Shabbat 22

Chapter 22

א וכן בגת
1 and the same applies to a wine vat.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is now assumed to mean that one must not stand in either a public or private ground, as the case may be, and drink from the vat. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב איבעיא להו כרמלית מאי אמר אביי היא היא רבא אמר היא גופה גזירה ואנן ניקום ונגזור גזירה לגזירה
2 The scholars propounded: What of a <i>karmelith</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' May one stand in public or private ground and drink in a karmelith, or vice versa? ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג אמר אביי מנא אמינא לה דקתני וכן בגת מאי גת אי רשות היחיד תנינא אי רשות הרבים תנינא אלא לאו כרמלית
3 — Abaye said: It is precisely the same. Raba said: That itself<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition of actually transporting an object between a karmelith and public or private ground. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד רבא אמר וכן בגת לענין מעשר וכן אמר רב ששת וכן בגת לענין מעשר דתנן שותין על הגת בין על החמין בין על הצונן ופטור דברי ר' מאיר ר' אלעזר בר' צדוק מחייב וחכ"א על החמין חייב על הצונן פטור מפני שהוא מחזיר את המותר
4 is only a preventive measure:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 6a on karmelith. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ה תנן לא יצא החייט במחטו סמוך לחשיכה שמא ישכח ויצא מאי לאו דתחובה לו בבגדו לא דנקיט ליה בידיה
5 are we to arise and enact a preventive measure<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the prohibition of standing in one domain and drinking in another. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ו ת"ש לא יצא החייט במחטו התחובה לו בבגדו מאי לאו בערב שבת לא כי תניא ההיא בשבת והתניא לא יצא החייט במחטו התחובה בבגדו בע"ש עם חשיכה הא מני רבי יהודה היא דאמר אומן דרך אומנתו חייב
6 to safeguard<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for'. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ז דתניא לא יצא החייט במחטו התחובה לו בבגדו ולא נגר בקיסם שבאזנו ולא סורק במשיחה שבאזנו ולא גרדי באירא שבאזנו ולא צבע בדוגמא שבצוארו ולא שולחני בדינר שבאזנו ואם יצא פטור אבל אסור דברי ר"מ ר' יהודה אומר אומן דרך אומנתו חייב ושאר כל אדם פטור
7 another preventive measure!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ח תני חדא לא יצא הזב בכיסו ואם יצא פטור אבל אסור ותניא אידך לא יצא ואם יצא חייב חטאת
8 Abaye said, Whence do I say it? Because it is taught, and the same applies to a wine vat. Now what is this wine vat? If private ground, it has [already] been taught: if public ground, it has [also] been taught. Hence it must surely refer to a <i>karmelith</i>. Raba said: 'And the same applies to a wine vat' is [stated] in reference to tithes; and R. Shesheth said likewise, 'And the same applies to a wine vat' refers to tithes. For we learnt: One may drink [wine] over the vat in [a dilution of] both hot or cold [water], and is exempt [from tithing]: this is R. Meir's view. R. Eleazar son of R. Zadok holds him liable. But the Sages maintain: For a hot [dilution] he is liable; for a cold one he is exempt, because the rest is returned.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The vat is the utensil into which the expressed juice of the grapes runs, whence it descends into the pit beneath. Once it is in the pit its manufacture as wine is complete, and it is liable to tithes, before the rendering of which nothing at all may be drunk. But while it is yet in the vat its manufacture is not complete, and so a little wine may be drunk even before the rendering of the tithes. That, however, is only if it is drunk directly over the vat; if it is taken out, that action itself confers upon it the status of finished wine, and the tithes, etc., must first be given. Thus, when it is taught, 'and the same applies to a wine vat', it means that if one drinks wine from the vat, he is regarded as taking it away, unless he has his head and greater part of his body in the vat, and must render the tithes before he drinks.-Wine was not drunk neat, but diluted with water; if it is diluted with cold water, the rest can be poured back into the vat; if with hot water, it cannot, the hot mixture injuring the rest. R. Meir holds that in both cases, since he does not take it away from the vat, he can drink a little without tithing; R. Eleazar b. R. Zadok rejects this view. The Sages agree with R. Meir if it is diluted with cold water; if it is diluted with hot, since the rest cannot be returned into the vat, it is as though it were carried away, and therefore may not be drunk. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ט אמר רב יוסף לא קשיא הא ר"מ הא ר' יהודה
9 We learnt: A TAILOR MUST NOT GO OUT WITH HIS NEEDLE NEAR NIGHTFALL, LEST HE FORGET HIMSELF AND GO OUT. Surely that means that it is stuck in his garment?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then even carrying it out on the Sabbath is only Rabbinically forbidden as a preventive measure, lest one carry in general, and yet he must also not go out before the Sabbath as a preventive measure lest he go on the Sabbath itself. Thus we have one preventive measure to safeguard another in respect to the Sabbath. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
י א"ל אביי אימור דשמעת ליה לרבי מאיר במידי דלאו היינו אורחיה במידי דהיינו אורחיה מי שמעת ליה דאי לא תימא הכי אלא מעתה הדיוט שחקק קב בבקעת בשבת לר"מ הכי נמי דלא מחייב
10 — No: it means that he holds it in his hand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is Biblically forbidden on the Sabbath. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יא אלא אמר רב המנונא לא קשיא כאן בזב בעל שתי ראיות כאן בזב בעל ג' ראיות
11 Come and hear: A tailor must not go out with a needle sticking in his garment. Surely that refers to the eve of Sabbath? — No; that was taught with reference to the Sabbath. But it was taught, A tailor must not go out with a needle sticking in his garment on the eve of the Sabbath just before sunset? — The author of that is R. Judah, who maintained, An artisan is liable [for carrying out an object] in the manner of his trade.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this is such; thus he regards it as Biblically forbidden. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
יב מ"ש זב בעל שתי ראיות דחייב דמיבעי ליה לבדיקה זב בעל ג' נמי מיבעי ליה לספירה לא נצרכא אלא לבו ביום
12 For it was taught: A tailor must not go out with a needle stuck in his garment, nor a carpenter with a chip behind his ear,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: this was the sign of his trade, and he wore it that he might be recognized and offered employment. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
יג והא מיבעי ליה כדי שלא יטנפו כליו א"ר זירא האי תנא הוא דאמר כל אצולי טינוף לא קא חשיב דתנן הכופה קערה על הכותל אם בשביל שתודח הקער' הרי זה בכי יותן אם בשביל
13 nor a [wool] corder with the cord in his ear, nor a weaver with the cotton<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Krauss in T.A. 1. p. 249 and p. 281 a.l. translates: a small distaff, carried behind the ear as an indication of a man's trade. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> in his ear, nor a dyer with a [colour] sample round his neck, nor a money-changer with a <i>denar</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A coin. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> in his ear; and if he does go forth, he is not liable, though it is forbidden: this is R. Meir's view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He regards these as unnatural ways of carrying, whereas Scripture prohibits only the natural mode of any particular form of labour. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> R. Judah said: An artisan is liable [for carrying out an object] in the manner of his trade, but all other people are exempt. One [Baraitha] taught: A <i>zab</i> must not go out with his pouch;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To receive his discharge. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> yet if he goes out he is not liable, though it is forbidden. And another taught: A <i>zab</i> must not go out with his pouch, and if he goes out he is liable to a sin-offering!-Said R. Joseph, There is no difficulty: the former is R. Meir; the latter R. Judah. Abaye said to him. When have you heard R. Meir [to give this ruling], in respect to something which it is not natural [to carry thus]; but have you heard him in respect to something which demands that mode [of carrying]? For should you not say so, then if an unskilled worker hollows out a measure from a <i>log</i> on the Sabbath, would he indeed be exempt on R. Meir's view?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because he did not do it in a professional manner? Surely not, for if so only a skilled worker will be liable for doing something of his own trade. Hence it must be that a person is liable for doing any labour in the manner natural to himself, and the same applies to a zab and his pouch. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> Rather, said R. Hamnuna, there is no difficulty; the one refers to a <i>zab</i> who has had two attacks,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'sights'-of discharge. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> the other to a <i>zab</i> who has had three attacks.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When a zab has had three attacks be must bring a sacrifice (Lev. XV, 13-15). Consequently, after two attacks he needs this pouch to see whether he has a third (which otherwise may pass unknown to him), and since he needs it that is the natural way for him to carry it, and therefore he is liable. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> Now, why does a <i>zab</i> of two attacks differ in that he is liable? [Presumably] because he requires it for examination!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in last note. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> But then a <i>zab</i> of three attacks also requires it for counting?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After he ceases to discharge he must count seven consecutive days of cleanness, i.e., in which there is no discharge (ibid.): a single attack during this period necessitates counting afresh from the following day. Hence he too needs this pouch for that period. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> It holds good only for that very day.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he is not liable only if he had the third attack on that Sabbath itself; he does not need the pouch then, as in any case he commences counting only on the next day. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> Yet still he needs it to prevent the soiling of his garments? — Said R. Zera, This agrees with the following Tanna, who maintains, The prevention of soiling has no [positive] importance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when a thing is done not for its own sake but to prevent something from being soiled, it is not regarded as a positive act and involves no liability. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> For we learnt: If one overturns a basin on a wall, in order that the basin be washed [by the rain], it falls within [the terms of], 'and if it [water] be put [etc.]'; if in order