Commentary for Shabbat 240:15

לרבנן נמי דמנח ידיה עילויה זימנין דמשתלי ושקיל ליה לר' יוסי נמי זימנין דמשתלי ושקיל ליה אלא אי דאיכא גמי ה"נ הב"ע לאהדורי אגמי רבנן סברי

too are not likely to burst!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This shows that he too permits only such. The Baraitha is thus not actually the reverse of the Mishnah, but generally speaking we see that R. Jose is more lenient in the former, whereas in the Mishnah he is more stringent (Tosaf.). ');">¹³</span> And should you answer, Reverse our Mishnah while R. Jose of the Baraitha argues on the view of the Rabbis;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus R. Jose himself holds that even if they are likely to burst they are permitted, but he argues that even on the more stringent view of the Rabbis the vessels of Kefar Shihin etc. should be permitted too. ');">¹⁴</span> [it may be asked], But can you reverse them? Surely Rabbah b. Tahlifa said in Rab's name: 'Which Tanna holds that indirect extinguishing is forbidden? R. Jose'! Hence in truth you must not reverse it, the whole of the Baraitha being [the view] of R. Jose but there is a lacuna, and it was thus taught: One may make a barrier with empty vessels and with full vessels that are not likely to burst, and these are the vessels which are not likely to burst: metal vessels, and the vessels of Kefar Shihin and Kefar Hananiah too are not likely to burst. For R. Jose maintains: The vessels of Kefar Shihin and Kefar Hananiah too are not likely to burst. Now, the Rabbis are self-contradictory and R. Jose is selfcontradictory. For it was taught: If one has the [Divine] Name written on his skin, he must not bathe nor anoint [himself] nor stand in an unclean place. If he must perform an obligatory tebillah, he must wind a reed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As assumed at present in order to prevent effacement of the Name. ');">¹⁵</span> about it and descend and perform tebillah. R. Jose said: He may at all times descend and perform tebillah in the ordinary way, provided that he does not rub [it]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Intentionally with his hands. — Thus the Rabbis forbid even an indirect action, whereas R. Jose forbids only a direct action. ');">¹⁶</span> — There it is different, because Scripture saith, And ye shall destroy their name out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto the Lord your God:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 3f. ');">¹⁷</span> only [direct] action is forbidden, but indirect action is permitted. If so, here too it is written, thou shalt not do any work:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XX, 9. ');">¹⁸</span> only [direct] action is forbidden, but indirect action is permitted? — Since a man is excited over his property if you permit him [indirect action], he may come to extinguish it. If so, the Rabbis are self-contradictory: if there, though a man is excited over his property, it is permitted, how much more so here? — Now, is that logical:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the need of a reed according to the Rabbis is to prevent effacement. ');">¹⁹</span> this reed, how is it meant? If it is wound tightly, it is an interposition;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between the water and the flesh, which invalidates tebillah. ');">²⁰</span> [while] if it is not wound tightly the water enters. ([You speak of] 'an interposition' that follows from the ink?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With which the Name is written. This interrupts the thread of argument: if you object to the reed because it is an interposition, what of the ink itself? ');">²¹</span> — The reference is to wet [ink for it was taught: Blood, ink, honey, and milk, if dry [on the skin] constitute an interposition; if moist, they do not constitute an interposition.) Yet still there is the difficulty?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' About the reed. Why do the Rabbis insist on a reed? — This difficulty is raised to show that the Rabbis' view has nothing to do with the question whether indirect action is permitted or not. ');">²²</span> — Rather said Raba b. Shila, This is the reason of the Rabbis: because they hold one must not stand nude in the presence of the Divine Name. Hence it follows that R. Jose holds that one may stand nude in the presence of the Divine Name?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not, ');">²³</span> — He places his hand upon it. Then according to the Rabbis too, let him place his hand upon it? He may chance to forget and remove it. Then according to R. Jose too, he may forget and remove it? — Rather [reply thus]. If a reed is available that is indeed so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All agree that it must be used — even R. Jose, the reason being that one may not stand nude in the presence of the Name. ');">²⁴</span> The discussion is about going to seek a reed:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., whether one must postpone the tebillah until he obtains it. ');">²⁵</span> the Rabbis hold,

Explore commentary for Shabbat 240:15. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.