Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 1, scan section 40

for some purpose, therefore the pot was allowed to be handled), although there were some broken sticks of wood upon it. The schoolmen raised the following objection: R. Simeon and R. Jehudah agree that if there are broken pieces of wick in a lamp, it is prohibited to handle the lamp. Said Abayi: " This was taught in Galilea " (Galilea is a state where linen cloth is scarce, for which reason the broken pieces of wick are valuable, and the lamp, being the receptacle of prohibited valuables, is not permitted to be handled on the Sabbath). Levi, the son of Samuel, met R. Abba and R. Huna the son of Hyya standing at the entrance of R. Huna's house; and Levi questioned: "Is it allowed to fold the beds of travelling coppersmiths on a Sabbath?" They answered: "Yea." In allowing this the two rabbis held with (the opinion of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel in a) following Boraitha: It is not permitted to put together a bed which has been taken apart; but if one did so, he is not culpable. One must not fasten the bed with pegs, but if he did so he only lays himself liable to bring a sin-offer- ing. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, said: " If the bed was loose it may be fastened." R. Hama had a folding-bed in his house. He put it together on a biblical feast day, and one of the young rabbis questioned Rabha: " What reason is to be found for this act ? Is it because of indirect building; granted that there is no biblical prohibition to this effect, there surely is a rabbinical ? " Answered Rabha: " I think that the reason is the decision of R. Simeon b. Gama- liel (with whom I agree) that it is permissible to put a bed together if the bed is loose." MISHNA IX. : One may put a vessel underneath a lamp for the purpose of receiving the sparks falling from the lamp, but he shall ^.ot put water into the vessel, because thereby the sparks would become extinguished. VOL. I. — 6 82 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. GEMARA: Would this act not render the vessel useless? Said R. Huna the son of R. Jehoshua: "The vessel is not made useless, because sparks do not amount to anything." " He shall not put any water into it,'' etc. Shall we assume that this anonymous Mishna is in accordance with R. Jose, who said that it is prohibited even to cause light to be extinguished ? How can you explain this in this way ? R. Jose spoke of the Sabbath itself; have you heard him saying so about the eve of Sabbath ? And should you say that here is also meant on Sab- bath itself, there is a Boraitha which states plainly: A vessel may be put under the lamp to receive sparks on Sabbath, and so much the more on the eve of Sabbath ; but water must not be put in, even on the eve of Sabbath, and much less on the Sabbath itself. Therefore said R. Ashi : " It may be said that it is in accordance even with the rabbis, who do not mind the causing of light to be extinguished through indirect means on the Sabbath. In this case, however, the sparks are extinguished (through direct means, i.e.^ by placing water underneath the lamp." CHAPTER IV. REGULATIONS CONCERNING VICTUALS, WHERE THEY MAY OR MAY NOT BE DEPOSITED TO RETAIN THEIR HEAT FOR THE SABBATH. MISHNA /. : Wherein may hot vessels be deposited (to retain the heat) and wherein may they not ? Depositing in Gepheth (olive waste), dung, salt, lime, and sand, either wet or dry, is not allowed. In straw, grape-skins, wool-flocks, or grass it is permitted, provided they are dry, but not when they are still wet. GEMARA : A question was propounded : " Is the use of olive waste only prohibited, but the use of the oil-cakes allowed ; or does the Mishna allude to oil-cakes and still more so to olive waste (for it produces more heat)?" For the purpose of de- positing in, both kinds are not allowed ; (but if the victuals have been deposited in a permissible thing and were subsequently placed on oil-cakes no wrong was done, because) oil-cake does not produce heat ; olive waste produces heat, Rabba and R. Zera once met at the Exilarch's house; they saw there a servant putting a can (with warm water) on top of a kettle (containing cold water), and Rabba rebuked him. Said R. Zera to him : " In what particular does this case differ from that of putting one pan on top of another ? " Answered Rabba: " Here heat is produced, but there it is only preserved." An- other time they saw (the servant) spreading a turban over a pitcher and putting a cup on top of it. Again Rabba rebuked him. R. Zera asked for the reason, and Rabba answered: " You will soon see him wringing* the turban," which he did. R. Zera again asked : " In what particular does this case differ from that of a spread cloth ? " Answered Rabba: " Here he is particular (lest it become wet and he will wring it), while there he is not." " In straw.'' R. Adda b. Masna questioned Abayi : " May wool-flocks, in which (victuals) were deposited, be handled on Sabbath?" Abayi answered: "Because of a lack of straw, * Wringing (in Hebrew, Se'hitah) is prohibited on the Sabbath. 84 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD, would a man sacrifice a valuable lot of wool-flock ? " (When placing victuals in straw no intention to make further use of the straw exists, and it becomes part of the pot itself; with wool- flocks the case is different, for they are intended for further use and therefore must not be handled on Sabbath.) R. Hisda permitted the replacing of waste (fallen out) of a pillow on Sabbath. R. Hanan b. Hisda objected to him from the following: " Untying the opening (for the neck) of a shirt is permitted on Sabbath, but cutting it is prohibited, and waste must not be placed into a pillow or bolster on a biblical feast day, much less on a Sabbath." This presents no difficulty. Placing new waste in a pillow- case is not allowed, but replacing old waste is allowed. And so also we have learned plainly in a Boraitha, that when they fall out they may be replaced even on Sabbath, and much the more on a feast day. R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh said: " Whosoever makes an opening (for the neck in an unfinished shirt) on Sabbath is liable to a sin-ofTering. " R. Kahana opposed, saying: What is the difference between an opening for the neck and a bunghead (in a barrel) ? Rabha answered: A bunghead is not attached to the barrel {i.e., it forms no part of it), but an opening for the neck is made by an incision in the shirt, and hence is part and parcel of same. In Sura the following doctrine was taught in the name of R. Hisda, and in Pumbeditha the same was taught in the name of R. Kahana or Rabha: " Who was the Tana in whose name the sages taught that the part and parcel of a thing is on a par with the thing itself?" Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: " It is R. Meir (of the Mishna, Kelim, VIII.) who holds that the