Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 2, scan section 29

cient for three meals, while the last part of the Mishna refers to clothing; and as a man can change his clothing as often as he pleases, he may call to others to come and help him save what- ever is possible. ' ' One may put on as many clothes as possible. " The rabbis taught : One may dress himself, go out and undress, come back and dress again, and so on as often as he chooses. So said R. Meir. R. Jose, however, said, that one may put on only eigh- teen pieces of ordinary apparel. These were: i and 2. Macturen and Unqly, a mantle with a head-hold; 3. Ftmda, pocket for money; 4. Kalbus, a dress without sleeves; 5. Chaluk, a kind of shirt ; 6. Apiliute, cover or overcoat ; 7. MaoparetJi ; 8 and 9. Drawers and pantaloons and cap for the head; 10 and 11. Shoes; 12 and 13. Socks; 14 and 15. Pargud, striped suit; 16. Girdle; 17. Hat; 18. Neckties. MISHNA: R. Simeon, the son of Nanas, says: " One may spread a goat-skin over a chest, a box, or a cupboard, which has caught fire, so that they only become singed. One may also form a partition with any utensil (or vessel), be it full of water TRACT SABBATH. 259 or not, in order to keep the fire from spreading. R. Jose for- bids the making of such a partition with new earthenware vessels filled with water, because such vessels cannot stand heat, but burst and extinguish the fire." GEMARA: R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: " When one side of a garment has caught fire, the other side may be put in water, and if thereby the fire is extinguished it makes no difference." An objection was made : We have learned in a To- sephta, that if a garment has caught fire one may wrap it around him, and it makes no difference if the fire is thereby extin- guished. One may also unroll the Sacred Scrolls, if the covering has caught fire on one side, and it does not matter if thus the fire is quenched. (This Tosephta then simply permits the un- folding or the folding of a garment that has caught fire, but says nothing about soaking the undamaged part in water.) Rabh holds with R. Simeon, the son of Nanas, in the above Mishna (who permits the prevention of the fire). R. Simeon, however, restricts his permission so that, while preventing the fire, it is not extinguished, but simply singes the objects (when the article, however, is soaked in water the fire will certainly be quenched, and did R. Simeon permit this also ?) Yea, he did ; for the last part of the Mishna relates, that R. Jose forbids the making of a partition with new pottery filled with water, because such vessels are liable to burst and extinguish the fire; and if R. Jose forbids this, surely R. Simeon (the first Tana) must have permitted it in the first part of the Mishna. The rabbis taught: If a candle fall on the table, the table board may be raised and the candle dropped to the floor, and if it become extinguished, it matters not. Another Boraitha taught, that if a candle burn behind a door, the door may be opened and closed as usual, regardless of whether the candle is thus extinguished. Rabh scolded the one that thus decreed. Said Rabhina to R. A'ha the son of Rabha, according to others R. A'ha the son of Rabha to R. Ashi: " Why did Rabh scold the one who made that decree ? Shall we say that it was because he holds with R. Jehudah (who says that an indirect act is also prohibited), and the Boraitha holds with R. Simeon, who permits the performance of an indirect act ; is it possible that Rabh will scold every one who holds with R. Simeon ?" He answered: " In this matter R. Simeon would also agree that this is prohibited, as it would be like decapitating a man without killing him." 26o THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. R. Jehudah said: " One may open a door opposite a hearth- fire." Abayi scolded the one that decreed thus. Of what cir- cumstances do we treat here ? If the door is opened when there is an ordinary wind blowing, what reason had the one to pro- hibit it ; and if there be an extraordinary wind blowing, why did the other permit it ? The case here treated of is that of an ordinary wind, and the one prohibits the door being opened as a precautionary measure, lest this be done when a high wind is blowing, while the other does not regard a precautionary meas- ure necessary. " One may also form a partition,'' etc. Shall we say that the rabbis hold the indirect bringing about of an extinction to be per- missible and R. Jose holds to the contrary? Have we not heard the case to be the reverse? We have learned in a Boraitha: One may make a partition with empty vessels, and with vessels filled with water that are not liable to burst, and such are iron vessels. R. Jose, however, says, that the vessels made of pot- tery in the villages of Shihin and Hananiah are also proof against bursting. Thus we see that R. Jose is even more lenient than the rabbis ? This presents no dif^culty, for the above Boraitha is altogether in accordance with R. Jose; but it is incomplete, and should read thus: " One may make a partition with empty vessels, and with such as are filled with water but are not liable to burst ; and such vessels are iron vessels and vessels made of pottery in the villages of Shihin and Hananiah," as R. Jose says that the vessels made of pottery in these villages are proof against heat. MISHNA: If a non-Israelite comes near to extinguish (the fire), one must neither say to him: " Extinguish (it)," nor " Do not extinguish it," and for the reason, that one is not obliged to make him rest (on Sabbath). If a minor, however, desires to extinguish the fire, one must not allow him to do so, because one is obliged to see that he (the minor) rests (on Sabbath). GEMARA : R. Ami said: " During a conflagration one may proclaim : ' Whoever will come and extinguish the fire, will lose nothing by it.' " The rabbis taught : It happened that a fire broke out in the court of Joseph ben Simai in the town of Shihin, and the men of the fortress of Sepphoris came to extinguish the fire, because Joseph was an ofificial of the government ; but he would not allow them to do so, in honor of the Sabbath. A miracle occurred, and it commenced to rain, and the fire was extinguished. That TRACT SABBATH. 261 evening he sent to each man in the fortress two selah and to their officer fifty selah. When the sages heard this, they said : " It was not at all necessary to do this, because the Mishna says, that when a Gentile comes to extinguish a fire on Sabbath, one need not tell him to do it, or not to do it." '' If a minor, however, desires to extinguish the fire, " etc. Could we conclude from this, that if a minor is detected eating forbidden food it is the duty of the court of justice to prevent his doing so (and we know such is not the case) ? Said R.