Commentary for Shabbat 99:19

במאי אוקימתא להא דשרי כר"ש אימא סיפא אבל לא יחוף בהם שערו ואי ר"ש משרא קשרי דתנן

he said in the name of Ze'iri in R. Hanina's name: R. Hanina b. Akiba once went to a certain place and found dried branches of a palm tree cut down, and he said to his disciples, 'Go out and declare your intention,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To sit upon them on the Sabbath. ');">¹⁷</span> so that we may be able to sit upon them tomorrow'. And I do not know whether it was a house of feasting or a house of mourning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is Ze'iri's comment. ');">¹⁸</span> Since he says, '[I do not know] whether it was a house of feasting or a house of mourning', [it implies] only there, because they are occupied;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'troubled'. For that reason mere intention was sufficient. ');">¹⁹</span> but elsewhere it must be tied together; but if not, it is not [permitted]. Rab Judah said: A man may bring a sack full of earth [into the house] and use it for his general needs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Sabbath or Festivals. This must be done before the Sabbath or Festivals. ');">²⁰</span> Mar Zutra lectured in the name of Mar Zutra Rabbah: Providing that he allotted a certain corner to it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which renders it prepared (mukan) for these purposes. ');">²¹</span> Said the students before R. Papa: With whom [does this agree]: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel? For if with the Rabbis, — an act is required!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The equivalent of tying the branches. ');">²²</span> — R. Papa answered: You may even say, with the Rabbis. The Rabbis ruled that an act is required only where an act is possible,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for something that can be the subject of an act'. ');">²³</span> but not where it is impossible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nothing can be done to the earth to show that it is meant for a particular purpose. ');">²⁴</span> Shall we say that this is disputed by Tannaim? Utensils may be cleaned<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'rubbed'. ');">²⁵</span> with anything,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Sabbath. ');">²⁶</span> save silver vessels with white earth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A kind of chalk. Rashi: [H] i.e., the tartar deposited in wine vessels; Aruch: pulverized resin, These do more than cleanse, but actually smooth the silver, which is forbidden work. ');">²⁷</span> This [implies] that natron<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 330, n. 5. ');">²⁸</span> and sand are permitted. But surely it was taught, Natron and sand are forbidden? Surely they differ in this: one Master holds that an act is required,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To show its purpose, and since such is impossible, they are forbidden, but not because there is anything objectionable in them per se. ');">²⁹</span> while the other Master holds that no act is required? No. All agree that no act is required, yet there is no difficulty: one is according to R. Judah, who maintains, What is unintentional is forbidden; the other is according to R. Simeon, who rules, What is unintentional is permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra, 22a, 29b. Natron and sand sometimes smooth the silver too, in addition to cleansing it, but that smoothing is unintentional. But white chalk always smooths: hence all rule it out. ');">³⁰</span> How have you explained the view that it is permitted? As agreeing with R. Simeon! Then consider the last clause: But one must not cleanse his hair with them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it pulls hair out. ');">³¹</span> Rather if R. Simeon, surely he permits it? For we learnt:

Explore commentary for Shabbat 99:19. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.