Talmud for Shabbat 188:11

וכן הגודלת כו': גודלת כוחלת ופוקסת משום מאי מחייבא אמר רבי אבין א"ר יוסי בר' חנינא גודלת משום אורגת כוחלת משום כותבת פוקסת משום טווה אמרו רבנן קמיה דרבי אבהו וכי דרך אריגה בכך וכי דרך כתיבה בכך וכי דרך טויה בכך אלא א"ר אבהו לדידי מפרשא לי מיניה דר' יוסי בר' חנינא

[hence] he informs us [otherwise]. LIKEWISE HIS HAIR, etc. It was taught: If one plucks out a full scissors' edge [of hair], he is culpable. And how much is a full scissors' edge? Said Rab Judah: Two [hairs]. But it was taught: But in respect of baldness [the standard is] two?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XIV, 1: the prohibition is infringed by the plucking of two hairs. The conjunction waw may mean, either 'and' or 'but'; it is understood in the latter sense here, and thus implies that there is a different standard for the Sabbath, since both statements are part of the same Baraitha. ');">19 — Say, and likewise in respect of baldness, [the standard is] two. It was taught likewise: If one plucks out a full scissors' edge [of hair] on the Sabbath, he is culpable. And how much is a full scissors' edge? Two. R. Eliezer said: One. But the Sages agree with R. Eliezer in the case of one who picks out white hairs from black ones, that he is culpable even for one;20 and this is interdicted even on weekdays, for it is said, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment.21 It was taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: As for a nail the greater part of which is severed,22 and shreds [of skin] the largest portions of which are severed [from the body], — by hand it is permitted [wholly to remove them]; (if one severs them] with a utensil, he is liable to a sin-offering. Is there anything which [if done] with a utensil renders one liable to a sin-offering, yet is permitted by hand at the very outset?23 — This is its meaning: If the greater portions thereof are severed by hand, it is permitted [to remove them wholly]; if done with a utensil one is not culpable, yet it is prohibited. If the greater portions thereof are not severed, [if wholly removed] by hand one is not culpable. yet it is prohibited: with a utensil, one is liable to a sin-offering. Rab Judah said: The halachah is as R. Simeon b. Eleazar. Said Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in R. Johanan's name: Providing they are severed towards the top.24 so that they pain him. LIKEWISE IF [A WOMAN] PLAITS, etc. She who plaits, paints or rouges, on what score is she culpable? — R. Abin said in the name of R. Jose son of R. Hanina: She who plaits on the score of weaving; she who paints on the score of writing; she who rouges on account of spinning.25 Said the Rabbis before R. Abbahu: Are then weaving, writing, and spinning done in this way? Rather said R. Abbahu: R. Jose son of R. Hanina's [statement] was explained to me [thus]:

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat

HALAKHAH: ⁶³Discussion of Mishnah 7. In A simply a note: (new) Mishnah. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: Where do they differ? If he himself took them but if another took them they are disgusting⁶⁴Since it is unprofessional to trim somebody else’s fingernail with his fingers, even R. Eliezer must agree that there is no liability created. Babli 94b.. The words of the Sages, Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Naḥum in the name of Rav, he is never liable unless he take them with a grooming knife⁶⁵Greek κνηστήρ, -ῆρος, ὁ. S. Liebermann, Tosefta kiFshutah Šabbat p. 137, Note 31, supported by the reading of A. In the Babli, the word appears as גנוסטר. In contrast to the Yerushalmi which requires a professional tool, the Babli declares liability for the use of any tool, 94b.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: The one who braids is liable because of building⁶⁶Babli 94b/95a.. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Banaya: At our place they call builder one who is plaiting⁶⁷Berakhot61a, explaining Gen. 2:22, not that God built up the rib, but that He braided the side (the female side of the human created as Siamese twin, Gen. 1:27.). Rebbi Zeˋira said, would it not be reasonable that it should be because of weaving? The argument of Rebbi Zeˋira is inverted, for there said Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one who plaits three hairs of a human is liable because of weaving; Rebbi Zeˋira said, is it not spinning rather than weaving? And here he says so! There if they are few, here for many⁶⁸Plaiting a few hairs is like spinning, braiding a full head of hair is like weaving.. That is what you say about a human, but for an animal it is pure, as it was stated: One who makes a belt⁶⁹Latin fascia, -ae, f.. under the heart, to beautify, or to fasten the bags⁷⁰Latin marsupium, -ii,n.., to hang it around an animal’s neck, is pure⁷¹This has nothing to do with the rules of the Sabbath. It is a side remark that only vessels and implements for human use are susceptible to impurity, not anything manufactured for exclusive use as decoration of animals. Cf. Tosephta Kelim Bava batra 4:14.. That is, for simple ones. But if the are folded, whether for human or for animal they are impure⁷²The moment anything can be used as a container it is usable for a human and therefore subject to impurity even if used for animals.. The one who applies kohl is liable because of writing;⁷³Since circling the eye with kohl amounts to writing the letter ס or the paleo-Hebrew ˋayin, o. the one who puts on make-up is liable because of dyeing⁶⁶Babli 94b/95a..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse