Shabbat 222:1

אסור להדוקיה ביומא טבא בההיא אפילו ר"ש מודה דאביי ורבא דאמרי תרווייהו מודה ר"ש בפסיק רישיה ולא ימות

may not be forced into [the bung-hole] on a Festival!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For thereby the moisture which it previously absorbed is wrung out, and this is forbidden. But it is unintentional, whereas R. Simeon holds that such is permitted, v. supra 75a. ');">¹</span> — There even R. Simeon agrees, For Abaye and Raba both maintain: R. Simeon agrees in the case of 'cut off his head but let him not die'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 357, II. 8. ');">²</span>

והאמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר רב הלכה כר' יהודה ורב חנן בר אמי אמר שמואל הלכה כר"ש ורב חייא בר אבין מתני לה בלא גברי רב אמר הלכה כר' יהודה ושמואל אמר הלכה כר"ש אלא אמר רבא אני וארי שבחבורה תרגימנא ומנו רבי חייא בר אבין הלכה כר"ש ולאו מטעמיה

But R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in Rab's name: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Judah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that whatever is unintentional is forbidden. ');">³</span> while R. Hanan b. Ammi said in Samuel's name: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Simeon. Further, R. Hiyya b. Abin recited it without [intermediary] scholars:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'men'. ');">⁴</span>

מאי הלכה כר' שמעון ולאו מטעמיה אילימא הלכה כר"ש דשרי ולאו מטעמיה דאילו ר"ש סבר מסי ורב סבר לא מסי וסבר רב לא מסי והא מדקתני בני מלכים סכין על גבי מכותיהן שמן וורד מכלל דמסי אלא הלכה כר"ש דשרי ולאו מטעמיה דאילו ר"ש סבר אף ע"ג דלא שכיח שרי ורב סבר אי שכיח אין ואי לא שכיח לא ובאתרא דרב שכיח משחא דוורדא:

Rab said: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Judah; while Samuel ruled: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Simeon? — Rather said Raba, I and a lion of the company,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one of our great scholars. ');">⁵</span> viz., R. Hiyya b. Abin, explained it: [Rab said:] The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Simeon, but not on account of his view. What is meant by 'The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Simeon, but not on account of his view?' Shall we say, 'The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Simeon', that it is permitted; 'but not through his reason for R. Simeon holds [that] it heals,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yet it is permitted to all because a thing cannot be permitted to one and forbidden to another. ');">⁶</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך שמנה שרצים</strong></big><br><br>

whereas Rab holds that it does not heal? Does then Rab hold that it does not heal? But surely, since he [the Tanna] states, ROYAL CHILDREN MAY ANOINT THEIR WOUNDS WITH ROSE OIL, it follows that [all agree] that it does heal? But 'the <i>halachah</i> is as R. Simeon', that it is permitted; 'but not through his reason': for whereas R. Simeon holds that in spite of its being rare it is permitted, Rab holds: Only if it is common [is it permitted], but not if it is rare,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where it is evident that it is applied as a remedy. ');">⁷</span> and in Rab's place rose oil was common.

מתני׳ <big><strong>ואלו</strong></big> קשרים שחייבין עליהן קשר הגמלין וקשר הספנין וכשם שהוא חייב על קישורן כך הוא חייב על היתרן ר"מ אומר כל קשר שהוא יכול להתירו באחת מידיו אין חייבין עליו:

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. Now, THESE ARE THE KNOTS WHICH ENTAIL CULPABILITY:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tying knots is a principal labour, supra 73a. ');">⁸</span> CAMEL-DRIVERS' KNOTS AND SAILORS' KNOTS. AND JUST AS ONE IS GUILTY FOR TYING THEM, SO IS HE GUILTY FOR UNTYING THEM. R. MEIR SAID: ANY KNOT WHICH ONE CAN UNTIE WITH ONE HAND ENTAILS NO GUILT.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי קשר הגמלין וקשר הספנין אילימא קטרא דקטרי בזממא וקטרא דקטרי באיסטרידא האי קשר שאינו של קיימא הוא אלא קיטרא דזממא גופיה ודאיסטרידא גופה:

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. What are CAMEL-DRIVERS' KNOTS AND SAILORS' KNOTS? Shall we say, the knot which is tied through the nose ring<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rash: a ring was inserted through the camel's nose (this ring was of cord, and had to be knotted after passing through the nose — R. Han., and the same appears from the Gemara) and when it was to be tethered a long rope was tied thereto. The reference is to the knot that is made in tying this long rope. ');">⁹</span> and the knot which is tied through the ship's ring,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: a ring at the head of the ship, through which a rope was passed and tied when the ship was moored. Jast. translates: the loop which they made when attaching the sail to the rigging. ');">¹⁰</span>

ר"מ אומר כל קשר כו': בעי רב אחדבוי אחוי דמר אחא עניבה לר"מ מהו טעמיה דר"מ משום דיכול להתירו באחת מידיו הוא והא נמי יכול להתירו או דילמא טעמא דר"מ משום דלא מיהדק והא מיהדק תיקו:

but these are non-permanent knots?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only a permanent knot entails guilt, and these are naturally untied when the camel or the ship moves on. ');">¹¹</span> Rather it means the knot of the nose ring itself and of the ship's ring itself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are permanent. ');">¹²</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> יש לך קשרין שאין חייבין עליהן כקשר הגמלין וכקשר הספנין קושרת אשה מפתח חלוקה וחוטי סבכה ושל פסקיא ורצועות מנעל וסנדל ונודות יין ושמן וקדירה של בשר ראב"י אומר קושרין לפני הבהמה בשביל שלא תצא:

R. MEIR SAID: ANY KNOT, etc. R. Ahadbuy the brother of Mar Aha asked: What of a slip-knot<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or, loop, which, however, is strongly fastened. ');">¹³</span> on R. Meir's view: is R. Meir's reason because it can be untied with one hand, and this too can be untied;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it does not involve guilt. ');">¹⁴</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> הא גופא קשיא אמרת יש קשרין שאין חייבין עליהן כקשר הגמלין וכקשר הספנין חיובא הוא דליכא הא איסורא איכא והדר תני קושרת אשה מפתח חלוקה אפילו לכתחילה הכי קאמר יש קשרין שאין חייבין עליהן כקשר הגמלין וכקשר הספנין ומאי ניהו

or perhaps R. Meir's reason is that it is not well-fastened,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An ordinary knot must be quite loose if it can be untied with one hand. ');">¹⁵</span> whereas this is well-fastened? The question stands over. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. YOU HAVE SOME KNOTS WHICH DO NOT ENTAIL GUILT LIKE FOR CAMEL-DRIVERS' KNOTS AND SAILORS' KNOTS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nevertheless they are forbidden. The Gemara explains which are meant. ');">¹⁶</span> A WOMAN MAY TIE UP THE OPENING OF HER CHEMISE, THE RIBBONS OF HER HAIR-NET AND OF HER GIRDLE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi. Jast.: the cords of the breast bandage. ');">¹⁷</span> THE LACES OF HER SHOES OR SANDALS, PITCHERS OF WINE AND OIL, AND THE MEAT POT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All these are tied and untied daily, and therefore are not permanent. ');">¹⁸</span> R. ELEAZAR B. JACOB SAID: ONE MAY TIE [A ROPE] IN FRONT OF AN ANIMAL,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., across the stable entrance. ');">¹⁹</span> THAT IT SHOULD NOT GO OUT. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. This is self-contradictory: you say, YOU HAVE SOME KNOTS WHICH DO NOT ENTAIL GUILT LIKE FOR CAMEL-DRIVERS' KNOTS AND SAILORS' KNOTS; thus there is indeed no guilt, but there is a prohibition. Then he [the Tanna] teaches: A WOMAN MAY TIE UP THE OPENING OF HER CHEMISE, [which means] even at the very outset? — This is what he says: YOU HAVE SOME KNOTS WHICH DO NOT ENTAIL GUILT LIKE FOR CAMEL-DRIVERS' KNOTS AND SAILORS' KNOTS, and which are they?