Shabbat 188

אף במוציא את המת לקוברו אמר רבא ומודה ר' שמעון במר לחפור בו וספר תורה לקרות בו דחייב פשיטא דאי הא נמי מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה היא אלא מלאכה שצריכה לגופה לרבי שמעון היכי משכחת לה מהו דתימא עד דאיכא לגופו ולגופה כגון מר לעשות לו טס ולחפור ספר תורה להגיה ולקרות בו קא משמע לן

even him who carries out a corpse for burial.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though that is for the requirements of the dead, he is exempt, since it is not for the requirements of the living. ');">¹</span> Raba observed: Yet R. Simeon admits in the case of [one who carries out] a spade for digging therewith or the Scroll of the Torah to read it, that he is culpable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is for his own requirements. ');">²</span>

ההוא שכבא דהוה בדרוקרא שרא רב נחמן בר יצחק לאפוקיה לכרמלית א"ל רבי יוחנן אחוה דמר בריה דרבנא לרב נחמן בר יצחק כמאן כר"ש אימר דפטר ר"ש מחיוב חטאת איסורא דרבנן מיהא איכא א"ל האלהים דעיילת ביה את ואפילו לר' יהודה (שרי) דמי קאמינא לרה"ר לכרמלית קאמינא גדול כבוד הבריות שדוחה את לא תעשה שבתורה

That is obvious, for if this too should be regarded as a labour unrequired per se, how would a labour necessary per se be conceivably according to R. Simeon? — You might say, it must be [carried out] both for his requirements and for its own purpose, e.g., a spade in order to make it into a [metal] plate<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Aliter: to fix upon it (if blunted) a plate. v. Rash.] ');">³</span> and for digging, a Scroll of the Law for correcting and reading: [therefore] he informs us [that it is not so].

תנן התם התולש סימני טומאה והכוה המחיה עובר בלא תעשה איתמר אחת משתים חייב אחת משלש רב נחמן אמר חייב רב ששת אמר פטור רב נחמן אמר חייב אהני מעשיו דאי משתקלא חדא אחריתי אזלה לה טומאה רב ששת אמר פטור השתא מיהת הא איתא לטומאה

A dead body was lying in Darukra,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or, Drukerith, Darkerith, a Babylonian town near Wasit on the lower Tigris; Obermeyer, p. 197. ');">⁴</span> which R. Nahman b. Isaac allowed to be carried out into a <i>karmelith</i>. Said R. Nahman the brother of Mar son of Rabbana to R. Nahman b. Isaac: On whose authority? R. Simeon's! But Perhaps R. Simeon merely exempts [such] from liability to a sin-offering, yet there is a Rabbinical interdict. By God! said he to him, you yourself may bring it in. For [this is permitted] even according to R. Judah:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds a labour not required per se to be a culpable offence. ');">⁵</span>

אמר רב ששת מנא אמינא לה דתנן וכן כזית מן המת וכזית מן הנבילה חייב הא חצי זית פטור והתניא חצי זית חייב מאי לאו הא דתניא חייב דאפיק חצי זית מכזית והא דתנן פטור דאפיק חצי זית מכזית ומחצה ורב נחמן אידי ואידי חייב והא דתנן פטור דאפיק חצי זית ממת גדול:

did I then say [that it may be carried out] into the street? I [merely] said, into a <i>karmelith</i>: the dignity of human beings is a great thing, for it supersedes [even] a negative injunction of the Torah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence this is permitted. [Not exactly a Biblical prohibition but an interdict of the Rabbis whose enactments have Biblical force (Rashi). V. Ber. 19b.] ');">⁶</span> We learnt elsewhere: If one plucks out the symptoms of uncleanness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v., the two whitened hairs which are a proof of leprosy; v. Lev. XIII, 3 (the minimum is two hairs). ');">⁷</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הנוטל צפרניו זו בזו או בשיניו וכן שערו וכן שפמו וכן זקנו וכן הגודלת וכן הכוחלת וכן הפוקסת רבי אליעזר מחייב וחכמים אוסרין משום שבות:

or burns out the raw flesh,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Also a symptom of leprosy, ibid. 10. ');">⁸</span> he transgresses a negative injunction.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXI, 8: Take heed in the plague of leprosy this is interpreted as a command not to remove the evidences thereof. ');">⁹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר ר"א מחלוקת ביד אבל בכלי חייב פשיטא זו בזו תנן מהו דתימא רבנן בכלי נמי פטרי והא דקתני זו בזו להודיעך כחו דר' אליעזר קא משמע לן

It was stated: [If he plucks out] one of two [hairs]. he is culpable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he thereby effectively removes the symptom of leprosy, the remaining one being insufficient to prove him unclean. ');">¹⁰</span> one of three: R. Nahman maintained, He is culpable; R. Shesheth said, He is not culpable. R. Nahman maintained, He is culpable: his action is effective in so far that if another is removed the uncleanness departs. R. Shesheth said, He is not culpable: now at all events the uncleanness is present. R. Shesheth observed: Whence do I know it? Because we learnt: AND LIKEWISE [IF ONE CARRIES OUT] THE SIZE OF AN OLIVE OF A CORPSE, THE SIZE OF AN OLIVE OF A <i>NEBELAH</i>, … HE IS CULPABLE. This implies, [for] half the size of an olive he is exempt; but it was taught: [For] half the size of an olive he is culpable? Surely [then], where it was taught that he is culpable, [it means] that he carries out half the size of an olive from [a piece as large as] an olive; while where we learnt [by implication] that he is exempt, [it means] that he carries out half the size of an olive from an olive and a half.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He is culpable in the first case because his action is effective, but in the second it does not effect anything, and the same applies here. ');">¹¹</span>

ואמר רבי אלעזר מחלוקת לעצמו אבל לחבירו דברי הכל פטור פשיטא צפרניו תנן מהו דתימא רבי אליעזר לחבירו נמי מחייב והא דקתני צפרניו להודיעך כחן דרבנן קמ"ל:

But R. Nahman maintains: In both these cases he is culpable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His reasoning is the same as in the case of leprosy. ');">¹²</span> but as to what we learnt that he is exempt, that is where he carries out half the size of an olive of a large corpse.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For even if another half is carried out, it makes no difference to the contaminating efficacy of the corpse. ');">¹³</span>

וכן שערו כו': תנא הנוטל מלא פי הזוג חייב וכמה מלא פי הזוג אמר רב יהודה שתים והתניא ולקרחה שתים אימא וכן לקרחה שתים

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF ONE PARES HIS NAILS WITH EACH OTHER OR WITH HIS TEETH, LIKEWISE [IF ONE PLUCKS] HIS HAIR, LIKEWISE HIS MOUSTACHE, LIKEWISE HIS BEARD; AND LIKEWISE IF [A WOMAN] PLAITS [HER HAIR], LIKEWISE IF SHE PAINTS [HER EYELIDS] LIKEWISE IF SHE ROUGES [HER FACE],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One of the explanations of Rashi. V. also Krauss, T.A. I p. 692 n. 293. ');">¹⁴</span> — R. ELIEZER DECLARES [THEM] CULPABLE, WHILE THE RABBIS FORBID [THESE ACTIONS] AS A SHEBUTH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹⁵</span>

תניא נמי הכי הנוטל מלא פי הזוג בשבת חייב וכמה מלא פי הזוג שתים רבי אליעזר אומר אחת ומודים חכמים לר"א במלקט לבנות מתוך שחורות שאפילו אחת חייב ודבר זה אף בחול אסור משום שנאמר (דברים כב, ה) לא ילבש גבר שמלת אשה

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Eleazar said: They differ only [where it is done] by hand; but if with an implement, all agree that he is culpable. That is obvious, [for] we learnt, WITH EACH OTHER? — You might say, the Rabbis hold [him] exempt even [if he does it] with an implement, while as to what is stated, WITH EACH OTHER, that is to teach you the extent<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'power'. ');">¹⁶</span> of R. Eliezer['s ruling]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that even then he is culpable. ');">¹⁷</span>

תניא ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר צפורן שפירש רובה וציצין שפרשו רובן ביד מותר בכלי חייב חטאת מי איכא מידי דבכלי חייב חטאת וביד מותר לכתחלה הכי קאמר פירשו רובן ביד מותר בכלי פטור אבל אסור לא פירשו רובן ביד פטור אבל אסור בכלי חייב חטאת אמר רב יהודה הלכה כרבי שמעון בן אלעזר אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן והוא שפרשו כלפי מעלה ומצערות אותו:

[hence] he informs us [otherwise]. R. Eleazar also said: They differ only [where one does it] for himself; but [if he does it] for his neighbour, all agree that he is not culpable. That is obvious, [for] we learnt, HIS NAILS? You might say. R. Eliezer holds [him] culpable even [if he does it] for his neighbour, while as to what is stated — HIS NAILS, that is to teach you the extent of the Rabbis[' ruling]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that he is not culpable even when he pares his own nails. ');">¹⁸</span>

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</span> — 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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For its removal makes him look younger; hence it is regarded as a labour. ');">²⁰</span> and this is interdicted even on weekdays, for it is said, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXII, 5. This is interpreted as a general prohibition of effeminacy. which includes the attempt to make oneself look young by such methods. ');">²¹</span> It was taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: As for a nail the greater part of which is severed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is hanging and nearly torn off. ');">²²</span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not! ');">²³</span> — 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 <i>halachah</i> is as R. Simeon b. Eleazar. Said Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in R. Johanan's name: Providing they are severed towards the top.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Near the nail. ');">²⁴</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rouge was drawn out in thread-like lengths, and thus it resembled spinning; v. Tosaf. M.K. 9b s.v. [H]. ');">²⁵</span> 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]: