Shabbat 121a — the Talmud in English

The Rabbis hold ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

immersion at its appointed time

is not a mitzva—

and

therefore

we seek,

we search for a reed and delay immersing until we find one, even if the immersion is delayed and is not at its appointed time.

And Rabbi Yosei holds: immersion at its appointed time is a mitzva—

and

therefore

we do not seek

a reed when one is unavailable, but immerse at the time of immersion.

And we raise a difficulty:

And

does

Rabbi Yosei hold

that

immersion at its appointed time

is

a mitzva?

But it was taught in a beraita: A man with a flux and a woman with a flux, a leper and a leperess,

one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman and one impure through contact with a corpse—

their immersion

after the east has become light

on

the seventh day, and even on the Day of Atonement.

A menstruating woman and a woman who has given birth—

their immersion is at night,

after the seven days, and even on the night of the Day of Atonement.

One who has experienced a seminal emission—

for Ezra instituted that he immerse before studying and praying—

immerses and continues

even on the Day of Atonement,

the entire day.

Rabbi Yosei says:

If he experienced a seminal emission on the Day of Atonement

from the afternoon prayer onward—

he need not

immerse,

for he has already prayed the afternoon prayer, while he will pray the closing prayer and the evening prayer at night, after immersing at the conclusion of the Day of Atonement. And it is thereby demonstrated that Rabbi Yosei holds that the immersion itself at its appointed time is not a mitzva.

And we answer:

That

beraita is

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Judah’s, who says:

A woman who is uncertain whether she gave birth to a male or whether she gave birth to a female, and it is also possible that she had a flux before giving birth, need not be immersed many times for all the sides of her uncertainties [thirty-five immersions!], but

it is sufficient for her

to immerse

one immersion

once

at the end,

after all the days of uncertainty have ended; and he holds that immersion at its appointed time is not a mitzva, but that she should become pure when the time arrives at which her immersion certainly avails.

Mishna:

If a gentile comes to extinguish, we do not say to him, “Extinguish,”

because of the rabbinic prohibition of instructing a gentile .

And

on the other hand, there is also no mitzva to prevent him, and therefore we are not obligated to say to him

“Do not extinguish”—

because there is no

mitzva of

their cessation

upon them, the Jews .

But

a Jewish

minor who comes to extinguish—

we do not heed him;

we do not allow

him

to extinguish,

because the mitzva

of

his cessation—

is imposed

upon them, all Israel .

на весь Израиль .

Gemara:

Rabbi Ami said: In the case of a fire, they permitted one to say

and hint to a gentile,

“Whoever extinguishes

will not lose!”

And we say:

Let it support him

from our Mishna:

“If a gentile comes to extinguish, we do not say to him, ‘Extinguish,’ nor, ‘Do not extinguish,”—

because there is no obligation of his cessation upon them.

And one may infer from here: specifically the wording of command,

“Extinguish,” we do not say to him.

But

to hint and say

“Whoever extinguishes will not lose”—

we do say to him.

And we examine this:

“Let us say the latter clause: ‘Do not extinguish,’ we do not say to him.”

This implies that the entire permission is that we are not commanded to prevent him from extinguishing.

And

it implies that hinting in the wording

“Whoever extinguishes will not lose”—

we likewise do not say to him!

Rather, from this—

from our Mishna—

there is nothing to infer.

The Sages taught: It happened that a fire broke out in the courtyard of Yosef ben Simai in Shihin. And the men of the fortress

the gentile authorities

of Sepphoris came to extinguish it, because he was the king’s official. But he did not allow them

to extinguish

it, for the honor of Shabbat. And a miracle occurred for him,

and rain fell and extinguished it.

In the evening, he sent each of them,

of those who had come to extinguish,

two sela, and to the prefect

the official

among them

he sent

fifty

sela .

And when the Sages heard about the matter, they said: “There was no need for this,”

to prevent them from extinguishing.

“For we learned: If a gentile comes to extinguish, we do not say to him, ‘Extinguish,’ nor, ‘Do not extinguish.’”

We learned in the Mishna:

“But if a minor comes to extinguish, we do not heed him, because his cessation is upon them.”

And we infer:

You may infer from this: concerning a minor who eats carrion—

the court is commanded to separate him from it .

And not in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan, who holds that the court is not commanded to separate him from it.

Rabbi Yohanan said:

Here the case concerns

a minor who acts at his father’s direction.

Since he observes from his father that the extinguishing is pleasing to him, he does it for his father, and then they are obligated to separate him from it .

And we object: if so,

in the same manner

similarly

with regard to a gentile,

concerning whom we said that there is no need to prevent him, does the case concern even one

who acts at the direction of a Jew?

And we wonder:

Is it permitted

for a gentile’s labor performed for a Jew?

And we answer:

A gentile—

acts at his own direction.

Mishna:

One places an overturned bowl

of earthenware

over the lamp so that the fire will not seize

the

beam.

And

one places an overturned bowl

over the excrement of a minor, and over a scorpion, so that it will not sting.

Rabbi Judah said: An incident came before Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai

when he was

in the evening, and he said: “I am concerned for him”

to place an overturned bowl over a scorpion—

from

the obligation of a

sin-offering .

Gemara:

Rab Judah, Rab Jeremiah bar Abba, and Rab Hanan bar Rava happened to come

upon

the house of Avin of Neshiqayya.