Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 7, scan section 30

''And when a woman borrowed,'' etc. When R. Abba in- tended to go to Palestine, he prayed that it should be the will of the Lord he should say a thing which should be accepted (by those sages). When he arrived there, he found R. Johanan, R. Hanina bar Papi, and R. Zera ; according to others, R. Abahu, R. Simeon b. Pazzi, and R. Itz'hak of Naphha, who were sitting interpreting our Mishna, saying : Why, let the water and the salt be ignored in the dough ? Said R. Abba to them : Would it be right, when one threw in one Kab of wheat into ten Kabs of his neighbor's, shall the owner of the nine Kabs take the one Kab as liis own and enjoy it ? (The same shall be the case here. Because water and salt are of little value, shall they be ignored ?) They were laughing at him. Said R. Abahu to them : Why do you laugh ? Have I taken your garments ? They laughed again. In reality, what is the reason of the Mishna's teaching? Said Abayi : That is a precautionary measure, lest they will make the whole dough in partnership, Rabha said : The reason is because spices give a flavor, and everything that gives a flavor cannot be ignored. R. Ashi said : The reason is, this prohibition is only temporary, and anything temporarily prohibited cannot be ignored, even when it is among a thousand. " R. Jehudah excepts water T Did R. Jehudah except water, and not salt? Have we not learned in a Boraitha : R. Jehudah said that water and salt both are ignored, either in dough or in a pot ? It presents no difficulty : Our Mishna speaks of Astrakhan salt, which is coarse, and must not be ignored, while the Boraitha means salt of Sodom, which is fine and is ignored. But we found another Boraitha, which says that according to R. Jehudah water and salt are ignored only in dough, but not in a pot, because of 70 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. its wetness (and it imparts a taste to every part). It presents no difficulty : One Boraitha applies to a pot where something thick is cooked, while the other means a pot of soup. MISHNA : Burning coals may be carried as far as the owners may go, but a flame may be carried everywhere. If a coal of consecrated fire has been applied to profane use, the sin of desecration has been committed ; but though no profane use must be made of a flame of sacred fire, yet a person who applies it thus has not incurred the penalty, and thus, if anybody carries (on Sabbath) a burning coal into a public place, he is guilty, but does, not incur the penalty for a flame. The water of a well belonging to an individual may be carried as far as that man may go ; but if it belongs to a town, as far as the inhabitants thereof may go. The water of a well made for the use of travellers (such as those) who come from Babylon, may be carried as far as he who draAvs it may go. GEMARA : The rabbis taught : Five things have been taught about the burning coals : They may be carried as far as the owners may go ; but a flame, everywhere. The sin of desecra- tion applies only to a coal, but not to a flame ; it must not, how- ever, be used. A coal of idolatry is prohibited to be used, but the flame is permitted. Whoso carries a coal into public ground on Sabbath is culpable, and a flame is innocent ; and whoso has made a vow not to receive any benefit from his neighbor must not use his coal, but may use his flame. Why may a consecrated flame not be used, but a flame of idolatry may be ? In regard to idolatry, which is repulsive, and men avoid it in any event, no precautionary measure was taken ; but to a consecrated thing which is not so, it was taken. ''A well belonging to an individual^' etc. Rabha suggested the following contradiction before R. Na'hman : Our Mishna teaches that the water of an individual may be carried only as far as he may go, and in another Boraitha we have learned : Running rivers and springing wells are to be considered as the feet of every man (Sabbath, p. 261). Said Rabba : The Mishna refers to a well where water is not springing, but collected, and the same was taught in the name of Samuel by R. Hyya bar Abbin. *' Babylonian travellers " : as the feet of him who draws it. It was taught : If one draw it and give it to another man, R. Na'hman said it may be considered as the feet of him for whom it is drawn ; but R. Shesheth says, as his who draws. In what point do they differ ? One holds that the well may be considered TRACT BETZAH (YOM TOB). 77 as ownerless (and if the water was drawn for any one he becomes the owner), and the other holds that they are partners. MISHNA : If one has fruit in another town of which the inhabitants only made an Erub (but not the owner), they must not bring his fruit to him ; but if he has made the Erub, the fruit may be carried to any place he is allowed to go. When one has invited guests, they must not carry home with them anything from the table, unless he had granted it to them the day before the festival. GEMARA : It was taught : If one has deposited fruit at his neighbor's house, Rabh said the fruit is to be considered the property of the keeper ; but Samuel said it is still regarded as the property of the depositor. An objection was made, based upon our Mishna : If he made also an Erub, the fruit may be brought to him. Now if, according to Rabh, it is considered the property of the keeper, what is the use of his making an Erub ? Said R. Huna: The disciples of Rabh explain our Mishna that it refers to a case when they assigned a corner for his fruit (so that it is as if under his supervision). Come and hear (another objection) : " They must not carry home," etc., " unless he had granted it," etc. Now, if it is considered the keeper's, what is the use of granting on the day before ? The answer is, that granting is equal to assigning a separate place, as explained above, and if you wish it can be said that the case when granting is different. R. Hana bar Hanilai suspended meat on the bar of the door, and went away. After when he wished to use it he came before R. Huna and asked him whether he can use it or not (because the meat was brought to him by a butcher out of town, and he feared perhaps he brought it from over the legal limit), and R. Huna answered : If yourself have suspended it, you may use it, but if the butcher suspended it, you may not. MISHNA : One must not give drink to, or slaughter, animals living wild, but one may do it to domestic animals. And what are called domestic animals? When they are at night in the town or the suburbs ; and those which are in the open field are called wild. GEMARA : To what purpose are both drinking and slaugh- tering stated ? It is a thing by the way : it comes to teach us that before slaughtering it is good the animal shall drink, because