TALMUD-MOED-SHABAT-9

8/17/2019 TALMUD-MOED-SHABAT-9

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/talmud-moed-shabat-9 1/7

Previous Folio / Shabbath Contents / Tractate List

Babylonian Talmud:

Tractate ShabbathFolio 82a

seeing that you do not cleanse yourselves with a shard,1

nor kill vermin on your garments, and you do not pull out

and eat a vegetable from a bunch which the gardener has

tied together’?2

R. Huna said to his son Rabbah, ’Why are you not to befound before R. Hisda, whose dicta are [so] keen?’ ’What

should I go to him for,’ answered he, ’seeing that when I go

to him he treats me to secular discourses!’3 [Thus] he tells

me, when one enters a privy, he must not sit down abruptly,

nor force himself overmuch, because the rectum rests on

three teeth-like glands, [and] these teeth-like glands of the

rectum, might become dislocated and he [his health] is

endangered. ’He treats of health matters,’4 he exclaimed,’and you call them secular discourses! All the more reason

for going to him!’

If a pebble and a shard lie before one, — R. Huna said: He

must cleanse himself with the pebble, but not with the

shard;5 but R. Hisda ruled: He must cleanse himself with

the shard, and not with the pebble.6 An objection is raised:

If a pebble and a shard lie before one, he must cleanse

himself with the shard, not with the pebble this refutes R.

Huna? — Rafram b. Papa interpreted it before R. Hisda on

R. Huna’s view as referring to the rims of utensils.7

If a pebble and grass lie before one, — R. Hisda and R.

Hamnuna [differ therein]: one maintains: He must cleanse

himself with the pebble, but not with the grass;8 whilst the

other ruled: He must cleanse himself with the grass, not

with the pebble.9

An objection is raised: If one cleanseshimself with inflammable material,10 his lower teeth11 will

be torn away? — There is no difficulty: the one refers to

wet [grass];12 the other to dry [grass].

ylonian Talmud: Shabbath 82 http://halakhah.com/shabbath/shabbath_82.html#chapter_ix

7 28/04/2016 16:56



If one has a call of nature but does not obey it — R. Hisda

and Rabina — one said: He has an attack of offensive

odour;13 the other said: He is infected by an offensive

smell.14 It was taught in accordance with the view that he

is infected by an offensive smell. For it was taught: One

who has a call of nature yet eats, is like an oven which is

heated up on top of its ashes, and that is the beginning of

perspiration odour.15

If one has a call of nature but cannot obey it, — R. Hisda

said: He should repeatedly stand up and sit down; R. Hanan

of Nehardea said: Let him move to [different] sides; R.

Hamnuna said: Let him work about that place with a

pebble; while the Rabbis advise: Let him not think: Said R.

Aha son of Raba to R. Ashi: If he does not think [of it], heis all the more likely not to be moved? Let him not think of

other things, replied he.16 R. Jeremiah of Difti observed: I

myself saw a certain Arab repeatedly arise and sit down

until he poured forth like a cruse.

Our Rabbis taught: If one enters [a house] to [partake of] a

complete meal,17 he should [first] walk ten four-cubit

lengths others say, four ten-cubit lengths — be moved, then

enter and take his seat.

MISHNAH . [IF ONE CARRIES OUT] A SHARD, [THE

STANDARD IS] AS MUCH AS IS NEEDED FOR

PLACING BETWEEN ONE BOARD AND

ANOTHER:18 THIS IS R. JUDAH’S VIEW. R. MEIR

SAID: LARGE ENOUGH TO SCRAPE OUT THE FIRE

THEREWITH; R. JOSE SAID: LARGE ENOUGH TO

CONTAIN A REBI’ITH. R. MEIR OBSERVED:

THOUGH THERE IS NO PROOF OF THE MATTER,

YET THERE IS A HINT: SO THAT THERE SHALL NOT

BE FOUND AMONG THE PIECES THEREOF A

SHARD TO TAKE FIRE FROM THE HEARTH.19 SAID

R. JOSE TO HIM, THENCE IS PROOF [OF MY VIEW,

VIZ.]: OR TO TAKE WATER WITHAL OUT OF THE

CISTERN.20

GEMARA. (The Scholars asked: Is R. Meir’s standardgreater or R. Jose’s standard greater?)21 Logically, R. Jose’s

standard is greater, whereas the verse [quoted indicates

that] R. Meir’s standard is greater, for should you think that


7 28/04/2016 16:56



R. Jose’s standard is greater, does he [the prophet] [first]

curse in respect to a small vessel, and then curse in respect

to a large one!22 — Said Abaye: Our Mishnah too [means]

to scrape out a fire from a large hearth.23

SAID R. JOSE TO HIM, THENCE IS PROOF. But R. Jose

says well to R. Meir! — R. Meir maintains that he proceedsto a climax: Not only will nothing that is of value to people

be found therein, but even that which is of no value to

people shall not be found therein.

CHAPTER IX

MISHNAH . R. AKIBA SAID: WHENCE DO WE KNOW

THAT AN IDOL DEFILES BY CARRIAGE LIKE A NIDDAH ?24 BECAUSE IT IS SAID, THOU SHALT

CAST THEM [SC. THE IDOLS] AWAY AS A

MENSTRUOUS THING; THOU SHALT SAY UNTO IT,

GET THEE HENCE:25 JUST AS A NIDDAH DEFILES

BY CARRIAGE, SO DOES AN IDOL DEFILE BY

CARRIAGE.26

GEMARA

. We learnt elsewhere:

27

If one’s house adjoinsan idol,28 and it collapses, he must not rebuild it.29 What

shall he do? He must retreat four cubits within his own

[ground] and rebuild.

To Part b

Original footnotes renumbered.

And are thus not exposed to witchcraft — this remark gives the

point of the story.

1.

But you first untie the bunch.2.

I.e., not on Torah.3.

Lit., ’the life (health) of the creatures.4.

Though the first is not a utensil (v. p. 389. n. 1), because the

latter is dangerous.

5.

Because the former is technically a utensil.6.

Which are rounded and smooth; hence they are not dangerous.7.

Because it injures the flesh (Rashi). Or the reference is to

attached (growing) grass, and one must not make use on the

Sabbath of that which is attached to the soil.

8.

He ignores the prohibition mentioned in the last note, and holds

grass to be preferable, because a pebble is not a utensil and may

normally not be handled on the Sabbath.

9.


7 28/04/2016 16:56



Lit., ’over which the fire rules’.10.

I.e., the teeth-like glands supporting the rectum.11.

This is permissible.12.

From his mouth.13.

From the whole body.14.

Which affects the whole body.15.

But concentrate on this.16.

Lit., ’a fixed meal’ as opposed to a mere snack, so that he willhave to sit some time there.

17.

When they are piled up. Rashi: the boards are not allowed to

touch, but are separated by shards to prevent them from

warping. ’Aruk: to enable the air to enter and dry them.

18.

Isa. XXX. 14.19.

Ibid. The least quantity of water to be counted is a rebi’ith; v.

first Mishnah of this chapter.

20.

Rashal and BaH delete this bracketed passage.21.

This is raised as a difficulty. Generally speaking, only a verysmall shard is required for scraping out a fire from a stove,

certainly not one large enough to contain a rebi’ith. On the other

hand, the prophet would not curse by first observing that not

even a small shard will remain, and then add that a large shard

will not remain either.

22.

Which requires a larger shard.23.

If one carries a niddah (q.v. Glos.), even without actually

touching her, he becomes unclean, and R. Akiba teaches that the

same applies to an idol.

24.

Isa. XXX, 22.25.Rashi: This Mishnah is quoted here because of its similarity in

style to a later Mishnah concerning circumcision on the Sabbath

(infra 86a). R. Han. and Tosaf.: Since the last Mishnah of the

preceding chapter quotes a law which is supported by, though

not actually deduced from, a Biblical verse, this chapter

commences similarly. Both verses quoted are from Isa. XXX.

26.

V. A.Z. 47b.27.

So that its wall is also the wall of the heathen temple, though

actually it belongs entirely to him.

28.

Since he thereby builds a wall for the temple too.29.

Tractate List

Shabbath 82b

If it belongs to him and to the idol, it is judged as half and

half.1 The stones, timber and earth thereof defile like a

[dead] creeping thing [sherez], for it is said, Thou shalt

treat a creeping thing.2 R. Akiba said: [They defile] like a

niddah, because it is said, ’Thou shalt cast them away


7 28/04/2016 16:56



[tizrem] as a menstruous thing’: just as a niddah defiles by

carriage, so does an idol defile by carriage. Rabbah

observed, Tizrem, mentioned in the verse, means ’thou shalt

alienate them from thee as a zar [stranger].’ ’Thou shalt say

unto it, Get thee hence’, but thou shalt not say unto it, Enter

hither.3

Rabbah also observed: As for carriage, all agree that it

defiles thereby, since it is assimilated to niddah. They differ

in respect to a stone that closes a cavity:4 R. Akiba holds,

It is like a niddah: just as a niddah defiles through a cavity-

closing stone, so does an idol defile through a cavity-

closing stone; while the Rabbis maintain, It is like a

creeping thing [sherez]: just as a sherez does not defile

through a cavity-closing stone, so does an idol not defilethrough a cavity-closing stone.

Now, according to R. Akiba, in respect of which law is it

likened to a sherez?5 — In respect of its service utensils.6

And according to the Rabbis, in respect of which law is it

likened to niddah? — In respect of carriage. Then let it be

likened to nebelah?7 That indeed is so, but [the analogy

with niddah teaches:] just as a niddah is not [a source of

contamination] through her [separate] limbs,8 So is an idolnot [a source of contamination] through its limbs. Then

when R. Hama b. Guria asked: ’Does the law of an idol

operate in respect of its limbs or not?’-solve it for him from

this that according to the Rabbis it does not operate in

respect of its limbs? — R. Hama b. Guria asked it on R.

Akiba’s view.

But R. Eleazar maintained: In respect of a cavity-closing

stone all agree that it does not defile thereby, since it is

likened to a sherez,9 they differ only in respect of carriage.

R. Akiba holds, It is like a niddah: just as a niddah defiles

through carriage, so does an idol defile through carriage.

While the Rabbis argue. It is like a sherez: just as a sherez

does not defile through carriage, so does an idol not defile

through carriage. Now, according to R. Akiba, in respect of

what law is it likened to a sherez? — In respect of its

service utensils. And according to the Rabbis’, in respect of what law is it likened to a niddah? — Just as a niddah is

not [a source of contamination] through her [separate]

limbs, so is an idol not [a source of contamination] through


7 28/04/2016 16:56



its limbs.

- To Next Folio -

Original footnotes renumbered.

E.g., if the wall is two cubits thick, one cubit only is accounted

as his portion, and be must retreat another three cubits.

1.

Deut. VIII, 26. Shakkez teshakkezenu fr. shekez, something

loathsome, which is connected with sherez (E.V.: thou shalt

utterly detest it). A sherez defiles by its touch, but not when it is

merely carried; but v. discussion infra.

2.

I.e., one must absolutely reject it (Tosaf. s.v.[H]).3.

Rashi: a stone resting upon laths, and under it lie utensils.

Tosaf.: a stone so heavy that when a niddah sits upon it her

additional weight makes no difference to the utensils upon

which it rests. According to both definitions, the question is

whether these utensils are defiled when an idol is placed uponthe stone.

4.

As it is in the verse, v.p. 393, n. 8.5.

The utensils used in an idol’s service do not defile through

carriage or through a cavity-closing stone.

6.

V. Glos. This analogy would give the exact law, whereas the

analogy with niddah has to be qualified by a further analogy

with sherez.

7.

If a limb e.g., an arm, is cut off from a niddah, it defiles as the

severed limb of a living human being in general, but not as

niddah. The practical difference is that it does not defile through

a cavity-closing stone.

8.

This is the text as emended by Rashal.9.

Tractate List


7 28/04/2016 16:56




Documents

TALMUD-MOED-SHABAT-9