Shabbat 12a — the Talmud in English

But

if

he placed it

for the sake of

distancing the rains,

so that the wall would not be struck

by them,

it is not in “when it is made wet”! Since the liquids are not to his desire, and he has no need for them. And even though he is pleased that the water falls far from the wall, since it is only for the sake of saving it from filth, this is not considered satisfaction.

This is likewise the law regarding the pouch of a zav. Since the entire purpose of the pouch is to save [his clothes] from filth, it is not considered a manner of carrying out.

And the same is true of the carrying out of the pouch of a zav. Since the very purpose of the pouch is to save [his clothes] from filth, it is not considered a manner of carrying out.

And we reject this:

Are

the pouch of a zav and the overturning of the bowl comparable?

There

it is a matter of susceptibility [to impurity];

he does not need these liquids,

but his desire is only to distance them by means of overturning the bowl. And although the overturning of the bowl is significant to him, the susceptibility of the food is not dependent upon it, but upon the liquids themselves. And they are not significant to him for him to receive them. But

here

it is a matter of carrying out: we require that the thing that he carries out be significant to him. And he is held liable for carrying out the pouch, and not for the discharge.

But he does need this pouch, in order to receive discharge in it!

And although it is only to save him from filth, it is a significant carrying out.

This is not comparable

the carrying out of the pouch of a zav

except to

that which we learned in

the final clause [of the Mishna following the one above].

For we learned there:

“A trough that one placed”

on the wall

in order

that the dripping

of the rains

should descend into it—

the water that splashes

from it,

and that which is collected

and flows out of it to the outside—

Beit Shammai say: They are indeed in ‘when it is made wet,’ and Beit Hillel say: They are not in ‘when it is made wet’!

And it follows that the water

inside it,

according to everyone

is indeed in ‘when it is made wet’!

And although he does this only to save the wall from filth, since he did not overturn the bowl upon its mouth, but placed it in such a manner that the water would fall into its hollow, he reveals that he desires the receipt of the water inside the vessel, and it is to his desire.

And the same is true of the carrying out of the pouch of a zav. For although he is not pleased with the discharge itself, and he needs the pouch only in order to save [his clothes] from filth, nevertheless it is significant to him. Therefore, it is a manner of carrying out.

Rather, Abaye and Rava both say

in resolving the contradiction between the two baraitot above:

It is not difficult. This

that it teaches, “If he went out [the zav with his pouch], he is liable for a sin-offering,” is according to the method of

Rabbi Judah

.

And this

that it teaches, “And if he went out, he is exempt, but it is forbidden,” is the method of

Rabbi Shimon

.

For they disagree below, on page 93b, concerning one who carries out the corpse on a bed into the public domain, which is a labor that does not need its own purpose. For he has no desire for the principal purpose of the carrying out. On the contrary, he desires that he should not have a corpse and that he should not come to have any need for this labor at all. It is only after the fact that he now has a necessity to remove the corpse from before him. And nevertheless, Rabbi Judah holds him liable for it. But Rabbi Shimon exempts him from it, because it is not called “a planned labor.”

And likewise, the carrying out of the pouch of a zav is a labor that does not need its own purpose. For, in his desire, the discharge would not have come to him at all. Rather, after it came, he needs the pouch to protect his garments. Therefore, according to Rabbi Judah he is liable for a sin-offering, and according to Rabbi Shimon he is exempt, but it is forbidden by rabbinic enactment.

The school of Rabbi Ishmael taught: A person may go out wearing phylacteries

on the eve of Shabbat at twilight!

And we are not concerned that perhaps he will forget and carry them out after nightfall.

And we inquire about this:

What is the reason

that we are not concerned about this with regard to them?

And we answer:

Since Rabba bar Rav Huna said: A person is obligated to feel his phylacteries every hour and every hour!

So that he will not divert his attention from them.

And we derive it by

a kal va-chomer from the High Priest’s frontlet. What is the frontlet, which contains only one mention

of the Name of the

said

in it

by the Torah, “And it shall be upon his forehead constantly,”

and this is an extra verse, for it is already written at the beginning of the verse, “And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead”; rather, it comes to teach

that the High Priest must not divert his attention from it—

phylacteries, which contain many mentions, how much more so

that he must not divert his attention from them! And by feeling them every hour, he remembers them.

Therefore,

since he feels them every hour,

they are certainly remembered by him!

And there is no concern that perhaps he will forget them and go out with them on Shabbat.

It was taught: Hanania says: A person is obligated to feel his garment on the eve of Shabbat at twilight!

In order to examine it, so that nothing will be wrapped in it, lest he carry it out on Shabbat.

Rav Yosef said:

This statement of Hanania,

is a great halakhic principle concerning Shabbat!

For through it a person is saved from the prohibition of carrying out.

We learned in the Mishna:

“He may not inspect his garments for lice”

and he may not read by the light of the lamp!

They raised a question before them:

Is each law taught independently, and that which it teaches,

“He may not inspect his garments for lice,”

does not refer to the light of the lamp, but is forbidden even

during the day? And the Sages enacted a decree concerning it because we are concerned

lest he kill

a louse and violate a Torah prohibition, and our Mishna follows the method of Rabbi Eliezer.

For it was taught: Rabbi Eliezer said: One who kills a louse on Shabbat is as though he kills

a large creature

like a camel!

And that which it teaches,

“And he may not read by the light of the lamp,”

is another decree, because we are concerned

lest he tilt

the lamp.

the lamp.

Or perhaps,

it is one decree

and both

are because of

lest he tilt.

And that which “he may not inspect his garments for lice” also refers to the light of the lamp. But during the day it is permitted to do so.

And we resolve it:

Come and hear: One may neither inspect for lice nor read

by the light of the lamp!

For it implies that both are forbidden specifically by the light of the lamp.

And we reject this:

Is the

baraita

stronger than the Mishna

that we should resolve [the question] from it? Just as the Mishna can be interpreted, that “he may not inspect his garments for lice” is an independent decree and does not refer to the light of the lamp, so too the baraita can be interpreted.

And further we resolve it:

Come and hear: One may not inspect for lice by the light of the lamp, and one may not read by the light of the lamp! These are among the laws that they stated in the upper chamber of Hanania ben Hezekiah ben Garon.

Infer from this that both

—both inspecting for lice and reading—are forbidden only by the light of the lamp,

lest he tilt.

And we conclude:

Infer from this!

Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: Even distinguishing between his garment and his wife’s garment

by the light of the lamp is forbidden! For here too there is concern lest he tilt.

Rava said: We said

this

only

with regard to garments

of the people of Mehoza!

For they are pampered and are not laboring people, and therefore their garments are wide and resemble women’s garments. And careful examination is needed to distinguish between them. Therefore, there is concern with regard to them lest he tilt [the lamp].

But with regard to those of the people of the fields,

who engage in labor in the fields, and because of this the sleeves of their garments are narrow,

they know clearly

how to distinguish easily between their garments and their wives’ garments, and there is no concern with regard to them about tilting the lamp.

And with regard to the people of Mehoza as well, we said

that it is forbidden to distinguish [the garments] by the light of the lamp

only

when distinguishing between their garments and their wives’ garments

when

they are

old.

For they are somewhat narrow and resemble the garments of pampered men, which are somewhat wider than the garments of other men.

But

where

their wives

are

young,

for their garments are very wide, they do not resemble even the garments of pampered men, and

they are clearly recognizable

for distinguishing them, and again there is no concern with regard to them lest he tilt [the lamp].

The Sages taught: One who inspects his garments for lice

[on a weekday] removes lice from the garments

in the public domain, for the sake of the honor of

passersby! For this matter is repulsive to them.

Similarly, Rabbi Judah said, and some say Rabbi Nehemiah: One may not perform an emetic

[drinking a beverage that causes the food to be vomited]

in the public domain

for the sake of

honor!

For this too is repulsive to the public.

The Sages taught: One who inspects his garments for lice

on Shabbat

crushes

[the louse, pressing it between his fingers] in order to weaken its strength so that it will not return to him,

and throws

it away. Provided that he does not kill it. For killing a louse is forbidden as a rabbinic prohibition. But by Torah law he is exempt for it. Therefore, we do not enact a decree prohibiting crushing because of killing.

Abba Shaul says: He takes

the louse

and throws

it away,

provided that he does not crush

it! For killing a louse is forbidden by Torah law, and they prohibited crushing it lest he come to kill it.

Rav Huna said: The halakha

is according to the first tanna, who

crushes and throws. And this is his honor

—a person’s honor—to remove lice in this manner,

even on a weekday!

And not to kill them.

Rabba cuts them

into pieces and kills the lice even on Shabbat. And

Rav Sheshet also cuts them

on Shabbat. For they hold like Beit Hillel below.

Rava threw them

—the lice—

into a bowl of water

[a vessel of water] so that they would die. And he did not kill them with his fingers, for this is not a manner of honor.

Rav Nahman said to his daughters: Kill them

[kill them]—the lice—even on Shabbat, and let me hear the sound of the detested ones [of the enemies] when they die.

It was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One does not kill the louse

[a louse]

on Shabbat—

the words of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel permit.

And likewise Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel: One does not arrange matches for children

on Shabbat in order

to betroth

them,

nor

does one attend to the

child

to hire a teacher for him

to teach him Scripture, and

not even

to teach him a craft!

Because it is written, “And you shall call Shabbat a delight and the holy one of the Lord honored, and you shall honor it by not following your ways, by not seeking your affairs, and by not speaking words.” Your affairs on Shabbat should not be like your affairs on weekdays.

And one does not comfort

the

mourners

on Shabbat

. And one does not visit the sick on Shabbat!

For these matters bring one to sorrow, as he joins himself to those who are suffering, and nullifies the delight of Shabbat—

the words of Beit Shammai.

And Beit Hillel permit

all these matters! Arranging matches for children and teaching them Scripture or a craft, because they are matters of mitzva; specifically, your affairs are forbidden, but the affairs of Heaven [below, on page 150a]. And visiting the sick and comforting mourners are permitted, because they are acts of kindness, which alleviate the suffering of the sick person and the mourner [Arukh HaShulchan, section 287, subsection 1].

The Sages taught: One who enters to visit the sick on Shabbat says

to him:

It is Shabbat,

which prevents us

from crying out

for your healing,

and

nevertheless, the

healing is near to come!

For it is necessary to broaden their minds with words of consolation, so that they will not grieve.

And Rabbi Meir says:

They say to the sick person:

Shabbat is able

to

have mercy

and bring you healing, if you honor it and do not grieve on it! And although it was not permitted on it to ask for mercy on your behalf, it does not prevent your healing; on the contrary, it is effective even without prayer. [Maharsha].