Shabbat 108b (קח:) — the Talmud in English

But he may prepare the salt water

that is, a small amount of salt water,

and dip his bread in it, and place it

in

the cooked dish.

Rabbi Yosei said: But is this not hilmei, whether in a large quantity or a small quantity?!

For even a small amount is prohibited to prepare, as it too resembles tanning.

Rather,

and these are the permitted salt waters: One places oil initially into the water

before placing salt in it,

or into the salt

before placing the water in it, for the oil weakens the force of the salt, and the mixture is not called salt water. [But one may not first mix water and salt, even if he subsequently adds oil, since at the moment he makes the salt water, it immediately appears as processing].

Gemara:

And we raise a difficulty:

What is the tanna

of the Mishna saying? What is hilmei, and what is salt water?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This is what he is saying: One may not prepare a large quantity of salt water, but he may prepare a small quantity of salt water.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yosei said: But is this not hilmei, whether in a large quantity or a small quantity?

It was raised as a dilemma:

Did

Rabbi Yosei come to prohibit

even a small quantity,

or to permit

even a large quantity?

Rav Yehuda said: To permit!

And there is proof for this:

Since it does not teach, “Rabbi Yosei prohibits,”

it follows that he came to permit.

Rabba said to him:

On the contrary,

from the fact that it teaches

Rabbi Yosei in

the latter clause: “And these are the permitted salt waters,” it follows that Rabbi Yosei came to prohibit,

for he is saying that only these are permitted.

Rather, Rabba said: To prohibit!

And Rabbi Yohanan likewise said: To prohibit!

It was taught likewise in a beraita: One may not prepare a large quantity of salt water to place in pickling vats,

vegetables that he pickles for preservation,

inside a gistera,

which is a broken earthenware vessel unfit for any use, which he designates for this purpose.

But he may prepare a small quantity of salt water, eat his bread in it, and place it into the cooked dish.

Rabbi Yosei said: Is it because these are a large quantity and those are a small quantity—

that these are prohibited and those are permitted?!

If so,

people will say:

“

A large amount of labor is prohibited, but a small amount of labor is permitted?!”

Rather, both these and those—

are prohibited!

And these are the permitted salt waters: One places oil and salt

at the outset,

or oil and water

at the outset,

provided that he does not initially place water and salt,

even if he subsequently adds oil.

Rabbi Yehuda bar Ḥaviva taught: One may not prepare strong salt water

even in a small quantity [Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 321:2].

And we raise a difficulty:

What is strong salt water?

Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: Any salt water in which an egg floats,

as the strength of the salt prevents the egg from sinking.

And we explain:

And how much

salt does it contain?

Abaye said: Two-thirds salt and one-third water.

What is it prepared for?

Rabbi Abbahu said: For muraisa,

to pickle fish in it.

Rabbi Yehuda bar Ḥaviva taught: One may not salt radish or an egg on Shabbat

by placing many pieces together, because the salt processes them and improves them, making them firm.

Rav Ḥizkiya said in the name of Abaye: Radish is prohibited, but an egg is permitted,

because it is not customary to make pickles from it, and salt is not as effective on it [Mishna Berura, there, subparagraph 18].

Rav Naḥman said: At first,

initially,

I would salt radish

on Shabbat.

I said: I am merely damaging it,

and this is not an improvement.

For Shmuel said: Radish—the sharper it is—

the better

it is; the salt diminishes its sharpness.

Once I heard this, that when Ulla came and said: In the West they salt

radish

in layers,

one round on top of another until it reaches a considerable height, I conclude that salt benefits radish. Therefore,

I would not salt

two pieces together on Shabbat, but

for dipping

the radish in salt while eating it—

I would certainly dip it.

Rabbi Yehuda bar Ḥaviva taught: An etrog, a radish, and an egg, were it not for their outer peels, would never pass through the intestines,

as they cause constipation. [Regarding the egg, the reference is to the white and not literally to the shell; and because etrog and radish were mentioned, it likewise used the expression “peel,” Rashi].

When Rav Dimi came, he said: No man has ever drowned in the Sea of Sodom

in the Salt Sea, because the strength of the salt prevents him from drowning.

Rav Yosef said: Sodom is overturned, and its wording is overturned!

That is, just as Sodom was overturned, so too the statements said about it are reversed. For one could challenge: Is it only

a man who does not drown,

but

a beam

of wood

does drown?!

Abaye said to him: He is stating an obvious inference: It is not necessary to say that a beam does not drown, for even in all the waters in the world it would not drown; rather, even a man, who drowns in all the waters in the world,

does not drown in the Sea of Sodom.

And we explain:

What practical difference is there

in the fact that the waters of the Sea of Sodom are extremely salty?

It is relevant

to the incident involving Ravin, who was walking

behind

Rabbi Yirmeya on the bank

of

the Sea of Sodom.

He said to him,

Ravin said to Rabbi Yirmeya:

What is the ruling with regard to washing

the eye

with these waters on Shabbat?

Is it prohibited because they heal the eye, and the Sages prohibited all medical treatment on Shabbat, as a decree lest one grind medicinal substances and violate the labor of grinding?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yirmeya said to him:

It is perfectly permitted!

For it is not evident that he is washing it for medicinal purposes; rather, he is simply washing his eye.

Ravin again asked Rabbi Yirmeya:

What is the ruling with regard to squeezing shut and opening

the eye so that the water will penetrate into it?

Rabbi Yirmeya said to him:

Rabbi Yirmeya said:

I have not heard this,

but

I have heard a similar matter!

For Rabbi Zeira said: Sometimes he would state it in the name of Rav Mattana,

the following matter,

and sometimes he would state it in the name of Mar Ukva

[for in fact he heard the same matter from both of them].

And both of them,

Rav Mattana and Mar Ukva,

said in the name of Shmuel’s father and Levi

two matters: one in the name of Shmuel’s father and one in the name of Levi.

One

of them, Shmuel’s father or Levi,

said: Wine

that is

inside the eye,

that is, when one closes and opens the eye,

is prohibited

to place there, as it is evident that he is doing so for medicinal purposes. But

on the surface of the eye,

without closing and opening it,

it is permitted

as it does not appear that he is applying it for medicinal purposes, but merely for washing.

Thus, squeezing shut and opening the eye is prohibited.

And this is the answer to the earlier question: What practical difference does the strength of the salinity of the Sea of Sodom make? Since the waters are so salty, they heal; therefore, squeezing shut and opening the eye is prohibited.

And the other

of the two

said: Tasteless saliva

from one who has eaten nothing that day [which heals]—

is prohibited even on the surface of the eye

to place, as it is evident that he is doing so for medicinal purposes, since it is repulsive for washing.

And we say:

It can be concluded,

there is proof

that it was Shmuel’s father who said: Wine inside the eye—

is prohibited; on the surface of the eye—

it is permitted.

As Shmuel said: A person may soak his bread in wine and place it on the surface of the eye on Shabbat.

From whom did he hear this

Shmuel?

From whom?

Is it not that he heard it from his father!

Thus, Shmuel’s father said that it is permitted to place wine on the surface of the eye.

And we reject this:

But according to your reasoning, this statement that Shmuel said: Tasteless saliva—

is prohibited even on the surface of the eye.

From whom did he hear it?

If you say that he heard it from his father,

then

it was Levi, and he did not state even one of them?!

Yet one of the two traditions certainly came from Levi.

Rather,

necessarily,

he heard one

of them

from his father, and he heard one from Levi, but we do not know which one he heard

from

his father and which from Levi.

We still do not know which statement was said by Shmuel’s father and which was said by Levi.

Mar Ukva said in the name of Shmuel: A person may soak an eye lotion,

a medicinal compress,

before Shabbat, and place it on his eyes on Shabbat, and he need not be concerned

that, in his own case, he might come to grind medicinal substances, since he has an indication that it was permitted for him only to soak it before Shabbat; while other people do not know that it is a medicine, but assume that it is wine and wash their eyes with it.

Bar Livai was standing before Mar Ukva. He saw that he was squeezing and opening

his eyes when applying the eye lotion.

He said to him: Surely Shmuel did not permit all this!

For by opening and closing the eyes, it is evident to everyone that he is doing so for medicinal purposes.

Rabbi Yannai sent to Mar Ukva: Let the Master send us some of those eye lotions of Shmuel

[as Shmuel was a physician, and Mar Ukva would frequently visit him].

He sent to him,

Mar Ukva sent to him:

I shall indeed send them to you, so that you will not say that I am miserly. But,

you do not need them. For

Shmuel said as follows: A drop of cold water

to place inside the eye

in the morning, and washing the hands and feet in hot water in the evening

which brightens the eyes—

are better than all the eye lotions in the world!

It was taught likewise: Rabbi Muna said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: A drop of cold water in the morning and washing the hands and feet in the evening are better than all the eye lotions in the world.

He would say:

A hand

that touches

the eye

before washing the hands in the morning—

should be cut off!

That is, it is better for a person that the hand be cut off and not touch the eye, because an evil spirit rests upon the hand and blinds the eye.

A hand to the nose should be cut off!

For it harms the nose, and likewise in all the following cases.

A hand to the mouth should be cut off! A hand to the ear should be cut off! A hand to the bloodletting site,

the place where blood is let,

should be cut off! A hand to the forearm should be cut off! A hand to the anus should be cut off! [In these two cases, it is prohibited even after washing the hands: in the case of the forearm, because it can lead to seminal emission, and in the case of the anus, because frequent handling leads to hemorrhoids. They are mentioned here only in connection with “should be cut off” in the other cases, Rashi].

[In these last two cases, the prohibition applies even after washing the hands. In the case of the sexual organ, because touching it can lead to an emission; and in the case of the anus, because frequent handling can lead to hemorrhoids. They are mentioned here only along with the expression “should be cut off” used for the other cases, Rashi].