Shabbat 145b — the Talmud in English

and testimony transmitted by one witness from another witness is valid ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

only with regard to testimony concerning a woman.

To testify to a woman that her husband died, and thereby permit her to marry. The Sages were lenient in this matter because of the plight of an abandoned woman.

Although by Torah law one witness is not at all deemed credible, as we hold that “a matter of forbidden sexual relations requires no fewer than two” witnesses, and by Torah law she would still retain the status of a married woman who is forbidden to others, how did the Sages permit a Torah prohibition? Rather, we hold that whoever betroths a woman does so subject to the stipulation of the Sages. From the outset, his intent agreed that if in the future the Sages would not desire these betrothals, his betrothal would never have taken effect. In such a case, when one witness testified through another witness concerning the husband’s death, the Sages uprooted the betrothal from him. Consequently, the betrothal is retroactively uprooted by Torah law.

They raised a dilemma before them: What is the halakha with regard to testimony transmitted by one witness from another witness concerning a firstborn animal?

A firstborn animal possesses sanctity of the altar, and it is forbidden to slaughter or eat it outside the Temple precincts until a blemish develops in it on its own. But if a koen intentionally inflicted a blemish upon it, it remains forbidden as a penalty, because he violated the prohibition against inflicting a blemish upon consecrated animals.

If an Israelite gave the firstborn animal to a koen while it was unblemished, and afterward a blemish was found in it, the koen is not deemed credible to say that the blemish developed on its own. This is because the priests were suspected of inflicting blemishes upon firstborn animals so that they would not have to offer them in the Temple courtyard. Rather, testimony from others is required concerning this. Nevertheless, the testimony of one witness suffices for this purpose, and even the testimony of disqualified witnesses is valid in this matter.

And the dilemma was whether testimony transmitted by one witness from another witness is also valid to testify concerning this.

And they resolved it:

Rav Ami forbids

that firstborn animal concerning which a witness testified through another witness regarding its blemish, and he did not accept this testimony.

And Rav Asi permits

that firstborn animal, accepting the testimony transmitted by one witness from another witness that the blemish developed on its own.

Rav Ami said to Rav Asi: But the tanna of the school of Menashya taught: Testimony transmitted by one witness from another witness is valid only with regard to testimony concerning a woman.

This indicates that it is valid specifically in that case, but not with regard to testimony concerning a firstborn animal.

And he answered him:

Say

that this is what the tanna of the school of Menashya said:

Testimony transmitted by one witness from another witness is valid only with regard to testimony in which a woman is qualified to testify.

And testimony concerning a firstborn animal is testimony in which a woman is qualified to testify.

Rav Yemar deemed testimony transmitted by one witness from another witness valid with regard to

testimony concerning a

firstborn animal.

Marimar applied to him the verse: “Yemar permits the firstborn”.

He called him “Yemar, the one who permits firstborn animals.” This is an expression of derision.

And they conclude:

And the halakha is: Testimony transmitted by one witness from another witness is valid with regard to

testimony concerning a

firstborn animal.

We learned in the Mishna:

Honeycombs

that one crushed on the eve of Shabbat, and whose honey flowed out on its own on Shabbat, are forbidden. And Rabbi Eliezer permits them.

When Rav Hoshaya came from Neharde’a, he came and brought a beraita with him.

As it was taught:

Olives and grapes that one crushed on the eve of Shabbat, and whose liquids flowed out

from them

on their own

on Shabbat,

are forbidden

for that Shabbat. And although once they have been crushed it is no longer their usual manner to squeeze them, and there is no concern that one might come to squeeze them, the Sages decreed with regard to crushed produce because of produce that was not crushed.

And Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon permit them.

They do not accept this decree.

Rav Yosef said:

Why,

did an extraordinary person come

Rav Hoshaya

to teach us?

Was this dispute not already taught in the Mishna with regard to honeycombs? The beraita added only that Rabbi Shimon also holds like Rabbi Eliezer.

Abaye said to him: He teaches us a great deal

Rav Hoshaya through this beraita.

For if it were derived from the Mishna, I would have said

that only

there,

with regard to honeycombs, Rabbi Eliezer permits them, because

initially,

while the honey was inside the honeycombs, the honey was

food.

And ultimately,

after it flowed out, it is also

food. Separating one food from another is not considered threshing, as explained above .

But

here,

with regard to olives and grapes,

initially,

while the liquid was inside the fruit, it was

food. And ultimately,

after it flowed out, it becomes

a liquid; perhaps not

even when they are crushed would Rabbi Eliezer disagree, since squeezing them involves threshing.

He therefore teaches us

that whenever they were crushed before Shabbat, squeezing them no longer involves threshing. And there is no need to enact a decree in a case where the liquids flowed out on their own.

Mishna:

Any

thing

that was placed in hot water

and was already cooked

before Shabbat may be soaked in hot water on Shabbat.

This does not involve cooking, for there is no cooking after cooking. They do this only so that the cooked food will soften.

But anything that was not placed in hot water before Shabbat,

such as dried meat that, although difficult, can be eaten raw, may not be soaked in hot water on Shabbat, because a first vessel cooks. But

it may be rinsed in hot water

on Shabbat.

This is pouring from a first vessel, and such an act is not considered cooking.

Except for old salted fish,

and small salted fish,

and the kolyas ha-ispanin

a fish that, because of its salting, can be eaten only after being rinsed in hot water. All of these may not even be rinsed in hot water on Shabbat, because

their rinsing is the completion of their preparation.

Since they cannot be eaten without rinsing, this constitutes their cooking.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Something that was placed in hot water before Shabbat may be soaked in hot water on Shabbat.

And we inquire concerning this:

What, for example?

Rav Safra said: For example, the chicken of Rabbi Abba.

He would customarily soak the chicken after it had been cooked for many days, so that it would soften on its own, and he would eat it as a remedy.

And Rav Safra said: One time I happened to come there

to Rabbi Abba’s place,

and I ate from it

I ate from this chicken.

And had Rabbi Abba not given me to drink

he gave me

three-year-old wine

wine that was three years old,

I would have been overcome

and forced to vomit from disgust.

Rabbi Yohanan would spit

when he mentioned

the Babylonian kutah.

It was repulsive in his eyes.

Rav Yosef said:

Just as the people of Eretz Yisrael find our food repulsive, so

we should spit at the chicken of Rabbi Abba

which the people of Eretz Yisrael eat, because it is repulsive in our eyes. He was troubled that the people of Eretz Yisrael found Babylonian food so repulsive.

And furthermore, Rav Geza said: One time I happened to come there

to Eretz Yisrael,

and I prepared Babylonian kutah. And they asked me for it

they requested it from him,

all the sick people of the West

the sick people of Eretz Yisrael. Thus, they too require it, and should not find it repulsive.

We learned in the Mishna:

Anything that was not placed in hot water

before Shabbat may be rinsed in hot water on Shabbat, except for old salted fish, and so on.

And we inquire: And if one

rinsed

them on Shabbat,

what

is his status?

Rav Yosef said:

If he rinsed it, he

is liable to bring a sin-offering.

Because this is its cooking.

Mar, son of Ravina, said: We too have learned this

as well, for we learned:

Except for old salted fish and the kolyas ha-ispanin, whose rinsing is the completion of their preparation.

Infer from this

that it entails full liability for Shabbat.

Rav Hiyya bar Abba and Rabbi Asi were sitting before Rabbi Yohanan, and Rabbi Yohanan was sitting and dozing. Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said to Rabbi Asi: Why are the birds of Babylonia fat?

Rabbi Asi said to him: Go to the Gaza wilderness, and I will show you birds fatter than they.

The Gaza wilderness is in Eretz Yisrael, and its birds too are fat.

They also asked him:

Why

are

the festivals,

the people

of Babylonia

more

joyful

than the people of Eretz Yisrael?

He said to him:

Because

the people of Babylonia

are poor.

Throughout the year they have no joy in food and drink, nor relief from their labor. Therefore, all their joy is on the festivals.

They also asked him:

Why are the Torah scholars of Babylonia distinguished

by fine garments?

He said to him:

Because

the people of Babylonia

are not people of Torah.

Therefore, they will not honor them because of their Torah, but only because they wear important garments. But the people of Eretz Yisrael, who are people of Torah, are honored in any event.

They also asked him:

Why are gentiles repulsive?

He said to him:

Because

they

eat abominations and creeping things.

In the meantime,

he awoke

and rebuked

them, Rabbi Yohanan.

He said to them: Children.

You are young men and have not yet reached the level of understanding. You may not say something based on your own reasoning. Did I not say this to you:

“Say

to wisdom: You are my sister”?—

If the matter is as clear to you

as it is clear to you that

your sister is forbidden to you, say it; and if not, do not say it.

They said to him: Let our master tell us

the answers to our questions.

He said to them: Regarding

which of them?

They said to him:

Why are the birds of Babylonia fat?

He said to them:

Because

the birds of Babylonia

were never exiled. As it is stated: “Moab has been tranquil from his youth, and he has rested on his lees; he has not gone into exile.”

But the birds of Eretz Yisrael were exiled.

And we inquire:

And

the birds

here

of Eretz Yisrael,

from where do we know that they were exiled?

And we answer:

As it was taught: Rabbi Yehuda says: For fifty-two years no person passed through Judea. As it is stated: “Upon the mountains I will raise weeping and lamentation

and upon the pastures of the wilderness a dirge, for they have been scorched, with no person passing through, and they have not heard the sound of livestock,

from the bird of the heavens to the beast they have wandered away.”

And

the numerical value of “beast” is fifty-two.

Those fifty-two years are the years between the exile of Zedekiah, king of Judah, and their being remembered in the days of Cyrus. For the construction of the Second Temple was completed at the end of seventy years from their exile, while their ascent to Eretz Yisrael took place eighteen years before the completion of the building.

It is therefore explicitly written in the verse that even the birds were exiled from Judah.

Rav Yaakov said that Rabbi Yohanan said:

And after they were exiled,

all of them

all living creatures

returned

to Eretz Yisrael, as “to the beast” is written. That is, they were exiled for fifty-two years, but no longer.

Except for the kolyas ha-ispanin,

which did not return.

For Rav said: These slopes

slopes

of Babylonia return water to Ein Eitam,

which is the highest place in Eretz Yisrael. Beneath the ground of the Euphrates River there are channels and ladders through which the water returns and rises to Eretz Yisrael. The fish returned from their exile by way of those ladders.

And this

kolyas ha-ispanin,

since its spine is not firm

it has no hard spine,

cannot ascend

to Eretz Yisrael by that route.

They also asked him:

Why are the festivals of Babylonia joyful

more than those in Eretz Yisrael?

He answered them:

Because

the people of Babylonia

were not included in that curse

with which Eretz Yisrael was cursed.

As it is written: “I will put an end to all her joy, her festivals, her new moons, and her Shabbatot, and all her appointed times.”

And

so

it is written: “Your new moons and your festivals My soul hates; they have become a burden upon Me.”

It was specifically Eretz Yisrael that was cursed in this manner, and not Babylonia. Therefore, they rejoice on the festivals.

And we inquire:

What is the meaning of “they have become a burden upon Me”?

Rabbi Elazar said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said: Is it not enough for Israel

that

they sin before Me, but

they also

burden Me to determine which harsh decree I should bring upon them?

Rabbi Yitzhak said: There was not a single festival on which

there did not come

a military force

the king’s army

to Sepphoris.

And Rabbi Hanina said: There was not a single festival on which there did not come

to

Tiberias, Agmon, Kamtun, and Ba’al Zemora

a designation for the authorities, to plunder them and impose a burden upon them. They did not come specifically in order to deprive them of the joy of the festival; rather, the curse caused them to come specifically at the time of the festival.

They also asked him:

Why are the Torah scholars of Babylonia distinguished?

He said to them:

Because they are not in their place.

For they were exiled there from Eretz Yisrael. And anyone exiled to a foreign place adorns himself with garments so that he will be important.

And this is what

people say: In my city

I am important

because of my name

alone, and I do not need to be honored through my garments. But

outside my city

when I am not in my city, my honor depends on

my garment

my cloak.

It is written:

“Those who are coming shall take root, Jacob shall blossom and bud, and Israel shall flower.”

Rav Yosef taught: These are the Torah scholars of Babylonia, who make tassels and flowers for the Torah.

And this is what the verse means: Those from the house of Jacob who will come to Babylonia will take root and produce tassels and flowers for the Torah.

This supports Rabbi Yohanan, for the reason that they are “distinguished” is not that they are not people of Torah, as Rabbi Asi said. On the contrary, this verse indicates that they are great in Torah.

They also asked him:

Why are gentiles repulsive?

He said to them:

Because they did not stand at Mount Sinai.