Shabbat 13a — the Talmud in English

Meitive:

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: The children of the schoolteachers would arrange sections and read by candlelight

on Shabbat.

And it is explicitly demonstrated that they permitted them to read the entire section .

And we answer:

Alternatively:

That which it teaches, “They arrange sections,” refers

to the beginnings of his sections

only.

And alternatively: The children are different, since the fear of their teacher is upon them; they will not come to tilt [

the candle]. For they do not extend their hand toward anything even on a weekday except at the instruction of their teacher.

We learned in the Mishna:

Similarly, a man with a flux may not eat

with a woman with a flux, because of habituation to transgression.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Come and see how far it spread [

prevailed]

purity in Israel,

for they would eat non-sacred food in purity:

For

we did not learn

in the Mishna

“A pure man may not eat with an impure woman,” but

we learned

“A man with a flux may not eat with a woman with a flux, because of habituation to transgression”,

lest he come to have intercourse with her.

And although for this reason it would also be necessary to forbid a pure man to eat with a woman with a flux, it was not necessary to forbid him, since on their own, without a decree, pure men would not eat with their wives when they were impure, because they would eat their non-sacred food in purity and were concerned lest the food become impure.

And

similarly

we learned:

A separated man with a flux may not eat [

one who is careful concerning the laws of purity]

with an ignorant man with a flux—

lest he accustom him to himself.

And here too, the tan­ nay mentioned the case in which both are impure only for the sake of the greater novelty. For if both were pure, it is obvious that he may not eat with him. For the Sages decreed impurity upon an ignorant man.

And we inquire about it:

And if he accustoms him to himself—

what is there?

And we answer:

Rather, say: Lest he feed him impure things.

And we object:

And is a separated man with a flux—

not one who eats impure things?

For all that he touches is impure.

Abaye said: It is a decree lest he feed him things that have not been prepared,

from which tithes have not been separated.

And Rava said:

We are not concerned about this, for

most ignorant people do tithe.

And by Torah law, the produce of an ignorant person is presumed to have been tithed and is permitted for eating; only the Sages decreed concerning it that it be forbidden with the prohibition of “demai.”

Therefore, one may not decree that a haver, who tithes his produce, must refrain from eating his own food together with an ignorant person. For the prohibition against eating the produce of an ignorant person is merely a decree, and we do not make a decree to prevent another decree.

Rather,

the reason that the separated man may not eat with him during his period of impurity is that we are concerned

lest he become accustomed to being with him

even at a time when he is pure,

and he will feed him impure things during the days of his purity

of the separated man.

They raised a dilemma before them: What is the law concerning a menstruating woman sleeping with her husband

in one bed, when

she is in her garment and he is in his garment?

Do we fear habituation to transgression, or perhaps, since they have made a distinguishing sign [sleeping when he is in his garment and she is in her garment], they will remember the prohibition and will not come to transgression [and it is speaking of a case in which there is no concern for impurity, such as when he too is impure; or in the present time, when we are not particular concerning impurity and purity. Rashi].

Rav Yosef said: Come and hear: A fowl may be placed together with cheese upon the table, but may not be eaten

with cheese. That is, the prohibition against eating fowl with milk is only rabbinic, and therefore they did not decree to forbid placing them together upon the table, lest he come to eat them together, because this would be a decree to prevent a decree,

the words of Beit Shammai.

And Beit Hillel say:

The fowl

may not be placed

upon the table with cheese

and may not be eaten

with it, for we decree concerning placing it that it is like eating it.

And one may prove from the words of Beit Hillel concerning our matter that he may not sleep with the menstruating woman, lest he come to transgression. [

Rather, he could have distinguished that here is different, since there is a distinguishing sign: he is in his garment and she is in her garment. Rashi].

And we reject this:

There

in the case of fowl and cheese,

there is no

two

opinions

of two people, but only the opinion of one person. Therefore, there we are concerned lest he forget and eat them together. But here there are two opinions, that of the man and that of the woman, and they will remind one another of the prohibition; there is no concern.

And we prove:

It is also reasonable

that where

there are

two

opinions, it is different.

For

that which

it teaches

there

in the conclusion: Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: Two guests [

visitors]

eat at one table—

this one eats meat and this one eats cheese, and they are not concerned

lest they come to eat meat with cheese. Thus, where there are two people, we rely on their reminding one another.

And we challenge this:

And

is it

not stated concerning it

in that Mishna:

Rav Hanin bar Ami said that Shmuel said: They taught

that two are permitted

only

when they

do not know one another,

for only then are we not concerned lest one of them come to take from his fellow’s food and eat it.

But

when they

know one another, they are forbidden

to eat meat and cheese together at the same table, for we are concerned lest one take from the other and eat it together with his own. Thus, the two opinions of two people do not help to permit it. And again it can be resolved from this that it is forbidden to sleep with the menstruating woman.

And we reject this:

How can these cases be compared?!

There,

in eating meat and milk at the same table, there are indeed two

opinions,

but

there is no change.

For they eat at one table without a distinguishing sign.

But

here,

with the menstruating woman,

there are

also two

opinions

of the man and the woman,

and

also

there is a change,

in that he sleeps in his garment and she in her garment . And through the combination of the two reasons, we are not concerned lest they come to transgression.

There are those who say

this teaching as follows:

Come and hear: Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: Two guests eat at one table, this one meat and this one cheese.

And it was stated

concerning it:

Rav Hanin bar Ami said that Shmuel said: They taught only when they do not know one another.

But

if they

know one another, it is forbidden.

And resolve from it concerning here. For

these

man and woman

also—

know one another,

and there is concern that they will come to transgression, even though there are two opinions.

And we reject this:

There

there are indeed two

opinions,

but

there is no change.

Whereas

here—

there are

also two

opinions, and there is

also a

change,

that he sleeps in his garment and she in her garment.

And again we resolve:

Come and hear: A man with a flux may not eat with a woman with a flux, because of habituation to transgression.

And for this reason sleeping together should also be forbidden, even though there are two opinions.

And we reject this:

Here,

in eating,

also, only two

opinions

are

that

there are,

but

there is no change.

Whereas in sleeping, in that he sleeps in his garment and she in her garment, there are both two opinions and a distinguishing sign.

Come and hear:

It is written:

“He did not eat upon the mountains [

for he was not sustained through the merit of the forefathers, but through the merit of being righteous himself],

and he did not lift his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel. And his fellow’s wife he did not defile, and to a woman

in menstruation he did not approach.”

The verse compares

the prohibition of

a menstruating woman to his fellow’s wife:

Just as with his fellow’s wife,

even when

he is in his garment and she is in her garment, it is forbidden

to sleep with her, for even in mere seclusion they are forbidden —

so too, his wife who is menstruating,

to sleep with her when

he is in his garment and she is in her garment is forbidden.

Conclude from this that even in such a case it is forbidden to sleep with her, and our dilemma is resolved.

And we conclude:

Conclude from this!

And it disagrees

with Rav Yosef, who resolved from this exposition that it is forbidden,

with Rabbi Pedat.

For Rabbi Pedat said: The Torah forbade only closeness that is the actual revelation of forbidden relations.

That is, the act of the forbidden intercourse itself.

As it is stated: “Each man, to all the rest of his flesh, you shall not approach, to uncover nakedness.”

But mere bodily closeness is not forbidden by Torah law, but only rabbinically . And according to him, since it is forbidden only rabbinically, where they sleep when he is in his garment and she is in her garment, where there is no bodily closeness, it is permitted even rabbinically.

Ulla, when he would come from the house of study, would kiss his sisters upon their breasts; and some say: upon their hands .

For it is the way of people that when they leave the synagogue, they immediately kiss their father or mother, or one older than they, upon the knee or the palm of the hand. And this is a way of honor [Rashi, Avoda Zara 17a].

And it disagrees

with Ulla concerning this incident

of his,

a statement

of his.

For Ulla said: Even any closeness is forbidden

with forbidden relations,

because of

distancing from transgression. And as we say:

“Go, go, they say

to the

Nazirite; go around, go around, do not approach the vineyard.”

That is: Distance yourself, you Nazirite, and do not walk through the vineyard; rather, go around it so that you will not stumble in the prohibition of eating grapes.

And according to his position, he should not have kissed his sisters, because of distancing. Even though, Heaven forbid, it was not in a manner of transgression. [

Indeed, Ulla did this because he knew about himself that he would not come to improper thoughts, since he was completely righteous. Similar was Rav Aha, who carried the bride upon his shoulders and danced with her, because she appeared to him like merely a wooden beam. Tosafot].

The school of Elijah taught: There was an incident involving one student who learned much, read much, and served Torah scholars much [

who explained to him the obscure passages of the Mishna and their reasons, and this is “Talmud”].

And he died in the middle of his days.

And his wife would take his phylacteries [

concerning which longevity is stated, as it is written: “The Lord is upon them—they shall live.” Tosafot of the Rosh],

and go around with them among the synagogues and the houses of study.

And she said to them,

to those sitting in the house of study:

It is written in the Torah: “For it is your life and the length of your days.”

My husband, who learned much and read much,