Shabbat 120a (קכ.) — the Talmud in English

“And this stumbling block is under your hand.”

Devarim,

the hidden meanings of the Torah,

upon which people cannot stand

to articulate them properly in accordance with halakha,

unless they stumble over them

by saying them several times in a distorted form; if they

are under your hand—

“You shall be an officer for us.”

You shall be our leader and teach us Torah.

And the prophet Isaiah describes the response of the man whom they asked to teach them:

“On that day he shall lift up his voice, saying: ‘I will not be a binder.’”

“There is no ‘lift up’ except an expression of an oath .

The later edition of Rabbi Shmuel Eidels, known as the Maharsha, asked: Why did he need to swear that he did not know Torah? And why would people mistakenly think that a person who knew neither Scripture nor Mishna knew how to issue halakhic rulings? He explained that this concerns a person who knows matters that should be concealed like a garment, such as the Account of the Chariot and the secrets of the Torah. When people see that he knows hidden matters, they think that he also knows how to issue halakhic rulings and teach the Oral Torah, since one should not engage in hidden matters before knowing the Talmud and halakha. Therefore, he swore that he knew neither Scripture nor Mishna, and that he had not been one of those who regularly attended the house of study.

And so

the verse in the Ten Commandments

says: “You shall not lift up the Name of the Lord

your God for falsehood,” which is the prohibition against a false oath.

“I will not be a binder”—

I will not be,

I am not accustomed to be

among

those who are

immersed in the bейт-midrash.

“And in my house there is neither bread nor garment”—

for I possess neither Scripture, nor Mishna, nor Gemara.

And from here it is proven that there indeed remained in Jerusalem trustworthy people who tell the truth!?

And we answer:

From where

do you know that because he is a truthful man he answers them that he does not know?

Perhaps

there it is different, for if he had said to them, “I am learned,”

that he knows how to study and teach,

they would have said to him: “Tell us!”

Tell us and teach us what you know!

But it may still be objected that his words prove that he is a trustworthy man. For he had the possibility of evading them without admitting that he had not immersed himself in the bейт-midrash.

He should have said:

he could have said

“I studied and forgot,”

that he had learned and forgotten.

And if so,

what

is the meaning of what he said,

“I will not be a binder”—

that

at all

he did not study in the bейт-midrash? This proves that trustworthy people remained.

And we answer:

There is no difficulty.

Here—

with regard to words of Torah,

trustworthy people did indeed remain.

Here—

with regard to business dealings,

they did not remain, and it is to them that the verse refers.

Mishna:

The Sages permitted

saving

from the fire

a basket full of loaves—

even though it contains enough for one hundred meals, and a fig cake

large

of dried figs,

even though it contains food for many meals,

and a barrel of wine.

And he says

also

to others: “Come and save for yourselves,”

for your meal needs .

And if they were clever—

they make an accounting with him after Shabbat,

for the wages of their labor, before giving him what they saved .

To where may they save them,

the provisions?

To an eruved courtyard.

This is a special permission to save from a fire; concerning other objects, they decreed that they may not be saved, lest one come to extinguish the fire.

Ben Beteira says:

They may save

even to a

courtyard

that is not

eruved.

And there

(to an eruved courtyard according to the first tanna, and according to Ben Beteira even to a courtyard that is not eruved),

he takes out all his utensils

needed for Shabbat itself,

and

likewise he

puts on everything he can put on, and wraps himself in everything he can wrap himself in,

and takes it out .

Rabbi Yosei says:

At most, he may wear

eighteen garments,

certain garments, as will be explained in the Gemara, and he may not remove them, put on other garments, and take those out.

He removes them,

and puts them on again—

other garments—

and takes them out .

There are several approaches to explaining the disagreement between the tannaim in the Mishna. A. Rashi explained that “he removes them and puts them on again” continues the statement of the first anonymous opinion. According to Rabbi Yosei, one may save only eighteen garments and only once. The first anonymous opinion is lenient in two matters: He may wear as many garments as he can, without limitation, and he may return and take out garments several times. Rabbi Yosei is stringent in both matters. B. The new edition of the Ritva and the Beit Yosef, citing the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol and Sefer HaTeruma, wrote that everyone agrees that one may remove garments, put on others, and take them out again. This is also implied by the order of the Mishna: After the disagreement about the amount that may be saved, it states what everyone agrees is permitted—removing garments and returning to save them. The Shulchan Arukh (301:44) ruled likewise. C. Maimonides (Shabbat 23:3) omitted this leniency allowing a person to remove garments and return to take out others. The Kesef Mishna (there, 25) explained that he holds that this leniency applies specifically according to Rabbi Yosei and not according to the first anonymous opinion. That is, Rabbi Yosei is stringent in permitting saving by wearing only eighteen garments, but lenient in permitting this to be done several times. The halakha follows the first anonymous opinion: He wears all that he can, but saves only once. The Shulchan Arukh (334:8) also cited this opinion.

And he says to others: “Come and save with me.”

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that one may save a basket full of loaves.

We raised a difficulty:

But was this not already taught in the first clause,

that one may save

three meals, and no more!

Rav Huna said: There is no difficulty.

Here,

our Mishna—

when he comes to save

in one basket at one time: he may save the single basket even though it contains many loaves.

Here,

in the first clause, which permits saving only food for three meals, it is speaking

when he comes to fold,

to gather and combine several baskets in order to take them all out together with food for three meals, since each basket involves a separate effort. Therefore:

If he comes to save—

he saves them all. If he comes to fold—

he folds only food for three meals.

Rav Abba bar Zavda said in the name of Rav: Both this and that—

are when he comes to fold, and there is no difficulty.

Here—

to the same courtyard,

it is permitted even to save many loaves, since this does not involve much effort.

Here—

to another courtyard,

only food for three meals is permitted, because of the effort involved.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, raised a dilemma: If he spread out his cloak and folded it,

and gathered food

and placed it

in the cloak,

and

then

folded

and gathered food

and placed it

in the cloak, and together they amounted to more than food for three meals—

what is the law?

Is it

like one who comes to save,

since he takes it out bundled in a single cloak, and thus it is like saving in one basket?

Or

perhaps, since he expends effort gathering it into the cloak, it is

like one who comes to fold?

Come and hear

from what Rava said: “Rav Shizbi misled

Rav Shizbi misled

Rav Hisda, and taught

him an incorrect halakhic ruling, and Rav Hisda accepted it from him.

And this is what he taught him concerning the beraita cited above (117b), which states that if a barrel breaks on the roof, one brings a utensil and places it beneath the barrel to save what spills from it:

“Provided that he does not bring a utensil that holds more than three meals!”

And from Rava’s statement that Rav Shizbi misled Rav Hisda with regard to this halakha,

infer from it:

that one who gathers food in a single utensil, as here, where the liquid drips slowly from the barrel into the utensil, is

like one who comes to save,

since he does this in one utensil,

and it is properly permitted

to save more than three meals.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rava: “What is the error?”

That is, from where do you know that Rav Shizbi was mistaken in this halakha, so that you claim that he misled Rav Hisda concerning it?

He said to him: For it is taught

in the beraita:

“Provided that he does not bring another utensil and catch [the liquid], or another utensil and combine [it].”

And one should infer: specifically

another utensil is what he may not

bring.

But with that utensil

the very same utensil—

he may save as much as he wishes,

he may save as much as he wishes.

We learned in the Mishna:

And

they may save

a fig cake,

and make an accounting with him for their labor after Shabbat.

We raised a difficulty:

The accounting

that they make with him—

what is its purpose?

Why should they settle accounts with him for their labor? After all,

they acquire it from ownerless property

that which they saved, and they may take it all for themselves.

Rav Hisda said: “They taught here a measure of pious conduct,”

to return it to him.

Rava said:

Are these people

pious

?

Are they taking payment for Shabbat,

payment for their labor on Shabbat,

taking

it? Although this is not fully payment for labor on Shabbat, since they acquire the object itself as ownerless property, pious people must nevertheless refrain even from such payment.

Rather, Rava said: Here, we are dealing with

a person who saves, who is

God-fearing,

but is not pious,

and it is the case.

And it is not pleasing

to him to benefit from

the money of

others,

who did not willingly make it ownerless, and therefore he returns it.

And

on the other hand,

he is likewise not pleased to toil for nothing .

The Rashash explains that this is the law concerning a lost object (Bava Metzia 24b): Even if a person acquired it, and the law is that it belongs to him, nevertheless, beyond the letter of the law he should return it. But if he lost income from his work, he may take payment for the time he lost from his work. Therefore, a God-fearing person who saves from a fire should return the object rather than acquire it, and should take payment for his effort.

And this is what he is saying: “And if they were

those God-fearing people

clever

in the laws of Shabbat,

knowing that in such a case this is not payment for labor on Shabbat —

they make an accounting with him after Shabbat.”

We learned in the Mishna:

“And to where may they save”

and so on. And he says to them, “Come and save for yourselves.”

We raised a difficulty:

What is different here,

with regard to provisions,

that it teaches

“Come and save

for yourselves”?

And what is different here,

with regard to garments,

that it teaches

“Come and save

with me”?

They said: With regard to provisions, it teaches, “for yourselves”—

because they are not fit for him,

since from the provisions he is entitled

only to food for three meals.

But with regard to garments, it teaches, “with me”—

because they are fit for him,

since all the garments they take out are fit for him

for the entire day .

Rabbi Ovadiah of Bertinoro explained that with regard to food, which may be saved only for three meals, the tan­ using the expression “for yourselves” indicates that the law for the homeowner and for others is not the same. Sometimes the homeowner has not yet eaten while the others have eaten, or the reverse; therefore, he tells them to save according to their own status. With regard to clothing, however, he says “with me,” because the law for others is the same as for the homeowner. Rabbi Akiva Eiger wrote in his glosses on the Mishnayot that this explanation follows the view of Rashi, who holds that the others may save only food for three meals. According to the Ran, who holds that others may save as much food as they wish, the Sefat Emet explained that his source is the Gemara’s answer here. With regard to food, the tan­ uses the expression “for yourselves” because the homeowner may save only three meals, while others may save as much as they wish; therefore, he tells them to save “for yourselves,” as much as they can. With regard to clothing, since the homeowner may save as much as others, the tan­ uses the expression “save with me,” because their law is the same. Rabbi Akiva Eiger (cited above) explained that with regard to food, since the homeowner may save only three meals, it is reasonable that the remainder, which he cannot save, becomes ownerless, like an object swept away by the sea, according to the Ran Therefore when he tells others to the Ran. Therefore, when he tells others to save it, he uses the expression “for yourselves,” indicating that it is ownerless. With regard to clothing, since the homeowner may save it several times, it does not become ownerless. Therefore, he says, “Come and save with me”—that is, for me.

The Sages taught: He puts it on, carries it out, and removes it. And he repeats

and puts it on, carries it out, and removes it, even throughout the entire day—

these are the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yose says:

he puts on only

eighteen garments,

specific garments.

And these are the eighteen garments: a coat, an unkeli,

a funda, a linen kalbus, a tunic, afiliot, a cloak, two sifrakin, and two shoes; two socks, two pargad, a belt around his waist, a hat on his head, and a scarf around his neck.

For these are garments that a person ordinarily wears together, and in the coldest places this is the manner of dressing. Therefore, he may thereby rescue them from a fire; but more than these is considered carrying a burden and is prohibited.

Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon ben Nanas says: One spreads the skin

wet

of a kid goat over a chest, box, or cabinet that has caught fire,

because it—

the wet kid-goat skin merely

becomes singed,

it becomes singed but does not burn, and thereby protects the chest from burning.

And one may make a partition

before the fire

with all vessels, whether full

of water

or empty, so that

the fire will not spread .

Rabbi Yose prohibits using new earthenware vessels filled with water, because

new earthenware vessels

cannot withstand the fire, and they crack and extinguish

the water

the fire.

Gemara:

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: In the case of a cloak that has caught fire on one side—

one may place

water on it on the other side, and if it is extinguished—

it is extinguished.

A challenge is raised

from what we learned in a beraita:

In the case of a cloak that has caught fire on one side—

he spreads it out and covers himself with it, and if it is extinguished—

it is extinguished. And similarly, in the case of a Torah scroll that has caught fire—

he spreads it out and reads from it, and if it is extinguished—

it is extinguished.

And it is apparent that they permitted only spreading it out, but did not permit pouring water on the garment to protect it.