Shabbat 11b — the Talmud in English

And likewise in a winepress

[a vessel] in which grapes are trodden! And below it explains it.

A question was raised before them: A karmelit

[such as an open valley], from which it is forbidden by rabbinic decree to carry out to another domain

what

is its law concerning this matter? Do we likewise prohibit one from standing in the public domain or in the private domain and extending his head into a karmelit and drinking from it?

Abaye said: It is the same!

And that same decree applies to it as well, lest he bring the vessel from the public domain into it.

Rava said:

a karmelit,

its very self

the entire prohibition of carrying out and bringing into it

is a decree

merely, lest one come to carry from one domain to another [for by Torah law it is a place exempt from carrying],

and shall we get up and institute a decree to safeguard a decree—extending his head because of carrying out a vessel?!

Abaye said: From where do I say this

that we do institute a decree even concerning a karmelit?

For

this

is what it teaches: “And likewise in a winepress”!

And it explains it:

What

is the

winepress

mentioned in the Mishna?

If

it is a winepress situated

in the private domain

[such as on a mound ten handbreadths high], this has already been

taught

at the beginning: “A person may not stand in the private domain.” And

if

it is a winepress situated

in the public domain

[which is not three handbreadths high], this too has already been

taught

at the beginning: “In the public domain, and he drinks in the private domain.”

Rather, is it not

speaking of a winepress situated

in a karmelit

[which is higher than three and less than ten handbreadths]? And it teaches us that we institute a decree even concerning a karmelit.

Rava said:

In truth, we do not institute a decree concerning a karmelit. And that which it teaches

“And likewise in a winepress”

is not speaking of the matter of Shabbat at all, but

concerning tithe!

For it is permitted to drink the wine in the winepress as long as they have not lowered it into the pit [which is the completion of its processing], without tithing. For as long as they have not taken the wine outside the winepress, his drinking is considered incidental drinking. For he returns to the winepress what he leaves over in his cup, and every incidental eating and drinking is permitted without tithing, before the completion of processing. But if they have taken it outside the winepress, even though its processing has still not been completed, he is obligated to tithe. For then it is fixed drinking, since he does not intend to return what remains. And this is what we learned: “And likewise in a winepress.” If he is standing beside the winepress and extends his head over it and drinks, he is obligated to tithe. And it is not considered drinking upon the winepress unless his head and most of him are found over the winepress. And it is similar to the law stated concerning Shabbat, that one who stands in the private domain is permitted to drink from the public domain only if his head and most of him are found in it.

And likewise Rav Sheshet said: “And likewise in a winepress”

is stated

concerning

tithe!

For we learned: They drink

the wine as long as it is

upon the winepress, whether

they diluted it

with hot water, and whether

they diluted it

with cold water, and he is exempt from tithe!

Because it is incidental drinking, which is permitted before the completion of processing without tithing

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Tzadok obligates

him to tithe! Because diluting the wine with water renders it fixed drinking. [Rashi, Eruvin 99b].

And the Sages say:

If they diluted it

with hot water, he is obligated

to tithe! Because he does not intend to return the surplus to the winepress, since all the wine in the winepress might become sour. Therefore, it is fixed drinking and forbidden before tithing. But if they diluted it

with cold water, he is exempt!

For it is incidental drinking, since he intends to return the surplus. And the dilution itself does not make the drinking fixed.

And we raise an objection to Rava, who said “We do not institute a decree to safeguard a decree”:

We learned: A tailor may not go out with his needle

on the eve of Shabbat

close to nightfall, lest he forget and go out!

And we raised the matter:

What, is it not

with a needle

inserted into his garment,

so that even if he takes it out in this manner into the public domain on Shabbat itself, it is only a rabbinic prohibition, since this is not the usual manner of carrying. And the Rabbis prohibited it because of a decree lest he come to take the needle out in his hand. And nevertheless we institute a decree concerning it close to nightfall. Apparently, we do institute a decree to safeguard a decree, and this is difficult for Rava.

And we answer:

No

the mishna is not speaking of this. Rather, it is

when he holds it

the needle

in his hand!

For on Shabbat itself it is a Torah labor. And the fact that we institute a decree close to nightfall is one decree.

And further we raise an objection:

Come and hear: A tailor may not go out with his needle inserted into his garment! What, is it not speaking of the eve of Shabbat

and although on Shabbat itself it is forbidden only because of a decree, we likewise institute on the eve of Shabbat a decree to safeguard a decree, and this is difficult for Rava.

And we answer:

No

it is not referring to the eve of Shabbat. Rather,

when that was taught, it was said concerning Shabbat

itself! That he may not go out with it because of a rabbinic prohibition, lest he come to take it out in his hand.

And further we raise an objection:

But it was taught in a beraita: A tailor may not go out with his needle inserted into his garment, on the eve of Shabbat at nightfall!

And in such a case it is certainly a decree to safeguard a decree, and nevertheless we institute it, and this is difficult for Rava.

And we answer:

This

beraita

is according to Rabbi Yehuda, who says: An artisan

who takes out a vessel on Shabbat from one domain to another, even if he does not take it out in his hand but in his garment, whenever it is

his customary manner of craftsmanship —

he is liable!

And since it is the tailor’s practice to take out his needle on a weekday when it is inserted into his garment, if he does so on Shabbat he is liable by Torah law. And close to nightfall is only one decree.

For it was taught in a beraita: A tailor may not go out with his needle inserted into his garment. Nor may a carpenter with a splinter

[a long, straight one, like a ruler, with which he measures the boards]

in his ear. Nor may one who combs

clothing

with a cord

[a thread with which he ties the thorns by which he combs the garment, and also the garment itself, to stretch it over the pegs in order to beat it]

in his ear. And

likewise

a weaver may not go out

[a weaver]

with an ira

[wool or cotton with which he plugs the mouth of the reed after placing the bobbin of the weft thread inside it, so that it will not all fall out of it. And he leaves in the plug only a small opening the width of the weft thread, through which the thread emerges and is woven into the warp threads]

which

he carries

in his ear. And

likewise

one may not go out with a color sample

[of different colors]

which

he carries

around his neck. Nor may a money changer go out with a coin in his ear.

For artisans are accustomed to carry these tools in this manner, in order to advertise themselves so that people will recognize them and hire them for work.

And if he went out

with any of these

he is exempt,

because this is not the usual manner of carrying,

but it is forbidden!

By rabbinic law, lest he come to take it out in his hand

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says: An artisan

who takes it out in the manner that is

his customary manner of craftsmanship,

even if he does not take it out in his hand,

is liable.

But

everyone else is exempt!

Because this is not the usual manner of other people.

One beraita teaches: A man with a flux may not go out with his pouch

which he ties to himself at the organ so that the discharge will fall into it.

And if he went out, he is exempt

from a sin-offering,

but it is forbidden

by rabbinic law because of a rabbinic prohibition!

And another

beraita

teaches: He may not go out

with his pouch,

and if he went out, he is liable to a sin-offering!

For its prohibition is by Torah law. And they contradict one another.

Rabbi Yosef said: It is not difficult. That which teaches “he is exempt but it is forbidden” is Rabbi Meir,

who holds that one is liable only when he carries it in his hand. And

that

which teaches “he is liable to a sin-offering” is

Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds that anyone for whom this is the usual manner is liable even though he does not carry it in his hand.

Abaye said to him: Say that

that

which you heard from Rabbi Meir

that he is exempt is only

with an item that is not his usual manner

of carrying it, such as all the tools of artisans mentioned above, whose manner is to take them out only in the hand. And even for an artisan this is not his usual manner, but only when he wishes to advertise himself as an artisan. But

with an item that is his usual manner,

such as the pouch of a man with a flux,

did you hear from him

that he exempts him?

And he proves it to him:

For if you do not say so, but say that even concerning an object whose usual manner it is for this particular person to carry it, Rabbi Meir exempts him whenever it is not the manner of the entire world —

but rather say that Rabbi Meir exempts even an item that a particular person customarily carries in this manner, as long as this is not the way the entire world carries it—

but if that is so, an ordinary person,

whose craft is not this,

who carved

a hole measuring

a kav in a block

of wood,

according to Rabbi Meir, would he likewise not be liable,

since the ordinary person does not do this in the manner in which artisans do?! And if so, according to Rabbi Meir, only artisans would be liable on Shabbat. But this is certainly not so. Rather, since for the ordinary person it is his usual manner, it is considered performing a labor in its usual manner. And it is not necessary that it be the manner of the entire world. So too, concerning the pouch of a man with a flux, since for the man with the flux it is his usual manner, he is liable.

Rather, Rav Hamnuna said:

The two beraitot do not contradict one another.

Here,

where it teaches “and if he went out, he is liable to a sin-offering,” it is speaking

of a man with a flux who had seen two sightings!

For although he is impure with flux, he is not obligated in a sacrifice until he sees a third sighting, at which point he becomes a full-fledged man with a flux and becomes obligated in a sacrifice. And since he needs the pouch in order to examine himself whether he has had a third sighting and become obligated in a sacrifice, it is his practice to go out with this pouch. Therefore, he is liable for carrying.

And

here,

where it teaches “he is exempt but it is forbidden,” it is speaking

of a man with a flux who had seen three sightings!

For it is not his practice to go out with a pouch, since in any event he is obligated in a sacrifice and has no need to examine himself whether he has seen another sighting.

And we raise an objection:

What is different about a man with a flux who had seen two sightings, that he is liable

for carrying the pouch, because

he needs it for examination

whether he is obligated in a sacrifice or not —

a man with a flux who had seen three sightings also needs it

for the pouch

for

the purpose of

counting

seven clean days? For he does not become purified from his flux until seven consecutive days pass over him without a sighting. And if he sees during those days, he invalidates his count and begins counting anew. And for this purpose he ties a pouch to himself, through which he will know that he did not see and that his count was not invalidated. If so, this again is the usual manner of carrying, and why is he exempt?

And we answer:

It was necessary

for that which teaches “he is exempt but it is forbidden,”

only for

a man with a flux who goes out with a pouch

on the very day

on which he saw in it. For that day in any event does not count toward the seven clean days. And it makes no practical difference to him whether he sees again on that day or not. And since it is not for a purpose, it is not the usual manner of carrying, and he is exempt.

And we raise another objection:

But he needs it

for the pouch

so that his garments will not become soiled

by the flux, and because of this it should be considered the usual manner of carrying and he should be liable?

Rav Zeira said: This tanna

who exempts him

is the one who says: Any

act for

saving

from

soiling is not considered

by him to be the usual manner of carrying!

And it is like that

which we learned: [No food becomes susceptible to impurity unless it has been prepared for impurity by liquids being placed upon it, as it is written: “When water is placed upon seed, and so forth.” And since “he places” is written defectively, implying that the owner himself must place the water upon the food, while we read “it is placed,” implying even when the water was placed by itself, we expound both. In every case, even with “it is placed,” they become prepared, but “it is placed” must resemble “he places.” Just as with “he places,” the one who places is pleased with the placing, so too with “it is placed” by itself, it renders susceptible specifically where the owner is pleased with these liquids. It is not necessary that the water’s falling upon the food be according to his will; it is sufficient if from the outset he demonstrated through his intention that he needs these liquids].

One who overturns a bowl upon the wall

with its opening downward, and rain falls upon it and drops from it onto the food

if

he placed it there

so that the bowl would be washed

by the rainwater,

this is “it is placed”!

And the rain renders the food susceptible, since he is pleased with these liquids.