Shabbat 114a (קיד.) — the Talmud in English

From where is there a Torah source for changing garments,

that it is a matter of honor to change one’s ordinary garments for respectable garments in preparation for an honored mitzva

from the Torah?

As it is stated

[Leviticus 6]

“And he shall remove his garments and wear other garments

, inferior ones, and he shall take out the ashes

”. And the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The Torah taught you proper conduct: “Garments in which one cooked a pot for his master”—

he should not pour a cup for his master while wearing them.

Likewise, during the removal of the ashes, which is an unimportant service and one in which he is liable to become soiled, he should not wear the same garments that he wears during an important service, such as the service of offering the sacrificial portions and pouring the wine, which are called services of “eating and drinking.”

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: It is disgraceful for a Torah scholar to go out to the marketplace in patched shoes

with patches

on them.

And we raised an objection to this:

But Rabbi Aha bar Hanina went out

wearing them!?

Rabbi Aha, son of Rav Naḥman, said:

They taught that they are disgraceful only

when

they are made

with one patch on top of another.

And Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Any Torah scholar on whose garment a grease stain is found

a stain of fat

on his garment—

is liable to death.

This is because the honor of Torah requires that he appear proper and distinguished.

As it is stated

in the Book of Proverbs, chapter 8, in the description of the words of Torah, where the Torah says concerning those who study it and harm its honor

: “All who hate Me—

love death.”

Do not read: “those who hate Me” (mesan’ai), but rather: “those who make Me hated” (masni’ai).

A Torah scholar who goes out wearing a garment with a grease stain causes Torah to be hated in the eyes of people, since they say: Woe to those who study Torah, for they are repulsive and disgraceful. Therefore, he is liable to death.

Ravina said:

The reference is to a

layer

of semen on his garment

, it was stated.

And these amoraim do not disagree

with one another.

This—

the statement that a grease stain was found on him—

refers to his cloak,

his outer garment.

This—

the statement that the substance was semen—

refers to his garment,

his undergarment, beneath the cloak.

And Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: What is the meaning of that which is written

[Isaiah 20]:

“As My servant Isaiah walked

[for three years]

naked and barefoot—

so shall the king of Babylon lead away the captives of Egypt and the exiles of Cush, young and old, naked and barefoot.”

Isaiah did not actually walk naked and barefoot for three years. Rather:

“Naked”—

in worn garments.

And “barefoot”—

in patched shoes.

We learned there

in tractate Mikvaot: 1.

A grease stain

of any size that is found

on an oxgoad

on the donkey

—constitutes a barrier

during immersion, when one wishes to purify it from its impurity, because he objects to its presence.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

It does not constitute a barrier

until

the grease stain is

the size of an Italian issar,

because he does not object to anything smaller than this, and any interposition found on a minority of its body, to which he does not object, does not constitute a barrier during immersion.

2.

And

a grease stain that is found

on garments—

if it is visible only

on one side

of the garment, it

does not constitute a barrier.

Only if a sufficiently large amount has been absorbed into it that it is visible

on both sides

of the garment, only then does it

constitute a barrier.

Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: Even

a grease stain visible on the garment

on one side

alone

constitutes a barrier.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish asked Rabbi Hanina:

According to Rabbi Yishmael, who says that a grease stain on one side of a garment constitutes a barrier:

A grease stain found on an

oxgoad,

does it constitute a barrier even when it is visible on it

on one side

alone,

or

only when it is visible on it

on both sides?

He said to him: This,

an oxgoad that has a grease stain on only one side—

I have not heard

what its law is. But

a similar case,

from which it is possible to derive the ruling,

I have heard.

As we learned: Rabbi Yose says:

A grease stain found on a garment

of builders,

Torah scholars who are particular about the cleanliness of their garments, constitutes a barrier even when it is found

on one side

alone.

And

if it is on the garments

of an ignoramus,

who is not particular about his garments, it constitutes a barrier only if it is found on it

on both sides.

And

if so,

an oxgoad

of a donkey

should not be more significant than the garment of an ignoramus,

and the grease stain does not constitute a barrier in it until it is visible on both sides.

And the Gemara explains:

What are “builders”?

Rabbi Yohanan said: These are Torah scholars, who engage all their days in building the world.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Who is a Torah scholar to whom a lost article is returned

when he recognizes it

by visual recognition

of it, without having to provide an identifying mark?

One who is particular about his tunic, to turn it inside out,

so that its outer side is always on the outside, in order that the inner side, which has seams, not be seen.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Who is a Torah scholar whom they appoint as a leader over the community?

One whom they ask a matter of halakha in any place, and he can answer,

even

when they ask him

in tractate Kallah,

which people are not accustomed to study [and see Rashi].

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Who is a Torah scholar whose townspeople are commanded to perform his work for him?

One who sets aside his own needs and engages in the needs of Heaven.

And this applies—

to troubling himself for his bread,

bread being something on which his life depends, and which he cannot trouble himself to obtain.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Who is a Torah scholar—

anyone whom they ask a matter of halakha in any place and he can state it.

What practical difference does this make?—

For appointing him as a leader over the community.

If

he knows how to answer

in one tractate

that he studies, he appoints him

in his place,

in his locality.

If he knows the whole of his learning,

all the tractates, he appoints him

at the head of the academy,

to be the head of the yeshiva.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said:

The statement in the Mishna, “A grease stain found on the garment of builders,” does not refer to Torah scholars. Rather:

These are the bath attendants’ garments,

fine towels

that come from overseas,

in which distinguished people wrap themselves when leaving the bathhouse and whose cleanliness they are therefore very particular to maintain. Consequently, even a stain on one side constitutes a barrier in them. They are called “builders” because of bei bani, the term for a bathhouse.

And we raise an objection concerning his statement:

Does this mean that

those towels

are white

and

are they?

For if they were colored, dirt that was only on one side would not be noticeable on them, and people would not be particular about it.

And

this is difficult, for

Rabbi Yannai said to his sons: My sons, do not bury me in garments

clothing

that is white, nor in garments that are black.

In

white garments,

do not bury me—

lest I not be worthy, and I will be like a bridegroom among mourners.

In

black garments,

do not

—lest I be worthy, and I will be like a mourner among bridegrooms.

Rather,

bury me

in the bath attendants’ garments,

which are red,

that come from overseas.

Apparently, they are red

and

are they!?

And we answer:

This is not difficult.

This—

the bath attendants’ garments that are dyed red—

refers to the outer cloak.

This,

which are white—

refers to the undergarment,

the garment worn beneath the cloak, or the towel in which one wraps himself.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yishmael says: One may fold

the garments and spread the beds from Yom Kippur for Shabbat.

The Sages taught:

It is written concerning the additional offering of Shabbat [Numbers 28]:

“The burnt offering of Shabbat on its Shabbat.”

The unusual expression “on its Shabbat” indicates that it is intended for exposition, as though the word had been written without the letter vav, so that it should be read as “on Shabbat.”

It is as though the verse had said that one may burn on the altar “this Shabbat’s burnt offering—on another Shabbat.”

And thereby it

taught concerning the sacrificial fats of this Shabbat

that ordinarily, on the night following Shabbat, they may be burned on the altar throughout the entire night

that

they

are offered even if the sanctity of another “Shabbat” occurs on the night following Shabbat—

Yom Kippur,

which is also called “Shabbat.”

One might have thought even

the sacrificial fats of

Yom Kippur

that occurs on the eve of Shabbat would be offered

on

the night of

Shabbat

that follows it.

The verse states: “on its Shabbat”,

with a vav, whose implication is to exclude: specifically, they are offered on that Shabbat, but not on another Shabbat,

the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

That is, since on the one hand the verse comes to include the offering of this Shabbat’s burnt offering on another day, while on the other hand it excludes offering it specifically on this Shabbat, we expound it to permit the sacrificial fats of Shabbat on Yom Kippur, since Yom Kippur is less stringent than Shabbat, and to prohibit the sacrificial fats of Yom Kippur on Shabbat, since Shabbat is more stringent than it.

Rabbi Akiva says: “The burnt offering of Shabbat on its Shabbat”—

it taught concerning the sacrificial fats of Shabbat that they may be offered on a Festival

that occurs on the night following Shabbat.

One might have thought

that the sacrificial fats of Shabbat may be offered

even on Yom Kippur

that occurs on the night following Shabbat.

The verse states: “on its Shabbat.”

And Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree as follows:

When

you examine their statements,

you will find that:

According to Rabbi Yishmael—

even

vowed offerings and freewill offerings,

for which there is no obligation to offer them that day,

may be offered on a Festival;

it is certainly obvious that the sacrificial fats of Shabbat, whose burning cannot be postponed, may be offered on a Festival.

And when the verse is needed “on its Shabbat” to include offering it even on another Shabbat—

“on its Shabbat” was needed to include even on another Shabbat—

it refers to Yom Kippur.

According to Rabbi Akiva—

vowed offerings and freewill offerings may not be offered on a Festival.

And when the verse is needed—

to permit

the burning of the sacrificial fats of Shabbat

on a Festival.