Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 2, scan section 56

enter and kill a chicken. Why do some say, then, that holes should not even be enlarged ? Because it might be that one did not make the hole in a chicken-coop large enough, and would enlarge it. R. Na'hman taught in the name of R. Jo- hanan, that the Halakha remains according to the last dictum. All agree, that a hole which had been stopped up may be re- opened. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: This was said only in the case of where a hole had been stopped to pre- serve the aroma of the wine. If, however, the hole was stopped up in order to strengthen the cask, it must not be reopened. What is meant by preserving the aroma and by strengthening the cask ? Said R. Hisda: " If the hole was on top of the cask and was stopped up, it was for the purpose of preserving the aroma; but if at the bottom, it was for the purpose of strength- ening the cask." Rabha said: "If it was at the bottom, it was also only for the purpose of preserving the aroma; and only if TRACT SABBATH. 335 the hole was stopped up right underneath the lees of the wine, it was for the purpose of strengthening the cask." Rabh prohibits the inserting of a faucet into a cask, and Samuel permits it. All agree, that cutting a hole in the cask for the purpose of inserting a faucet is prohibited, and that replac- ing the faucet, if once removed, is permitted. They differ, however, only when a hole had already been made in the cask before the Sabbath, but it was not quite fit for the faucet. Those who say, that it is prohibited, do so as a precaution lest one cut a fresh hole, while those that permit this to be done say no precautionary measure is necessary. This is like the following difference between Tanaim: We have learned that a screw must not be fitted on a festival, much less on a Sabbath ; but if it fall out it may be replaced on Sab- bath, and so much more on a festival ; and R. Yashia makes the ordinance more lenient. What does R. Yashia make more leni- ent ? Shall we assume, that he refers to the first part and per- mits a screw to be cut ? In that event, he would be improving a vessel, and that is certainly not allowed ! Shall we assume, on the other hand, that he refers to the second part ; the first Tana alone permits this ? We must say, therefore, that the screw was already cut, but did not quite fit, and he permits the fitting of it. (Hence the same difference exists here as between the pre- vious Tanaim.) R. Shesheth the son of R. Idi in the name of R. Johanan said: " The Halakha prevails according to R. Yashia." '* But if it was already perforated,'' ^\.c. To fill it up with oil is, according to Rabh, prohibited, as a precaution lest he fill it with wax; and according to Samuel it is permitted, as the lat- ter does not deem a precautionary measure necessary. Said R. Samuel bar bar Hana to R. Joseph: " Thou hast said distinctly in the name of Rabh, that oil is permitted." Answered R. Joseph: " Thou hast caught me in a trap." * Said Samuel: " The leaf of myrtle must not be put in the bunghole of a cask, so that the wine flow over it." Why so ? R. Yimar of Diphti said: " As a precaution lest a groove (chan- nel) be made." R. Ashi said: " As a precaution lest the leaf be broken off (from its stem)." What difference is there? The difference is in the case of a leaf that had already been broken off (from its stem). (The precautionary measure of R. Yimar remains, while that of R. Ashi falls to the ground of itself.) * See note to page 114 of this tract. 336 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. Is it permitted to wrap one's self in a bolster in public ground and bring it into private ground ? Rabh prohibits this and Samuel permits it. If the bolster were soft and could be folded, they do not differ, all agreeing that it is permitted. If it were hard and could not be folded, all agree that it is prohib- ited. They differ only concerning a bolster that was neither soft nor hard, but a medium between the two. One says, that it appears like a burden and should not be carried, while the other holds that it is not a burden and may be carried ; and the opinion just ascribed to Rabh was not stated by him expressly, but was merely inferred from the following incident: " Rabh came to a certain place and found that he lacked room ; so he went out into a lane (unclaimed ground), and when a bolster was brought to him he would not sit down on it. Those who saw this inferred therefore that he did not hold it to be permissible." As a matter of fact, this was not so. Rabh had it proclaimed that a bolster was allowed to be used, but in honor of the mas- ters who were with him he would not sit down on that bolster. Who were those masters ? R. Kahana and R. Assi. MISHNA: One may put cooked victuals into a cave (or cel- lar) for the purpose of preserving them ; also put clean water (contained in a vessel) into water that is not drinkable, in order to keep it (the former) cool ; likewise cold water (in a vessel) into hot water, in order to warm the former. One whose clothes have dropped into the water while on the road, may unhesitat- ingly go on with them. As soon as he arrives at the outmost court (of the city or village), he may spread his clothes in the sun to dry, but he must not do this publicly. GEMARA: Is this not self-evident ? One might say, that there should be a precaution against grading (smoothening) any incavations that might be in the cave ; hence we are told that such is not the case. Clean ivater into water that is not drinkable,'' etc. Is this not self-evident? Yea; but this is taught on account of the later clause in the Mishna, i.e., putting cold water into hot. Is this also not self-evident ? One might say, that this should be prohibited, as a precaution lest one also put a vessel containing cold water into glowing cinders to warm ; so we are told, that such a precaution is not necessary. Ofie whose clothes have dropped into the water,'' etc. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: " All things which were for- bidden on account of causing suspicion among the people (that TRACT SABBATH. 337 one is committing a wrongful act) should not be done, not only publicly, but even in the innermost recesses of one's rooms." Is this not contradictory to our Mishna, which says, that one may spread his clothes in the sun, but not publicly? This is a difference between Tanaim, for in reference to this Mishna we have learned in a Boraitha, that both R. Eliezer and R. Simeon hold, that it is prohibited even when not done publicly. Said R. Huna: " He who dusts his clothes on a Sabbath is liable for a sin-offering. This refers only, however, to a new garment, but not to an old one, and the new garment only when it is black; but garments of other colors may be dusted. Refer-