Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 2, scan section 67

the ass, while the latter is walking along; in that case, no trans- fer from one fixed point takes place (because while both are walking it cannot be said that the purse is resting in one partic- ular place). It is, however, impossible that the ass should not rest at some place for a little while ? When the ass rests, the man removes the purse; and when it commences to walk again, he puts it back. If that is so, it would be the same if he would transfer his purse to a fellow-Israelite while walking, and he would never be guilty of the act of transferring from one (fixed) place and depositing in another? Said R. Papa: An act which, if committed by one man unassisted, would make him liable for a sin-offering {e.g., if he, while running or walking, should pick up something off the ground even without stopping, he would become liable for a sin-offering), he must not commit with the assistance of a companion ; but if he did so, he is not liable for a sin-offering {e.g., if he picked up a thing and placed it on his companion while the latter was walking, in that event neither is culpable, for the one did not deposit it in a fixed place, and the other did not remove it from a fixed place). Such acts, however, as must not be committed with the aid of a companion may be done with the assistance of an ass in the first place. R. Ada bar Abha said again : "If a man has a bundle on his shoulders before dusk on the Sabbath while on the road, he may run with the burden until he reaches home, but he must not walk his usual gait." Why so ? Because, if he walks in the usual manner, he might stop (and by stopping carry out the pro- hibited transfer from one fixed point and depositing in another). When he reaches home, however, he must stop for some time, and thus he would bring a thing from public ground into private ground ? The remedy for this is, to throw the bundle from his shoulders backwards, and not in the usual manner. Rabha the brother of R. Mari bar Rachel taught the follow- ing decree in the name of R. Johanan : " One who drives cattle on the Sabbath (even if they are burdened) is free." Why so ? If he did so unintentionally, he cannot be liable for a sin-offer- ing, because Sabbath laws are identical with those of idolatry. In like manner, as a man cannot be guilty of idolatry unless he VOL. II. — 12 366 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. worship with his own body, so it is with the Sabbatical law. If he perform labor through the medium of his cattle, without doing any himself, he cannot be guilty. Even if he did it inten- tionally, he is also not guilty. Why so ? Because we have learned in a Mishna (Tract Sanhedrin): " Among those who are subject to capital punishment (by stoning) is he who violates the Sabbath by an act which, if done intentionally, carries with it such punishment (stoning), and which, if done unintentionally, makes one liable for a sin-offering." Hence, if the uninten- tional performance of such an act does not carry with it liability to bring a sin-offering, its intentional performance cannot carry with it the punishment of stoning, nor the punishment of stripes ; because, where the penalty for the violation of a nega- tive commandment is death, stripes cannot be inflicted; and even according to the Tana who holds that stripes can be inflicted for such violation, in this case it could not be done, because, were the verse to be read, "Thou shalt not do any labor, nor thy cattle," it would be right; but the verse distinctly says, " Thou shalt not do any labor, neither thou, etc., nor thy cat- tle." Hence, when the work was not done jointly by the man and his cattle, he cannot be punished in any manner for a viola- tion of the Sabbath. " As soon as he arrives at the outmost court,'' etc. Said R. Huna: " If the ass was laden with glassware, he may bring cush- ions and place them on the ground, so that when he loosens the cords the glassware may fall on the cushions and escape being broken." We have learned, however, that such vessels as may be handled on the Sabbath may be removed from the ass ; and why may not the glassware be handled ? R. Huna refers to glassware which belongs to a surgeon, and being dirty (bloody) is unfit for use in a household. In that case, then, the man would render the cushions which he places on the ground to receive the falling glassware unfit for their proper use, and this is prohibited on the Sabbath ? The cushions are only to be used in order to break the fall of the glassware, and after the glassware rolls off on to the ground, the cushions can be used as before. We have learned in a Boraitha : R. Simeon ben Jochai said : " If a sheaf of grain (the tithes of which had not yet been sepa- rated) is on the back of the ass, the man may push it off with his head, so that it fall to the ground." The ass of R. Gamaliel was once laden with honey, and, the Sabbath having set in, R. Gamaliel would not allow the ass to be unloaded until the Sab- TRACT SABBATH. 367 bath was over. This proved too much for the animal and it dropped dead. We have learned in the Mishna, that such things as may be handled on Sabbath may be removed from the animal ; why was not the honey removed ? The honey had become spoiled. If the honey was spoiled, why was it brought ? It was intended to be used for the bruises on camels. Then the cords should have been loosened and the honey allowed to fall off ? The honey was in (inflated) skins, and would have burst if allowed to fall. Then cushions should have been placed on the ground to receive them ? The cushions would have become soiled, and thus ren- dered unfit for use. Pity should have been taken on the animal, and it should not have been allowed to stand laden all day ? Pity for animals is only a rabbinical institution according to R. Gamaliel, and thus he could not observe it lest he violate the Sabbath. Abayi once saw Rabba playing with his little son, and setting him on the back of an ass, so he said to him: " Why! Does Master use an animal on Sabbath!" and Rabba answered: " This cannot be called using an animal in the regular manner, but just incidental use, and that was not prohibited by the rabbis." Abayi objected: " Have we not learned that if two walls of a booth (to be used on the Feast of Tabernacles) were made by hand, and the third wall was already made by a tree, the booth might be used for ritual purposes; but it is not allowed to ascend to the roof of the booth on a festival, because the tree serves as a support to the roof, and by ascending the roof the tree would be used, which is prohibited ? Hence we see that, although that would be incidental and not direct use, still it is prohibited ?" Rabba answered: " In the case cited by thee,