Shabbat 128a — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna:

But not tevel.

And we ask: Since it is not fit for eating,

it is obvious

that we do not permit moving it?

And we explain:

It is necessary

to inform us, rather,

with regard to tevel

only

by rabbinic decree,

and for example

that he sowed it in an unperforated flowerpot.

And it might enter your mind that since it is rabbinic tevel, it is permitted to move it; it informs us that the tanna prohibits it.

We learned in the Mishna:

And not first tithe

whose teruma has not been removed.

It enters our mind that the terumat maaser had not been removed from it, which is the “teruma” of first tithe, which the Levite gives to the koen.

And we ask:

It is obvious

that it is prohibited, for it is not fit for him, since it is still subject to terumat maaser?

And we explain:

It is necessary

to inform us, rather,

that he brought forward

the tithing of the first tithe

in a grain heap,

after its smoothing,

that he took the first tithe from it

and separated terumat maaser from it,

but he did not take the great teruma from it.

Lest you say: As Rav Pappa said to Abaye

above [127b]: “If so, even if he brought it forward in a grain heap as well, it should be exempt from great teruma.”

It informs us: As Abaye answered him

to Rav Pappa: If he brought forward the tithing of first tithe after it had been smoothed, we expound from the verse that is written, “all your tithes,” to include grain that has been smoothed, to obligate it in great teruma, even though he brought the tithe before the great teruma.

We learned in the Mishna:

And not second tithe

and consecrated property that have not been redeemed.

And we ask:

Is it obvious?

And we explain:

It is necessary

to inform us only in a case

that

indeed

was redeemed, but was not redeemed according to its law.

Second tithe,

for example

that he redeemed it upon an asimon,

which is a coin upon which there is no imprint of a form, and whose entire value is only according to the worth of the metal,

for the Torah said

with regard to the redemption of second tithe

“And you shall bind the money in your hand,”

to teach that he must redeem it upon

something that has a form,

whereas an asimon has no form upon it.

Consecrated property,

for example

that he desecrated it upon land,

upon which its redemption does not take effect,

for the Torah said, “And he shall give the money

and it shall be established for him,”

to exclude land.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And not colocasia.”

The Sages taught: One may move

on Shabbat

the hatzav,

a grass whose roots go deep,

because it is food for gazelles. And the mustard, because it is food for doves.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One may even move shards of glass, because it is food for ostriches,

the daughters of the ostrich.

Rabbi Natan said to him: If so, bundles of branches should also be moved, because they are food for elephants,

and it is appropriate that he should have elephants and feed them.

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

holds:

Ostriches are common,

but

elephants are not common.

Ameimar said:

This which Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permits, to move shards of glass,

and this is—

when he has ostriches,

which he raises in his house.

Rav Ashi said to Ameimar:

According to your method, that the entire permission of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel applies only to one who has ostriches in his house,

rather

this

that Rabbi Natan said to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: Bundles of branches

also

should be moved because they are food for elephants.

What astonishment is there here?

For

if

indeed

he has elephants,

which he raises in his house—

why should he not move them?

Rather,

certainly Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that we do not require that he have elephants.

Rather,

everyone is permitted to move them on the basis of the permission that it is

appropriate

that he should have elephants.

If so,

so too

with ostriches, we do not require that he have one; rather, it is

appropriate

that he should have one.

Abaye said: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi Yishmael, and Rabbi Akiva

all hold

that all Israel are sons of kings.

Practices that are appropriate for sons of kings are appropriate for them.

And now we explain where each one of them said this:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,

that is

that which we said

in the Mishna, that it is permitted to move the luf because it is food for ravens, and it is only the practice of kings to raise them; and although he does not have ravens, nevertheless it is appropriate that he should have them.

Rabbi Shimon,

that is

as we learned

above:

Sons of kings anoint

on Shabbat

upon their wounds rose oil,

because

such is the practice of sons of kings, to anoint themselves with it on weekdays,

even when they have no wound. Therefore, it is not evident that they are doing it for healing. But an ordinary person is prohibited from anointing himself with rose oil, since, because its price is high, it is anointed only for healing.

Rabbi Shimon says: All Israel are sons of kings.

Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva, as it was taught: If they were owed by him one thousand maneh, and

he

was wearing a robe

that was

worth one hundred maneh—

they strip it from him

the expensive robe in order to repay his debt,

and dress him in a robe appropriate for him.

And

a tanna in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, and a tanna in the name of Rabbi Akiva: All Israel are fit for that robe.

We learned in the Mishna:

Bundles of straw and bundles of

branches: if he prepared them for animal food, one may move them; and if not, one may not move them.

The Sages taught: Bundles of straw, bundles of wood, and bundles of branches,

if he prepared them,

designated them so that they would be

for animal food, one may move them. And if not,

if he did not designate them for this,

one may not move them.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Bundles that can be carried in one hand may be moved. Bundles

that are large, which can be carried only

with two hands, may not be moved,

even if he designated them for this, because it is excessive exertion.

Bundles of se’a, hyssop, and thyme,

species of grasses that are fit for kindling, and also fit for animal food, and are somewhat fit for human food. If

he brought them in for wood,

to dry them,

one may not take from them on Shabbat for animal food,

for they are muktze. And if he brought them in

for food

of animals,

one may take from them on Shabbat.

And

if he wishes to eat them,

he cuts off,

cuts

by hand and eats, provided that he does not cut off with a utensil

in the manner in which he does on weekdays.

And

if he wishes to remove the seed from them,

he rubs and eats, provided that he does not rub a great deal with a utensil.

And the Sages say: He rubs with the tips of his fingers and eats, provided that he does not rub a great deal with his hand in the manner in which he does on weekdays.

And so

is the law

with amita. And likewise with rue

[a species of plant].

And likewise with the other species of spices.

What is amita?

And we explain:

Mint,

mint [a foreign-language gloss].

We learned in the Tosefta: Bundles of se’a, hyssop, and thyme.

Rav Yehuda said: Se’a

that is written in the beraita means

savory, [a species of plant, or a type of mint, a foreign-language gloss].

Hyssop

that we learned in the beraita is

avarta.

Thyme—

its name is kornita.

And we ask:

But what of that incident when someone said to them: “Who wants kornita?”

And it was found

that it was

thyme.

And it follows that kornita is thyme.

Rather, se’a

is

savory. Hyssop

is

avarta. Kornita

is

thyme.

It was stated: Meat

that is raw and

salted may be moved on Shabbat,

Meat

that is raw and

unsalted,

that was neither cooked nor salted, Rav Huna and Rav Hisda disagree about it.

Rav Huna said: It is permitted to move it,

because he does not hold that there is a prohibition of moving muktze in raw meat.

Rav Hisda said: It is prohibited to move it.

And we ask:

But Rav Huna was a student of Rav, and Rav held like Rabbi Yehuda, who holds muktze,

and if so, Rav Huna should have prohibited moving it? And we answer: Rav Huna distinguishes between the prohibition of eating muktze and moving it.

With muktze for eating—

he holds like Rabbi Yehuda.

But

with muktze for moving—

he holds like Rabbi Shimon.

And we ask: And did

he holds in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

Rav Hisda say that it is prohibited to move it?

But Rav Yitzhak bar Ami happened

upon

the house of Rav Hisda. And he saw a certain duck,

slaughtered,

;

that they were moving it from the sun to the shade,

from the sun to the shade, so that it would not become putrid.

And Rav Hisda said: We see a loss of money here

if it remains in the sun, for it will become putrid and spoil, and he permitted moving it.

And why here did Rav Hisda prohibit moving raw meat?

And we answer:

A duck is different, for it is fit for umtsa,

as it is fit to eat raw even if it was not salted.

[And Tosafot added that there is no prohibition of blood in it, since it has not flowed out].

The Sages taught: Salted fish,

which is fit for eating, therefore

it is permitted to move it.

Unsalted fish,

which is fit for nothing, therefore

it is prohibited to move it.

Meat, whether unsalted or salted, may be moved.

The Sages taught: One may move the bones

because they are food for dogs.