Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 2, scan section 4

present." To repent one day before death means to repent every day, lest the morrow bring death. " At all times let thy garments be white," and the parable connected with it 353-362 SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS. xlvii CHAPTER XXIV. MiSHNA I. Concerning one who was overtaken by dusk en the eve of Sabbath while on the road. The Sabbath rest must be kept inviolate as far as one's animal is concerned, but one is not responsible for the Sabbath rest of a Gentile. An additional statement concerning the Sabbath rest, which the sages would not reveal. On the day the eighteen precautionary ordi- nances were instituted, according to the opinion of some, the measure of laws was made heaping full, while, according to others, it was not filled enough. The examples connected with this statement. Why R. Gamaliel allowed his ass to drop dead under a load 363-367 MiSHNAS II., III., and IV. Concerning the untieing of straw for cattle. Concerning the cramming of camels, calves, poultry, and doves. Kneading on Sabbath. The fate of those born on the different days of the week, accord- ing to the diary of R. Jehoshua ben Levi. The seven planets guiding the destiny of man. Designation (Muktza) on account of filth and on account of expensive articles. Concerning the cutting up of pumpkins and carrion, 367-376 MiSHNA V. What vows may be annulled on Sabbath. Whether a vow may be annulled before the expiration of twenty-four hours after one hears it pronounced, or only during the same day. How consultation concerning vows must be had. Should aChacham (sage) only be consulted, or will three ordinary men suffice for that purpose ? How vows are to be annulled on Sabbath. By thought or by word of mouth ; may one say merely : " Go, eat and drink ! " The sages comply with the request of Mar Zutra and annul his vow on a Sabbath. How water for ritual purposes may be measured on Sabbath. What happened to Ula at the house of the Exilarch regarding the measuring of water in a bath, ....... 376-378 CUSTOMARY CONCLUDING PRAYER. Epigraph. Translator's remarks, 379, 380 APPENDIX.* Concerning the eighteen regulations enacted in the attic of Hananiah ben Hizkyah ben Garon. Their importance and influence on the government of the Jews. The degeneracy of priestdom, ..... 381-390 *We would call the attention of the reader to the appendix of this volume, which will prove interesting to the general reader and present something heretofore un- published to the student of the Talmud. TRACT SABBATH. CHAPTER XI. REGULATIONS CONCERNING THROWING FROM ONE GROUND INTO ANOTHER. MISHNA: One who throws a thing from private into public or from public into private ground is culpable. From private into private ground, by way of public ground, R. Aqiba holds him to be culpable, but the sages declare him free. How so? If two balconies face each other across a street, one who trans- fers or throws something from one into the other is free ; if the two balconies, however, are in the same building, he who trans- fers a thing from one into the other is culpable, but he who throws is free; because the work of the Levites (in the taber- nacle) was as follows : From two wagons facing each other in public ground boards were transferred, but not thrown from one into the other. GEMARA: Let us see! Throwing is but the offspring of transferring. Where is transfer itself mentioned in the Scriptures? Said R. Johanan : "It is written [Ex. xxxvi. 6]: * And Moses gave the command and they caused it to be pro- claimed throughout the camp,' etc. Where was Moses sitting ? In the quarters of the Levites. The quarters of the Levites was public ground (because all the people were received there by Moses). And Moses said unto Israel : ' Ye shall not trans- fer anything from your quarters (which was private ground) into these quarters.* " We have found, then, transfer from within, but where do we find transfer from without ? It is a logical conclusion, that transfer from within is the same as transfer from without. Still he calls transfer from within the principal act and transfer from without but the offspring. Now, if transferring from within and transferring from without in- volve the same degree of culpability, why does he call the one VOL. n. — I i8g 190 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD, a principal and the other an offspring ? For the following reason : If one commit two principal acts of labor, or two off- springs of two different acts of labor, he becomes bound to bring two sin-offerings; but if he commits one principal act and one offspring of the same act of labor, he becomes bound to bring only one sin-offering. Whence do we know that if one throw a thing four ells in public ground he is culpable ? All that is said about four ells in public ground is traditional. R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel: The wood-gath- erer's sin [mentioned in Numbers xv. 32-35] consisted in carry- ing four ells in public ground. We learned in a Boraitha, how- ever, that he pulled out sticks growing in the ground. R. Aha b. R. Jacob said : He gathered the sticks and bound them into bundles. What difference is there in the acts ? (Why this dis- sension ?) The difference is, as we were taught in the name of Rabh, who says: " I found a mysterious paper in the possession of my uncle, R. Hyya, upon which was written : ' Aissi ben Jehudah said: The principal acts of labor are forty less one. One of them does not involve culpability. R. Jehudah holds, that carrying in public ground is not this one act and the Boraitha holds that pulling out of the ground is not that one, and R. Aha b. R. Jacob holds that binding into bundles is not the act which involves culpability.' Each one of these three was certain that if a man committed any of the acts mentioned by each he was undoubtedly culpable." The rabbis taught : The name of the wood-gatherer was Zelophchad, and so it is written [Numb. xv. 32]: " And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness they found a man," etc., and further on [ibid, xxvii. 3] it is written: " Our father died in the wilderness,' 'qIc, etc., " but in his own sin he died," etc., an analogy of the word wilderness. As by "our father " is meant Zelophchad, so also the name of the wood-gatherer was Zelophchad. So said R. Aqiba. Said to him R. Jehudah b. Bathyra: "Aqiba! Whether your statement be true or false, you will have to answer for it at the time of the divine judgment ; for if it be true, you disclosed the name of the man whom the Scriptures desired to shield, and thus you brought him into infamy, and if it be false you slandered a man who was upright." The same case occurred in the following: It is writ- ten [Numb. xii. 9] : " And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them," etc. From this we learn that Aaron also became