Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 2, scan section 59

TRACT SABBATH. 343 one ? Then she would have a heavier burden to carry. Should she cover it with a cloth ? Then she might wring it. Should she cover it with a lid ? Then she might have to untie it. Hence it is impossible." * ' ' A woman may also borrow bread from an acquaintance, ' ' etc. From the Mishna we see, that only on Sabbath a woman must not say, " Lend me," when borrowing bread, and on week- days that would be permitted. Would this not be against the decree of Hillel, who prohibits this on account of possible usury (as explained in Tract Baba Metzia) ? Nay; we can say that the Mishna is in accordance with Hillel's decree, but here it refers to such places where bread has a fixed value, while Hillel refers to places where bread has not a fixed value. " If the man be refused," etc. It was taught: " A loan on a festival is, according to R. Joseph, uncollectable by law, and Rabba say it is collectable." R. Joseph says, that it is uncollect- able, because otherwise the lender will write it down ; and Rabba says, if we say that it is uncollectable, the lender will not trust the borrower and the latter will not have the means of celebrat- ing the festival. Is this not a contradiction to our Mishna, which teaches, that if the man be refused trust, he may pledge his garment, etc. ? If the loan be uncollectable, the pledging is quite right ; but if it be collectable by law, why should the bor- rower pledge his garment ? The lender can sue him by law ? The lender might say, that he does not care to be troubled by law- suits and judges. R. Ivia would take pledges, and Rabba bar Ula would trick the borrower (by in turn borrowing something from him after the holiday and holding that for a pledge). MISHNA: A man may count the number of his guests and also of his extra dishes verbally, but not from a written list. He may let his children and household draw lots at table (as to who is to have one dish, and who is to have another), provided he does not intentionally stake a larger portion against a smaller one. They may also draw lots for the holy sacrifices on a festi- val (as to which priest is to have one sacrifice and which is to have another), but not for the eatable portions of the sacrifices (to whom one piece belongs, and to whom another piece be- longs). GEMARA: Why should a man not read from a written list ? * The additional quotations of Rabha bar Hanan to Abayi concerning festivals will appear in Tract " Festivals," where they properly belong. 344 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. Said R. Bibhi: " Lest he might strike out a guest's name or an extra dish from the hst." Abayi said: " This is a precautionary- measure against reading of business papers on Sabbath." What is the point of difference between them ? If the list is engraved on the wall ! In that case there is no fear of striking out a name, but the precaution against reading business papers still remains, and the Amoraim differ in this case with the Tanaim in the fol- lowing Tosephta, as we have learned: " A man must not look into a mirror on Sabbath (lest he trim his hair with scissors), but R. Meir permits looking into a mirror which is attached to a wall." Now, why may a man look into a stationary mirror; be- cause by the time he goes to fetch scissors, he will be reminded that it is Sabbath ? Why not say, that the same is the case with another mirror, which he holds in his hand ? By the time he lays down the mirror and goes for scissors, he will also be re- minded that it is Sabbath ? The mirror prohibited to be used by the first Tana of the Tosephta is one that is attached to an instrument which can be used to trim hair, and that is in accord- ance with the dictum of R. Na'hman as stated by Rabba bar Abuha in his name: " Why did the sages prohibit the use of an iron mirror ? Because a man might use it to trim his superflu- ous hair." The rabbis taught: An inscription at the foot of pictures of beasts or men must not be read on the Sabbath ; and gazing on the picture of a man is prohibited even on week-days, because it is written [Leviticus xix. 4]: "Ye shall not turn unto the idols." With what tradition do you supplement this verse, that you may infer therefrom the prohibition to gaze at a picture ? Said R. Hanin: "Ye shall not turn to the idols which your imagination alone hath created." ' ' He may let his children and household draw lots, ' ' etc. It says, " his children and household " : we must assume, that strangers are not to be included; if not, why not ? As R. Jehu- dah said in the name of Samuel: A party of men eating on a festival, where the portions distributed to each are exactly alike in size and quantity, are guilty of the following prohibited acts; viz. : measuring, weighing, counting, borrowing and lending* (all of which acts are prohibited on a festival). According to Hil- lel's opinion, they are guilty of usury also. If that is so, why * Guilty of borrowing and lending can only be explained by presuming that, if one received a smaller portion than another, the host would promise to make up for the deficiency on another day. TRACT SABBATH. 345 should it be allowed for his children and household ? Here the reason is as related by R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh, who said: "It is allowed to borrow or lend from and to one's chil- dren* and household and charge interest, in order to exemplify the evils of usury." If that is so, why is it not allowed, accord- ing to the Mishna, to stake a larger portion against a smaller ? As a matter of fact, it is allowed ; but the Mishna is defective and should read: " He may let his children and household draw lots at table, and even stake a larger portion against a smaller." Why so ? As R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh above: He may let his children and household draw lots, but not strangers. Why so ? As R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel above: A larger portion must not be staked against a smaller one even on week-days for strangers. Why so ? On account of Kubeia.* They may also draw lots for the holy sacrifices,'' etc. What is meant by "but not for the eatable portions " ? (Why should that not be done ? The eatable portions of the sacrifices must be eaten on a festival.) Said R. Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob: " That prohibition is only applicable to the eatable portions of the sacrifices left over from the preceding day. Is this not self-evident ? I would say, that because it is written [Hosea iv. 4] : ' And thy people are contentious equally with the priests,' that the priests are contentious, and hence they should be permitted to cast lots for the eatable portions of the sacrifices (for the sake of peace) ; therefore we are taught, that the sacri- fices of the day may be drawn for, but not those of the preced-