Shabbat 92

Bracelets, ear-rings and [finger]rings are like all utensils which may be handled in a yard.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though a woman may not wear them in the street; v. infra 59b and M.K. 12b. ');">¹</span>

And 'Ulla said: What is the reason? Since they bear the character of a utensil. So here too, since it bears the character of a utensil [it may be handled]. R. Nahman b. Isaac observed: Praised be the All Merciful, that Raba did not put R. Awia to shame.

Abaye pointed out a contradiction to Rabbah: It was taught: The residue of the oil in the lamp or in the dish is forbidden; but R. Simeon permits [it]. Thus we see that R. Simeon rejects mukzeh. But the following opposes it: R. Simeon said: Wherever the blemish was not perceptible from the eve of the Festival, it is not mukan!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Bez. 27a. A firstling may not be slaughtered and consumed unless it has a blemish: R. Simeon said that it may not be slaughtered on a Festival unless its blemish was already known on the eve thereof. Otherwise the animal was not mukan, i.e., prepared for the Festival, Thus he accepts the interdict of mukzeh. ');">²</span>

— How compare! There, a man sits and hopes, When will his lamp go out!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To save the oil. Hence R. Simeon holds that it is not really mukzeh. ');">³</span>

But here, does a man sit and hope, When will it receive a blemish?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not! In fact, he does hope, but without expecting it, whereas one does expect a lamp to go out. ');">⁴</span>

[For] he argues: Who can say that it will receive a blemish? And even if you say that it will, who can say that it will be a permanent blemish?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a temporary blemish does not permit the animal to be slaughtered. ');">⁵</span>

And even if you say that it will be a permanent blemish, who can say that a scholar will oblige him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A scholar had to examine the blemish and declare it permanent. Could he be sure that he would obtain a scholar for this on the Festival? ');">⁶</span>

Rami b. Hama objected: Vows can be annulled on the Sabbath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A husband can annul his wife's vows, or a father his daughter's. ');">⁷</span>

and one may apply<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To a scholar. ');">⁸</span>

for absolution from vows where such is necessary for the Sabbath. Yet why: let us argue, who can say that her husband will oblige her?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When a woman forswears benefit from anything, she thrusts it away from herself, and it becomes like mukzeh. Even if her husband annuls her vow, she could not have anticipated it, and so it should remain mukzeh. ');">⁹</span> — There it is as R. Phinehas in Raba's name. For R. Phinehas said in Raba's name: Whoever vows does so conditional upon her husband's consent.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence she relies that her husband will annul it as soon as he is cognizant of it and the object was never mukzeh. ');">¹⁰</span> Come and hear: One may apply for absolution from vows on the Sabbath where it is necessary for the Sabbath. Yet why? let us argue, Who can say that a Sage will oblige him? — There, if a Sage will not oblige, three laymen suffice; but here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the blemish of a firstling. ');">¹¹</span> who can say that a Sage will oblige him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Absolution can be granted by a Sage or three laymen; but only a Sage can declare a blemish permanent, unless it is obvious, e.g., when a limb is missing. ');">¹²</span> Abaye raised a difficulty before R. Joseph: Did then R. Simeon rule, If it [the lamp] is extinguished, it may be handled: thus, only if it is extinguished, but not if it is not extinguished What is the reason? [Presumably] lest through his handling it, it goes out?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By lifting it up he may create a draught. ');">¹³</span> But we know R. Simeon to rule that whatever is unintentional is permitted. For it was taught, R. Simeon said: One may drag a bed, seat, or bench, providing that he does not intend to make a rut! — Wherever there is a Scriptural interdict if it is intentional,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Extinguishing a light is Scripturally forbidden. ');">¹⁴</span> R. Simeon forbids it by Rabbinical law even if unintentional; but wherever there is [only] a Rabbinical interdict even if it is intentional,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., indirectly making a rut by dragging a heavy article over the floor. ');">¹⁵</span> R. Simeon permits it at the outset if unintentional. Raba objected: Clothes' merchants may sell in their normal fashion, providing that one does not intend [to gain protection] from the sun in hot weather or from the rain when it is raining; but the strictly religious sling them on a staff behind their back.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 29b. ');">¹⁶</span> Now here, though it is Scripturally intentional, yet if unintentional R. Simeon permits it at the outset? — Rather said Raba,