Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 2, scan section 61

are pleasing to the Lord). R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel: "Accounts con- cerning which advice is requested by others and which have no bearing upon one's own business may be figured on the Sab- bath." The following Boraitha is cited in support of this: " Accounts of disbursements in the past and of future expendi- tures must not be calculated on the Sabbath ; but such as are of no importance, and concerning which advice was asked, may be calculated." Is the following Boraitha not contradictory to the one cited ? " Accounts which are of no importance at all may be calculated on Sabbath, but not such as are of importance." How so ? A man may say to his neighbor, " I have hired so much labor to cultivate a certain field," or " I have expended so many Dinars on such a dwelling," but he must not say, " I have expended so much and must expend so much more." (The contradiction arises from the fact that in the previous Bo- raitha it is prohibited to calculate disbursements made in the past, while in the last Boraitha it is permitted.) But according to your opinion, why not cite the contradiction occurring in the previous Boraitha itself; viz.: Firstly, it is said that disburse- ments of the past must not be calculated, and then, that ac- counts of no value may be figured ? This presents no contra- diction at all (neither in the previous Boraitha itself, nor from one to the other). If the disbursements of the past have already been made and nothing is owing, then the accounts of same are of no value and may be spoken of on the Sabbath ; but if any amount of such expenditures is still due, then it becomes an important account and must not be discussed, " One must not stand at the extreme limit of the ' techoom,' " etc. The rabbis taught : It once happened that the fence of the TRACT SABBATH. 349 field belonging to a pious man was broken, and noticing it on a Sabbath, he was about to mend it, when he recollected that it was Sabbath ; so he left it. A miracle occurred, and kaffir-corn began to sprout in the place of the broken fence and furnished him and his family with their sustenance. R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel: " A man may say to his neighbor, ' To- morrow I intend to go to a certain town. ' Why may he say this ? Because, if there are huts on the road to that town at distances of seventy ells apart, he may even go on Sabbath ; hence, though there be no huts on the road, he may say that he intends going on the morrow," An objection was made, based upon our Mishna; viz. : " One must not stand at the extreme limit of the techoom and wait for dusk in order to hire laborers or gather fruit." It would be quite right, if the hiring of laborers only was concerned ; for a thing which must not be done on Sabbath must not be waited for at the techoom ; but as for gathering fruit, if there were walls around the town, that would be permitted ? Why, then, should it be prohibited to wait at the techoom until dusk? This may refer to fruit which was still attached to the ground (and could not be gathered on Sabbath even if the town had walls). How can this be said ? Have we not learned that R. Oshea taught: " One must not wait at the techoom to bring straw and chaff." It would be correct concerning straw which is still attached to the ground; but how can this apply to chaff? This may refer to chaff which is used to mix with loam, and hence was designated for building purposes. Another objection was made! Come and hear: We have learned in the succeeding Mishna, that nightfall may be awaited at the techoom in the case of a bride and corpse ; hence for other purposes one must not await nightfall at the techoom. It would be quite right if it said, in the case of things pertaining to a bride, for instance to cut off a myrtle-branch ; but what things can be done pertaining to a corpse ? Only the bringing of the coffin and the shroud ? Why, then, should a man not be al- lowed to bring things which are the equivalent of the necessaries pertaining to a corpse ? for if there were walls surrounding the town, he would be allowed to bring them. Why, then, should he not be permitted to wait at the techoom for the purpose of bringing them ? Because the case may be, that things (as shrouds) pertaining to the corpse were not already prepared, but must be cut. VOL. 11. — II 350 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. " But if watching fruit beyond the techoom, he may await the dusk,'' etc. May he do this even if he had not yet recited the Habhdalah prayer ? Why ! R. Elazar ben Antignous said in the name of R. Elazar ben Jacob, that a man must not transact his business at the close of Sabbath, before reciting the Habhdalah prayer. And if it be that he said the Habhdalah prayer while reciting the evening prayer, did not R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel say, that even if a man included the Habhdalah prayer in the evening prayer, he must say it again over the goblet of wine ? Should it then be said, that he said the prayer over the goblet also; how could he have done that in a field? This case refers to the time of wine-pressing (when it is possible to obtain a goblet of wine even in the field) ; such is the explanation of R. Nathan bar Ami to Rabh. Said R. Aba to R. Ashi: " In the West (Palestine) we simply say the benediction, * Blessed be he, etc., who distinguishes between holy and ordinary days,' and go right to work." And R. Ashi said: " When we were in the house of R. Kahana, he would pronounce the same benediction, and we would go and chop wood." ''Abba Saul laid down the rule,'' etc. Concerning what clause of the Mishna does Abba Saul lay down this rule ? Shall we assume that he refers to the first clause of the Mishna, which decrees, that one must not stand at the extreme limit of the techoom and wait for dusk, and thus applies his rule ? Then, instead of saying, " Whatever I am permitted to prepare," etc., he should have said in the negative, " Whatever I am not per- mitted to say to another man he should do for me, I must not wait at the techoom to do myself." If we assume, however, that the rule refers to the latter clause of the Mishna, namely, "but if watching fruit, he may await the dusk," etc., then Abba should have applied his rule to the contrary; viz. : " What- ever I am permitted to wait for at the techoom, I may tell another man to do for me." Abba Saul applies his rule to the latter clause of the Mishna, and he refers to the following dic- tum of R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel, viz.: " A man may say to his neighbor: ' Watch my fruit which is in your vicinity, and I will watch such of yours as is in my vicinity.* " This is commented upon by Abba Saul, addressing the first Tana as follows: " You certainly admit that a man may say to his neigh-