Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 2, scan section 19

gled in the hood, the woman may tie and untie the bands. The straps of her shoes and sandals,'' etc. R. Jehudah, the brother of R. Sala the Pious, had a pair of sandals, which were sometimes worn by him and sometimes by his child. He came to Abayi and asked him whether he might tie and untie them (on Sabbath). Said Abayi: " He who does this uninten- tionally becomes liable for a sin-offering." Said R. Jehudah to him: " If thou hadst said, that one is not culpable for doing this, but that it must not be done to commence with, it would seem strange to me ; thou sayest now, that one is liable for a sin- offering." Asked Abayi: "Why so?" Answered R. Jehu- dah: " Because on week-days I sometimes also wear the sandals, and (if my child wishes to use them) I untie them and adjust them to the child's foot." Answered Abayi: " If such be the case, they may be tied or untied (on the Sabbath) to commence with." 232 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. R. Jeremiah was walking behind R. Abuha on unclaimed ground, and the band of his sandal having been torn off, he asked R. Abuha what to do, R. Abuha told him to take damp seaweeds, which an animal can eat (and which may therefore be handled on Sabbath), and tie his sandal. Abayi stood before R. Joseph in private ground, and the band of one of his sandals becoming torn off, he asked R. Joseph what to do. Said R. Joseph: " Leave thy sandal here and walk without it." Asked Abayi: " Wherein does my case differ from that of R. Jeremiah ?" Answered R. Joseph: " R. Jeremiah's sandal was torn off in unclaimed ground, where, had he left it, it would have been lost, but thine is in my yard and will be safe." Said Abayi: "But the sandal is a perfect vessel; for I can put it on my other foot and then it will not fall off. Why should I not be permitted to handle it?" R. Joseph answered: "Because we learned elsewhere in regard to Cha- Htzah that R. Johanan interpreted a Boraitha in accordance with R. Jehudah, who says, that if the band of a sandal was torn off, the sandal cannot be regarded as a vessel. We must assume, therefore, that the ordinance according to R. Jehudah prevails." ' ' Also the bands of leather fiasks filled with oil or wine, ' ' etc. Is this not self-evident ? The case treated of is where the flasks had two mouths, and lest we assume that only one of them may be tied and untied, he informs us that both may be tied. ''And of a pot of meat.'' Is this not self-evident ? The Mishna means to state, that even if the pot have an opening at the bottom it might be assumed that the knot tied around the mouth of the pot is permanent and should not be untied. We are informed that it may be untied, nevertheless. " R. Eliezer, the son of Jacob, said,'' etc. Is this not self-evi- dent ? The case treated of is where there were two ropes, one tied higher up and the other lower. We might assume, that because the lower one is tied permanently one may not untie it ; therefore he informs us that both may be tied and untied. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: " The Halakha pre- vails according to R. Eliezer ben Jacob." ' ' One may tie a bucket with his girdle, but not with a rope, etc. What kind of a rope is not permitted ? Is it an ordinary rope? Why does R. Jehudah permit it ? It remains permanently tied ? Shall we assume that it refers to the rope of a weaver ? Why is it not permitted ? It will surely be removed, because the weaver will need it ? Or is it prohibited simply as a precau- TRACT SABBATH. 233 tionary measure, lest some one tie the bucket with an ordinary rope, and R. Jehudah does not entertain this apprehension ? Then it is contradictory to the following Boraitha: " A rope fas- tened to a bucket which became torn, should not be tied into a firm knot, but simply tied into a loop." R. Jehudah says: " It should be joined together with the owner's girdle, but it must not be tied into a loop." This would be a case of where both the rabbis and R. Jehudah contradict themselves. There is no contradiction at all. As for the rabbis, they hold, that an ordi- nary rope may be mistaken for the rope of a weaver, because both are called ropes, but a loop cannot be mistaken for a knot, because they have different names. As for R. Jehudah, he pro- hibits a loop to be made, not because he holds that a loop may be mistaken for a knot, but because the loop in this case is equal to a knot. R. Aba in the name of R. Hyya b. Ashi, quoting Rabh, said: " One may bring a rope from his house and can tie it to the cow, and then fasten it to the crib." R. Johanan asked of R. Jehudah bar Levayi : " May weaving utensils, either upper or lower, be handled on the Sabbath ?" Answered R. Jehudah: " Nay; they may not." " Why so ?" " Because on week-days they are also never used for any other purpose (being too heavy) ; hence they are always used for weaving alone (and therefore must not be handled on Sabbath)." MISHNA: One may fold his clothes (just removed) even four or five times (on the Sabbath). On the eve of Sabbath one may prepare his beds for use on the Sabbath, but not at the close of Sabbath for use after the Sabbath is gone. R. Ishmael says: " One may arrange his clothes and prepare his beds on the Day of Atonement for the Sabbath ; further, the sacrificial tal- low left over from the Sabbath may be offered up on the Day of Atonement (if the two succeed one another, before the Jewish calendar was arranged) ; but not such as is left over from the Day of Atonement on the Sabbath." R. Aqiba said : " Neither that (tallow) left over from the Sabbath may be offered up on the Day of Atonement, nor that of the Day of Atonement on the Sabbath." GEMARA : The school of R. Yanai said : The Mishna only permits the folding of clothes by one man, but not by two, and also only in case the clothes are new, but not if they are old (because old clothes are better preserved by folding). New clothes must only be folded if they are white clothes, but not if 234 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. they are colored. White clothes may be folded only if they constitute all the garments possessed by the man ; but if he had others, he must not fold even those, as we have learned in a Tosephta: " The family of R. Gamaliel did not even fold white clothes, because they had others for a change." R. Huna said: " If one have a change of clothes for the Sabbath, he should change them ; if not, he should at least let them down. " * R. Saphra opposed this:" If one let down his garments, he will be considered as a vain man." If he does this only on the Sabbath and not on week-days, he will not be considered vain but simply as one desirous of keeping the Sab- bath with due respect, as it is written [Isaiah Iviii. 13]: " And