Shabbat 108a — the Talmud in English

Abaye said: One who plucks ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page position")

mushroom

mushrooms

from the ear of a bucket,

from the bucket’s ear, where it grows on the water

is liable on account of uprooting a thing from its place of growth.

Rav Oshaya raised an objection: We learned [

above 95a]:

One who plucks

on Shabbat

from a perforated flowerpot is liable, but one who plucks

from one that is

not perforated is exempt.

But kushata and mushrooms have an interruption between them and the ground, and their law is like that of a flowerpot that is not perforated; why should one be liable for them?

And we answer:

There,

that is not its way of growth!

For it is not the way to sow in a flowerpot that is not perforated, and this is not its “place of growth.”

Here, it is its way of growth,

this is the essential manner in which kushata and the mushroom grow.

We learned in the Mishna:

An animal and a bird ...

and one who wounds them is liable.

Rav Huna said: One writes tefillin on the skin of a kosher bird.

Rav Yosef said: What does he teach us

Rav Huna? Is he coming to teach us

that it has skin

the bird? But

we already learned

in the Mishna with regard to this:

One who wounds them is liable,

and the reason is that they have skin?

Abaye said to him: Rav Huna teaches us a great deal

Rav Huna!

For if it were only from the Mishna, I would say

that even though a bird has skin, nevertheless,

since it has many perforations,

in the place of the roots of the feathers,

we do not

write on it, because we require that the writing be complete and not interrupted [as we derive from “and you shall write them,” that it must be complete writing].

He teaches us

Rav Huna that we do write.

As they say in the West: Every perforation

that is so small that

the ink passes over it

and seals it

is not a perforation!

Since the letter does not appear divided into two. And these perforations in the skin of a bird are also small, and the ink passes over them.

Rabbi Zeira raised an objection:

It was taught: It is stated concerning the burnt-offering of a bird, “And he shall split it”

“with its wings,”

and we expound:

to render the skin fit

for burning on the altar, for it does not require flaying like the burnt-offering of an animal [as it implies that he should split it and burn it while its wings are still on it, that is, while the feathers are still attached to the skin].

And if it enters your mind

that the skin of a bird

is skin —

how does the verse include it for burning?

Abaye said to him: It is skin! And the Merciful One included it

so that this skin should be offered upon the altar.

Some say: Rabbi Zeira said: We too have learned this

like Rav Huna, that a bird has skin. For it was taught:

“With its wings,” to include the skin.

Granted, if you say that it is skin, this is why the verse was needed to include it. But if you say that it is not skin—

why was the verse needed to include it?

For it is like all the flesh of the burnt-offering of a bird, all of which is burned upon the altar?

Abaye said to him: In truth, I can say to you that it is not skin

. And

nevertheless

it was needed

the verse. For

it might enter your mind to say: Since it has perforations, perforations,

holes—

it is repulsive

for offering.

It teaches us

that it is fit.

Mar, the son of Ravina, asked Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: What is the law concerning writing tefillin on the skin of a kosher fish?

He said to him

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak:

If Elijah will come and say!

And we raised the matter:

What is meant by “If Elijah will come and say”?

But Elijah cannot instruct concerning what is forbidden and what is permitted, for “it is not in heaven”?!

If you say

that he will come and say

whether it has

the fish

skin or whether it does not have skin,

which is a matter of objective fact?

It is impossible to say so. For

we see that it has skin!

And furthermore, we learned

in tractate Kelim:

The bones of a fish and its skin

from which one made a vessel

protect in the tent of the dead,

for what is inside them is not impure when the vessel has a tightly sealed cover. Since these vessels do not contract impurity, and anything that does not contract impurity serves as a barrier before impurity.

Thus, the skin of a fish is considered skin. For if it were like the flesh of a fish, it would contract impurity like every food? And we answer:

Rather, “If Elijah will come and say whether the foulness has departed from it or whether the foulness has not departed from it,”

of the fish’s skin. For as long as foulness remains upon it, it is not fit for writing tefillin.

Shmuel and Karna [

the name of an amora]

were sitting on the bank,

on the bank of

the Malka River,

in Babylonia,

when they saw the water rising and becoming turbid

as the river’s waves rose and the water became turbid.

Shmuel said to Karna: Since the wind is not blowing now, certainly the waves are rising because

поскольку сейчас не дует ветер, несомненно, высота волн вызвана тем, что

a great man is coming from the West,

from the Land of Israel,

and he is troubled in his bowels, and the water is rising to receive his face before him!

For in his honor the water rose, in order to make a partition around him when he relieves himself against the sides of the boat [another explanation: so that he could wipe himself with the water].

Go, examine his vessel!

Go and smell his vessel, whether it is wine or vinegar—in other words, examine whether he is a sage or not.

He went

Karna,

and found Rav.

He discovered that this man was Rav, who had come from the Land of Israel.

He said to him

to Rav:

From where is it established that one writes tefillin only on the skin of a kosher animal?

Rav said

to him:

For it is written

concerning tefillin:

“So that the Torah of the Lord shall be in your mouth.”

And we expound:

From that which is permitted

in your mouth—

that which is fit to eat, namely, a kosher animal.

He asked him again:

From where is it established that blood is red

so that only blood with a red appearance renders a woman impure with the impurity of nida?

Rav said to him:

As it is stated: “And Moab saw opposite them the water red as blood.”

Thus, blood is red, and concerning nida it is written “blood.”

He asked him again:

From where is it established that circumcision

is

in that place?

Rav said to him:

It is stated here

concerning circumcision,

“its foreskin,” and it is stated there,

concerning the foreskin of trees,

“its foreskin.” Just as there it is something that produces fruit, so here it is something that produces fruit,

that is, a place that reproduces. Karna said to him:

Say

that circumcision is in

his heart. For it is written, “And you shall circumcise the foreskin of your heart”? And

И

say

that he should circumcise

his ear. For it is written, “Behold, their ear is uncircumcised”?

Rav said to him:

They derive “its foreskin,” complete, from “its foreskin,” complete.

For concerning circumcision and a tree it is written “its foreskin.”

But they do not derive “its foreskin,” complete, from “foreskin,” which is not complete,

for it is not stated explicitly whose foreskin it is.

He said to him

Rav

: What is your name?

He said to him:

Karna!

He said to him: May it be the will [of Heaven] that a horn should emerge in his eye!

For he had come to test whether he was a sage.

In the end, Shmuel brought Rav

to his

house. He fed him

gave him to eat

barley bread

barley bread

and a dish of small fish,

small fish fried in their oil,

and gave him beer to drink,

for Shmuel was a physician and knew that all these things have a laxative effect,

but he did not show him

where

the bathroom was, so that he would have a bowel movement,

so that by waiting he would be cleansed of the waste in his intestines.

Rav cursed,

cursed

and said: Whoever causes me distress—

may his sons not be established

may sons not endure for him.

And so it was!

And that which Rav said above, that we derive that circumcision is in that place from a tree, is

a dispute between tannaim.

For it was taught:

From where is it established that circumcision

is

in that place?

It is stated here, “its foreskin,” and it is stated there, “its foreskin”—

just as there it is something that produces fruit, so here it is something that produces fruit. These are the words of Rabbi Yoshiyya.

Rabbi Natan says: It is not necessary

to learn from another place. Rather,

behold, it says

in the verse concerning circumcision itself:

“And an uncircumcised male who does not circumcise the flesh of his foreskin,”

which implies that circumcision is in

the place that distinguishes between males and females.

The Sages taught: One writes tefillin on the skin of a kosher animal and on the skin of a kosher wild animal,

and on the skin of their carcasses and torn animals,

even though it is forbidden to eat, as will be explained below.

And they are wrapped

the sections

with their hair

of a kosher animal and wild animal, and afterward they are inserted into the compartments of the tefillin,

and they are sewn

the compartments

with their sinews

of these.

And it is a law given to Moses at Sinai

that

the tefillin are wrapped with their hair and sewn with their sinews

of these.

But one does not write

tefillin

either on the skin of an impure domesticated animal or on the skin of an impure wild animal. And it is not necessary to say

that one does not write

on the skin of their carcass or torn animal.

And they are not wrapped with the hair, nor are they sewn with the sinews

of impure domesticated animals and wild animals.

And this is the question that a certain Boethusian asked Rabbi Yehoshua HaGarsi: From where is it established that one does not write tefillin on the skin of an impure animal?

He said to him:

For it is written, “So that the Torah of the Lord shall be in your mouth,”

and we expound:

From something permitted in your mouth.

The Boethusian asked:

If so, on the skin of carcasses and torn animals

of kosher domesticated animals and wild animals also

should they not be written?

For they are forbidden to eat.

He said to him

Rabbi Yehoshua HaGarsi:

I will give you a parable: To what is this comparable? To two people who were sentenced to death by the kingdom; one the

king killed, and one the

executioner killed,

the one appointed by the king for this.

Which of them is praiseworthy?

You must say: The one whom the king killed!

And so too, the carcasses and torn animals that were struck down by their Creator are more praiseworthy than the kosher animals that were slaughtered by a human being.

The Boethusian said to him:

If so, let them be eaten

the carcasses and torn animals?

He said to him

Rabbi Yehoshua HaGarsi:

The Torah said, “You shall not eat any carcass,” and you say, “Let them be eaten”?!

The Boethusian said to him

:

Beautiful!

A fine answer that you have said.

Mishna:

One does not make helmei on Shabbat

It is forbidden to make a large quantity of salt water in order to pickle vegetables with it, because in this way one improves the vegetables, since thereby they are preserved for a long time; and it is forbidden by rabbinic decree because it resembles the labor of tanning, in which one salts skin so that it will endure.