Shabbat 131b (קלא:) — the Talmud in English

Abaye said to him: On the contrary,

the reasoning indicates that

because

they have no fixed time,

each hour is its time,

and every moment that one delays wearing his garment without tzitzit,

he violates a positive mitzva. [This applies according to the one who says in Menakhot 41a that a garment is obligated in tzitzit].

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

that Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua,

the reason that these do not override Shabbat

is that one can declare them ownerless,

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

The Master said: The lulav and all that is necessary for its preparation override Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

And we raised a question about it:

From where does Rabbi Eliezer derive this?

If

he derives it by a binyan av—a comparison based on a common feature—

from the omer and the two loaves,

whose necessary preparations override Shabbat, [as we explained above].

This can be refuted: What is distinctive about these?

They serve a higher purpose,

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 day.” Since it does not say “on the first,” but rather it says

“on the day,”

we derive

even on Shabbat.

And the Gemara proves:

For what halakhic purpose

do we include even Shabbat?

If you say it is to

permit

moving

the lulav, teaching that it is not forbidden on account of muktzeh,

that cannot be. Is

a verse needed to permit moving?

Moving was not prohibited by Torah law, but only by rabbinic decree.

Rather,

this word “on the day” comes

to

include

the preparations,

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

And the Rabbis

hold:

That “

on the day

is needed

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

that which is written:

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

And we expound:

days, but not nights.

And the Rabbis

could say to you: This verse is necessary.

For

it might enter your mind to say: Let us derive

a gzera shava concerning

“seven days,”

which is written with regard to the lulav,

from

“seven days,” which is written with regard to

the sukka.

Just as there,

the mitzva of sukka applies during

days and even

during

nights, so here,

with regard to the lulav, its mitzva applies during

days and even

during

nights.

It teaches us otherwise.

And we ask:

Let the Merciful One write with regard to the lulav

that its necessary preparations override Shabbat.

And let these,

the omer and the two loaves,

be brought and derived from it.

Why do we need Him to write it with regard to all of them?

And we answer:

Because this can be refuted: What is distinctive about the lulav? It requires four species,

and therefore it overrides Shabbat, but these should not override it. That is why the verse comes to include them.

We said above:

The sukka and all that is necessary for its preparation override Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

And we raised a question about it:

From where does Rabbi Eliezer derive this?

If

he derives it

from the omer and the two loaves.

This can be refuted: What is distinctive about the omer and the two loaves?

They serve a higher purpose.

If

he derives it

from the lulav,

it can be refuted:

The lulav requires four species.

Rather,

Rabbi Eliezer

derives

a gzera shava concerning

“seven days,”

which is written with regard to the sukka,

from

“seven days,” which is written with regard to

the lulav. Just as there,

with regard to the lulav,

its necessary preparations override Shabbat, so here

with regard to the sukka

as well, its necessary preparations override Shabbat.

Although this gzera shava is not explicitly available for interpretation, nevertheless, since the Torah has already included the omer and the two loaves and the lulav, a mere indication of the matter is sufficient. Rashi.

And we ask:

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

And we answer:

Because this can be refuted: What is distinctive about the sukka?

Its mitzva applies

at night as it does during the day.

We said above:

Matzah and all that is necessary for its preparation override Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

And we raised a question about it:

From where does Rabbi Eliezer derive this?

If

he derives it

from the omer and the two loaves,

it can be refuted: What is distinctive about those?

They

are

a higher purpose.

If

he derives it

from the lulav,

it can be refuted: What is distinctive about the lulav?

It requires four species.

If

he derives it

from the sukka,

it can be refuted: What is distinctive about the sukka?

It

applies

at night as it does during the day.

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

Rather,

Rabbi Eliezer

derives

a gzera shava concerning

“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 regard to the sukka,

its preparations override Shabbat, so here

with regard to matzah,

its preparations override Shabbat.

And we ask:

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

others

be brought and derived from it.

And we answer:

Because this can be refuted: What is distinctive about matzah? It applies to women as it does to men,

and it is not like every positive time-bound mitzva from which women are exempt, because we expound: “Whoever is included in the prohibition, ‘You shall not eat leavened bread,’ is included in the obligation to eat matzah.”

We said above:

The shofar and all that is necessary for its preparation override Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

And we raised a question about it:

From where does Rabbi Eliezer derive this?

If

he derives it

from the omer and the two loaves,

it can be refuted: What is distinctive about these?

They serve a higher purpose.

If

he derives it

from the lulav,

it can be refuted: What is distinctive about the lulav?

It requires four species.

If

he derives it

from the sukka,

it can be refuted: What is distinctive about the sukka?

It applies at night as it does during the day.

If

he derives it

from matzah,

it can be refuted: What is distinctive about matzah?

It applies to women as it does to men.

Rather,

he expounds it from here:

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

And we expound: The shofar is sounded

“on the day,” even on Shabbat.

And the Gemara proves:

For what

purpose do we expound that it overrides Shabbat?

If you say it is for the sounding

which is permitted on Shabbat,

that cannot be. For

the school of Shmuel taught:

it is written [Numbers 29:1]

“You shall not perform any labor of work.”

This refers to labor involving exertion—

the sounding of the shofar and the removal of bread from the oven are excluded, as they require skill but are not labor.

Therefore, no verse is needed to permit sounding the shofar on Shabbat, since it is not labor prohibited by Torah law.

Rather,

this word “day” comes

to

include

the preparations

that override Shabbat.

And the Rabbis could say to you:

That “

day

is needed

to expound that the mitzva of sounding the shofar 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

that which is written:

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

This means during the day and not at night.

And they derive

Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur

from one another,

as it is written with regard to Yom Kippur, “in the seventh month.” This expression is superfluous, since it is already written in several places in the Torah that Yom Kippur is in the seventh month. It comes to teach that all the blasts of the seventh month are alike, in that they take place during the day and not at night.

And we ask:

Let

all

these be brought and derived from it?

And we answer:

The sounding of the shofar on Rosh HaShana cannot serve as a source, since

this sounding

brings the remembrances of Israel before their Father in Heaven.

The sounding of the shofar on Yom Kippur

of the Jubilee

cannot serve as a source,

since it has special significance.

For the Master said: The court sounds

the

shofar, the slaves are emancipated,

and they go

to their homes. And fields return to their owners.

(The Master said:) Circumcision and all that is necessary for its preparation override Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

And we raised a question about it:

From where does Rabbi Eliezer derive this?

If he derives it from all of them,

from one of all of them,

he derives it.

It can be refuted with regard to each and every one

as we said

above.