Shabbat 131b — the Talmud in English

Abaye said to him: On the contrary.

For the reasoning indicates that

because

of

they have no fixed time ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

every hour and every hour is its time,

and every moment during which one delays his garment without tzitzit transgresses a positive commandment. [And this follows the one who says in Menachot 41a that a garment is obligated in tzitzit ].

Rather, Rav Naḥman said that Rav Yitzḥak said—and some say

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua:

the reason for these [mitzvot] that do not override Shabbat

is that he has the ability to renounce ownership of them,

and once they leave his possession, their obligation is no longer incumbent upon him.

The Master said: A lulav and all its preparations override Shabbat; these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

And we raised the question:

From where does Rabbi Eliezer derive this?

If

he derives it by a bamah matzinu

from the omer and the two loaves,

whose preparations override Shabbat [as we explained above].

There is room to refute: What is different about these?

For they are a need of the Most High,

as they are offerings, and therefore they override Shabbat.

And we explain:

Rather,

we derive it from here:

The verse says: “And you shall take for yourselves”

“on the”

day

“the first.” Since it did not write “on the first,” but wrote

“on the day,”

we derive

even on Shabbat.

And the Gemara proves:

And for what halakhic purpose

do we include even Shabbat?

If you say, to

permit the

carrying

of the lulav, to teach you that it is not forbidden on account of muktzeh.

This is not possible. For is

a verse required to permit carrying?

After all, carrying was not forbidden by Torah law, but only by the words of the Sages.

Rather,

this “day” comes

to

include

its preparations,

so that it is permitted to cut it from the palm tree on Shabbat.

But the Rabbis

hold:

that “day”

on the day”

is needed by them

to expound that the time for taking the lulav is

during the day and not at night.

And Rabbi Eliezer:

this exposition,

during the day and not at night—

from where does he derive it?

And we explain: He derives it

from

what is written:

“And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days.”

And we expound:

days, and not nights.

And the Rabbis

say to you: This verse is needed.

For

it might enter your mind to say: Let us derive

a gzera shava

“seven days”

which is written with regard to the lulav

from “seven days” which is written with regard to

seven days,” which is written with regard to

the sukka.

Just as there

the mitzva of sukka applies

during the days and even

during the

nights, so here

with the lulav its mitzva applies

during the days and even

during the

nights.

It teaches us this.

And we raise an objection:

Let the Merciful One write it with regard to the lulav

whose preparations override Shabbat,

and let these,

the omer and the two loaves,

be brought and derived from it.

Why do I need that it was written with regard to all of them?

And we answer:

Because there is room to refute: What is different about the lulav, since it requires four species,

and therefore it overrides Shabbat, but these should not override it. For this reason the verse comes to include them.

We said above:

A sukka and all its preparations override Shabbat; these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

And we raised the question:

From where does Rabbi Eliezer derive this?

If

he derives it

from the omer and the two loaves.

There is room to refute: What is different about the omer and the two loaves,

since they are a need of the Most High?

If

he derives it

from the lulav,

there is room to refute:

since it requires four species.

Rather,

Rabbi Eliezer

derived

a gzera shava

“seven days”

which is written with regard to the sukka,

from “seven days” which is written with regard to

seven days,” which is written with regard to the

the lulav. Just as there

with the lulav

its preparations override Shabbat, so here

with the sukka

also its preparations override Shabbat.

And although this gzera shava is not open-ended, nevertheless, since the Torah has already included the omer, the two loaves, and the lulav, a disclosure of the matter is sufficient. Rashi.

And we raise an objection:

Let the Merciful One write it with regard to the sukka, and let these be brought and derived from it?

And we answer:

Because there is room to refute: What is different about the sukka, since

its mitzva applies

at night as during the day.

We said above:

Matzah and all its preparations override Shabbat; these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

And we raised the question:

From where does Rabbi Eliezer derive this?

If

he derives it

from the omer and the two loaves,

there is room to refute: What is different about those,

since

they are

a need of the Most High.

If

he derives it

from the lulav,

there is room to refute: What is different about the lulav,

since it requires four species?

If

he derives it

from the sukka,

there is room to refute: What is different about the sukka,

since

it applies

at night as during the day.

Can you say this with regard to matzah, whose obligation applies only on the first night?

Rather,

Rabbi Eliezer

derived

a gzera shava

“the fifteenth”

which is written with regard to matzah,

from “the fifteenth”

which is written with regard to

the Festival of Sukkot. Just as there

with the sukka,

its preparations override Shabbat. So here

with matzah,

its preparations override Shabbat.

And we raise an objection:

Let the Merciful One write it with regard to matzah, and let all these

be brought

and derived from it.

And we answer:

Because there is room to refute: What is different about matzah, since it applies to women as to men,

and it is not like every positive commandment limited by time, from which women are exempt, because we expound: “Anyone who is included in the prohibition, ‘Do not eat leavened bread,’ is included in the obligation of eating matzah.”

We said above:

A shofar and all its preparations override Shabbat; these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

And we raised the question:

From where does Rabbi Eliezer derive this?

If

he derives it

from the omer and the two loaves,

there is room to refute: What is different about these,

since they are a need of the Most High?

If

he derives it

from the lulav,

there is room to refute: What is different about the lulav,

since it requires four species?

If

he derives it

from the sukka,

there is room to refute: What is different about the sukka,

since it applies at night as during the day?

If

he derives it

from matzah,

there is room to refute: What is different about matzah,

since it applies to women as to men?

Rather,

he expounds it from here:

The verse says: “It shall be a day of sounding for you.”

And we expound: One sounds

“on the day,” and even on Shabbat.

And the Gemara proves:

And for what

do we expound that it overrides Shabbat?

If you say, for sounding,

which is permitted on Shabbat.

This is not possible. For

this is what the school of Shmuel taught:

It is written [Numbers 29:1]

“You shall not perform any labor of work.”

That means labor involving exertion—

sounding the shofar and removing bread from the oven are excluded, for the former is skill and not labor.

And if so, no verse is needed to permit sounding on Shabbat, since it is not labor prohibited by Torah law.

Rather,

this “day” comes

to

include

the preparations

that override Shabbat.

And the Rabbis say to you:

that “day”

day”

is needed by them

to expound that the mitzva of sounding is

during the day and not at night.

And Rabbi Eliezer:

this exposition,

“during the day and not at night,” from where does he derive it?

And we explain: He derives it

from

what is written:

“On the Day of Atonement you shall sound the shofar throughout all your land.”

That means during the day and not at night.

And they derive

Rosh Hashanah and the Day of Atonement

from one another,

for it is written with regard to the Day of Atonement, “in the seventh month,” and this verse is superfluous, since it has already been written in several places in the Torah that the Day of Atonement is in the seventh month. And it comes to teach that all the soundings of the seventh month should be alike, in that they are performed during the day and not at night.

And we raise an objection:

Let all

these

be brought and derived from it?

And we answer:

There is nothing to derive from the sounding of the shofar of Rosh Hashanah, since

this sounding

brings the remembrances of Israel before their Father in Heaven.

From the soundings of the shofar on the Day of Atonement

of the Jubilee,

there is nothing to derive,

since they possess special importance.

For the Master said: The court sounded

with a

shofar, the slaves were released,

and they went

to their homes. And fields returned to their owners.

(The Master said:) Circumcision and all its preparations override Shabbat; these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

And we raised the question:

From where does Rabbi Eliezer derive this?

If from all of them,

he derived it from one of all of them,

he derived it.

There is room to refute each and every one

as we said

above.