed to aid in healing the ear, the fox’s tooth helped people who slept too much and the nail was believed to heal wounds. According to Rabbi Meir a person can carry these items on Shabbat since they were used for healing. Wearing them is therefore not considered “carrying.” The sages don’t really disagree that wearing these things is not considered “carrying.” Rather, the sages say that it is always forbidden to use these things because they are “the ways of the Amorite.” This refers to Leviticus 18:3 according to which Israelites should not imitate the nations that occupied Canaan. The Rambam explains that anything which doctors state has medicinal value cannot be prohibited because of the “the ways of the Amorite.” The only things that are prohibited are things which doctors say have not medicinal value but are believed by other nations to aid in healing. We should note that in the ancient world, the distinction between medicine and superstition was far less clear than is the distinction today (and even today the line between the two is not always so clear.) + +Chapter 7 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +In the introduction to Shabbat we explained that a person who performs a forbidden labor on Shabbat intentionally is liable for the death penalty (if they warned him) and for karet extirpation (if unwarned). For accidental performance of a forbidden labor, one must bring a sin-offering. Our mishnah asks a frequently-asked rabbinic question: how do we know how many sin-offerings a person is liable for? Asked another way, what constitutes one performance of a forbidden labor? +A great principle they stated in respect to Shabbat: anyone who forgets the fundamental law of Shabbat and performs many labors on many Shabbatot, is liable for only one sin-offering. The mishnah begins by referring to a person who doesn’t remember that work is prohibited on Shabbat. Such a person has in essence only transgressed once, no matter how many Shabbatot she performed the forbidden labor and no matter how many labors she performed. For instance, a person who never learned about Shabbat and then later in life learned that it was forbidden to work on Shabbat, would only be liable for one sin-offering. +One who knows the fundamental law of Shabbat and performs many labors on many Shabbatot is liable for a sin-offering for each and every Shabbat. This section refers to a person who knows that it is forbidden to work on Shabbat but doesn’t know which day of the week is Shabbat. All of the forbidden labors which she performs on any given Shabbat are considered one transgression. Therefore she brings one sin-offering for every Shabbat which she forgot was Shabbat, no matter how many forbidden labors she performed. +One who knows that it is Shabbat and performs many labors on many Shabbatot, is liable for every primary labor. This person knows which day is Shabbat and knows that it is forbidden to perform work on Shabbat but doesn’t know which labors are prohibited. Such a person is liable for every primary labor. As we shall see in tomorrow’s mishnah, there are thirty-nine categories of prohibited labor. Each category is a “primary labor.” Within each category there are derived labors, prohibitions which are similar enough to the primary labor to also be prohibited. Derived labors” are as prohibited as “primary labors” (they are all in the category of “deoraita” toraitic prohibitions.) The only difference is that if one performs several different “primary labors” she is liable for a sin-offering for each primary labor. However, if she performs a primary labor and several derived labors from the same category, she is only liable for one sin-offering. Furthermore, in the case in this section since the person didn’t know that such a labor was prohibited on Shabbat, she is only liable for one sin-offering no matter how many Shabbatot she performed the labor. +One who performs many labors belonging to the same category is obligated for only one sin-offering. In this case the person knows pretty much everything (that labor is prohibited on Shabbat, which labor is prohibited and which day is Shabbat). She is liable for every primary labor she performs on each Shabbat. However, if she also performs derived labors that are under the same category, she is liable for only one sin-offering for each category of labor she performs. + +Mishnah 2 + +Introduction This mishnah lists the thirty-nine primary labors. As can be easily seen there are three main lists in the mishnah: 1) the work involved in baking bread; 2) the work involved in making clothing; 3) the work involved in writing. These are the first three lists. The fourth section contains six more labors that are also prohibited but do not easily fit into the other lists. The Talmud states that these labors were all learned from the juxtaposition of the laws of building the Tabernacle with the prohibition of work on Shabbat (Exodus 31:35). Since the Torah had to state not to break Shabbat to build the Temple, it must be that any work which was done in building the Temple is prohibited on Shabbat. Much of the rest of the tractate will explain these labors, so we will be brief here. +The primary labors are forty less one:
sowing, plowing, reaping, binding sheaves, threshing, winnowing, selecting, grinding, sifting, kneading, baking, These are the labors involved in making bread, from the beginning to the very end. Personally, I am happy that for me baking bread involves going to the store, plunking down a few shekels and taking a loaf home. +shearing wool, bleaching, hackling, dyeing, spinning, weaving, the making of two loops, weaving two threads, dividing two threads, tying and untying, sewing two stitches, tearing in order to sew two stitches, These are all of the labors involved in making clothing. One interesting thing to note is that many commentators hold that tearing is prohibited only if the tear is made in order to sew new stitches. Only constructive, purposeful work is prohibited “deoraita” on Shabbat. Tearing in a destructive manner with no other purpose is still prohibited but only “derabbanan” a rabbinic prohibition. “Hackling” refers to separating strands of wool. +capturing a deer, slaughtering, or flaying, or salting it, curing its hide, scraping it [of its hair], cutting it up, writing two letters, erasing in order to write two letters [over the erasure], These are the labors involved in writing a scroll. Most of the work is making the parchment on which to write the scroll. +building, tearing down, extinguishing, kindling, striking with a hammer, These are all labors which are involved in building and in creating the material needed to build. We should make a couple of important notes. Tearing down is only considered a primary labor if it is performed with the intent of rebuilding. Extinguishing is also only prohibited deoraita if it makes charcoal (like extinguishing a candle.) “Striking with a hammer” is sort of a code-name for the completion of any piece of work. When finished with a metal project the silversmith would strike it with a hammer to complete it. That is why it is called “striking with a hammer.” +[and] carrying out from one domain to another, These are the forty primary labors less one. Carrying from one domain to another is a labor unlike any of the others for instead of altering the nature of an object, it alters its location. + +Mishnah 3 + +Introduction +From here until the beginning of chapter eleven the mishnah discusses the labor of carrying. Our mishnah introduces a general principle related to carrying. +They also stated another general principle: whatever is fit to store and people generally store things like it, and one carries it out on Shabbat, he is liable for a sin-offering on its account. But whatever is not fit to store and people do not [generally] store things like it, and one carries it out on Shabbat, only he that stores it is liable. A person is only obligated for carrying something from one domain to another if the object which she carries is one that is important enough that people store it and guard it. The object has to be one put to use by people. For instance keys are something that people are generally careful about, whereas a pebble is not. It also has to be of the size that people are generally careful with and will store. A loaf of bread would have such a size but a few small crumbs would not. If one carries something from one domain to another that has this size and is of a nature that people store it to protect it, then the person is obligated to bring a sin-offering. If it is not something about which people generally care, then only a person who does care about it is liable for it. For instance if most people are not careful with a tiny piece of bread and a person who is not careful with such a piece of bread carries it from one domain to another, she is not liable. However, if a person is careful with a small piece of bread and does take care of it, she would be liable for carrying it from one domain to another. + +Mishnah 4 + +Introduction +This mishnah discusses how much food a person must carry on Shabbat to be liable for carrying. The mishnah is divided into two sections: the first half deals with animal food and the second half deals with human food. +He who carries out a cow’s mouthful of straw, a camel’s mouthful of bean stalks, a lamb’s mouthful of clover, a goat’s mouthful of grasses, moist leaves of garlic or moist leaves of onion the size of a dried fig, [or] a goat’s mouthful of dry [leaves], [is liable]. And they do not combine with each other, because they are not alike in their standards. The general rule is that a person is liable for carrying an amount of animal food equal to a mouthful of the animal that eats that type of food. Cows eat straw, so if he carries a mouthful of straw he is liable. Moist leaves of garlic and onion are fit for human consumption. Therefore one who carries an amount the size of a dried fig is liable. Goats eat dried leaves of onion and garlic, therefore to be liable for carrying these he must carry a goat’s mouthful. These are listed in this section probably because they are more normally eaten by goats. If a person carries a combination of these things each of which is less than the prohibited amount, they do not add up to create a prohibited amount. For instance, if he carries half a cow’s mouthful of straw and half a camel’s mouthful of bean stubble he is not liable. Since all of the amounts are different and one is for one type of animal and another for other types of animal, they do not add up together. +He who carries out [human] food the size of a dried fig is liable, And they combine with each other, because they are equal in their standards, except their shells, kernels, stalks, husks and coarse bran. Rabbi Judah said: excluding the shells of lentils, because they are boiled together with them. To be liable for carrying human food the amount need only be the size of a dried fig. If a person carries two different types of food, they add up. So if one carries half a fig’s worth of raisins and half a fig’s worth of peanuts, she is liable for carrying. This is because there is one standard amount for all human food. When figuring out the size of a piece of food, the non-edible parts are not considered. Rabbi Judah says that the shells of lentils are edible and hence they count in considering how much is being carried. + +Chapter 8 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +This mishnah discusses how much liquid one must carry in order to be liable. +One who carries out: [unmixed] wine, [is liable if it is] enough for the mixing of a cup; milk, as much as is swallowed at a time; honey, as much as is placed on a scab; oil, as much as is required to rub on a small limb; water, enough to rub with it collyrium; and all other liquids, a revi’it; and all waste water, a revi’it. The amount for which one is liable for carrying these liquids is dependent upon the minimal amount that is useful. Wine was mixed with water to dilute it. Therefore, if one carries unmixed wine, she is liable if she carries enough to mix a cup. For carrying milk, she is liable if she carries the amount normally swallowed at one time. Honey was evidently used to heal wounds. Oil was used like lotion and therefore she is liable if she carries enough to oil up a small limb, for instance a finger. Water was mixed with collyrium, an eye ointment. Although there are certainly other uses for water, this is the smallest amount that has any use. All other liquids and even waste water must be a revi’it (less than 100 cl, or 3 oz.) +Rabbi Shimon says: all of them are a revi’it, they stated all of these measures only in respect of those who put them away. Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the previous opinion. He holds that all liquids have the same measure a revi’it. These measures have a different relevance with regard to liquid, one which relates back to that which we learned in 7:3. There we learned that if someone cares enough about an object to store it, she is liable if she carries it from domain to domain on Shabbat. Rabbi Shimon adds that the object also has to have a minimum measure. Our mishnah provides, according to Rabbi Shimon, the minimum measure for liquids. If a person is one who “stores” these liquids then the minimum measure to be liable for carrying is as listed above in section one. However, if a person is not careful about these liquids than she is liable only if she carries a revi’it. + +Mishnah 2 + +Introduction +This mishnah teaches how much rope or paper a person must carry in order to be liable for carrying on Shabbat. Again, in each case she is liable if she carries an amount that can be put to some use. +One who carries out rope, as much as is required for making a handle for a basket; A small amount of rope could be used to make a handle for a basket. Therefore she is liable if she carries this small amount of rope. +A reed cord: as much as is required for making a hanger for a sifter or a sieve. Rabbi Judah says: as much as is required for taking the measure of a child's shoe. A reed cord might be used to make a hanger for a sieve or sifter; hence the minimum amount for which a person is liable is this amount. +Paper, in order to write a tax-collector’s receipt on it. And one who carries out a tax-collector’s receipt is liable. The smallest paper document would be a tax-collector’s receipt. Therefore, if one carries paper which is this size she is liable. Furthermore, if one carries out a tax-collector’s receipt written on something else such as parchment for which the minimum measure is normally larger (as we will learn in tomorrow’s mishnah), she is also liable. According to the Talmud, the tax-collector would write only two letters on such a receipt. +Erased paper, as much as is required to wrap round a small vial of perfume. Erased paper is used paper which is no longer fit for use. One of its uses was as a wrap around bottles, the smallest of which would have been a small vial of perfume. Therefore, even if she carries such a small amount of erased paper, she is liable. We should note that this amount is larger than the size mentioned in section three. + +Mishnah 3 + +Introduction +The mishnah continues to list the minimum amount of various items which must be carried in order for one to be liable. Again, the rule of thumb is the smallest amount that has practical use will make one liable. +[One who carries] animal hide: as much as is required for making an amulet; Animal hide was used to make small amulets. Therefore, one who carries enough to make such an amulet is liable. +Parchment, for writing on it the shortest passage of the tefillin, which is “Sh’ma Yisrael”: Parchment is used for writing tefillin. The smallest passage that goes on one piece of parchment in the tefillin is the Sh’ma. +Ink, for writing two letters; As we saw in yesterday’s mishnah, the shortest document, that of the tax collector, had two letters. Therefore, one who carries enough ink to write such a document is liable. +Eye shadow, for painting one eye. Usually women would paint both eyes, but sometimes women would paint only one. Therefore, one who carries enough eye-shadow to paint one eye is liable. + +Mishnah 4 + +Paste, for putting on the top of a lime twig.
Pitch and sulfur, for making a small hole.
Wax, for putting over a small hole.
Clay, for making a hole in a gold refiner’s pot. Rabbi Judah says: for making a [tripod’s] leg.
Bran, for putting on the mouth of a gold refiner’s pot.
Lime, for smearing the smallest of girls. Rabbi Judah says: enough to take off the hair on the temples. Rabbi Nehemiah says: enough to take the hair of the forehead.
This mishnah discusses minimum measurements for carrying various pastes and mixtures. Some of these references are quite obscure and it is hard to tell exactly what the mishnah is referring to.
Section one: This paste was used to trap birds. The birds would sit on a branch and if the branch was smeared with paste, the bird would get stuck.
Sections two and three: To “make” a hole means to plug up a hole. Pitch, sulfur and wax were all used for this purpose.
Section four: Clay was used to plug up a hole in a gold refiner’s pot. Rabbi Judah disagrees and holds that the minimum amount is enough to fix the leg of a tripod, used to hold up small stoves.
Section five: Bran was not regularly eaten by people (see 7:4). Rather it was used to plug holes on the mouth of a gold refiner’s pot.
Section six: Lime was used to remove hair on women. The Talmud explains that the amount referred to here is enough to remove the hair from a small girl’s finger.
Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Nehemiah provide slightly different measures for lime than does the first opinion. + +Mishnah 5 + +Introduction +And even more minimum measurements for which a person is liable for carrying! +One interesting thing to note is that as we reach the end of the chapter, there are more and more debates between the sages. According to Abraham Goldberg, the editor of the Mishnah intentionally saves debates for latter portions of the discussion in order not to confuse the reader at an earlier point. In other words, the redaction of the mishnah serves the pedagogic purpose of making the material clearer. This is probably one of the unique attributes of the Mishnah that make it the best-edited work in the entire corpus of rabbinic literature. +Red earth, as much as is required for a seal on merchandise bags, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say: as much as is required for the seal on letters. Red earth was used for making seals. According to Rabbi Akiva, the minimum amount of red earth which causes a person to be liable for carrying is enough to make a seal on a merchandise bag. The sages disagree and set an even smaller amount the amount used to make a seal on a letter. +Manure, or thin sand, as much as is required for fertilizing a cabbage stalk, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say: for fertilizing one leek plant. Manure and thin sand were used to fertilize vegetables. Rabbi Akiva sets the minimum amount at enough to fertilize a cabbage stalk, whereas the sages set the minimum amount at enough to fertilize a leek plant. In both this section and the above Rabbi Akiva is more lenient than the sages. +Thick sand, as much as is required for putting on a full plaster trowel. Lime plasterers would mix thick sand with their lime. The measure of thick sand for which one is obligated for carrying on Shabbat is enough to fill one plasterer’s trowel so that the sand can be mixed with lime. This is the minimum amount of thick sand that has practical use. +Reed, as much as is required for making a pen. But if it is thick or crushed, as much as is required for boiling the lightest of eggs beaten up and placed in a stew pot. Reeds were often used to make pens. If the reed was usable for making pens, then the minimum amount is enough to make one pen. This would be a very small amount. If it was not possible to use the reed to make a pen, for instance the reed was too thick or it was crushed, then they would burn it in the fire. With regard to carrying such types of reed, the minimum amount is enough to make a fire which would fry a small egg. This would obviously be a much larger amount than above. + +Mishnah 6 + +Introduction +This mishnah deals with harder materials: bone, glass, pebbles and stones. +Bone, is as much as is required for making a spoon. Rabbi Judah says: enough for making a tooth [of a key] with it; According to the first opinion, the minimum amount of bone for which one is liable for carrying must be enough to make a large spoon. Rabbi Judah sets a smaller amount enough to make part of a key which was typically made from bone. +Glass, enough for scraping the end of a shuttle. A small piece of glass would be used to scrape the end of the spinning shuttle (used in weaving). Therefore, one who carries a piece of glass large enough for this purpose is liable. +A pebble or a stone, large enough to throw at a bird; Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov says: large enough to throw at an animal. Pebbles and stones were used to kill birds and small animals (although for Jews these animals would not be edible.) According to the first opinion the pebble or stone need only be large enough to throw at a bird, whereas Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov holds that it needs to be large enough to throw at an animal. + +Mishnah 7 + +Introduction +The final mishnah of our chapter is about the minimum size of a shard for which a person is liable for carrying. +A shard, as much as is needed for placing between one board and another, the words of Rabbi Judah. A small shard would be placed between building pillars used in making a house, if there were gaps between the pillars or boards. According to Rabbi Judah this is the measure of the type of shard one is liable for carrying on Shabbat. This is the smallest of the measures given in the mishnah. +Rabbi Meir says: enough to scoop out the coals with it. Rabbi Meir sets a slightly larger amount. The shard must be enough to scoop out coals from a fire. This is the largest measure of the three that are in the mishnah. +Rabbi Yose says: large enough to contain a revi’it. Rabbi Yose holds that the shard must only be large enough to hold a revi’it of water, which is about 3 oz. +Rabbi Meir said: even though there is no proof of the matter, there is a hint: “So that no shard is left in its breakage to scoop coals from a brazier” (Isaiah 30:1. Rabbi Yose said to him: proof [of my view] is from there [as well]: “Or to take ladle water from a puddle” (. In this section Rabbi Meir tries to prove from a verse in Isaiah that shards were used for scooping out coals. Rabbi Yose responds that if that verse is going to be used, why not look to the end of the verse which proves that shards were also used to ladle water. Therefore, a shard that is large enough to use to draw water is already large enough such that one who carries it is liable for carrying on Shabbat. + +Chapter 9 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +In the last chapter of mishnah eight Rabbi Meir brought a proof for his halakhah from the book of Isaiah. The proof was more of a “support” than an actual proof. This phenomenon is called an “asmakhta” in rabbinic parlance. The first four mishnayoth in our chapter all contain Biblical prooftexts of this nature. +Rabbi Akiva said: From where do we know that an idol defiles by being carried like a menstruant? Because it is said, “You shall cast them [the idols] away as a menstruous woman. Out! You will say to them” (Isaiah 30:22): just as a menstruant defiles by being carried, so does an idol defile by being carried. Rabbi Akiva holds that a person who carries an idol is defiled by the idol, even if he doesn’t touch it and only carries it. He derives this halakhah from a comparison that Isaiah makes between idols and a menstruant. In his exhortation against idolatry Isaiah states that the people of Israel will cast out their idols like a menstruous woman. Leviticus 15:22 teaches that a menstruous woman defiles things not just by touching them but even by sitting on them. From here the rabbis derive that she transmits impurity also by being carried. Rabbi Akiva learns from Isaiah that idols transmit impurity in the same way. + +Mishnah 2 + +Introduction +There are two more midrashim in this mishnah which are both based on passages that are not from the Torah. +How do we know that a ship is clean? Because it is said, “The way of a ship is in the midst of the sea” (Proverbs 30:19). A ship cannot contract ritual impurity (uncleanness). This is derived from Proverbs 30:19: just as the sea cannot become impure, so too a ship cannot become impure. +How do we know that if a furrow is six handbreadths by six handbreadths, they may sow in it five kinds of seeds, four on the four sides, and one in the middle? Because it is said, “For as the earth brings forth her growth, and as the garden causes its seeds to spring forth” (Isaiah 61:11) not its seed, but its seeds is stated. This section has to do with the laws of forbidden mixtures of seeds. The mishnah teaches a way that five different species can be planted in a six by six handbreadth furrow. This would look like the table below (this is my first graphic, so here goes): Since no seeds are actually next to each other, this is not considered “kilayim” a forbidden mixture of seeds. Eventually when we learn tractate Kilayim we will learn more about this halakhah. The mishnah derives this halakhah from the plural use of the word “seeds” in Isaiah. The verse implies that one garden can make five different kinds of seeds come up at the same time. We should note, however, that the verse does not teach that five is possible and that six is not. + +Mishnah 3 + +How do we know that if one [a woman] discharges semen on the third day she is unclean? Because it is said, “Be ready for the third day” (Exodus 19:15). Semen imparts ritual impurity. A woman who discharges semen up until three days after having intercourse is made unclean by this semen. This is why Moses told the people of Israel not to have intercourse for three days before receiving the Torah. If the woman would have a discharge of semen after the third day, the semen would no longer transmit impurity. +How do we know that one who has been circumcised may be bathed on the third day [after circumcision] which falls on Shabbat? Because it is said, “And it came to pass on the third day, when they were in pain” (Genesis 34:25). It is permitted to warm water (but not to light a fire) in order to bathe someone who has just been circumcised. The mishnah assumes that we know that it is permitted to do so on the first and second days after the circumcision. It is permitted up until the third day. This is derived from what it says about the people of Shechem who were still in pain three days after their circumcision. +How do we know that a crimson-colored strap is tied to the head of the goat that is sent [to Azazel]? Because it is said, “If your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow” (Isaiah 1:18). According to rabbinic sources, (see Yoma 6:6) the priests would tie a crimson ribbon to the horns of the goat sent to Azazel on Yom Kippur. If the ribbon turned white, it was a sign that the children of Israel’s sins had been forgiven. This is connected in our mishnah to the verse from Isaiah. + +Mishnah 4 + +How do we know that anointing is the same as drinking on Yom Kippur? Though there is no proof of this, yet there is a suggestion of it, for it is said, “And it came into his inward parts like water, and like oil into his bones” (Psalms 109:18). Two of the prohibitions on Yom Kippur are anointing (rubbing oil on oneself) and drinking. Our mishnah teaches that both are similarly prohibited (although their punishments are different). Their similarity is derived from the verse in Psalms which compares water with anointing with oil. We should note that according to most commentators the phrase, “though there is no proof of this, yet there is a suggestion of it” refers to all of the “proofs” in the above three mishnayot as well. None of them are true “proofs” but rather “suggestions.” + +Mishnah 5 + +If one carries out wood, as much as is required for boiling a light egg; For carrying wood, one is liable if she carries enough to fuel the boiling of a light egg. +Spices, as much as is required for seasoning a light egg, and they combine with each other. For carrying spices, it must be enough to season an egg. If she carries different types of spices, they all join together to equal one measure. +Nutshells, pomegranate peel, woad and madder, as much as is required for dyeing a small piece of cloth the size of a hairnet. These things were all used as dyes. Woad was used to make blue dye and madder made red dye. She is liable if she carries enough of these things to dye a small piece of cloth the size of a woman’s hairnet. +Urine, baking soda, lye, cimolian earth, and lion’s leaf, as much as is required for washing a small piece of cloth the size of a hairnet. Rabbi Judah says: as much as is required for removing the stain. These materials were all used in laundering (sounds yucky doesn’t it? aren’t you glad you use Tide!). Therefore, she is liable if she carries enough to wash a small piece of cloth the size of a hairnet. Rabbi Judah says that it must be enough to remove “the stain.” This refers to a situation where a stain was found on a woman’s clothing and it is unclear whether or not the stain is menstrual blood. They would wash it with the above five materials as well as two others (see Mishnah Nidah 9:6). If the stain didn’t come out, then they knew it was dye and not blood. The amount of each type for which one is liable on Shabbat is the amount that they used to put on the cloth to see if the stain would come out. + +Mishnah 6 + +Introduction +This mishnah deals with things for which one is liable for carrying even the smallest amount. The reason in the first three sections is that even the smallest quantity of these things is usable. In the final two sections, the reason why one is liable for carrying even the smallest amount is that the objects are holy and when worn out, may not be thrown away. +[If one carries out] pepper, in whatever quantity. Since even the tiniest amount of pepper can be used to spice up a dish or for other purposes, one is liable for carrying even the tiniest amount. +Olive-refuse, in whatever quantity. Small amounts of olive-refuse were used to heal headaches. +Various kinds of spices and various kinds of metal, in whatever quantity. This section refers to spices which were not used for cooking but for perfumes. Since even the smallest amount might be used, one would be liable for even a tiny amount. Metal was quite precious and even small amounts would be preserved. +[Pieces] of the stones of the altar or the earth from the altar, worn-out pieces of scrolls or their worn-out covers, in whatever quantity, because they are stored away in order to hide them. When pieces of the altar needed to be removed or parts of holy scrolls or their covers needed to be replaced, the old material must be put into a “genizah”, a place to hide them and protect them. The word “genizah” indeed means “to be stored away.” They may not be thrown into the garbage. Since even the smallest amounts are important enough to forbid their being thrown away, one is liable for carrying even the smallest amount. +Rabbi Judah says: also he who carries out the service vessels of idols, in whatever quantity, [is liable], for it is said, “Let nothing that has been doomed stick to your hand” (Deuteronomy 13:18). Rabbi Judah thinks that even for carrying things used in idol worship, if one carries even the smallest amount one is liable. This is because of the verse “let nothing...” The Torah considers even the smallest amount to be forbidden due to the prohibition of idolatry. Rabbi Judah learns from here that even the smallest amount has “importance” and therefore one who carries such an amount is liable. + +Mishnah 7 + +If one carries out a peddler’s basket, even though it contains many types of things, he is liable for only one sin-offering. A peddler’s basket contains a variety of goods. We might have thought that one who carries such a basket full of different things from one domain to another would be liable for several sin-offerings, one for each thing in the basket. Therefore, the mishnah teaches that she is liable for only one, for the basket joins them together. +Garden seeds, less than the size of a dried fig; Rabbi Judah ben Batera ruled: five. Cucumber seed, two. Gourd seed, two. Egyptian bean seed, two. This section refers to seeds which will be used for planting. The mishnah lists the minimum amount of seeds of certain types of vegetables which would be planted in one furrow. With regard to garden-seeds, the first opinion holds that there must be a total amount of seeds equal to the size of a dried fig. Rabbi Judah ben Batera connects this rule with that which we learned above in mishnah two a person is allowed to plant five different kinds of seeds in one 6 by 6 handbreadth furrow. +A live clean locust, whatever its size. Dead, the size of a dried fig. The bird of the vineyards, whether live or dead, whatever its size, because they store it for a medicine. Rabbi Judah says: even one who carries out a live unclean locust, whatever its size, [is liable], because they store it away for a child to play with. The Torah teaches that some locusts are clean and may be eaten and some are unclean and are forbidden. According to the first opinion, one is liable for carrying a live clean locust of any size because they would put it aside for a child to play with. They would not give unclean locusts to children because if the locust died the child might eat it. Rabbi Judah at the end of this mishnah holds that even unclean locusts are stored away for children to play with and therefore one is liable also for carrying them. For dead clean locusts which are edible everyone agrees that the minimum is the same as it is for other foods (7:4). One would not be liable at all for carrying dead unclean locusts since they have no practical use. Due to its inclusion in this section, it seems likely the “bird of the vineyards” is actually a type of locust. Since even the smallest amount is used for medicinal purposes, one is liable for carrying even a small one, whether live or dead. + +Chapter 10 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +This mishnah connects back to what we learned above in 7:3. If a person cares enough to store a certain something away, that means that that thing is important to her. Therefore, if she carries it from domain to domain on Shabbat, she is liable no matter what its size is. However, others who do not store such a thing, are only liable if they carry the minimum measure mentioned above. +If one stores something for planting, for a sample, or for medicine, and [then] carries it out on Shabbat, he is liable no matter the size. But all others are not liable except for its standard measure. If a person stores a single seed in order to plant it, to show it to someone else or to use it for medicinal purposes, that person is liable for carrying it, even if it is of a minimal measure. However, if another person carries that same seed, she is liable only if she carries a measure equal to that mentioned in yesterday’s mishnah. +If he carries it back again, he is liable only for its standard measure. If after carrying this minimum measure of seed, the person who stored it carries it again, she is only liable if she carries a minimum measure. The fact that she previously stored it away was only relevant for the first time she carried it. If she carries it again and doesn’t again store it away, she is treated like all other people, and is liable only if she carries a minimum measure. + +Mishnah 2 + +Introduction +Our mishnah teaches two things: 1) a person is not liable unless she takes something from the public domain and puts it into the private domain or vice verse. A domain that is neither public nor private does not count. 2) A person is not liable for performing one act of forbidden labor if the act is performed in two steps. +If one carries out food and places it on the threshold, whether he [himself] subsequently carries it out [into the street] or another does so, he is not liable, because the [whole] act was not performed at once. The threshold of a person’s house is considered to be neither the public domain nor the private domain. While it is forbidden to bring something from inside the house and place it on the threshold, one who does so is not liable for carrying on Shabbat. Our mishnah teaches that if the person divides carrying something from within the house to outside into two separate actions, first taking the object and putting it on the threshold and then picking it back up and carrying it out, she is not liable because she did not perform the entire forbidden act at once. +[If one carries out] a basket which is full of produce and places it on the outer threshold, though most of the produce is outside of the threshold, he is not liable unless he carries out the whole basket. This section builds upon the previous one. The person has a basket of produce, which as we learned in 9:7 is treated as one item. She places it on the threshold such that most of the produce that is within the basket is in the public domain. Nevertheless, because the entire basket is not in the public domain, she is not liable. Note that had she carried the food outside of the basket, she would have been liable. + +Mishnah 3 + +Introduction +This mishnah teaches that in order for a person to be liable for carrying she must carry in a way that is normal for carrying. If she carries in an unusual manner, she is not liable. +If one carries something out, whether with his right or with his left hand, in his lap or on his shoulder, he is liable, because this the way of the carrying of the children of Kohat (Numbers 7:9). According to Numbers 7:9, the children of Kohat carried the Tabernacle with their shoulders. Since we learn many of the principles of forbidden labor from the work in the Tabernacle, we can derive that carrying with one’s shoulders causes one to be liable for carrying on Shabbat. By extension, any normal form of carrying makes one liable. +In a backhanded manner, with his foot, in his mouth, with his elbow, in his ear, in his hair, in his belt with its opening downwards, between his belt and his shirt, in the hem of his shirt, in his shoes or sandals, he is not liable, because he has not carried [it] out as people [generally] carry out. If the person carries something out in an unusual manner, she is not liable. All of the ways mentioned in this section are unusual ways of carrying. We should note that it is not permitted to carry in such a way. When the mishnah says it is not liable it means that it is forbidden to do so, but if one does so, she is not liable. + +Mishnah 4 + +Introduction +Our mishnah discusses the difference between carrying things in front of oneself, the way they are normally carried (picture the way you carry dishes) and carrying things behind oneself, a way of carrying that in most cases (but not all) is unusual and less effective. +If one intends to carry out [an object] in front of him, but it comes around behind him, he is not liable. In this case the person intended to carry the object out in front of her, but somehow the object came around to the other side of her body and she carried it behind her. Had her intentions been fulfilled, she would have been liable. However, since she ended up carrying it behind her, in a way that does not make a person liable, she is not liable for carrying. The central idea is that her intention was not fulfilled, so she is not liable. +Behind him, but it comes around in front of him, he is liable. This is the opposite scenario: she intended to carry it behind her in which case she would have been exempt. When the object comes around to her front, it is now in a more protected position, one which she would normally be happy about. Therefore, she is liable. The idea is that she would want the object to be more protected, and therefore she is liable for carrying. In other words, her intention is actually fulfilled. +In truth they said: a woman who wraps herself with an apron whether in front of her or behind her, is liable, because it is normal for it to reverse itself. From the above two sections we can see that normally, when a person carries something behind themselves, they are exempt. This section brings up an exception the woman’s apron. It is normal for a woman’s apron, in which she carries things, to reverse itself. Since this is normal and she can anticipate that the apron will reverse itself and that the object she is carrying may end up in front of her or behind her, she is liable in all cases. +Rabbi Judah said: also those who receive notes. Rabbi Judah adds an additional category of people who are liable whether they carry the object in front or behind those who receive notes. These are messengers who would carry their bags on poles, either in front or behind them. Since the messenger could anticipate that the object might go in front or behind, he is liable in either case. + +Mishnah 5 + +Introduction +This mishnah teaches two main things. First of all, if two people jointly perform a forbidden labor that could be performed by one person, they are both exempt. +Secondly, when we consider what a person is liable for carrying, we only consider the main thing and not those things that are ancillary to it. +If one carries out a loaf into the public domain, he is liable. If two carry it out, both are exempt. If one could not carry it out and two carry it out, they are liable; But Rabbi Shimon exempts [them]. Here we learn that if two people jointly perform a forbidden labor that could have been performed by one person, both are exempt. In the Talmud this is derived from Leviticus 4:27, “If one person should unintentionally sin,” if one person does the entire labor for which one must bring a sin offering, she is liable, but if two people perform the labor together, they are both exempt. Again, we should emphasize that “exempt” does not mean that it is permitted. This is forbidden but nevertheless both are exempt from bringing a sin-offering. However, if the labor was something that one person couldn’t perform alone, for instance carrying a large table, then both are liable because both are performing as much of a forbidden labor that one person can perform. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that two people can never be liable for one jointly performed labor. +If one carries out less than the standard quantity of food in a utensil, he is not liable for the utensil, because the utensil is secondary to the [food]. This section discusses situations where a person takes out two things, one of them being the main thing and the other being secondary. For instance, a person takes out food in a vessel. The intention is to bring the food out and the vessel is merely a means to transport the food. If the food is less than the minimum measurement for which one incurs liability (usually the size of a dried fig) then she is exempt even for carrying out the vessel. This is because her intention was to carry out the food, and the vessel was secondary. Had she carried just the vessel, she would be liable, but since she carries the food as well, it becomes obvious that her intention was to carry the food. +[If one carries out] a living person on a bed, he is not liable even in respect of the bed, because the bed is secondary to him. A corpse in a bed, he is liable. We learn two things in this section. First of all, the rabbis believed that a living thing “carries itself.” This means that one does not incur liability for carrying a living thing, at least one that can walk on its own. So if a person carries out a living person on a bed, she is not liable for carrying the person. She is also exempt for carrying the bed since the reason that she carried the bed was to carry the person. However, if she carries a dead body on a bed (the word for bed is the same word as that for bier) she is liable for carrying the dead body. +And similarly [if one carries out] the size of an olive of a corpse, the size of an olive of a nevelah, or the size of a lentil of a [dead] creeping thing, he is liable. But Rabbi Shimon exempts him. In the above section we learned that a person is liable for carrying a dead body. Similarly, according to the first opinion in this section, a person is liable for carrying parts of a dead body, as long as they have a minimum measure. The minimum measures here are the minimum amounts that transmit impurity. Rabbi Shimon exempts one who carries parts of a dead body because this is “work not needed for its own sake.” That is to say, when she carries out these parts she is not doing so because she wants to do something with them outside in the public domain; rather she wants to clear them from the house. Therefore, she is exempt. + +Mishnah 6 + +Introduction +This mishnah is not concerned with carrying as are the preceding and following mishnayot. It is here because at the end of this mishnah Rabbi Shimon has a debate with the other sages as he did in yesterday’s mishnah. +If one pares his nails with each other or with his teeth, likewise [if one plucks] his hair, likewise his mustache, likewise his beard; And likewise if [a woman] braids [her hair], likewise if she paints [her eyelids] likewise if she puts rouge on [her face]: Rabbi Eliezer makes them liable, But the rabbis forbid [these actions] because of “shevuth.” According to Rabbi Eliezer all of these actions are derivatives of forbidden labors and hence one who performs them is liable. Cutting nails and hair is a derivative of “shearing.” Braiding is a derivative of “building.” Painting body parts is a derivative of “writing” or “dyeing.” The rabbis say that these things are forbidden but they are not considered true derivatives of prohibited labors since they are not done in the way that those labors are usually performed. However, they are still prohibited because of “shevut” which means desisting. This means that a person should desist from things that are similar enough to forbidden labors. However, the level of prohibition is only “derabbanan”, of rabbinic origin. +If one picks [something] from a perforated pot, he is liable. If it is unperforated, he is exempt. Rabbi Shimon exempts in both cases. A perforated pot contains plants whose roots are attached to the ground. Hence, one who plucks something from such a pot has performed the forbidden act of reaping. However, if the pot has no hole in its bottom than he is exempt because reaping is defined as detaching a plant or part thereof from the ground. Rabbi Shimon says that in both cases the one who plucks is exempt because we don’t consider even a perforated pot as being attached to the ground. + +Chapter 11 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +After having learned the laws of carrying from one domain to another, this chapter teaches laws concerning throwing something from one domain to another. +If one throws from the private domain into the public domain [or] from the public domain into the private domain, he is liable. Throwing is considered to be like carrying and hence one who throws from one domain to another is liable. +From one private domain to another private domain, and the public domain lies between: Rabbi Akiva makes him liable, But the sages exempt him. Rabbi Akiva treats the object which flies over the public domain as if it had actually landed in the public domain. Therefore, in his opinion this person has taken something from the private domain and brought it out to the public domain. The sages, however, rule that he is exempt because the object never actually landed in public domain. + +Mishnah 2 + +How so?
If there are two balconies facing each other in the public domain, he who reaches over or throws [an article] from one to the other is exempt.
If both are on the same row, he who reaches over is liable, while he who throws is exempt, for thus was the service of the Levites.
Two wagons, this one behind this one in the public domain, [and] they reached over the boards from one to another, but they did not throw.
[As for] he borders of a cistern, and a rock, which are ten [handbreadths] high and four in breath, if one removes [something] from them or places [something] upon them, his is liable; If less than this, he is exempt.
This mishnah explicates yesterday’s mishnah in which we learned that one who throws something from one private domain to another private domain and there lies a public domain in the middle, is exempt.
Section one: In this case two balconies are on opposite sides of the public domain. One who throws from one balcony to the other, or one who reaches something over from one to the other is exempt (according to the sages, see yesterday’s mishnah). As we shall see below, the reason is that this type of labor was not performed in the construction of the Tabernacle.
Sections two and three: Here the two balconies are on the same side of the street, lying adjacent to one another. In this case the sages agree that one who reaches something over from one balcony to the other is liable, for this is how the Levites worked in the construction and deconstruction of the Tabernacle in the desert. As we learn in the next section, the Levites had wagons which were placed one behind the other and they would pass boards from one to the other. The wagons are considered to be private domains and that which lay in between them is the public domain. Therefore, you have a case of people passing things from one public domain to another and a private domain lying in between. However, the Levites did not throw the boards for that would not have been respectful of the inherent holiness of the parts of the Tabernacle. Again, the principle is that anything that Levites did in the building of the Tabernacle is considered forbidden on Shabbat. Since they didn’t throw, today people are not liable for throwing from one domain to another. And since they only passed from wagons which were placed one behind the other, today people are not liable if they pass things across the public domain, as we learned in the previous section.
Section four: If the border of a cistern is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, it is considered to be a private domain and one who takes something from the public domain and puts it on this border or vice versa is liable. If the borders are smaller than this measure, one who does so is exempt. The same would be true if there was a rock in the public domain. If it is four handbreadths wide and ten tall, then one who puts something on it or takes something off is liable. If not he is exempt. + +Mishnah 3 + +Introduction +It is forbidden to carry something four cubits in the public domain. Our mishnah deals with someone who throws something four cubits in the public domain and some nuances concerning this halakhah. +One who throws [something] four cubits on to a wall: if [the wall] is above ten handbreadths, it is as if he throws it into the air; if below, it is as if it he throws it on to the ground. ( And one who throws [something] four cubits on the ground is liable. According to the rabbis, above ten handbreadths is no longer the public domain, but neither is it a private domain. It is called a “makom patur”, a place that is exempt from the laws of carrying. Therefore, one who throws something onto a wall that is higher than ten handbreadths is exempt. However, if she throws it and it goes four cubits and lands on a wall lower than ten cubits, it is as if the object landed on the ground and she is liable. This is because someone who throws something four cubits on the ground is liable. +If one threw [something] within four cubits and it rolled beyond four cubits, he is exempt; [If one threw something] beyond four cubits and it rolled within four cubits, he is liable. This section deals with throwing something that afterwards rolls. If she throws the object less than four cubits and it rolls further, she is exempt. This is because she did not intend to throw something four cubits. Alternatively, she is exempt because the object didn’t at first land the necessary four cubits away. However, if she threw something four cubits and then it rolled back she is still liable because it did land four cubits from where she threw it. + +Mishnah 4 + +Introduction +This mishnah deals with throwing in bodies of water. +If one throws in the sea four cubits, he is exempt. The sea is considered a “karmelit”, a place which is neither a public nor a private domain. That means that one is not liable for carrying or throwing in the sea. +If there is a pool of water and a public road crosses it, and one throws [an object] four cubits in it, he is liable. And how deep is a pool of water? Less than ten handbreadths. [For] if there is a pool of water and a public road crosses it, and one throws [an object] four cubits in it, he is liable. This section deals with a pool of water that lies in the public domain. If, the pool of water is less than ten handbreadths deep then one who throws an object four cubits into it is liable. The reason is that if it is less than ten handbreadths, then it is considered to be part of the public domain and one who throws or carries in it is liable. However, if the pool of water is more than ten handbreadths deep then it is no longer considered to be the public domain and one who throws in it she is exempt. We should note that the Talmud questions why section two seems to repeat itself at the end. From this repetition the talmud derives additional laws. + +Mishnah 5 + +Introduction +This mishnah deals with throwing from either the sea to dry land (or the opposite) or from ships to the sea or other ships. +If one throws [somethign] from the sea to dry land, or from dry land to the sea, from the sea to a ship or from a ship to the sea or from one ship to another, he is exempt. As we mentioned earlier, the sea is considered a “karmelit” a place that is neither the public domain nor the private domain. Hence, one who throws from dry land (the public domain) to the sea or vice versa is exempt. One is liable only for moving something from the public domain to the private domain or vice versa. A ship is considered a private domain. Hence, if one throws from the sea to a ship or from a ship to the sea, she is also exempt, for this is throwing from a “karmelit” to a private domain. Finally, one who throws from one ship to another is exempt, just as one who throws from one private domain to another private domain with the public domain lying in-between is exempt (see mishnah 11:1). In this case, it would seem that even Rabbi Akiva would exempt the thrower because what lies in-between is not a public domain but the sea (a karmelit). +If ships are tied together, one may carry from one to another. In this case the two ships are tied together and lying adjacent to one another. According to Albeck, who explains the mishnah according to the Yerushalmi (the Palestinian Talmud) since there is no karmelit lying between the ships, one can carry from one to the other. In the Babylonian Talmud, this section is explained as referring to boats owned by two different people. They may carry from one to the other if they set up an eruv, a concept about which we learn in the next tractate. +If they are not tied together, even though they lie close [to each other], one may not carry from one to another. If the ships are not tied together, one may not carry from one to the other, even if they lie adjacent to each other. Since the two boats may become separate, thereby forming a karmelit between them, the halakhah is more stringent in this case. + +Mishnah 6 + +Introduction +This mishnah teaches and illustrates the rule that in order for a person to be liable to bring a sin-offering, the entire forbidden act must be performed unwittingly. If part of the act is performed intentionally, then no sin-offering is brought. +If one throws [something] and remembers [that it is Shabbat] after it leaves his hand, and another catches it, or a dog catches it or it is burnt, he is not liable. If someone throws something not remembering that it is the Sabbath and then, while the object is still in the air, she remembers that it is the Sabbath, it turns out that in the beginning of her forbidden activity she was an unintentional sinner and at the end she was already an intentional sinner. She is not liable, for as we learn later in the mishnah, in order for one to be liable to bring a sin-offering the entire action from beginning to end must be performed unwittingly. This section also includes several other cases where someone throws something and she is nevertheless exempt. If the object is caught by a dog or by another person or is burnt up before it lands, it turns out that she uprooted the object but she didn’t cause it to be put down. Therefore, she is exempt. Note, that this does not mean that one is allowed to throw things to one’s fellow in the public domain or from one domain to the other. Rather, one who does so is not liable. +If one throws [something] in order to inflict a wound whether to a person or a beast, and he remembers [that it is Shabbat] before the wound is inflicted he is not liable. Putting a wound into somebody is a derivative of one of the forbidden labors on Shabbat. In this case the person throws something at another person or at an animal while not knowing that it is Shabbat but remembers before the thrown object wounds the other person or animal. Similar to above, the beginning of the act was performed unwittingly and at the end the act was intentional. Hence the thrower is exempt. +This is the general principle: all who are liable to sin-offerings are liable only if the beginning and the end [of the forbidden action] are unwitting. If their beginning is unwitting while their end is intentional, if their beginning is intentional while their end is unwitting, they are not liable, unless their beginning and end are intentional. This section states explicitly the general rule that stood behind the previous two sections. + +Chapter 12 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +After completing its explication of the various aspects of “carrying”, the Mishnah now turns its attention to various other prohibited labors mentioned above in 7:2. Today’s mishnah deals with building. +One who builds: how much must he build to be liable? He who builds any amount, and he who chisels, and he who strikes with a hammer or with an axe, and he who bores [a hole] of any size, is liable. There is no minimum measure for building. Any act of building, no matter how insignificant, can cause the builder to be liable. Building, as we see includes various aspects of construction such as chiseling, striking with a hammer and boring a hole. “Striking with a hammer” also can be understood as referring to the completion of labor. +This is the general principle: whoever does work and his work endures on Shabbat, he is liable. There are two explanations for this section. The first is that it means that the person performs work which will be left in its current situation on Shabbat. In other words, even if the work is not complete and will be added to after Shabbat, if it is sufficiently complete such that one would leave it that way on Shabbat, the person is liable. The second explanation is that the clause refers to a person who does work on Shabbat that is actually complete, meaning no one will add to it later on. +Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: even one who strikes with a hammer on the anvil at the completion of his work is liable, because he is as one who improves his work. At the end of their work, metalworkers would strike their hammers on the anvil. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that this causes them to be liable, even though they don’t strike a blow to the vessel which they are making. The reason is that this blow actually improves the anvil and is therefore considered to be a forbidden labor. + +Mishnah 2 + +Introduction +This mishnah deals with plowing, reaping and binding sheaves. +He who plows any amount, or who weeds, or who prunes [trees], or who cuts off young shoots, no matter the amount, is liable. Plowing is one of the categories of forbidden labor mentioned in 7:2. Weeding, pruning or cutting off young shoots are not listed in that mishnah. According to some commentators, these are prohibited because they are similar to “plowing”. According to others they are similar to “planting” because they are means by which a person helps her plants grow. In all of these cases, a person is liable no matter how much work they perform. +He who gathers wood: if in order to effect an improvement, [he is liable] for any amount; if for lighting a fire, as much as is required for boiling a light egg. Gathering wood is considered by commentators to be forbidden because of “binding sheaves”, a forbidden labor listed in 7:2. If she gathers wood from a tree in order to improve the tree, then she is liable for any amount, similar to those labors listed above. However, if she gathers wood in order to light a stove, she is only liable if she gathers enough wood to light a fire sufficient to cook an egg (see above, 8:5). +He who collects grasses: if to effect an improvement, [he is liable] for any amount; if for an animal, as much as fits in a kid’s mouth. If a person gathers grasses in order to improve the land, then she is liable for “plowing” and she is therefore liable for any amount. However, if she does so in order to feed an animal, then she needs to collect enough to fill the mouth of a kid (a young goat, as in “had gadya”). As above, she is liable because of “binding sheaves.” + +Mishnah 3 + +Introduction +Our mishnah deals with the prohibition of writing, which is one of the labors prohibited in 7:2. +He who writes two letters, whether with his right hand or with his left hand, whether the same letter or two different letters or in two pigments, in any language, is liable. For one to be liable for “writing” she must write two letters. It matters not if she writes with her right or left hand. She is liable even if she writes the same letter twice. The letters can be written with different pigments or in different languages. In all cases, writing two letters makes one liable. +Rabbi Jose said: they made one liable for writing two letters only because [he makes] a mark, since this is how they would write on each board of the tabernacle, to know which its companion was. Rabbi Yose holds that even one who makes a mark is liable for writing, since this is how the work was done in the construction of the Tabernacle. They would make marks (scratch marks or impressions) on the wood to know which piece went with which other piece. Therefore, when one writes one is really liable for the indentation they make on whatever they are writing. +Rabbi Judah said: we find a short name [forming part] of a long name: “Shem” as part of “Shimon” or “Shmuel”, “Noah” as part of “Nahor”, “Dan” as part of “Daniel”, “Gad” as part of “Gaddiel”. According to Rabbi Judah, merely writing any two letters is not sufficient to incur liability unless the two letters are a complete word. However, the two letters do not have to be the complete word which she intended to write. If she intends to write a longer word, for instance “Shimon” but then writes “Shem” (Noah’s son) which in Hebrew consists of the first two letters in Shimon, she is liable. This is because Shem is in and of itself a full word. However, if the two letters she writes are not a complete word, she is exempt. We should note that according to the Talmud, a person is not liable if they write with their weak hand. They explain the mishnah as referring to an ambidextrous person. + +Mishnah 4 + +Introduction +This mishnah continues to deal with the prohibition of writing on Shabbat. +He who writes two letters in one state of unawareness is liable. If one wrote two letters and in-between writing the two she did not realize that she had transgressed, she is liable. This rule shall be contrasted later in mishnah six. +He who writes with ink, arsenic, red chalk, gum, sulphate of copper or with anything that leaves a mark, One is liable for writing with any type of ink that leaves a mark. This list is the same as the list we saw in Gittin 2:3, where the mishnah listed inks which may be used in writing a divorce document. +on the angle of two walls, or on the two leaves of a ledger, and they [the two letters] are read together, is liable. If one writes two letters on two different walls but writes them in the place where the two walls meet, she is liable. Similarly, if she writes them on two pages of a ledger, if the two letters are read together, she is liable. We shall see the opposite case in tomorrow’s mishnah. +He who writes on his flesh, he is liable. One is liable for writing one’s flesh. According to the Rambam, the reason is that flesh is similar to parchment, which is made from animal flesh. +He who scratches a mark on his flesh: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a sin-offering; But the sages exempt him. One who scratches marks onto her skin is liable, according to Rabbi Eliezer. The other sages say that she is exempt since this is not a normal way of writing. + +Mishnah 5 + +Introduction +This mishnah lists cases in which a person is not liable for writing. +If he wrote with liquids, or with fruit juice, on the dust of the road, or on writer’s powder, or with anything that cannot endure, he is exempt. In all of these cases, she is exempt because she didn’t write with an ink that will last, or she didn’t write on something that will last. Today, this would mean that writing with pencil does not make one liable on Shabbat. Similarly, writing something on the sand on the beach would not make one liable. Again, this doesn’t mean that these things are permitted; it only means that one who does so does not incur liability. +[If he wrote] with the back of his hand, with his foot, with his mouth, or with his elbow; In this case, the person wrote with a part of her body not typically used in writing. She is therefore exempt. +If he wrote one letter near [other] writing, She is exempt because she didn’t write two letters, even though she wrote next to an already existent letter. +If he wrote on top of other writing; Here, she wrote on top of already existing letters. She is not liable because the letters existed before she wrote them. Even though she may have added to them, she is still exempt. +If he intended to write a cheth but wrote two zayyinin; Here she intended to write the Hebrew letter chet, but instead of joining the two parts together, she left the top empty and it turned out that she had twice written the letter zayin. Since she did not intend to write two letters, she is exempt. +[If he wrote] one [letter] on the ground and another on a beam; If he wrote on two walls of the house, or on two leaves of a ledger which are not read together, he is exempt. In all three of these cases she did not write the two letters next to each other. Therefore she is exempt. +If he wrote one letter as an abbreviation: Rabbi Joshua ben Bathyra declares him liable, But the sages exempt him. In Hebrew sometimes one letter can be an abbreviation for a full word. For instance a resh with an apostrophe can be used to mean Rabbi. According to Rabbi Judah ben Batera, one who writes one letter as an abbreviation is liable. The sages say that she is exempt because she only wrote one letter. + +Mishnah 6 + +Introduction +The final mishnah in this chapter finishes our discussion of writing on Shabbat. +He who writes two letters in two states of unawareness, one in the morning and one in the evening: Rabban Gamaliel declares him liable; But the sages exempt him. The case is one where someone wrote two letters adjacent to one another, but she wrote them at different times, having remembered in-between that it was forbidden to write on Shabbat. For example, she wrote the first letter in the morning, then remembered that it was forbidden to write on Shabbat and then she wrote another letter towards evening, again having forgotten that writing is forbidden on Shabbat. Rabban Gamaliel says that she is liable. He holds that finding out that something is forbidden in the midst of performing one forbidden labor (writing two letters) does not count as “finding out” in order to separate these into two distinct acts. [In contrast, if she wrote two letters in the morning and then remembered that it was Shabbat, and then wrote two letters later in the day, she would be liable for two sin offerings. The knowledge in-between separates it into two different acts. If she did not remember in the middle she would be liable for only one sin offering.] The rabbis hold that since these were two different states of unawareness, they do not join together and she is exempt. + +Chapter 13 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +This chapter deals with the work involved in making clothes. Today’s mishnah deals with the prohibited labor of weaving. +Rabbi Eliezer says: he who weaves three threads at the beginning or one [thread] added to woven stuff is liable; But the sages say: whether at the beginning or at the end, the standard [for liability] is two threads. According to Rabbi Eliezer, there are two different standards for how much weaving causes one to be liable, depending on when the weaving is performed. When beginning to weave cloth, one is liable only if she weaves three threads. This is because without three threads the cloth has not really been begun. However, if she weaves part of something that has already been started, she is liable even for one thread. Even one thread contributes to an already-started cloth. The sages, whose opinion was already stated in 7:2, provide one standard measure, no matter when the weaving was done. Liability is always for two threads, no matter at the beginning or in the middle. + +Mishnah 2 + +Introduction +The first part of the mishnah explains the prohibited labor of “making two loops.” The second part deals with sewing. +He who makes two loops, on either the cross-pieces [nirim] or one the slips [keros], or in a sifter, sieve, or basket, is liable. We need not fully understand how the ancient loom worked to understand that making two loops, no matter where or how they are done, is considered labor prohibited by the Torah. One is also liable if she makes two loops while weaving a sifter (for sifting flour), a sieve (for separating kernels of grain) or a basket. +And he who sews two stitches, and he who tears in order to sew two stitches [is liable]. In order to be liable for sewing one needs to sew two stitches. Tearing makes one liable only if the tearing was done with a constructive purpose in mind. If one tears in order to sew up the garment, then one is liable. If the purpose is only destructive, there is no liability. + +Mishnah 3 + +Introduction +This mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah where we learned that one is liable for tearing only if she tears in order to sew two stitches. +He who tears in his anger or [in mourning] for his dead, and all who damage are exempt. According to this mishnah, one who tears his clothes in anger or as a sign of mourning over the dead is not liable, for there is no constructive purpose to such tearing. However, the Talmud notes that when one is liable for rending one’s clothes as a sign of mourning for one’s dead, for instance over a close relative (parent, sibling, child or spouse), then there is constructive purpose to such tearing it fulfills the commandment to tear. Therefore, when a person is obligated to tear and she tears on Shabbat, she is liable. However, if one is exempt from tearing and nevertheless does so, she is exempt. There is also an interesting note on tearing in anger. According to the Rambam, despite what the mishnah says, one is usually liable for tearing in anger because by such tearing one cools down. Again, this makes the tearing constructive and therefore carries with it liability. However, other commentators argue with the Rambam and say, based on a passage in the Talmud, that destroying things out of anger is akin to idol worship, because both are submissions to one’s evil inclination. If a person’s evil inclination dictates that they destroy something, and they submit, they have begun down a slippery slope which will eventually lead to total demise which is symbolized in the Talmud by idol worship. Since such tearing is ultimately not productive, there is no incurred liability. Similarly, any forbidden labor which is performed with only destructive intentions, does not cause one to be liable. +But he who damages in order to repair, his measure [for liability] is as for repairing. As noted, a person is liable for destructive acts only if such acts are performed with constructive intent. If they are performed with such intent, then the measure for liability is the same as the measure for the positive act. For instance, one is liable for erasing only if it is with the intent of writing. Since to be liable for writing one must write two letters, so too with erasing she must erase two letters in order to be liable. + +Mishnah 4 + +Introduction +This mishnah deals with minimum measures in processing wool and flax. +The minimum measure for bleaching, hackling, dyeing or spinning is a full double sit. These are all forbidden labors mentioned above in 7:2. The minimum measure for which one incurs liability is double a “sit” the length between one’s thumb and finger, as far as they can be spread. +And he who weaves two threads together, the minimum meausure is a full sit. If one weaves two threads together on a loom, the minimum measure for liability is half of that above, meaning one “sit”. + +Mishnah 5 + +Rabbi Judah says: he who hunts a bird into a tower trap, or a deer into a house, is liable;
But the sages say: [he who hunts] a bird into a tower trap, and a deer into a house, courtyard or corral.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: not all corrals are the same.
This is the general principle: if it lacks further work of hunting, he is exempt. If it does not lack further work of hunting, he is liable.
This mishnah deals with hunting. We should note that hunting is not exactly what we think of it today going out and killing an animal. Hunting refers to trapping an animal such that it remains alive. Killing an animal is a different, yet still prohibited labor.
Section one: According to Rabbi Judah, once one traps a bird in a tower trap, which was a box in the shape of a tower, she has sufficiently trapped the animal such that she is liable for hunting. Similarly, if she traps a deer in a house she is liable. However, if she traps a bird in a house she is exempt because it will still require further trapping in order to get the bird. Furthermore, the bird can escape the house and therefore, the bird is not really trapped. Also, if the deer is trapped into a larger space, then she is not liable.
Section two: The sages agree with Rabbi Judah with regard to the bird but disagree with him with regard to the trapping of the deer. Even if she traps the deer into a courtyard or corral she is still liable.
Section three: Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel notes that liability depends on the size of the corral into which the deer has been trapped. We can’t just state unequivocally that trapping into all corrals makes one liable. If catching the deer requires no further worth of hunting (meaning it can be caught easily) than it has already been hunted and she is liable. However, if catching the deer will require further work, then the one who catches it in the corral is not liable.
It is interesting to note that Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that not all corrals are the same. It may be that in contrast, most houses and courtyards were the same, meaning they were similarly built and of similar size. + +Mishnah 6 + +Introduction +This mishnah is similar to 10:5 above, where we learned that if two people jointly perform a labor that could have been performed by one person, they are exempt. If they jointly perform a work that required two people, the sages say that both are liable and Rabbi Shimon exempts them both. +If a deer enters a house and one person shuts [the door] before it, he is liable. By closing the door, she is liable, even though she didn’t actually cause the deer to come into the house. +If two shut it, they are exempt. If one could not shut it, and both shut it, they are liable. Rabbi Shimon exempts them. If two shut the door, both are exempt because they have both performed only half a labor. However, if the door was so large (or the people so small!) that they could only close it together, they are both liable. Rabbi Shimon exempts them, because he holds that two people can never be liable for one jointly performed labor. + +Mishnah 7 + +Introduction +The final mishnah of this chapter continues to deal with hunting (trapping). +If one sat down in the doorway but did not fill it, and a second sat down and filled it, the second is liable. If there is a deer in the house and a person sits down and with her body closes the opening of the house, she is liable for hunting. If she doesn’t fill the opening with her body, and a second person comes and fills the opening, the second person has closed the house and has thereby trapped the deer. Therefore, the second person is liable and the first person is exempt. +If the first sat down in the doorway and fills it, and a second came and sat down at his side, even if the first [then] rises and goes away, the first is liable and the second is exempt. To what is this similar? To one who shuts his house to guard it, and a deer is found to be guarded in it. Once the first person sits in the doorway and thereby traps the deer, the first person is liable. What the second person does is really irrelevant, because the first person has already trapped the animal. Even if the first person gets up and leaves, and the second person is now keeping the animal in the house, the second person is not liable because she did not perform the labor herself. The mishnah compares this to a case where a person closes her door to guard it from thieves and then finds that a deer is trapped inside. There is nothing wrong in such a situation with keeping an already trapped deer inside the house. + +Chapter 14 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +This mishnah continues to deal with hunting (trapping) the topic covered in the last chapter. It also begins to discuss wounding animals. +The eight creeping things which are mentioned in the Torah: he who hunts them or wounds them [on Shabbat] is liable; The Torah lists eight creeping things which are impure. According to our mishnah, one who hunts one of these things is liable, for it is was normal to hunt them in order to use their hide. Furthermore, one who wounds them is also liable, a forbidden labor derived from the prohibition against slaughtering. Other commentators explain that “wounding” is derived not from slaughtering but from dyeing, since when the blood comes out it colors the hide. Maimonides explains that “wounding” is derived from “threshing” both are activities which separate one thing from another. In wounding, blood is separated from the body. +But [as for] other abominations and creeping things, he who wounds them is exempt. Other “creeping things” do not have hides and hence one who wounds them is not liable. In order to be liable for something like slaughtering the animal must have a hide for on the hide a permanent scar would be life. +He who hunts them for need is liable; Not for need, he is exempt. With regard to hunting, if she hunts them to use them for a specific purpose, such as medicine, she is liable. However, it is not normal to hunt these things and therefore if she hunts them for no specific purpose, she is not liable. +A beast or a chicken in one’s own domain, he who hunts them is exempt. He who wounds them is liable. If a beast (a domesticated) or chicken is already on one’s domain, then they need not be further trapped, and therefore one who does trap them is exempt. Cows, sheep, goats and chickens, the domesticated animals, are already trapped by their very domesticated nature. Therefore, further hunting (trapping) of them does not apply. However, since they (according to the rabbis) have hides one who wounds them is liable. + +Mishnah 2 + +Introduction +This mishnah deals with preparing pickling brine on Shabbat. According to commentators, this is similar to processing hides because both change the nature of something by soaking it in a mixture. +They do not prepare [pickling] brine on Shabbat, but he may prepare salt water and dip his bread into it or put it into a cooked dish. Pickling brine is “hilmi” in Hebrew. “Hilmi” was a mixture of water, salt and a little bit of oil. It was used to pickle vegetables. Making “hilmi” is prohibited but making “salt water” is allowed (note that she is not merely “exempt” rather this is allowed.) Albeck explains (based on the Palestinian Talmud) that making “hilmi” is the work of a professional and was therefore prohibited. “Salt water” is made by non-professionals and hence is prohibited. The Babylonian Talmud explains that “hilmi” was a large mixture, whereas as “salt water” is the same mixture but a smaller amount. +Rabbi Yose said: but that is brine, whether [one prepares] much or little? Rather what is the salt water that is permitted? Oil is first put into the water or into the salt. Rabbi Yose says that even “salt water” can be considered “hilmi” and therefore it too should be forbidden. According to the Babylonian Talmud’s explanation, Rabbi Yose says that if we allow the making of salt water which is a small amount of “hilmi” people will think that small amounts of work are permitted but larger amounts are prohibited. Therefore, if she wishes to make salt water, she should first put the oil either into the water or into the salt, and only afterwards put in the water. In this way she weakens the salt, making it dissimilar enough to “hilmi” that it is permitted. No one will think that she is making a solution that will pickle the vegetables. + +Mishnah 3 + +Introduction +Our mishnah discusses taking medicine or performing acts of healing on Shabbat. If there is any danger to a person’s life, even a potential danger, all medicines and acts of healing are permitted. Indeed they are mandated. However, the sages forbade the use of medicines which are for aches, pains, etc. that are not life-threatening. According to most commentators, the reason for this prohibition is that most drugs were made by grinding roots or other parts of plants. Grinding roots is prohibited as a derivative of grinding wheat. However, in the Palestinian Talmud the reason that healing is prohibited on Shabbat is so that a person should distinguish between Shabbat and the week. +They do not eat Greek hyssop on Shabbat, because it is not the food of healthy people. Greek hyssop is eaten only by sick people. When one eats this type of hyssop everyone knows that the person is eating it for medicinal purposes. Hence, it is prohibited, as we explained above. +But he may eat yo’ezer and drink abuv ro’eh. Yo’ezer and abuv ro’eh are types of plants that are often used for medicinal purposes, but they are also eaten or drunk in potions by healthy people. Since, when a person eats or drinks these things, it won’t be recognized that she is taking medicine, it is permitted. It is only prohibited to eat or drink something for medicinal purposes if everyone observing will see that she is doing so for healing. +A man may eat any kind of food as medicine, and drink any liquid, except water of palm trees and a potion of roots, because they are for jaundice. Foods may always be eaten and liquids may always be imbibed even if the person intends to use them for medicinal purposes. Since healthy people also eat these foods or drink these drinks, it will not be recognizable that she is doing anything for medicinal purposes. The only exception to this rule is water of palm trees and a potion of roots which were used for jaundice. Since the face of the person drinking these things is yellow, it will be recognized that she is drinking them for medicinal purposes. Hence, a person who has jaundice is not allowed to drink these things. +But he may drink water of palm trees for his thirst and rub himself with oil of roots for a non-medical purpose. However, a person who does not have jaundice and is merely thirsty may drink these things. Since she looks healthy, no one will think she is taking medicine on Shabbat. She may also rub herself with oil of roots, as long as she does so for comfort and not for medicinal purposes. + +Mishnah 4 + +Introduction +This mishnah continues to deal with acts of healing on Shabbat. +He who feels pain in his teeth may not sip vinegar through them, but he may dip [his bread in vinegar] in the usual manner, and if he is cured, he is cured. Vinegar was used as an ailment for toothaches. Therefore, one who has a toothache is not allowed to sip vinegar through his teeth, since this is obviously for healing purposes. However, he may dip his bread in vinegar in a manner which is done typically during the week. Since this is a normal activity performed not only for healing, it is permitted. If by doing so he is cured, so be it. +He who feels pain in his hips may not rub them with wine or vinegar, but he may anoint them with oil but not rose oil. The children of royalty may anoint their wounds with rose oil, since it is their practice to anoint themselves thus on weekdays. Rabbi Shimon said: all Israel are royal children. Vinegar or wine was evidently rubbed on a person’s hips to cure pains (backache? arthritis?). Since this is the only reason that they would be rubbed on one’s body, it is forbidden to do so on Shabbat. However, oil may be rubbed on a person’s body for a variety of other reasons and therefore it is permitted to rub oil for medicinal purposes as well. When one does so it will not be recognized by others that she is healing herself. Nevertheless, rose oil is forbidden since normal people don’t rub expensive rose oil on themselves except for medicinal purposes. Again, this rule suffers one exception. Children of royalty may anoint themselves with rose oil since they do so on the weekdays. The rule is consistent: a person may perform an act of healing on Shabbat if she regularly performs that same act for purposes other than healing. Finally, on a more poetic note, Rabbi Shimon states that all Jews are to be considered as the children of royalty, and therefore they all may anoint themselves with oil, regardless of their actual wealth. We might delay for a moment on the philosophy that lies behind Rabbi Shimon’s words. Differences in wealth do not create essential distinctions between Jews and therefore the halakhah must (at least in this case) treat them equally. Their value stems from their having accepted the Torah and is irregardless of their actual monetary wealth. + +Chapter 15 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +This mishnah and the following one deal with the prohibited labors of tying and untying. As we shall see in the mishnah, one is liable only if the knot is one that is intended to last. +These are the knots for which a person is liable? Camel-drivers’ knots and sailors’ knots. And just as one is guilty for tying them, so one is guilty for untying them. Rabbi Meir says: any knot which one can untie with one hand they are not liable for it. Camel-drivers would tie ropes to their camels’ noses and the ropes would remain permanently attached to the camels. Similarly, sailors would permanently tie their ropes to their ships. Since these knots are intended to remain in their place for good, one who ties are unties such a knot is liable. Rabbi Meir states a different criterion for determining whether a given knot entails liability. If one can untie the knot with one hand it is not a knot which entails a liability, even if it is intended to remain permanently in its place. It is interesting to note that according to the first opinion, what determines liability is intent if it is intended that the knot remain forever then one is liable. In contrast, the physical nature of the knot is, according to Rabbi Meir, what determines liability. This is a debate we have often noted in the Mishnah is the halakhah determined by the physical nature of an act or by the intention with which the act was performed. + +Mishnah 2 + +Introduction +This mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday’s mishnah. +You have some knots for which one is not liable like [one is] for camel-drivers’ knots and sailors’ knots. The mishnah explains that there are some knots for which one is not liable and yet it is still prohibited to tie or untie them. These knots are somewhat like camel drivers’ and sailors’ knots and yet they are different. The mishnah itself does not explain what these knots are. The Babylonian Talmud explains that these are semi-permanent knots, ones which remain in place for some time but are not meant to be permanent. Since these remain in place for a long time, it is forbidden to tie or untie them. However, since they are not truly permanent, one who does tie or untie them is not liable. +A woman may tie up the opening of her chemise, the strings of her hair-net and of her belt, the laces of her shoes or sandals, leather-bottles of wine and oil, and a meat dish. Now the mishnah lists knots which one is completely permitted to tie and untie on Shabbat. These are all impermanent knots and therefore they entail no liability. +Rabbi Elazar ben Ya’akov says: one may tie [a rope] in front of an animal, that it should not go out. According to Rabbi Elazar ben Ya’akov it is permitted to tie a rope across the pen of an animal so that the animal will not escape. +One may tie a bucket [over a well] with a belt but not with a rope; Rabbi Judah permits it. Rabbi Judah stated a general rule: any knot that is not permanent one is not liable for it. According to the sages, it is forbidden to tie a bucket over a well with a rope because sometimes these ropes are left there permanently. However, it is permitted with a belt because the belt won’t be left there for very long. Rabbi Judah however, permits one to tie a bucket over a well even with a rope because the bucket will not be left there permanently. In the last clause of the mishnah, Rabbi Judah explains that as long as the knot is not permanent, one cannot be liable for it. This is the same opinion as the sages in the previous mishnah, but it differs from Rabbi Meir in that mishnah. + +Mishnah 3 + +Introduction +Since yesterday’s mishnah dealt briefly with clothing (a woman tying her clothing on Shabbat) today’s mishnah also deals with clothing. +One may fold clothing even four or five times, and spread the sheets on the beds on the Shabbat evening for [use on] Shabbat, but not on Shabbat for [use on] the day after Shabbat. This mishnah deals with preparing things on Shabbat for use either on Shabbat or after Shabbat. The first section teaches that one may fold clothing and spread sheets on a bed as long as the clothing or bed will be used on Shabbat itself. It is forbidden to fold clothes or spread sheets on a bed if they will not be used until after Shabbat. We may deduce from here that in general it is prohibited to prepare things on Shabbat that will not be used until after Shabbat. +Rabbi Yishmael says: one may fold clothing and spread the sheets on the beds on Yom Kippur for [use on] Shabbat, and the fat pieces of the Shabbat offering may be offered on Yom Kippur. Rabbi Yishmael allows preparing things on Yom Kippur which will not be used until Shabbat, since the sanctity of Yom Kippur is less than that of Shabbat. [Note, in today’s calendar which is fixed Yom Kippur cannot fall on Friday. In the time of the Mishnah the calendar was not fixed and hence this was possible.] Furthermore, if Yom Kippur falls on Sunday [this also can’t happen according to our fixed calendar] then Shabbat offerings that hadn’t been fully offered on Shabbat may be offered on Yom Kippur. However, if Yom Kippur were to fall on Friday, the Yom Kippur offerings could not be offered on Shabbat because Shabbat’s holiness is higher than that of Yom Kippur. On Shabbat only sacrifices that must be offered on Shabbat can be sacrificed. +Rabbi Akiva says: those of Shabbat may not be offered on Yom Kippur, nor may those of Yom Kippur be offered on Shabbat. Rabbi Akiva thinks that the sanctity of Shabbat and Yom Kippur is equivalent. Therefore the offerings of one day cannot be offered on the other. All the more so would it be forbidden to fold clothes or spread bed sheets on one of these days in preparation for the other. + +Chapter 16 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +This entire chapter deals with fires that have broken out on Shabbat. The rabbis forbade saving things from being destroyed by a fire lest a person come to extinguish the fire, an activity which is prohibited on Shabbat. Nevertheless there are some things which may be saved from fires on Shabbat. +All sacred writings may be saved from a fire, whether we read from them or not [on Shabbat]. Any scroll which contains part of the Bible (the “sacred writings”) may be saved from a fire on Shabbat, irregardless of whether that scroll is used on Shabbat. Some commentators explain that the mishnah refers to scrolls which were not read publicly on Shabbat. Others explain that the mishnah refers to scrolls that were not even read in private. +And even if they are written in any language, they must be stored. As an aside, the mishnah notes that scrolls containing the sacred writings must be put into a genizah (a place of storage) no matter what language they are written in. According to the Yerushalmi, these scrolls also must be saved from the fire. +And why do we not read them? Because of the neglect of the study house. The mishnah now asks the obvious question: why are there are scrolls from which we don’t read on Shabbat? The answer is that these scrolls are not read from lest the reader come to neglect the study sessions that occur in the study hall on Shabbat. On Shabbat the sages would teach the people halakhah in the study house. The problem was that often the people would find it more interesting to read what was in the Bible than to listen to these lectures. To prevent people from reading the Bible and thereb yneglecting the halakhic lectures of the sages, the sages forbade reading these scrolls on Shabbat. According to the Talmud, this prohibition only refers to the time when the lecture was actually taking place. +One may save the container of a scroll together with the scroll, and the container of tefillin together with the tefillin, even if it [also] contains money. Just as it is permitted to save sacred writings and tefillin (which contain scrolls of sacred writings) from fires, so too it is permitted to save their containers. +And to where may one rescue them? Into a closed alley. Ben Batera says: even into an open one. The mishnah now asks to where these scrolls may be saved. They certainly may not be removed from the private domain to the public domain, for that would in and of itself be a forbidden labor. According to the first opinion, they may be removed to a closed alley, which means one that it is not open on both ends. Ben Batera says it even may be removed to an alley which is open from both ends. + +Mishnah 2 + +Introduction +This mishnah deals with how much food may be saved from a fire on Shabbat. +Food for three meals may be saved, that which is fit for a person, for a person, that which is fit for a beast, for a beast. If a fire breaks out and threatens to destroy food, one may save only enough food for Shabbat itself. It is forbidden to save food that will not be used until after Shabbat. It is permitted to save three meals for a person if the food is fit for a person and sufficient food for animals, if the food is fit for animals. +How is this so? If a fire breaks out on the eve of Shabbat, food for three meals may be saved. If in the morning, food for two meals may be saved. If at [the time of] minhah, food for one meal. The mishnah now illustrates when three meals may be saved. The principle is simple: one can save food for as many meals as will be eaten on Shabbat, assuming that a person will eat three meals. Therefore, if the fire breaks out before the evening meal, then three meals may be saved. If in the morning, then two meals may be saved and if at minhah time (in the afternoon) then only enough for one meal may be saved. +Rabbi Yose says: at all times we may save food for three meals. Rabbi Yose holds that the measure of food which may be saved remains the same no matter when the fire breaks out. + +Mishnah 3 + +Introduction +Our mishnah continues to deal with saving food from a fire on Shabbat. +One may save a basket full of loaves, even if it contains [enough for] a hundred meals, and a round cake of pressed figs, and a barrel of wine. In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that a person may save only enough for three meals on Shabbat. Today we learn that if a lot of food is bundled into one package, she may save the entire package even though there is more than enough for three meals. Since the food is all packaged together, it is treated as if she is only saving one thing and therefore it is permissible. +And he [the owner] may say to others, “Come and save for yourselves.” And if they are clever, they make an account with him after Shabbat. The mishnah now tries to arrange a “legal fiction” whereby a person can save more than enough for three meals. If she sees that her food will be destroyed by the fire, she may say to her neighbors, “Come and save this food for yourselves.” In this way, everyone may save three meals. This is permitted since people normally invite over guests on Shabbat. Furthermore, if the neighbors are clever they may realize that her intention is not really to give the food away but rather recover it for herself. The mishnah permits them to come back to her after Shabbat so that the original owners may pay to get it back. According to Albeck, the people who saved the food will actually pay for the food they used. According to the Talmud, those whose food was saved pay them for their troubles. . +To where may they be saved? Into a courtyard which has an eruv. Ben Batera says: even into a courtyard which does not have an eruv. The mishnah now asks where the food can be removed to. It obviously cannot be removed to the public domain, for that would constitute carrying from one domain to another. According to the first opinion, it can only be removed to a courtyard in which carrying is allowed, that is to say one which already has an eruv. Ben Batera is slightly more lenient, as he was in the first mishnah of this chapter. He allows the food to be removed even to a courtyard which does not have an eruv. In any case the halakhah is more stringent here than it was with regard to the Holy Scriptures in mishnah one. + +Mishnah 4 + +Introduction +This mishnah discusses saving clothing from the fire on Shabbat. +And to there he may carry out all his utensils; She may also save any utensils that he will need on that Shabbat. She may bring them out to the courtyard mentioned in yesterday’s mishnah. +And he may wear all that he can wear and wrap himself in all that he can wrap himself. Rabbi Yose says: [only] eighteen pieces of clothing. She may also put on as much clothing as she wishes in order to wear it out into the courtyard, and thereby prevent it from being destroyed by the fire. Rabbi Yose does not allow this. He limits the amount of clothing to eighteen articles, which according to the Talmud, is what people would normally wear during the week. +Then he may go back in and put on [more clothes] and carry them out. The mishnah allows her to keep going back into the house to wear more clothing. This is another legal fiction meant to allow one to save more than just one set of clothing. +And he may say to others, “Come and save with me.” The person whose clothing is threatened by the fire may invite other people to come wear her clothing, and thereby save them from the fire. The “fiction” is that she is only inviting people to wear her clothing, wherein reality it is obvious that they are saving for her. Indeed, unlike the case of food in the previous mishnah, here she actually says, “Come and save with me.” Above she said, “For you.” + +Mishnah 5 + +Introduction +This mishnah introduces means which may be used to keep the fire from spreading. +Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas says: one may spread a goat skin over a box, chest, or trunk which has caught fire, because he singes. Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas allows one to spread a goat’s hide over various types of boxes since the hide won’t burn but will only become singed. The will serve as an effective barrier from the fire. +And one may make a barrier with all vessels, whether full [of water] or empty, that the fire should not travel onward. Rabbi Yose forbids in the case of new earthen vessels filled with water, because since they cannot stand the heat, they will burst and extinguish the fire. Other barriers may also be erected, and one may fill vessels even with water to prevent the fire from traveling onward. Even though this will almost surely cause the fire to go out, since the fire is being put out indirectly it is permitted in a case such as this where there is a fear of financial loss. Rabbi Yose, however, prohibits setting up new vessels filled with water to stop the fire since these will certainly break. Rabbi Yose holds that it is forbidden to indirectly cause a fire to be extinguished, even if this will cause a loss. + +Mishnah 6 + +Introduction +This mishnah deals with a non-Jew or minor, both of whom are not obligated to observe the commandments, who want to extinguish the fire. +If a non-Jew comes to extinguish, they do not say to him, “extinguish it” or “do not extinguish,” because his resting is not their obligation. One may not ask a non-Jew to perform a forbidden labor on behalf of a Jew on Shabbat. Even though people often think that this is permitted, talmudic literature and subsequent halakhic authorities clearly prohibit it. However, if the non-Jew comes on his own accord to extinguish the fire, Jews are not obligated to stop her from doing so. A Jew is not obligated to make a non-Jew rest on Shabbat. Therefore, if the non-Jew wishes to, she may put out the fire. +But if a minor comes to extinguish, they must not listen to him, because his resting is their obligation. If a minor comes to extinguish the fire the Jew must stop the minor from doing so, because the Jew has an obligation to make sure that the minor ceases performing forbidden labors on Shabbat. The fact that the minor doesn’t really know that what she is doing is forbidden does not mean that she is allowed to do forbidden work on Shabbat, or that we may allow her to do such work. We should note that according to the Talmud Jews do not have to stop minors from doing forbidden things such as eating non-kosher food, or performing forbidden labors on Shabbat. The mishnah refers to a case where the minor knows that the father wants to put the fire out and hence is doing so on her father’s behalf. In such a case, other Jews are required to stop the minor from doing so. + +Mishnah 7 + +Introduction +The mishnah teaches that sometimes one may cover certain things with a dish on Shabbat in order to avoid undesirable results. +One may turn a dish over a lamp so that the beams should not catch [fire], and over an infant’s excrement, and over a scorpion so that it should not bite. Rabbi Judah said: an incident came before Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai in Arabia and he said, “I fear that he may be liable for a sin-offering.” Again, the mishnah teaches that one can do certain things to prevent a fire from spreading on Shabbat. In the case mentioned here, if the fire were to catch the beams which hold up the roof, it could cause significant damage. Hence, it is permitted to turn a dish over it to prevent it from spreading. The mishnah continues to list other instances in which one can overturn a dish on Shabbat. The first is over the excrement of an infant, which itself cannot be moved because it is muktzeh (off-limits). It is muktzeh because it is disgusting. So even though it is muktzeh, one may carry a vessel to cover it. The second thing is covering a scorpion with a dish so that it will not bite. Although this may be seen as trapping/hunting, since she does so not for her own need (i.e. to use the scorpion) but rather to prevent it from causing damage, it is permitted. However, R. Yohanan ben Zakkai thinks that one who turns a dish over a scorpion is dangerously close to being liable to bring a sin-offering on Shabbat, i.e. this may be prohibited. The problem is that if she covers the scorpion to catch it and then use it for medicinal purposes, she would be liable (see Eduyot 2:5). When this incident came before R. Yohanan ben Zakkai he didn’t outright rule that the person was liable, but neither did he say that it was fully permissible. + +Mishnah 8 + +If a Gentile lights a lamp, an Israelite may make use of its light. But if [he does it] for the sake of the Israelite, it is forbidden.
If he draws water to give his own animal to drink, an Israelite may water his [animal] after him. But if [he draws it] for the Israelite’s sake, it is forbidden.
If a Gentile makes a plank to descend [off a ship by] it, an Israelite may descend after him; But if on the Israelite’s account, it is forbidden. It once happened that Rabban Gamaliel and the elders were traveling in a ship, when a Gentile made a plank for getting off, and Rabban Gamaliel, and the elders descended by it.
The central point of this mishnah is that if a Gentile does a prohibited labor on Shabbat for his own benefit, then an Israelite may make use of what the Gentile did. However, if the Gentile does on the Israelite’s behalf, it is prohibited for the Jew to benefit from it. A Jew can certainly not tell a non-Jew to perform for the Jew on Shabbat an activity which the Jew himself may not perform. According to the mishnah, even if the Gentile did it without being told, if he did it on the Jew’s behalf it is forbidden.
Section two: The reason that drawing water is prohibited is that the cistern from which the water is drawn is considered a “private domain” and the cistern itself is found in the public domain. Taking water out of the cistern is therefore prohibited because of “carrying.”
Section three: Laying down the plank is forbidden because it is considered “building.” Rabban Gamaliel and the other elders descended because the Gentile had made the plank for his own use, or at least for his own use as well as the use of others. + +Chapter 17 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +There are certain objects which it is forbidden to carry or move on Shabbat and they are called in Hebrew, “muktzeh” which literally means “set aside.” There are several reasons why the rabbis prohibited carrying certain types of vessels on Shabbat, but the most basic reason is to preserve the character of Shabbat as distinct from all other days. In other words, even though certain activities may be technically permitted, they are opposed to the “spirit” of Shabbat, and hence the sages did all that they could to keep a person away from such activities or even from the appearance of performing such activities. Another reason is that if one is allowed to touch a vessel which is used to perform prohibited work, one might come to perform the work itself. +As a general rule, if a vessel is used for activities which are permitted on Shabbat, then one can carry the vessel on Shabbat. An example of such a vessel would be a cup or a plate. If the vessel is used for things prohibited on Shabbat, then it is still permissible to carry the vessel as long as the intention is not to use it to perform a prohibited labor. It can be carried to perform a permitted labor and it also may be carried because the person simply doesn’t want it to be where it currently is. +This chapter will teach the details of the laws of muktzeh. +A note on translation: the Hebrew word for vessel is “keli.” This word can be used to refer to things that we commonly call utensils, and it can also refer to clothes. It would include most anything made by people with the exception of things attached to the ground such as homes. The article also must be used as an instrument to do something else a book or a document is not a “keli.” +All utensils may be carried on Shabbat and their doors with them, even if they became detached on Shabbat, for they are not like the doors of a house, which are not set aside for use. All vessels that have doors and which are used for permitted activities on Shabbat, may be carried with their doors. An example would be a trunk which has a door on its top. Furthermore, one may carry the doors on Shabbat even if the doors become detached from their vessels. This is true even if the doors became detached before Shabbat. The mishnah compares these doors with those of a house. House doors may not be carried on Shabbat because they are not normally carried around; rather they are attached to the house which is attached to the ground. Something may be carried only if it is an item that is normally carried. This is true with regard to doors of a vessel which are in normal situations carried with as part of their vessels. + +Mishnah 2 + +Introduction +Our mishnah teaches that one may carry a vessel that is normally used to perform prohibited labor provided that the intent is to use it for something permitted on Shabbat. +A man may take a hammer to split nuts, an axe to cut a cake of pressed figs, a saw for sawing cheese, a rake to scoop up dried figs, a winnowing shovel and a pitchfork to place [food] upon it for a child, a reed or a shuttle to stick [food], a small needle to remove a thorn, and a sack [needle] to open a door. There are several types of utensils mentioned in this mishnah: a hammer, an axe, a saw, a rake, a shovel or pitchfork, a reed or shuttle (both used in sewing), a needle and a sack needle. All of these things are normally used to perform forbidden labors. However, this mishnah teaches that a person may use them for permitted labors on Shabbat. In all of these cases, the vessel listed is not the one normally used for such a labor. Nevertheless, since the vessel can be used for said purpose, it is permitted. For instance, if a person lost the key to a door, she may use a needle to try to pick a lock. + +Mishnah 3 + +Introduction +This mishnah discusses a “reed for olives.” This is a vessel used in the process of making olive oil. They would put the olives in a large container so that they would heat up, start to soften and the juice would flow out. The container would be flipped over by using the “reed for olives.” When they flipped the container they would check the reed to see if it was moist. If it was they would know that the olives were soft and that they could begin to press them. Our mishnah teaches two laws with regard to this reed: its susceptibility to impurity and whether it may be carried on Shabbat. Both laws depend on whether or not the reed is considered to be a “vessel.” +A reed for olives, if it has a knot on its top, is susceptible to impurity; if not, it is not susceptible to impurity. Sometimes they would make a small knot on top of the reed. This knot would serve as a small receptacle for the olive oil and it would make it easier to check if the olives were ready. If the reed has such a knot then it is susceptible to impurity and if not, then it is not susceptible. Wooden vessels are generally only susceptible to impurity if they have a receptacle. +In both cases it may be handled on Shabbat. Since this is a vessel, it is permitted to carry it on Shabbat either to use it to do something permitted, or to move it because she needs to use the space it occupies. In other words, with regard to receiving impurity, this is not a vessel unless it has a knot, but when it comes to Shabbat, it is considered a vessel with or without the knot. Had it not been considered a vessel, it would have been prohibited to carry it on Shabbat for any reason. + +Mishnah 4 + +Introduction +This mishnah provides some general rules concerning which vessels may be carried on Shabbat and when they may be carried. +Rabbi Yose says: all vessels may be carried, except a large saw and the pin of a plough. The reason that one may not carry a large saw or the pin of a plough is that people are very careful not to ruin these things. Since they are so careful with these things, they won’t use them for other purposes, and since the normal use of these things is prohibited on Shabbat, they may not be carried at all. +All vessels may be carried whether required or not required. Rabbi Nehemiah says: they may be handled only for what is required. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, all vessels may be carried whether there is a need for them or not. In the Talmud there is a debate what it means when the mishnah says they are “not required.” According to one explanation, “not required” means that the person doesn’t want to use the vessel itself, but rather wants to move it away from its current place. For instance, I might want to move a knife not to use the knife to cut something but to keep it away from my child. According to this explanation, there must be some purpose to moving the knife. Another explanation is that “not required” means that the person is carrying it for no reason whatsoever. Our explanation of this clause will impact our explanation of Rabbi Nehemiah’s debate. According to the first explanation, Rabbi Nehemiah forbids carrying the object unless the object itself is needed. For instance, a knife may be carried only if one wants to use the knife itself. According to the second explanation, Rabbi Nehemiah would allow carrying the knife even if one only wants to move it to clear it from its current place. He would forbid moving the vessel only if there was truly no purpose to doing so. + +Mishnah 5 + +Introduction +This mishnah is concerned with carrying the fragments of vessels on Shabbat. +All vessels which may be carried on Shabbat, their broken pieces may be carried with them, as long as they can perform something in the nature of work. [Thus]: the fragments of a kneading trough [can be used] to cover the mouth of a barrel, [and] the fragments of glass [can be used] to cover the mouth of a flask. Broken pieces of vessels may still be carried on Shabbat as long as the broken pieces can be used for some purpose. The mishnah illustrates what this means. According to the first opinion, the shard need no longer fill any function related to the purpose of the vessel from which it came. Rather it needs only to have some minimal amount of use. +Rabbi Judah says: as long as they can perform something in the nature of their own work; [Thus:] the fragments of a kneading trough, to pour into them a thick mixture; and [the fragments] of a glass, to pour into them oil. Rabbi Judah says that the vessel must still have a use related to the function of the vessel of which it was originally a part. Thus a piece of a kneading trough must still be large enough to hold a thick mixture, a usage similar to its original usage. The Talmud explains that Rabbi Judah is referring to a case where the vessel broke on Shabbat itself. In such a case, since when Shabbat began the vessel was intended for a specific purpose (such as kneading) no part of it can be used for something else on Shabbat. By breaking on Shabbat and being used for something else it would be like a new vessel, one that was in essence made on Shabbat. However, if the vessel was broken before Shabbat its pieces can be carried for other purposes on Shabbat, because when Shabbat began they were already capable of fulfilling other purposes. + +Mishnah 6 + +Introduction +This mishnah deals with certain unusual contraptions used to draw water from a well. +A stone in a dried-out pumpkin: If one can draw [water] in it and it [the stone] does not fall out, one may draw [water] in it; if not, one may not draw water in it. They would use the dried-out pumpkin to draw water from a cistern or well. Because the pumpkin would float, they would place a stone in it to weigh the pumpkin down and submerge it in the water. If the stone was attached well to the pumpkin, such that the stone would not fall out when submerged, one can use this contraption to draw water on Shabbat. In such a case the stone is part of the vessel and it is not muktzeh. However, if the stone is not attached well then one can’t use it, just as one cannot pick up other non-useful stones on Shabbat. Such stones are muktzeh because they have no practical use. +A vine-branch tied to a pitcher: one may draw [water] with it on Shabbat. The pitcher was attached to a vine in order to lower it down into the well. The mishnah rules that one may use such a contraption on Shabbat and that the vine is not muktzeh. Were the vine not to have a practical use, it would be muktzeh. + +Mishnah 7 + +Introduction +This mishnah discusses window-shutters. These shutters were not always attached to the frame of the house as they are today. Rather, they were sometimes attached and sometimes totally detached. +A window-shutter: Rabbi Eliezer says: when it is connected and suspended, one may close [the window] with it; if not, one may not close [the window] with it. But the sages say: in both cases one may close [the window] with it. According to Rabbi Eliezer, it is permitted to close the window with the shutter only if the shutter is already connected to the frame of the house. If it is not connected, then closing the window with it would be prohibited because it is similar to “building.” In essence by closing the window it is as if he is adding another plank to the structure of the house. However, if the shutter is attached and suspended from the house, then it is already part of the house and closing it is no different from closing the door of a house, which is of course permitted. The sages say that it is permitted to close the window whether or not the shutter is attached to the house. It is not considered “building” because the shutter is not permanently going to become part of the house. + +Mishnah 8 + +Introduction +This mishnah deals with carrying lids on Shabbat. +All lids of utensils which have a handle may be carried on Shabbat. Since the lids have handles, they may be carried on Shabbat independent of the vessels which they cover. Indeed, they themselves are considered vessels/utensils, since they have handles. +Rabbi Yose said: in reference to what is that said? In the case of lids which cover the ground, but lids of vessels may in any case be carried on Shabbat. Rabbi Yose limits the application of the rule stated above. That rule applies only to lids used to cover holes in the ground. These may only be carried on Shabbat if they have handles. If they don’t have handles, it looks like one is using them to permanently cover a hole in the ground, in which case this would be too similar to “building.” If they have handles, then it is clear that they will not be used to permanently cover the hole. However, lids of vessels (i.e. pots and pans) may be carried whether or not they have handles. It is clear that such lids are only temporary and that they are part of the vessel which they cover. + +Chapter 18 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +This mishnah deals with clearing food away in order to make room for other things. Even though it is permitted to carry foods (both those for animals and those for people), the sages did not permit this if it was a lot of trouble to do so. Under certain circumstances, it was permitted even if moving the food required a lot of work. +One may clear away even four or five baskets of straw or produce to make room for guests or on account of the neglect of the study hall, but not the storehouse. Under normal circumstances, it would be forbidden to move large portions of straw and produce on Shabbat. Moving large baskets is a lot of work, and so to preserve the character of Shabbat as a day of rest, the sages said that this was forbidden. Therefore, moving baskets out of a storehouse is forbidden. However, if moving baskets is done in order to make room for guests or in order to clear out the study hall so that people can sit and learn, it is permitted. These are two important mitzvot (welcoming guests and studying Torah) and therefore the sages allowed one to do things for their sake that would normally be prohibited. +One may clear away pure terumah, doubtfully tithed produce, the first tithe whose terumah has been separated, redeemed second tithe and sanctified things, and dry lupinus, because it is food for goats. But [one may] not [clear away] untithed produce, first tithe whose terumah has not been taken, unredeemed second tithe and sanctified things, luf or mustard. Rabbi Shimon b. Gamaliel permits [it] in the case of luf, because it is food for ravens. The mishnah now deals with which foods one is allowed to move and which foods one is not allowed to move on Shabbat. The first list is mostly of foods that may be eaten on Shabbat, even if not everyone can eat them. Pure terumah may be eaten by priests, so it may be carried even by Israelites. In contrast, impure terumah cannot be eaten by anyone and therefore it cannot be carried. Doubtfully-tithed produce may be eaten by poor people. The first tithe is eaten by Levites, but only once terumah has been separated from it. Second tithe and sanctified things are redeemed with money and then one brings the money to Jerusalem and uses it there. The produce and sanctified things then become non-sacred and one may eat them, hence they can be carried. Lupinus is a type of bean and since it is eaten by goats, it may be carried on Shabbat. [Note that printed editions of the mishnah state that lupinus is eaten by poor people. Albeck says that this is a mistake.] The second list is of things which may not be eaten on Shabbat and hence cannot be carried. These include most of the opposites to the previous list. Note, terumah and tithes may not be separated on Shabbat such that un-tithed produce cannot be “fixed” by tithing it until after Shabbat. Mustard seed is not eaten until it is processed. Since it can’t be processed on Shabbat, the raw seeds cannot be carried either [you may carry your Grey Poupon as long as it has a heksher ☺. “Luf” is a type of onion. According to the first opinion, it is not eaten it can’t be carried on Shabbat. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel disagrees and holds that since luf is eaten by ravens, it is food and can be carried on Shabbat. The Talmud explains that rich people and kings would raise ravens and give them luf to eat. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that all Jews are considered to be like kings and therefore all Jews can carry luf on Shabbat. The other sages hold that since people don’t normally raise ravens, food for ravens cannot be carried on Shabbat. + +Mishnah 2 + +Introduction +The mishnah begins by discussing things which were prepared to be given as fodder to animals. The remainder of the mishnah deals with other laws concerning animals on Shabbat. +Bundles of straw, bundles of twigs, or bundles of young shoots, if they were prepared as animal food, they may be carried; if not, they may not be carried. It is permissible to carry animal food on Shabbat, so if these bundles of various things were prepared for this purpose they may be carried. However, if they weren’t specifically prepared to be animal food then we can assume that they were prepared to be used in lighting a stove or oven, an act prohibited on Shabbat. Therefore, they may not be carried for they are muktzeh. +One may overturn a basket before young birds, so that they will get up and then get down. The young birds themselves are muktzeh since there is nothing that one can do with them on Shabbat. However, the mishnah holds that one may nevertheless move a basket in front of them so that they will get up onto the basket and then get off of it. +A chicken which has run away, they may push her until she re-enters. Again, it is forbidden to hold the chicken itself because it is muktzeh. However, if it runs away one may push it back to its place. This is assumedly allowed to prevent the loss of the chicken, just as activities normally prohibited on Shabbat were allowed to prevent loss of property from fire. +One may make calves and foals walk in the public domain. And a woman may make her son walk. Rabbi Judah says: when is this so? If he lifts one [foot] and places [another] down; but if he drags them it is forbidden. One can help small animals or toddlers walk around on Shabbat and we need not be concerned that the mother or the one helping the animal will pick the animal up, which is forbidden. Rabbi Judah limits this permission to a child who can at least walk a little bit on his own. But if the child is only “dragging its feet”, then one can’t help it walk on Shabbat, lest one come to pick it up and thereby carry it. + +Mishnah 3 + +Introduction +Most of this mishnah discusses assisting an animal and a woman in giving birth on Shabbat and festivals. The final clause begins to discuss circumcision, a topic which will more fully be covered in chapter nineteen. +One may not deliver an animal [in giving birth] on a festival, but one may assist it. It is forbidden for a Jew to deliver an animal’s newborn on a festival, because this is considered to be too much work for a Jew to do on a festival. Although it may not violate any specific prohibited labor (no pun intended) it is too great of a labor (now, pun intended) to be permitted on a festival or on Shabbat. By “delivering”, the Mishnah means to put one’s hand into the womb and remove the newborn. However, one may assist the animal in giving birth by receiving it as it comes out so that it doesn’t just fall to the floor. Since this is a lesser amount of work, it is permitted. This may only be done on the festival; on Shabbat even assisting the animal is forbidden. +One may deliver a woman [in giving birth] on Shabbat, summon a midwife for her from place to place, desecrate Shabbat on her account, and tie up the umbilical cord. Rabbi Yose says: one may cut it too. When it comes to aiding a woman in delivering her baby, any work is permitted on festivals and on Shabbat, even activities which are not directly connected to the birth. A midwife may be summoned from a far, even if this means she must travel to get there. Shabbat may be in all ways desecrated because the woman’s health is in danger and according to halakhah saving a life supersedes the laws of Shabbat. There is a debate about whether or not the umbilical cord may be cut. The first opinion holds that it may not be cut, since there is no real danger in leaving it connected until the end of Shabbat. Rabbi Yose holds that it may be cut, and the halakhah rules in accordance with his opinion. +And all the requirements of circumcision may be done on Shabbat. Anything connected with circumcision may be done on Shabbat. Leviticus 12:3 states that the child shall be circumcised on the eighth day and the rabbis read this to mean that he must be circumcised even if the eighth day falls on Shabbat. We will learn more about circumcision on Shabbat in the proceeding chapter. + +Chapter 19 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +This mishnah discusses desecrating Shabbat in order to circumcise a child on Shabbat. While the tannaim do not debate that the circumcision itself is done on Shabbat, the question is what preparations for the circumcision may be done. +Rabbi Eliezer says: if one did not bring an instrument [with which to circumcise] on the eve of Shabbat, he must bring it on Shabbat uncovered; but in [times of] danger he hides it on the testimony of witnesses. Obviously, a knife is needed to perform the circumcision. According to Rabbi Eliezer, if one forgot to bring the knife he may bring it on Shabbat eve, even if this entails violating the prohibition of carrying on Shabbat. In normal times, the knife should be carried openly so that people will learn that the Shabbat is violated in order to perform the circumcision on Shabbat. However, in a time when the Roman authorities forbade circumcision (the Hadrianic persecutions, leading up to and following the Bar Kochba revolt) the knife should be hidden so as to avoid danger. The witnesses are needed to testify that the reason that he is carrying is only in order to perform a circumcision. In other words, they are for his protection. +Rabbi Eliezer said further: one may cut wood to make charcoal to make an iron instrument. Rabbi Eliezer goes to an even greater extreme. Even if one does not have any knife with which to circumcise, one may cut down wood to heat up iron to make a knife. It seems unlikely that one would actually find oneself in such a situation. Rabbi Eliezer’s statement is meant to have polemical value anything may be done so that the circumcision may be carried out on Shabbat. +Rabbi Akiva stated a general principle: any [manner of] work which could be performed on the eve of Shabbat does not supersede Shabbat; but that which could not be performed on the eve of Shabbat does supersede Shabbat. Rabbi Akiva disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer and holds that only activities that cannot be performed before Shabbat can be done on Shabbat itself. This would include the circumcision itself, as we shall learn in tomorrow’s mishnah. However, preparatory activities such as making the knife and carrying it to where the circumcision will be performed must be performed before Shabbat begins. The reason that Rabbi Akiva’s statement is phrased as a general rule is that it applies to several other halakhot as well (see Pesahim 6:2 and Menahot 11:3). + +Mishnah 2 + +Introduction +This mishnah lists what aspects of circumcision may be performed on Shabbat according to Rabbi Akiva. +They may perform all the necessities of circumcision on Shabbat: circumcising, uncovering [the corona], sucking [the wound], and placing a compress and cumin upon [the wound]. The main necessities for performing the actual circumcision may all be performed on Shabbat, since these obviously cannot be performed prior to Shabbat. This includes the two main parts of the circumcision itself the cut and the tearing of the membrane which covers the corona. “Sucking the wound” was believed to have certain health benefits and hence was considered to be an essential part of the circumcision. Indeed the Talmud states that any mohel who doesn’t suck the wound is to be removed from his job. In our day, due to our knowledge of orally transmitted diseases, this part of the ritual has become very controversial. Some groups do not do this at all, claiming that there is no health benefit and that even in the Talmud it was not considered to be as essential as the “cutting and tearing”. Since the 19th century some mohels have been using various other contraptions to do the sucking, including a sponge and a glass tube. Some ultraorthodox groups still suck by direct contact with the mouth. The compress and cumin mixture were placed on the wound to aid in the healing. I do not know of any group that still uses cumin although compresses are still used by all. +If one did not grind [the cumin] on the eve of Shabbat, he may chew [it] with his teeth and apply [it to the wound]. On Shabbat itself, since grinding is a forbidden labor, it would be forbidden to grind the cumin in order to put it on the wound. If he hasn’t prepared the cumin before Shabbat while he may not grind it, he may chew it up in his mouth and then put it on the wound. Again, they didn’t know about germs in the days of the Talmud. +If he did not beat up wine and oil on the eve of Shabbat, he should apply each separately. They would also put a mixture of wine and oil on the wound. This mixture was beaten before Shabbat. If he hadn’t prepared the wine and oil before Shabbat, he cannot beat them on Shabbat but he may place the wine and oil in a bowl without vigorously beating them and then put them together on the wound. +They may not make a cloak for it in the first place, but he may wrap a rag about it. They would also make a special bandage called by the Mishnah a “cloak” which would be used to cover the head of the penis. This “cloak” should not be made on Shabbat. So if he didn’t make it before Shabbat, what he may do is temporarily wrap a small rag around the penis. +If this was not prepared from the eve of Shabbat, he may wind it about his finger and bring it, and even from another courtyard. If he didn’t bring the small rag to the place of the circumcision before Shabbat, he may not simply carry it, for that would be an outright violation of Shabbat. However, he may wrap the rag around his finger and carry it. This way it is as if he is wearing the rag (which is permitted) and not just carrying it. The mishnah allows it to be carried even from another courtyard. The commentators debate whether this implies that it also may be carried through the public domain. + +Mishnah 3 + +Introduction +The first part of this mishnah discusses bathing the child on Shabbat before and after his circumcision. The second part of the mishnah deals with circumcision of a child on Shabbat if something about his status is doubtful. +They bathe the infant both before and after the circumcision, and sprinkle [warm water] over him by hand but not with a vessel. It is permitted to bathe the infant with hot water on Shabbat both before and after the circumcision. The mishnah now proceeds to explain that this bathing is not a full bath as is usually done when it is not Shabbat but rather just sprinkling him with water by hand. Some commentators explain that before he is circumcised the hot water may not be heated on Shabbat, but that after he is circumcised, when the bath is more crucial for his recovery, the water may be heated even on Shabbat. +R. Elazar ben Azaryah says: they may bathe an infant on the third day [of circumcision] which falls on the Shabbat, as it is said, “And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore” (Genesis 34:25). Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah disagrees with the previous opinion in two ways. First of all, he holds that the child may be bathed in a normal manner and not just by sprinkling on him. Secondly, the child may be bathed even if Shabbat falls on the third day after his circumcision, and not just on the day of the circumcision itself. This Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah learns from the story of Shechem’s circumcision where we see that he and the people from his city were still hurting on the third day. Talmudic commentators debate whether this means that the infant may be bathed up until the third day, and also on the first and second day after the circumcision, or just the third day, but not the first two days. It seems to me that the first position is more reasonable. According to the latter position we would have to say that for some reason the pain is worse on the third day. +For one who about whom it is doubtful, and a hermaphrodite, they may not desecrate Shabbat But Rabbi Judah permits [it] in the case of a hermaphrodite. If a child is born at twilight it is considered doubtful whether he was born on the previous day or on the following day. Such a child can never be circumcised on Shabbat. For instance, let’s say he was born on twilight between Friday and Shabbat. His circumcision will end up being on Sunday. It can’t be on Friday, lest he was born on Shabbat and Friday is only the seventh day. It can’t be on Shabbat lest he was born on Friday and Shabbat would be the ninth day. Circumcision overrides the rules of Shabbat only if it is on the eighth day. Therefore the circumcision is pushed off until Sunday (we shall learn more about this below in mishnah five.) I should note that others explain the mishnah differently. This explanation goes according to Albeck. A hermaphrodite has signs of being both male and female. He is circumcised but his circumcision cannot take place on Shabbat. This is because we are not sure of his halakhic status as male and hence it could be that he doesn’t really need to be circumcised. His circumcision is “doubtful” and therefore it doesn’t override Shabbat. Rabbi Judah considers a hermaphrodite to be a male and therefore his circumcision overrides Shabbat. + +Mishnah 4 + +Introduction +This mishnah discusses a case where there are two infants, one who should be circumcised on Shabbat and the other who should not be circumcised on Shabbat. The question is what happens if the babies get switched and someone circumcises on Shabbat the one who should have been circumcised on a different day. +If a man has two infants, one to circumcise after Shabbat and the other to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgets and circumcises the one who should be circumcised after Shabbat on the Shabbat, he is liable. In the first case the mohel (the circumciser) ends up circumcising a baby on Shabbat who should have been circumcised after Shabbat. In other words, he desecrated Shabbat to circumcise a boy who had not yet reached his eighth day. This child was not yet obligated to be circumcised. Hence the circumciser is liable to bring a sin-offering for accidentally desecrating Shabbat. +[If he has] one to circumcise on the eve of Shabbat and another to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgets and circumcises the one who should be circumcised on the eve of Shabbat on Shabbat: Rabbi Eliezer holds [him] liable to a sin-offering, but Rabbi Joshua exempts [him]. In this case it turns out that he circumcised a boy on Shabbat who should have been circumcised on Friday. Rabbi Eliezer maintains that he is still liable since he did, after all, circumcise on Shabbat in a case where he should not have done so. Only circumcision on the eighth day overrides Shabbat (this we learned in yesterday’s mishnah and we will learn again in tomorrow’s mishnah). Rabbi Joshua holds that since the child had already passed his eighth day and had therefore become obligated to be circumcised, the circumciser has fulfilled the commandment and is not liable. Note that Rabbi Joshua agrees that it is forbidden to circumcise a child on Shabbat on any other day but the eighth day. He only holds that if someone mistakenly did so to a child who was already obligated for circumcision, he is not liable. + +Mishnah 5 + +Introduction +As we have already mentioned, circumcision is done on Shabbat only if it is done on the eighth day. If it is done on any other day besides the eighth, then the circumcision must wait until after Shabbat. Our mishnah shows that sometimes this will delay the circumcision by several days. +An infant is circumcised on the eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth [days], neither before nor later. How so?
In the normal situation, on the eighth. Normally, a child is circumcised on the eighth day. +If he is born at twilight, on the ninth; Twilight is a halakhically doubtful time we don’t know whether to consider it still the previous day or the day after. Therefore, if a boy is born at twilight, he is circumcised on what might be the ninth day. In other words we act as if he was born on the next day. +At twilight on the eve of Shabbat, on the tenth. If he is born on twilight on the eve of Shabbat, he can’t be circumcised on Shabbat because only circumcision on the eighth day overrides Shabbat, and Shabbat may be the ninth day. Therefore he is circumcised on Sunday, the tenth day. +If a festival follows Shabbat, on the eleventh. If Sunday is a festival, we must delay his circumcision until the eleventh day. Just as circumcision does not override Shabbat unless it is the eighth day, so too it does not override a festival unless it is on the eighth day. +If the two days of Rosh Hashanah [follow Shabbat], on the twelfth. Finally, if the two days of Rosh Hashanah follow Shabbat, then he will be circumcised on the twelfth day. We should note that even in the land of Israel Rosh Hashanah was observed for two days. In the Diaspora the same would hold true for the second day of festivals. +An infant who is sick is not circumcised until he recovers. Healthy infants can be circumcised on the eighth through twelfth days, but sick infants must wait until they recover from their illness to be circumcised. Their health overrides their need to be circumcised. + +Mishnah 6 + +Introduction +This mishnah talks about some of the physical aspects of circumcision. +These are the shreds which invalidate circumcision: flesh that covers the greater part of the corona; and he may not eat terumah. If there are little pieces of skin left after the foreskin was circumcised, they must be removed if they cover the greater part of the corona. If they are not removed the child is not considered circumcised and if he is a priest, he may not eat terumah, just as any non-circumcised priest may not eat terumah. +And if he is chubby, he must repair it for appearance sake. If the circumcision was done correctly, but due to the child’s chubby appearance it looks as if he was not circumcised, the mohel should repair the circumcision so that it looks like he was circumcised. Otherwise people will say that the child was not circumcised. +If one circumcises but does not uncover the circumcision, it is as though he has not circumcised. As we learned in mishnah two, an essential part of the circumcision is the tearing of the membrane underneath the corona. If this is not done, the circumcision is invalid. Note, that other aspects of the circumcision are less essential, including the sucking. The mishnah does not say that if the mohel did not suck the wound, the circumcision is invalid. This left room for some authorities to say that we don’t need to suck the wound, or at least that it need not be sucked through direct mouth to mouth contact. + +Chapter 20 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +This mishnah deals with pouring wine through a strainer on festivals and Shabbat. They would suspend or sort of stretch the strainer over the mouth of a vessel and the unstrained wine would be poured through it. +In order to understand the mishnah we must remember that on festivals food may be prepared, even if this requires a labor normally prohibited such as slaughtering an animal or cooking a dish. The issue discussed here is can one prepare vessels with which to prepare food if these vessels could have been done prepared before the festival. +On Shabbat there are two issues involved in this mishnah: 1) the preparation of food; 2) the making of a vessel. +R. Eliezer says: one may suspend a strainer on festivals, and pour [wine] through a suspended [strainer] on Shabbat. According to Rabbi Eliezer, even though she could have set up the strainer the day before the festival, since the strainer is set up in order to prepare food, which is permitted on festivals, she may also suspend it on top of the vessel on the festival itself. She obviously may pour wine through it. On Shabbat, she cannot suspend the strainer for this is considered similar to making a tent, because she is placing the strainer on top of the vessel. However, Rabbi Eliezer holds that it is permitted to pour the wine through the strainer if it is already suspended and this is not considered an act of “selecting” (see 7:2). “Selecting” is separating the pebbles from the kernels and this is not similar enough to be forbidden. +But the sages say: one may not suspend a strainer on festivals, nor pour [wine] through a suspended [strainer] on Shabbat, but one may pour [it] through a suspended [strainer] on festivals. The sages disagree with Rabbi Eliezer on both issues. Since she could have prepared the strainer before the festival, it is forbidden to do so on the festival itself. This is the same opinion as Rabbi Akiva’s in 19:1 vessels which can be prepared before Shabbat or a festival cannot be prepared on Shabbat or a festival. Secondly, the sages hold that pouring the wine over the strainer is an act similar enough to “selecting” that it is prohibited on Shabbat. This is only permitted on festivals since on festivals food preparation is permitted. + +Mishnah 2 + +Introduction +This mishnah continues to deal with straining things on Shabbat. +One may pour water over lees in order to clarify them; There are two explanations for this section. The first is that the lees of the wine are on the bottom of the strainer and that one may pour water over them so that the wine will flow through the strainer. While pouring the unfilterd wine over the strainer was forbidden, this is permitted. The second explanation is that the lees are on the bottom of a jug. One may pour water into the jug so that the lees will mix with the water and make a weak wine mixture. +and one may strain wine through cloths and through a basket made of palm twigs; This section allows wine to be passed through either a special cloth or basket to help clarify it. The question which we must ask is what makes this different from the previous mishnah where the sages were more stringent regarding pouring wine through a strainer? According to some commentators, this cloth or basket was already set up before Shabbat. Furthermore, there is no problem of “selecting” here because this wine is drinkable even if it isn’t passed through these secondary strainers. Others explain that this is permitted because it is not the usual way of straining and things are often more permissible if they are done differently on Shabbat. +and one may place an egg in a mustard strainer; This refers to breaking an egg into a strainer which has mustard already in it. This is done so that the mustard will receive some of the color from the egg. It is not a prohibited act of “selecting” because even though the yoke will remain in the strainer, it is still edible. “Selecting” refers to taking waste away from edible parts and not separating a food into two different edible parts. +and one may make anumlin on Shabbat. Rabbi Judah says: on Shabbat [it may only be made] in a cup; on festivals, in a jug; and on the intermediate days of festivals in a barrel. Rabbi Zadok says: it all depends on the [number of] guests. “Anumlin” is a mixture of wine, honey and pepper. This mixture can be made on Shabbat because there is no prohibited labor involved in preparing it. However, the rabbis debate how much can be made. According to Rabbi Judah, on Shabbat she can prepare only a cup’s worth at a time, because more than that is considered to be too much labor to do on Shabbat. On a festival she can make slightly more, a jug’s worth and on the intermediate days of the festival, when work is most permitted, she can make a barrel’s worth. For Rabbi Judah the operative criterion is how much work is involved. In contrast, for Rabbi Zadok the operative criterion is how many guests are in attendance. No matter what the day, she can only make enough anumlin for the guests who are there. She may not prepare anything to be used at some later date. + +Mishnah 3 + +Introduction +The mishnah deals with food preparations that may not be done in a normal manner on Shabbat but may be performed by doing them slightly differently. +One may not soak hiltith in warm water, but he may put it into vinegar. Hiltith is an herb which was used both as a spice and as medicine. It is forbidden to soak it in warm water on Shabbat, but one may put it in vinegar and dip her food in it. The prohibition is explained in either of two ways: 1) it looks like something that is only done during the week; 2) it is medicinal and therefore prohibited. +And one may not soak leeks, nor rub them, but he may put them into a sieve or a basket. Above in 1:5 Bet Hillel allowed one to begin soaking leeks before Shabbat and leave them to soak over Shabbat. Here we see that all agree that they may not be soaked on Shabbat itself, and according to commentators, even putting water over them is prohibited. The prohibition is “separating” putting water over them causes the waste parts to float and separate from the leeks. Similarly, they may not be rubbed in order to remove the inedible parts. This is prohibited under the category of “threshing” separating the wheat from the chaff. However, one may put them into a sieve or basket, even though this also will sometimes cause the separation of the inedible parts. The difference is that in this case these parts separate on their own, and hence she has not performed a forbidden act. +One may not sift straw through a sieve, nor put it on a high place, for the chaff to drop down, but one may take it up in a sieve and put it into the trough. One may not sift stubble through a sieve; sifting is one of the 39 prohibited labors listed in 7:2. Even though that mishnah is dealing with separating the wheat from the chaff, and here we are dealing with separating straw for an animal from dirt, it is still essentially the same activity. One also may not put the stubble in a high place so that the dirt blows away, because this is “separating”. However, one may pick up a bunch of straw with a sieve and put it in front of an animal’s trough, even though this may also cause the dirt to separate. The key difference is that this is not the direct intention of the activity. + +Mishnah 4 + +Introduction +This mishnah discusses cleaning out a trough for an animal on Shabbat. The mishnah is placed here due to the end of yesterday’s mishnah which also discussed a trough. +One may rake out [the trough] for a stall ox, and move [the remnants] aside for the sake of a grazing [ox], the words of Rabbi Dosa. But the sages prohibit it. One may sweep out the trough of the remnants that are left over after the a previous feeding so that the old food the ox would not eat before doesn’t become mixed with the food given to it in the current feeding. A “stall ox” is one that is being fattened up by giving it high quality food. Since it is rather “fussy”, Rabbi Dosa allows its trough to be cleaned out on Shabbat. A “grazing” ox is less fussy and used to dirtier food and hence one may not completely rake out the trough on its behalf. However, one may move the remnants to the side so that they don’t get mixed up with the next feeding. The sages prohibit both of these things because of sweeping and raking on Shabbat. The problem is that by sweeping or raking one may come to fill up a hole, an activity prohibited on Shabbat. +One may take [food] from one animal and place it before another animal on Shabbat. One may move food from one trough to another on Shabbat. We might have thought that this is prohibited because it is carrying without purpose. However, since one animal will generally eat food which has already been put in front of another animal, this is not considered “carrying without a purpose” and it is permitted. + +Mishnah 5 + +Introduction +The first section of this mishnah discusses clearing things off one’s bed in order to sleep on it. The second section deals with removing clothes from a “clothes press.” A “clothes press” was made by placing a piece of clothing between two boards and then fastening them together. +The straw [lying] upon a bed one may not move it with his hand, but he may move it with his body. Straw is usually used for lighting a stove and hence it is muktzeh. If this straw is on her bed she can’t just remove it with her hand. However, she may move the bed with her body and thereby cause the straw to fall off. “Carrying” with the side of one’s body is not considered carrying and therefore this is permitted. +But if it is animal feed, or a pillow or a sheet was upon it [on the eve of Shabbat], he may move it with his hand. If the straw had been designated to serve as animal feed, then it is not muktzeh and she may remove it by hand. We see here that something is defined to be that which it is intended to be used for if it is intended to be used for something permitted on Shabbat, then it is not muktzeh. Furthermore, if she set the bed aside for sleeping (as opposed to using it to store things) by placing on it a pillow or sheet, then she may move the straw even though it was set aside to light a fire. It was only forbidden if it was unclear whether the bed was going to be used for storage or for sleeping. +A householder’s clothes press one may undo it, but not force it down. But a launderer’s [press] one may not touch it. Rabbi Judah says: if it was undone before Shabbat, one may unfasten the whole and remove it. A “householder’s clothes press” is not an item used by a professional. Therefore, one may undo it, meaning take the clothes out, but not put the clothes in. Putting clothes in the clothes press is considering “fixing” them, and “fixing” is forbidden on Shabbat. A launderer’s press is a professional piece of equipment. Hence one may not touch it at all on Shabbat. This is forbidden because of “tearing down” by taking it apart it is as if she is “tearing down.” Rabbi Judah, however, is more lenient. If the launderer’s press was already somewhat unfastened before Shabbat, she may take the rest of the press apart and take the clothes out. Since it was already not fully closed up, this is not considered “tearing down.” + +Chapter 21 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +This mishnah deals with picking up something that is muktzeh (forbidden to be touched on Shabbat) with something which a person is allowed to carry on Shabbat. +A man may pick up his son while he has a stone in his hand or a basket with a stone in it. One can carry a child on Shabbat; a child is not “muktzeh.” However, the stone which the child is holding is muktzeh (because there is no purpose to it on Shabbat). The mishnah teaches that the parent can pick up the child even though she has a stone in her hand. Similarly, one can pick up a basket (not muktzeh) with a stone in it, even though the stone is muktzeh. +And one may carry impure terumah together with pure [terumah] or with non-sacred produce. Impure terumah cannot be eaten and therefore it can’t be used on Shabbat. This makes it muktzeh. Nevertheless, if the impure terumah is in the same container as either pure terumah or non-sacred produce (hullin), both of which can be used on Shabbat, then it may be carried. The Talmud explains that this is so only if the pure terumah cannot be taken off the top. If however, the pure terumah can be removed without touching the impure terumah then the impure terumah should not be touched. +Rabbi Judah said: one may also remove the mixture [of terumah in non-sacred produce] when one [part is neutralized] in a hundred [parts]. If terumah becomes mixed with non-terumah (hullin) then the whole mixture takes on the status of terumah and it may only be eaten by priests. However, if there are more than one hundred parts hullin to one part terumah than one may take up one part out of the one hundred and one parts, give that part to terumah and the remainder reverts to being hullin, edible by non-priests. Rabbi Judah teaches that on Shabbat one can carry a mixture of one part terumah and one hundred parts hullin and even take out the one part on Shabbat in order to make it edible by non-priests. + +Mishnah 2 + +Introduction +This mishnah deals with retrieving things that have on them something that is muktzeh. +If a stone is on the mouth of a cask [of wine], one tilts it to its side and it falls off. She can’t just pick up the stone because it is muktzeh. However, she can tilt the cask of wine and thereby cause the stone to fall off. +If it [the cask] is [standing] among [other] casks, he lifts it up, tilts it on its side, and it falls off. In this case she is afraid that if she tilts the cask the stone may fall off and break the other cask. Alternatively, there may not be room to tilt the cask to the side. In such a case she can pick the cask up and then let the stone fall off. +If money is lying on a cushion, one shakes the cushion, and it falls off. Money is muktzeh since it cannot be used on Shabbat. As an aside, the reason that it can’t be used on Shabbat is lest one write a receipt or an account of the money spent. To move the money one merely tilts the cushion and the money falls off. Again, we see that if something which is “muktzeh” rests on something that is not muktzeh, the bottom item may be moved to get the muktzeh item to fall off. +If snot is on it, one wipes it off with a rag; “Snot” may alternately be translated as “feces”, or some other type of disgusting material. This “snot” is on a cushion which she wants to use. To clean it off she must wipe it with a rag. She can’t pour water over it because this is prohibited due to “laundering.” +If it is on leather, one pours water over it until it disappears. However, if the snot is on leather, she may pour water over it, because putting water over leather is not considered “laundering”. However, to actually launder the leather is prohibited. + +Mishnah 3 + +Bet Shammai says: one may remove bones and nutshells from the table; But Beth Hillel says: one must remove the whole board and shake it off.
One may remove from the table crumbs less than the size of an olive and the husks of beans and lentils, because they are food for animals.
A sponge, if it has a handle, one may wipe [the board] with it;
If not, one may not wipe [the board] with it.
The sages say: in either case it may be handled on Shabbat and it is not susceptible to defilement.
This mishnah deals with clearing the table at the end of a meal on Shabbat.
Section one: Bet Shammai does not hold that the bones and nutshells left over on the table after the meal are muktzeh even though they have no use. Hence one may remove them. Bet Hillel disagrees and holds that these are muktzeh. Hence, if she wishes to remove them, she must remove the board from the table (a sort of personal tray placed in front of one or several diners) and shake it off. In the Talmud they bring a source according to which these two opinions should be reversed, Bet Hillel holding the more lenient opinion and Bet Shammai the stricter one.
Section two: Animal food is not muktzeh. Since crumbs and husks of beans and lentils may be used for animal food, they are not muktzeh and it is permitted to remove them from the table on Shabbat.
Section three: This section discusses the problem of sponges. Squeezing water or liquids out of something is prohibited. Its prohibition is derived from the prohibited labor of “laundering”, since squeezing water out of clothes is part of the laundering process. One can’t use a sponge that does not have a handle because by doing so one might squeeze water from the sponge.
The sages say that whether or not it has a handle it may be carried on Shabbat because it is a vessel and all vessels may be carried on Shabbat. However, it is not the type of vessel that can receive impurity.
Some manuscripts read differently in the concluding clause. Some read, “and the sages say: in any case he may use it for wiping.” According to this version, the sages disagree with the previous opinion, according to which wiping with a sponge without a handle is forbidden. Other versions skip the words “and the sages say” and rather read the final point as a point of agreement between all. All agree that even though you can’t use the sponge to wipe things, it still may be carried. + +Chapter 22 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +The first section of this mishnah deals with a cask of wine which broke on Shabbat and the owner wishes to save as much wine as possible. +The remainder of the mishnah discusses the prohibition of squeezing juice or other liquids out of something. +A cask [of wine] which was broken, one may save from it the requirements for three meals. And he [the owner] may say to others, “come and save for yourselves”, provided that it is not sponged up. Above in 16:2 the mishnah taught that one can rescue from a fire food sufficient for three meals, the standard number of meals eaten on Shabbat. In our explanation there we explained that the reason that a person was not allowed to rescue more than that was lest she come to extinguish the fire. However, here it is less clear what the concern is. The commentators explain that if they let her rescue more than three meals she may carry them in the public domain. Alternatively, she may come to fix the casket. An alternative explanation which I would suggest is that more than three meals is muktzeh since it won’t be eaten on Shabbat. As above, she is allowed to say to other people, “come save the wine for yourselves.” However, no one is allowed to rescue the wine by sponging it up. The fear is that if they sponge it up they may squeeze the sponge out afterwards, and as we have already learned and will continue to learn below, squeezing liquids out of something is prohibited. +One may not squeeze fruit in order to get out their juices, and if they exude of their own accord they are prohibited. Rabbi Judah says: if [the fruit is meant] to be food, that which exudes from it is permitted, but if [is meant to be] juice, that which exudes from it is prohibited. Squeezing juice out of fruit is considered to be a prohibited labor derived from the prohibited labor of “threshing”. Just as “threshing” separates the desirable wheat from the undesirable chaff, so too squeezing separates the juice from the fruit. The mishnah teaches that even if the juice exudes without being squeezed by a person. The fear is that if this juice is allowed people will become confused and think it is permitted to actually squeeze the juice out. Rabbi Judah distinguishes between fruit that is intended to be eaten and fruit that is intended to be used for juice. If the juice exudes from fruit which is intended to be eaten, then it is permitted because a person doesn’t want the juice to come out of this fruit. A person won’t come to squeeze such a fruit. However, if the fruit is intended for juice then Rabbi Judah too is strict and rules that even the juice that exudes is forbidden. +Honeycombs which crushed on the eve of Shabbat and it [the honey] exudes on its own, it is forbidden; But Rabbi Eleazar permits it. In this section a person has crushed honeycombs before Shabbat in order to start the process of extracting the honey from them. If honey exudes from them on Shabbat, such honey may not be eaten. Again the fear is that if they permit such honey people will think that the honeycombs may be squeezed on Shabbat itself. Rabbi Elazar is not concerned with such a possibility and hence he allows this honey to be eaten on Shabbat. + +Mishnah 2 + +Introduction +This mishnah deals with soaking food in hot water on Shabbat. +Whatever was put into hot water before Shabbat, may be soaked in hot water on Shabbat; Things that are already cooked cannot be again “cooked”, since the definition of “cooking” is using heat to turn something raw into something not raw. Therefore, if something was already cooked before Shabbat, it can be put back in hot water on Shabbat without this being considered “cooking.” In other words, “there is no cooking something that has already been cooked.” +But whatever was not put into hot water before Shabbat may [only] be rinsed with hot water on Shabbat, except old salted fish, small salted fish, and Spanish colius, because their rinsing completes their preparation. If it was not cooked in hot water before Shabbat, then it may not be soaked in hot water on Shabbat, because that would be cooking. However, it still may be rinsed in hot water because rinsing is generally not considered to be cooking. The mishnah lists a few exceptions to this rule. These are all small fish which have thin skins and can be cooked by merely rinsing them in hot water. Since “their rinsing completes their preparation” they may not even be rinsed in hot water. + +Mishnah 3 + +Introduction +This mishnah teaches that one may break open a container to get food out of it, but one may not break open the container in such a way that the container becomes a vessel. Making a vessel is prohibited on Shabbat but ruining vessels is permitted, so long as there is a purpose to ruining them, like getting the food out. +A man may break open a cask in order to eat dried figs from it, provided that he does not intend to make the cask into a vessel. Since breaking the ceramic cask ruins it, she may break it open in order to get out the figs (or whatever else may be inside). However, she may not break it open and leave a nice opening in such a way that the cask becomes a vessel. +And one may not perforate the stopper of a cask, the words of Rabbi Judah. But the sages permit it. Rabbi Judah holds that one may not perforate the ceramic stopper which is on the top of a cask because that is considered making a vessel. What she should do is remove the stopper altogether. The sages allow it because this is not a normal way of making a vessel. +And one may not pierce it at its side; All agree that one cannot pierce it at its side. In the Talmud there is a debate whether this refers to the side of the cask or the side of the stopper. +And if it is already perforated one may not place wax upon it, because he smoothes it out. Rabbi Judah said: a case came before Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai in Arav and he said, “I fear [that he may be liable] to a sin-offering.” If the cask/stopper is already perforated she may not spread wax upon it in order to close it up. The problem is that when she pours wax she will also need to smooth it out. The rabbis thought that smoothing out wax was like “erasing” which is prohibited. Rabbi Judah relates a case where a person who perforated a cask/stopper at its side came in front of R. Yohanan ben Zakai and R. Yohanan said that he might be obligated to bring a sin-offering for having unwittingly transgressed Shabbat. + +Mishnah 4 + +Introduction +The first half of this mishnah deals with preserving the coolness or heat of cooked dishes or water. The second half deals with someone whose clothes got wet and how she may dry them without transgressing the prohibition of squeezing out the water. +One may place a cooked dish in a pit for it to be guarded; One can put a cooked dish into the ground in order to protect it from the heat (the ground will keep the dish cool). The Talmud explains that the point of the mishnah is to teach us that we are not concerned lest she come to fill a hole in the ground, an activity which would be prohibited on Shabbat. +And good water into foul water for it to be cooled; or cold water in the sun for it to be heated. If one has a pitcher of good warm water and a larger container (tub, perhaps) of warm foul water, one may place the pitcher in the tub so that the good water will cool off. It is obvious that this is permitted since this isn’t in any way cooking. The mishnah teaches the first section to introduce the next clause in which we learn that one can place a pitcher of cool water in the sun in order for the water to warm up. Other versions of the mishnah read that one may place a pitcher of cold water into a larger container of hot water. The point of the mishnah is to teach that we are not concerned lest this leads a person to think that it is permitted to cook on Shabbat. +One whose clothes fell into water on the road may walk in them without concern. When he reaches the outer courtyard he may spread them out in the sun, but not in sight of the people. If a person’s clothes become wet while walking on the road on Shabbat, she may not just squeeze the water out of them because squeezing water out of something is prohibited on Shabbat. The mishnah teaches that she may continue to wear the clothes and if by walking or sitting she causes the water to be squeezed out then it is a by-product of normal activity and it is not forbidden. Others explain that the mishnah teaches that she need not be concerned lest others think she laundered her clothes on Shabbat. However, once she reaches the outer courtyard of the city, meaning the first courtyard she finds, she should take off her wet clothes (obviously not if this will leave her naked in public) and she may spread them out so that they may dry. She shouldn’t spread them out so that others see what she is doing lest others think that she did her laundry on Shabbat. + +Mishnah 5 + +Introduction +This mishnah discusses drying oneself off with a towel after bathing and the potential problem involved in wringing the towel. +One who bathes in the water of a pit or in the waters of Tiberias and dries himself even with ten towels, he must not bring them [back] in his hand. After the bather has dried herself, she may not bring the towel back to her home, lest in doing so she wrings it in order to squeeze out the water. This is true even if she uses ten towels to dry herself and the last one has almost no water in it and doesn’t need to be wrung out. It too may not be carried back to her home. +But ten men may dry their faces, hands, and feet on one towel and they may bring it [back] in their hands. However, a towel which has been shared by a large group of people, and has therefore become very wet, may nevertheless be carried by the group. Since there are many people together, they will remind each other that it is forbidden to wring a towel on Shabbat and they won’t come to transgress. Note how the mishnah purposely exaggerates each section. In the first section the tenth towel is barely wet, and nevertheless, it may not be carried. In the second section the towel is soaked and nevertheless it may be carried. + +Mishnah 6 + +Introduction +This mishnah deals with acts that are similar to healing in that they manipulate the body in some way. As we have learned above in 14:3, healing is prohibited on Shabbat. +One may oil and [lightly] massage [the body] but not step on [the body] or scrape [the skin]. One may lightly rub oil or massage one’s body (or another person’s body) on Shabbat, but not do so vigorously by stepping on a person or roughly scraping off skin. Most commentators say that this is too much like an act of healing and it is forbidden to heal a person on Shabbat. Furthermore, all of these things were done in the bathhouse and the rabbis may have wanted to keep people from fully engaging in bathhouse activities on Shabbat. +One may not go down to a piloma, I have adopted a reading of this section in accordance with manuscripts and Albeck’s suggestion. A piloma is a place where a person takes a mud bath. There are a host of different explanations for this section. Albeck’s seems most convincing. At a piloma one would engage in the activities prohibited in section one. Hence one shouldn’t even go into a piloma. +And one may not drink an epiktvizin [to induce vomiting]; An epiktvizin was a potion used to induce vomiting. This was forbidden because it was like healing. +And one may not straighten an infant[‘s limbs]. If an infant’s limbs were crooked, they would manipulate them in order to straighten them out. This may not be done on Shabbat because it is similar to the prohibited labor of “building.” +And one may not set a broken bone. Similarly, one may not set the broken bone of an adult. +If one's hand or foot is dislocated, he must not agitate it violently in cold water but he may bathe it in the usual way, and if it heals, it heals. If one separated a limb, such as a hand or foot and it needs to be put back into its place, one shouldn’t vigorously shake it in cold water because everyone will see that this is an act of healing. However, if one wishes to wash in a more normal manner, one may do so and if by doing so the separated limb is healed, then nothing wrong has been done. + +Chapter 23 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +This mishnah discusses borrowing food items on Shabbat with the intent of paying the person back after Shabbat. +A man may borrow pitchers of wine and pitchers of oil from his neighbor, provided he does not say to him, “lend [them] to me”; It is permitted for a person to borrow things from another person on Shabbat as long as he doesn’t say “lend to me.” There are actually two words in Hebrew for “lend” one which implies money or something that will be paid back, and the other which implies returning the object itself. Using the first verb sounds too much like doing business and it is therefore prohibited on Shabbat. This is the verb in our mishnah. However, the second verb is not problematic. For instance, if the borrowed object was a book which itself will be returned, there is no problem. +And similarly a woman [may borrow] loaves from her neighbor. Just as a man may ask his neighbor to borrow pitchers of wine and oil, so too a woman may ask her neighbor to borrow loaves of bread. +If he does not trust him he may leave his cloak with him [as a pledge] and squares up with him after Shabbat. The mishnah now provides a means by which the lender may guarantee that he receives compensation for his loan. The borrower cannot merely pay the lender, nor can they write down an amount or even state how much is owed. What they can do is have the borrower leave his cloak with the lender as a pledge. After Shabbat they can square up and the borrower can pay the lender back. +Similarly, if the eve of Passover in Jerusalem falls on Shabbat, he may leave his cloak with him [the vendor] and take his paschal lamb and squares up with him after the festival. This section deals with a situation where a person had not bought his pesach sacrifice (the paschal lamb) before Shabbat which fell the day before Pesach. He may do what the person in section one did to buy wine and oil he leaves his cloak with the merchant selling lambs, buys his lamb and then on Monday he can settle up how much he owes. + +Mishnah 2 + +Introduction +This mishnah has to do with reckoning certain types of accounts on Shabbat. +A man may count his guests and his appetizers/desserts by word, but not from writing. A host may want to count his guests or his food before or while the meal is being served. He may do so but he may not count them from a written list. The Tosefta explains that this is forbidden because it is acting on Shabbat the way one acts during the week. In the Talmud they explain that if he reads from a written list and sees that someone is not there or hears that they are not coming, he may erase their name from the list, a prohibited activity on Shabbat. Alternatively, he may grow accustomed to reading bills, lists and other types of business documents that a person should not read on Shabbat. +A man may cast lots with his sons and the members of his household on the table, provided that he does not make a large portion against a small one, because of gambling. This section deals with casting lots for who will get to choose his portion of meat first and who will get the largest portion. We should note that this was an important issue in eating customs at the time and we hear a lot from contemporary sources about people complaining that they didn’t get a good portion. The head of the household or any other person may cast lots on Shabbat for who gets what portion, but he should not make the portions a disparate size to begin with, hoping that he will get the bigger portion, because this is a type of gambling. Gambling is always problematic according to Jewish law, but it certainly shouldn’t be done on Shabbat. +And [priests] may cast lots for sacrifices on festivals, but not for the portions. The priests could cast lots over who would get which sacrifice of the sacrifices offered on a festival. However, they may not cast lots on the festival over the sacrifices offered the day before, since they could have cast the lots then. As we have learned many times, anything that could be done before the holiday may not be done on the holiday itself. + +Mishnah 3 + +Introduction +The first section of the mishnah deals with hiring laborers on Shabbat. +The remaining portions of the mishnah deal with going out to the Shabbat border in order to perform an activity after Shabbat that may not be performed on Shabbat itself. The “Shabbat border” is the limit which a person is allowed to walk out of town on Shabbat. This border is two thousand cubits outside of the city. +The commonality between these two subjects (hiring workers and going out to the border) is that both are connected to Isaiah 58:13, “If you honor [the Sabbath] and do not do your business, nor look to your affairs, nor make statements [then you can seek the favor of the Lord]”. This translation tries to capture the spirit of how the rabbis understand the verse. Isaiah speaks of activities that are not necessarily forbidden by the Torah but nevertheless are activities which turn Shabbat into an ordinary day. As an aside, I should mention my belief that preserving the spirit of Shabbat is as important as observing the halakhic details. Shabbat must be a day set aside from work and from many normal daily activities, even if the performance of such work is not a technical violation of Shabbat. +One may not hire laborers on Shabbat, nor say to his fellow to hire laborers for him. Hiring laborers on Shabbat to do work after Shabbat is not technically a violation of one of the 39 prohibited labors. However, it is clearly against the “spirit of Shabbat” as is described in the verse from Isaiah above. One shouldn’t even say to one’s friend to hire laborers. +One may not go to the Shabbat border to await nightfall in order to hire laborers or bring in produce; but one may do so in order to watch [his field] and [then] he can bring produce [back] with him. One is allowed to go on Shabbat up until the Shabbat border, 2000 cubits outside the city. However, one should not do so in order to get a jump start on performing an activity prohibited on Shabbat. This is again a violation of the spirit of Shabbat and it is using time on Shabbat to prepare for the performance of work after Shabbat. However, one may go out to the Shabbat border before Shabbat is over to perform an activity, such as guarding produce, which is permitted on Shabbat. In such a case, the only thing preventing her from guarding her fields is that they lie outside of the Shabbat border (as fields usually do). If she goes out to guard her fields (a permitted activity), she may also bring back produce with her when she returns (an activity permitted on Shabbat). What is prohibited is going to wait at the border specifically to perform a prohibited activity. +Abba Shaul stated a general principle: whatever I have a right to say [that it be done], I am permitted to go to await nightfall, for it [at the border]. Abba Shaul does not disagree with the previous opinion, but rather summarizes that opinion using a general principle. Anything that a person may ask another person to do on Shabbat, such as guard fruit, one may also go out to the Shabbat border in order to perform the activity at nightfall. This would include watching fruit and also those activities which will be listed in the following mishnah. Put in other words, if the activity is not prohibited on Shabbat, nor in violation of the spirit of Shabbat, one may go out to the border in order to perform the activity right after Shabbat. + +Mishnah 4 + +Introduction +This mishnah discusses exceptions to the rule in the previous mishnah, that one should not go out on Shabbat to the Shabbat border in order to go beyond the border after Shabbat to perform an activity prohibited on Shabbat. +One may go to the Shabbat border before nightfall in order to attend to the affairs of a bride or of a corpse to bring him a coffin and shrouds. Arranging a marriage and arranging proper burial are two of the highest values in Judaism, competing perhaps only with the study of Torah. One may therefore say to a fellow Jew on Shabbat, “take care of this need for a bride or a dead person after Shabbat”, even though the performance of these activities is prohibited on Shabbat itself. Hence, if one needs to leave town after Shabbat to take care of the arrangements for a marriage or funeral/burial, one may do so. [Remember Abba Shaul’s rule: anything one can say, one can also go to the Shabbat border to do immediately after Shabbat.] This includes bringing a coffin or shrouds in which to bury the dead. +If a non-Jew brings reed-pipes on Shabbat, one must not bewail an Israelite with them, unless they came from a near place. In mishnaic times it was customary for pipes to be used at a funeral to bewail the dead. If a non-Jew brought them to a Jew for the Jew to use them on Saturday evening, the Jew may not use them because this is benefiting from the work a non-Jew did for a Jew on Shabbat. However, if the pipes came from a near place, within the Shabbat border, the Jew may use them immediately after Shabbat because even if the non-Jew had not brought them, the Jew would have been able to bring them for a funeral right after Shabbat. A Jew is prohibited from benefiting only if the non-Jew does something that the Jew was not allowed to do. +If he made a coffin for himself or dug a grave for himself, an israelite may be buried in it. But if [he made it] for the sake of an Israelite, [the Israelite] may never be buried in it. If a non-Jew made a coffin or dug a grave for non-Jewish use on Shabbat, and then decided to sell the coffin or grave to a Jew, a Jew may use it. This is because the intent was not to do work for a Jew on Shabbat. However, if the non-Jew made the coffin or grave on Shabbat for a specific Jew, that Jew may never be buried in that coffin or grave. This is because the grave or coffin was made in violation of the Shabbat with that Jew in mind. On the other hand, the grave and coffin may be used for another Jew as long as they wait between the end of Shabbat and the burial the time it would take to build a coffin and dig a grave. This waiting period is to avoid deriving benefit from work that a non-Jew did on Shabbat. + +Mishnah 5 + +Introduction +In the previous mishnah we learned that a person may go on Shabbat to the Shabbat border to get a head start on preparations for a funeral after Shabbat. This mishnah deals with things that may be done on Shabbat itself, in order to prepare the body for burial or to preserve it. +The mishnah lists things which may be done for a dead person on Shabbat itself. +One may perform all the needs of the dead:
One may anoint him with oil and wash him, provided that no limb of his is moved. One may anoint the body with oil (done for the purposes of cleansing) and wash the body. However, the body itself may not be moved because it is muktzeh. The reason it is muktzeh is that there is no use for the body on Shabbat, and all things which have no use may not be moved. +One may remove the pillow from under him, and [thereby] place him on sand, in order that he should be better preserved. One may remove the pillow/mattress upon which the dead body lies in order that it should be on the ground. This was considered a better means for preserving the body and preventing deterioration and the accompanying smell. +One may tie up the jaw, not in order that it should close but that it should not further [open]. One may tie the dead body’s jaw so that the mouth does not gape open further than it already is at the point of death. However, it is forbidden to close the jaw because it is forbidden to move even a limb of the body. One may preserve the state that the body is currently in, but not change that state. +And likewise, if a beam is broken, one may support it with a bench or bed posts, not in order that it [the break] should close up, but that it should go [open] no further. This section is loosely connected to that in the previous section. If a beam supporting the ceiling breaks on Shabbat, one may put something beneath it to support it so that it does not break any more. However, one may not put something underneath it so that the break closes up. +One may not close [the eyes of] a corpse on Shabbat, nor on weekdays when he is about to die, and he who closes the eyes [of a dying person] at the point of death is a murderer. If a person dies with his/her eyes open, one may not close the eyes because it is forbidden to move a limb of the body. The mishnah adds that even during the week it is prohibited to close the eyes of a dying person because this may cause death to arrive more speedily. This is indeed a primary source used by halakhic authorities who wish to prohibit euthanasia. One may not do anything to make death come faster. However, we should remember that it is nearly impossible to learn what halakhah has to say on any given topic from one single source, especially one as sensitive and controversial as euthanasia. + +Chapter 24 + + + +Mishnah 1 + +Introduction +This mishnah discusses a person who was traveling on Friday and did not arrive at her destination before Shabbat. +One for whom it becomes dark while on the road, he may give his purse to a non-Jew; And if there is no non-Jew with him, he places it on a donkey. Once it becomes dark the Jew must not carry her purse, since it is prohibited to carry in the public domain. However, she may give the purse to a non-Jew. The rabbis permitted this because if they had been strict a person may be so attached to her possessions that she would herself carry on Shabbat. Since it is less problematic to give the purse to the non-Jew than for the Jew herself to carry, giving it away is preferable. However, we should remember that generally it is forbidden to ask a non-Jew to do work on Shabbat on behalf of a Jew. If there is no non-Jew with her, then she may place the purse on a donkey and allow the donkey to carry it back to the city. However it is preferable to give the purse to the non-Jew because Jews are supposed to let their animals rest on Shabbat as well, but a Jew is not commanded to ensure that the non-Jew rest on Shabbat. +When he reaches the outermost courtyard, he removes the objects which may be handled on Shabbat. As for those which may not be handled on Shabbat, he unties the cords and the sacks fall off automatically. When the traveler who has put her purse (or other goods) on a donkey reaches the outermost courtyard of the city, she may no longer allow them to remain on the donkey, since they have now reached a safe point. Therefore, those objects that she may handle on Shabbat, she must remove and stow them somewhere safe. Those objects that may not be handled, she must undo the straps which attach them to the donkey and they will fall to the ground on their own. We should note that the “city” to which the mishnah refers is one in which everybody knows each other, and therefore people can leave their private belongings in a public area without much fear of their being stolen. This reminds me of the situation in a kibbutz, or perhaps a summer camp, but it is certainly different from the situation in our cities. + +Mishnah 2 + +Introduction +This mishnah teaches how one feeds one’s animals on Shabbat. +One may untie bundles of hay in front of cattle and one may spread out large sheaves, but not small hardened twigs. There are several different explanations for this section, but I will explain according to Albeck’s explanation, which differs from that given in other commentaries. The general principle which we learn in this mishnah is that a person is allowed to do something which turns food which cannot be eaten by the animal into food which can be eaten. Bundles of hay must be untied before they can be eaten, and large sheaves must be spread out before they may be eaten by the animal. However, the small hardened twigs cannot be eaten by the animal even after they are spread out. Hence, one may not untie or spread out a bundle of this type of twigs. +One may not chop up unripe grain or carobs before cattle, whether small or large. Rabbi Judah permits it in the case of carobs for small beasts. Chopping up unripe grain and carobs is a lot of work and animals will eat unripe grain and carobs. Since this work is not necessary and it is not easily performed it is forbidden on Shabbat. Rabbi Judah holds that it is permitted to chop up carobs for small animals (sheep and goats) since they cannot eat the carobs until they are chopped up. It is only forbidden for large animals which can eat unripe grain and carobs without them being chopped up. + +Mishnah 3 + +Introduction +This mishnah continues to deal with feeding animals on Shabbat. +One may not stuff a camel [with food] nor cram [food into its mouth], but one may put food into its mouth. It was customary to stuff a camel with enough food to last several days before setting out on a journey. In this way it wouldn’t be necessary to feed the camel while on the road. [Note: this unfortunately does not work for humans.] Since this is a lot of work, and is also preparing on Shabbat for after Shabbat, it is not permitted. However, if the camel does not want to eat at all, it is permitted to put food into its mouth. +And one may not force feed calves, but one may put food into their mouth. The same rule holds true for calves one may put food into their mouths but not force feed them. +And one may put food into one’s hands for chickens and one may put water into bran, but not mix it [into a mass]. Mixing water into a mass of bran is considered too much work to do on Shabbat, and it is not strictly necessary. The chicken will be fine without the bran/water combination having been mixed. Therefore, mixing is prohibited. However, merely feeding the chickens by hand or putting water into a bowl of bran for them to eat is permitted. +And one may not put water in front of bees or in front of doves in a dove-cote, but one may put [water] in front of geese, chickens and Rhodesian doves. Bees and doves fly long distances and should be able to find their own water. Therefore, since is no need to put water out for them on Shabbat it is prohibited to do so. However, geese, chickens and certain types of doves do not fly far from their owner’s homes and hence one may put water out for them on Shabbat. The general principle which we again see illustrated is that something that is necessary to feed animals on Shabbat is permitted, while unnecessary actions are prohibited. + +Mishnah 4 + +Introduction +This mishnah deals with giving food on Shabbat to animals in cases where the food was not “prepared” for them on the eve of Shabbat. “Prepared” here means that before Shabbat this food was not designated to eventually become animal food. “Prepared” is the opposite of “muktzeh”. +One may cut up gourds in front of beasts, and a carcass in front of dogs. Rabbi Judah says: if it was not carcass by the eve of Shabbat it is forbidden, because it was not prepared. Gourds are normally eaten by human beings and are too expensive to be given to animals. Nevertheless, the mishnah rules that if one has gourds one may cut them up and give them to one’s beasts. The mishnah refers to a carcass of an animal that was alive when Shabbat began and became a carcass on Shabbat itself. In such a case it was certainly not “prepared” before Shabbat to be given as dog food on Shabbat. According to the first opinion, it is nevertheless permitted to give the carcass to the dogs. Rabbi Judah disagrees and holds that the carcass is “muktzeh” and may therefore not be handled at all on Shabbat. + +Mishnah 5 + +Introduction +The final mishnah of Shabbat begins by discussing annulling and releasing vows and continues with a story about measuring things on Shabbat to see if they are pure or impure, fit or not fit. +They may annul vows on Shabbat, and they may be asked [to release vows] when these are necessary for Shabbat. It is permitted for a husband to annul his wife’s vows and for a father to annul his daughter’s vow on Shabbat, since these vows may only be annulled on the day upon which they are heard (Numbers 30: 6, 9). If they had to wait until after Shabbat was over to annul them, the vows could no longer be annulled. Similarly, sages may be asked to release a vow on Shabbat, but only if there is some reason to release the vow on Shabbat itself and not wait until Shabbat is over. Such would be the case if for instance the vow was not to eat on Shabbat. If the vow was not going to impact Shabbat, then they must wait until Shabbat is over. For more on how Sages release vows and how husbands and fathers annul vows see Nedarim 9-11. +One may close up a skylight, and measure a rag and a ritual bath. The issue of closing up a skylight/window was discussed above in 17:7. There we saw that the sages allowed one to put a board back into a window frame to close out the light. One is allowed to measure a rag on Shabbat to see if it is three handbreadths by three handbreadths, the minimum measurement required for it to be susceptible to impurity. It is also permissible to measure a ritual bath to see if it contains the required 40 seah of water. These two measurements are allowed because they are connected to mitzvot. Other measurements would be forbidden. +And it once happened in the days of Rabbi Zadok’s father and the days of Abba Shaul ben Botnit that they closed up the window with a small clay vessel and tied a [clay] pot to a string to ascertain whether there was the opening of a handbreadth or not in the barrel. And from their words we learn that we may close [a skylight] and measure and tie on Shabbat. The Talmud explains what exactly happened in this story. There were two houses which shared a wall and there was a window in the wall. In the window was a cracked barrel with a large hole in it. On a certain Shabbat a person died in one of the houses and they wanted to know if there was a handbreadth’s gap in the pitcher, such that the impurity from one house would be transmitted to the other house. First they closed up the skylight with a small clay vessel so that the priests could go up to the roof without becoming impure. They then wanted to measure the crack in the barrel but couldn’t reach it from the roof. So they tied an earthenware pot the size of one handbreadth by one handbreadth to a string and lowered it to the hole of the barrel. From these actions (which were certainly creative) we learn that it is permitted to close up a gap, to measure things to know whether they are impure and to make certain types of knots on Shabbat. Congratulations! We have finished Shabbat. It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Shabbat was the longest tractate we have covered so far, so an extra “yasher koah” to all who stuck it through. Admittedly, many of the details were quite difficult and the halakhot truly dictated exactly what is and is not permitted on Shabbat. I hope that learning this tractate will enrich your own Shabbat experience, and that you will find in the details of halakhah a system which forces a person to examine each and everyone one of her actions and to withdraw somewhat from the hustle bustle of the world for one day a week. Shabbat is a day dedicated to holy activities, worship of God, study, reflection, eating and drinking and non-creativity. The halakhot of Shabbat are meant to ensure that these lofty ideals can be achieved. May you have the strength and time to keep on learning more Mishnah! Tomorrow we begin Eruvin, a tractate which is actually quite connected to Shabbat. \ No newline at end of file