Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 1, scan section 26

trudes from the lamp. Now R. Eliezer holds that the rolling up (of the piece of cloth) does not improve the positicA {i.e., it is still an object to which the term " cloth " or vessel applies); as soon as it is slightly burned it becomes spoiled material; fire, being applied further, is naturally generated with spoiled mate- rial (which is prohibited). R. Aqiba, on the other hand, holds that folding does improve the condition and the cloth is no longer a vessel ; hence he puts fire to a simple piece of wood (which is allowed). Rabha, however, said: The reason of R. Eliezer's (pro- hibition) is that the Sabbath lamp is not allowed to be lighted with a wick or rag that has not been singed. R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh said: Fire may be made (on a feast day) with vessels, but not with broken vessels. So is the decree of R. Jehudah. R. Simeon permits it. Fire may be made with dates, but after having eaten them fire is not to be fed with their granum. A fire may be made with nuts, but after having eaten the kernel one must not feed the fire with the shells, according to R. Jehudah; R. Simeon, however, permits both. The statement credited to Rabh in the foregoing paragraph was not made by him plainly, but was merely implied from the following act. While in Palestine, one day Rabh was eating dates and threw the pits into the fireplace, upon which R. Hyya said to him: " Descendant of nobles, on a (biblical) feast day this would be prohibited ! " Did Rabh accept this or not ? Come and hear. While in Babylonia, one feast day Rabh was eating dates and threw the pits to some cattle (for food). Must we not assume that these dates belonged to the class known as " Parsiassa " (a ripe, delicious, free-stone fruit), and if Rabh fed cattle with the pits of this fruit, it was because 44 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. they may be used for fuel also, and thus the statement of R. Hyya is contradicted ? Nay; it may be the pits that fed the cattle by Rabh were from dates known as " Armiassa " (an inferior fruit, the pits of which cling to the meat). The pits of this latter class of dates, in consequence of the meat still clinging to them, are regarded as dates themselves, and may be handled on the Sabbath. Hence it is obvious that they may also be fed to cattle, and Rabh therefore does not contradict R. Hyya. MISHNA v.: One shall not bore a hole in an egg-shell, fill it with oil, and put it upon the (Sabbath) lamp, so that the oil drip into it; and even if it was a clay one. R. Jehudah permits it. If, however, the potter had attached it to the lamp when he made it, it is allowed to do this, for (together with the lamp) it forms one vessel. A man shall not fill a dish with oil, put it beside the lamp, and dip the (unlighted) end of the wick into it, in order that it should draw. R. Jehudah permits also this. GEMARA: " If the potter had attached it,'' etc. A Bo- raitha in addition to it states: If he himself has attached it with mortar or clay, it is allowed. Does not our Mishna say " the potter " (from which it may be inferred that if the owner did it, is it not allowed for use) ? Nay; " the potter" means in the manner of the potter. We have learned in a Boraitha, R. Jehudah said: " Once we kept Sabbath in the attic of Beth Nitza in Lydda. We pro- cured an egg-shell, filled it with oil, and placed it on the lamp. R. Tarphon and the aged scholars were there, and they made no objection to our action." They answered him : " Wilt thou prove by this (that this is allowed) ? Beth Nitza is quite a dif- ferent case, for the men there were very careful." Abhin of Ziphoris dragged a chair (along the floor on a Sab- bath) in the marble hall in the presence of R. Itz'hak b. Elazar. Said the latter: " If I should be silent toward thee (although this floor being marble, no depression can be made by the chair, and thou art not guilty of wrongdoing) as the colleagues were silent toward R. Jehudah, my silence might be misconstrued (and people might think that this can be done on any floor; therefore I say that) this is prohibited in the marble hall as a precautionary measure, lest one do it in any other hall." The head man of the assembly room of Bazra dragged a chair in the presence of Jeremiah the Great. Said the latter to him: " Ac- cording to whose decision dost thou this ? " " According to R. TRACT SABBATH. 45 Simeon." " R. Simeon, however, allowed large things only (to be dragged) if they could not be lifted ; but we have never heard from him that he would allow this also with small ones ? " This teaching, however, differs with Ulla's theory, who says the dispute was only concerning small things, for as to large ones there was no objection from any one. MISHNA VI. : If one extinguishes a lamp because he is afraid of the officers of the government,* or of robbers, or of an evil spirit, t or in order that a sick person may be able to sleep, he is free. If he does this, however, to prevent damage to the lamp, or to save the oil or the wick, he is culpable. R. Jose declares the man free even in the latter cases, excepting (if he extinguished the lamp to save the wick), for in that case he caused a cinder to be formed. GEMARA : From the fact that the second part of the Mishna declares the man (who had extinguished the lamp to prevent damage, etc.) culpable, it is evident that this regulation was made by R. Jehudah.:j; Now, how is the first part to be under- stood ? If it speaks of a sick person, whose illness is danger- ous, it should not say (that the man who extinguishes the lamp to afford him rest) is " free," but should say that he is " allowed to do it " (even intentionally). And if it speaks of one whose illness is not dangerous, (the one who extinguished the lamp for him) ought to be declared in duty bound to bring a sin-offering ? Of a verity, the Tana speaks of a case of dangerous illness, and should have said " it is allowed to do so," but he used the term " free " merely (for the sake of euphony), because in the latter part (of the Mishna) the expression " culpable " was necessary; therefore he taught in the first part of the Mishna, also free. But have we not learned, R. Oshia said, that " in order that a sick person may be able to sleep, one should not extinguish (the lamp on the Sabbath); and if he did so he is not held cul- pable, though it is not allowed (to be done intentionally)" ? The teaching of R. Oshia refers to sickness that is not danger- ous, and is in accord with the opinion of R. Simeon. The question, " Is it allowed to extinguish a lamp for the * Like the Persians, says Rashi, who had certain nights on which they allowed no lights to burn anywhere but in their sacred shrines.