Shabbat 12a (יב.) — the Talmud in English

However,

if

he placed it

in order

to keep the rain away

so that the wall would not be damaged

by it,

it is not subject to the law of “ki yutan”!

For the liquids are not to his liking, and he has no need for them. And although he is pleased that the water falls at a distance from the wall, since this is only to save it from becoming soiled, this is not considered satisfaction.

The same is true of a zav’s pouch. Since the entire purpose of the pouch is to save his clothing from becoming soiled, carrying it is not considered a normal manner of carrying out.

And we reject this:

Are

a zav’s pouch and the overturned bowl

comparable?

There, with regard to the preparation of food for ritual impurity,

he does not need these liquids;

he desires only to distance them by means of overturning the bowl. And although the overturning of the bowl is significant to him, the preparation of the food does not depend upon it, but upon the liquids themselves. And the liquids are not significant to him for the purpose of receiving them. But

here,

with regard to carrying out, the object that he carries must be significant to him. And he is liable for carrying out the pouch, not for the zavah.

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

And although it is only intended to save his clothing from becoming soiled, carrying it is nevertheless significant.

The carrying out

of a zav’s pouch

is comparable only to

what we learned

in the latter clause [of the Mishna following the one cited above].

of the Mishna that follows the one cited above.

For we learned there:

A trough that one placed

on the wall so that

the rainwater would drip

into

it—

the water that splashes

from it,

and that which collects

and flows out of it to the outside—

Beit Shammai say: It is subject to the law of “ki yutan,” and Beit Hillel say: It is not subject to the law of “ki yutan”!

And it follows that the water

inside it

is, according to everyone,

subject to the law of “ki yutan”!

And although he does this only to save the wall from becoming soiled, since he did not overturn the bowl onto its opening, but placed it in such a manner that the water would fall into its hollow, he reveals that he wants to receive the water inside the vessel, and that this is to his liking.

The same is true of carrying out a zav’s pouch. For although he does not desire the zavah itself, and needs the pouch only to save his clothing from becoming soiled, it is nevertheless significant to him. Therefore, carrying it is considered a normal manner of carrying out.

Rather, Abaye and Rava both said

in resolving the contradiction between the two baraitot cited above:

It is not difficult. This

statement, which teaches, “If the zav went out with his pouch, he is liable to bring a sin-offering,” is in accordance with the opinion of

Rabbi Yehuda.

It is so.

And this

statement, which teaches, “And if he went out, he is exempt but it is prohibited,” is in accordance with the opinion of

Rabbi Shimon.

It is so.

For they disagree below, on 93b, concerning one who carries out a corpse on a bier into the public domain, which is a labor not needed for its own purpose. For he does not desire the primary purpose of carrying it out. On the contrary, he wishes that he would have no corpse and that he would never have any need for this labor. It is only after the fact that he now has a necessity to remove the corpse from before him. Nevertheless, Rabbi Yehuda holds him liable for it. But Rabbi Shimon exempts him, because it is not called “a creative labor.”

Likewise, carrying out a zav’s pouch is a labor not needed for its own purpose. For ideally, he would not have had the zavah at all. Rather, once it has occurred, he needs the pouch to protect his clothing. Therefore, according to Rabbi Yehuda he is liable to bring a sin-offering, while according to Rabbi Shimon he is exempt, although it is prohibited by rabbinic ordinance.

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: A person may go out wearing tefillin

on the eve of Shabbat as it grows dark!

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

And we raise a difficulty concerning this:

What is the reason

that we are not concerned about this possibility?

And we answer:

Since Rabba bar Rav Huna said: A person is obligated to touch his tefillin at every moment!

So that he will not be distracted from them.

And we derive this by means of a

kal va-chomer from the tzitz. What is the case with the tzitz, which contains only one mention

of the Divine Name,

the Torah said

about

it, “It shall be upon his forehead always,”

and this is an otherwise superfluous verse, since it is already written at the beginning of the verse, “It shall be upon Aaron’s forehead.” Rather, it comes to teach

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

with regard to tefillin, which contain many mentions of the Divine Name, all the more so

that he should not divert his attention from them! And by touching them at every moment, he remembers them.

Therefore,

since he touches them at every moment,

he certainly remembers them!

There is no concern that he may forget about them and go out with them on Shabbat.

It was taught in a baraita: Hanania says: A person is obligated to feel through his clothing on the eve of Shabbat as it grows dark!

In order to inspect it, to ensure that nothing is caught in it, lest he carry it out on Shabbat.

Rav Yosef said:

The ruling 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 our Mishna:

One may not examine his garments for lice

and one may not read by candlelight!

They raised a dilemma before them:

Is each ruling stated independently, and does the statement

“One may not examine his garments for lice”

not refer to candlelight, but is prohibited even

during the day? And did the Sages decree this because they were concerned

that

he might kill

a louse and violate a Torah prohibition, with our Mishna following the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer?

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

a large creature

like a camel!

And the statement

“and one may not read by candlelight”

is a separate decree, because we are concerned

that he might tilt

the lamp.

Or perhaps

it is one decree,

and both

are prohibited because

he might tilt

the lamp. And the statement “One may not examine his garments for lice” also refers to candlelight. But during the day it is permitted to do so.

And we resolve it: Come and hear:

One may not examine for lice and one may not read

by candlelight!

This indicates that both are prohibited specifically by candlelight.

And we reject this:

Is the

baraita

stronger than the Mishna

that we may resolve the dilemma from it? Just as the Mishna can be interpreted to mean that “one may not examine for lice” is an independent decree and does not refer to candlelight, the baraita can likewise be interpreted in that manner.

And furthermore we resolve it:

Come and hear: One may not examine for lice by candlelight and one may not read by candlelight! These are among the halakhot that they stated in the upper room of Hanania ben Hizkiya ben Garon.

Conclude from this that both,

both examining for lice and reading, are prohibited only by candlelight,

lest he tilt it.

And we conclude:

Conclude from this!

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

by candlelight is prohibited! For here too there is concern that he may tilt the lamp.

Rava said: We said

this

only

with regard to the garments

of the people of Meḥoza!

They are pampered and are not laborers, and therefore their garments are wide and resemble women’s garments. Careful examination is needed to distinguish between them. Therefore, there is concern that they may tilt the lamp.

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

who work in the fields and whose sleeves are therefore narrow,

it is readily apparent

how to distinguish between their garments and those of their wives, and there is no concern that they will tilt the lamp.

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

that it is prohibited to distinguish between their garments by candlelight

only

when distinguishing between their garments and those of their wives

whose

garments are

old.

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,

whose garments are much wider, they do not even resemble the garments of pampered men, and

it is readily apparent

how to distinguish between them; consequently, there is again no concern that one may tilt the lamp.

The Sages taught: One may not examine for lice

on weekdays the clothing for lice

in the public domain, out of respect for

passersby! For this is repulsive to them.

Similarly, Rabbi Yehuda said—and some say Rabbi Neḥemya: One may not perform an emetic

[drinking a liquid that causes one to vomit food]

in the public domain

because of

respect!

For this too is repulsive to the public.

The Sages taught: One who examines his garments for lice

on Shabbat

may crush

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

and throw

it away. Provided that he does not kill it. For killing a louse is prohibited as a shevut, a rabbinic prohibition. But by Torah law he is exempt for it. Therefore, we do not decree that crushing be prohibited as a precaution against killing.

Abba Shaul says: He takes

the louse

and throws

it

away, provided that he does not crush it!

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

Rav Huna said: The halakha

follows the first tanna, who

crushes and throws it away. And this is his dignity,

to remove lice in this manner,

even on a weekday!

And not to kill them.

Rabba would cut them up,

killing the lice even on Shabbat. And

Rav Sheshet would also cut them up

on Shabbat, for they held in accordance with Beit Hillel, as stated below.

Rava would throw them

the lice

into a bowl of water

[a basin of water] so that they would die. He did not kill them with his fingers, as that is not a dignified manner.

Rav Naḥman said to his daughters: Kill them

[kill them] the lice even on Shabbat, and let me hear the sound of my enemies [of those who hate me] when they die.

It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One may not kill a ma’akoleth

[a louse]

on Shabbat—

the statement of Beit Shammai. But Beit Hillel permit it.

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

on Shabbat in order

to betroth

them,

and one may not

engage with

the child

to hire a teacher for him

to teach him Scripture, or

even

to teach him a trade!

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 pursuing your ways, not attending to your affairs, and not speaking of them.” One’s Shabbat concerns should not be like one’s weekday concerns.

And one may not comfort

the

mourners

on Shabbat

. And one may not visit the sick on Shabbat!

For these matters lead to distress, as one associates himself with those in pain, thereby nullifying the delight of Shabbat—

the statement of Beit Shammai.

But Beit Hillel permit

all these matters! Arranging matches for children and teaching them Scripture or a trade are permitted because they are matters of mitzva, and specifically one’s own affairs are prohibited, but matters of Heaven are not [below, 150a]. Visiting the sick and comforting mourners are permitted because they are acts of kindness, which alleviate the distress of the sick person and the mourner [Arukh HaShulḥan, section 287, subsection 1].

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

to

him: It is Shabbat,

which prevents us

from crying out

for your healing,

but

nevertheless, the

healing is near to come!

For one must broaden the sick person’s and his family’s frame of mind with words of consolation, so that they will not grieve.

And Rabbi Meir says:

One says to the sick person:

Shabbat is able

to

have compassion

and bring you healing, if you honor it and do not become distressed on it! Although one may not request mercy for you on Shabbat, it does not prevent your healing; on the contrary, it is effective even without prayer. [Maharsha].