Shabbat 111a — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection:

But did not Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba say that Rabbi Yohanan said: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

Everyone agrees,

even the tanna'im who permitted inflicting a blemish upon a firstborn animal that already has a blemish,

that with one who leavens after another who leavens, he is liable.

In making a flour-offering, it is stated in the Torah that it is forbidden to make it leavened. And if one kneaded the dough by leavening it and the second baked it, even the second is liable, although it had already become leavened,

as it is stated: “You shall not bake it leavened”; “You shall not make it leavened.”

Now baking is included within making, and why was it necessary to write it? Rather, to teach that just as one is liable for baking, so one is liable for each and every act.

And likewise, they agree

that with one who castrates after another who castrates, he is liable.

For if one cut the testicles and left them in the scrotum [and he can no longer procreate], and the second came and detached them from the scrotum and threw them away, even he is liable,

as it is stated: “Crushed, or beaten, or detached, or cut ...

and in your land you shall not do.” And this is how we expound it:

If for cutting off he is liable,

even though he left them in the scrotum,

for detaching, is it not all the more so?

And why was it necessary to write “and detached”?

Rather,

this verse comes

to include one who detaches after one who cuts off, that he is liable.

And still it is difficult: How is it permitted for a person to drink a cup of an uprooting potion, even if he is a eunuch? And we answer:

Rather, [it is referring] to an old man,

who can no longer procreate and there is no prohibition of castration in his case [and this is preferable to one who castrates after another who castrates, for that applies specifically when his condition began through castration, whereas old age is not castration Tosafot, heading “Rather, [it is referring] to an old man”]. Therefore, it is permitted for him to drink a cup of an uprooting potion. And we raise an objection:

But Rabbi Yohanan said: “They are precisely

the remedies mentioned in tractate Gittin for one who has no procreative power:

‘Restore me to my youth,’

after I have aged, when my procreative power was renewed.” And since an old man too has the possibility of procreating, is he not forbidden to undergo castration?

And we answer:

Rather, [it is referring] to a woman,

with whom castration is not applicable, and who is also not commanded concerning procreation [as it is written, “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it,” and we expound that specifically a man, whose way is to subdue, is commanded concerning procreation, but not a woman, whose way is not to subdue].

And we raise an objection:

And according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, who says: “It applies to both of them,”

the man and the woman,

he says, “And God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply,’”

in the plural,

what is there to say,

that she should be excluded and become prohibited in castration on account of the mitzva of procreation?

And we conclude:

With an old woman; alternatively, with a barren woman,

for procreation is not applicable to her.

Mishna:

One who has pain in his teeth,

who has toothache,

may not rinse his mouth with vinegar,

he may not fill his mouth with vinegar in order to heal his teeth, for it is evident that he is doing this for healing.

But he may dip in the usual manner,

he may dip his bread and his food in vinegar,

and if he is healed, he is healed.

One who has pain in his loins may not anoint

them with

wine and vinegar,

for it is not customary to anoint with them except for healing.

But he may anoint himself with oil,

for healthy people too customarily anoint themselves with oil.

But not rose oil,

since it is expensive and uncommon, and it is not customary to anoint with it except for healing.

The sons of kings anoint rose oil on their wounds, since it is their practice to anoint themselves with it on weekdays,

even when they have no wound.

Rabbi Shimon says: All Israel are sons of kings,

and what is permitted to the sons of kings is permitted to all Israel.

Gemara:

Rav Aha Arikha, who is Rav Aha bar Pappa, posed it to Rabbi Abbahu: We learned

in the Mishna:

“One who has pain in his teeth may not rinse his mouth with vinegar.”

Does this mean that vinegar is beneficial

and helps

the teeth?

But it is written: “Like vinegar to the teeth and like smoke to the eyes”!

It is not difficult: This refers to the sourness of fruit,

wine made from unripe grapes, which is harsh on the teeth;

that refers to vinegar,

which is good for the teeth.

And if you wish, say: Both refer to vinegar. This one is where there is a wound; that one is where there is no wound.

And we explain:

Where there is a wound, it heals,

for the vinegar heals the teeth.

Where there is no wound, it loosens,

the vinegar weakens the teeth, causing them to move farther apart from one another through the vinegar.

We learned in the Mishna:

“He may not rinse his mouth with vinegar.”

And we considered it:

But it was taught in a beraita: “He may not rinse and spit, but he may rinse and swallow,”

since it is not evident that he is drinking for healing, whereas the Mishna prohibits rinsing in every manner?

And we answer:

Abaye said: When we also learned it in the Mishna, we learned it as: “He may rinse and spit”!

But swallowing is permitted.

Rava said: You may even say

that the Mishna is speaking of

rinsing and swallowing,

and it is not difficult:

Here, before dipping,

the beraita that permits swallowing is speaking before eating, when it was their practice to dip in vinegar during the meal, and one who sees him swallowing says, “This is his dipping.”

Here, after dipping,

the Mishna is speaking after he has eaten and dipped all that he requires, when he is certainly drinking it for healing.

And we raise an objection:

Let us say: Since before dipping it is permitted, after dipping it should also be permitted,

for you have no matter that is forbidden during part of Shabbat and permitted during another part of it; rather, since it is permitted for part of it, it is permitted for all of it,

for we have heard that Rava holds of “since”?

For in tractate Beitza we say that a person is permitted to immerse on Shabbat, but vessels are forbidden to immerse on Shabbat. And Rava explains the reason: Vessels are forbidden because it appears as though he is repairing a vessel, but a person appears as though he wishes to cool himself in water. And we raise an objection there: This works on Shabbat, but on Yom Kippur, when bathing for pleasure is forbidden and everyone knows that he intends immersion, why is it permitted? Concerning this

Rava said: There is no matter that is permitted on Shabbat and forbidden on Yom Kippur,

rather,

since it is permitted on Shabbat, it is also permitted on Yom Kippur.

And we answer:

Rava retracted from this,

the matter of our discussion, and held that in truth it is permitted even after dipping on the basis of “since”; and he resolves the contradiction between the Mishna and the beraita in accordance with Abaye.

And we raise an objection:

From where [do you know] that he retracted from this? Perhaps he retracted from that,

perhaps that statement concerning Yom Kippur was said by Rava first, and he retracted from it, for we do not say “since”; rather, on Yom Kippur it is truly forbidden to immerse, and likewise in our discussion it is forbidden to rinse with vinegar after dipping?

And we answer:

This cannot enter your mind, for it was taught: All those obligated

to immerse immerse in their usual manner, whether on the Ninth of Av or on Yom Kippur.

And necessarily, that matter in our discussion was said first, and he retracted from it.

We learned in the Mishna:

“One who has pain in his loins ...”

Rabbi Shimon says: All Israel are sons of kings.

Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon!

And we considered it:

Does this mean that Rav holds in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

who is lenient concerning the prohibitions of Shabbat?