Shabbat 147a (קמז.) — the Talmud in English

Rav Huna said:

One who shakes out his cloak on Shabbat

to remove the dust on it, he

is liable to bring a sin-offering.

For this is its whitening, and he is liable on account of “laundering”.

And this statement

that he is liable

was said only with regard to

a cloak

that is new. But with regard to

one who shakes out an

old cloak, we have no concern.

Since it is not customary to be particular about it, this is not considered “whitening.”

And this statement

that he is liable

was said only with regard to black garments

(a black cloak), because the dust spoils their appearance, and he is particular about them.

But

with regard to a

white

or

red

cloak (white or red), about which one is not particular,

we have no concern.

And

even with regard to a black cloak,

he

is liable on account of “whitening” only where

he is particular about them

so that dust should not cling to them. But when he is not particular about this, there is no prohibition of “whitening.”

Ulla happened to come to Pumbedita. He saw that the Sages were

shaking out

(shaking)

their cloaks

from the dust.

He said: The Sages are desecrating Shabbat.

For they were violating the prohibition of “whitening.”

Rav Yehuda said to the Sages: Shake them out in his presence

(shake out your cloaks in front of him), and do not be concerned about his statement, because

we are not particular at all

about dust that clings to a cloak. Therefore, this is not “whitening.”

Abaye was standing before Rav Yosef. Rav Yosef said to him:

Rav Yosef said to Abaye:

Give me

the

my hat

(my hat).

Abaye saw

that

there was dew on it

(there was dew on the hat). Therefore,

he was refraining

(preventing) himself

from giving it to him

Rav Yosef, his hat.

Rav Yosef said to him: Shake out

the hat and

cast

the dew off it. There is no prohibition of “whitening” in this, since

we are not particular at all.

Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One who goes out

into the public domain

with a folded cloak

when it is

placed on his shoulder

(after placing it on his head, he lifted its edges onto his shoulders)

on Shabbat

is

liable to bring a sin-offering.

This is because of the prohibition against carrying out. For this is not the manner of wearing a garment, but the manner of carrying a burden.

It was taught likewise in a beraita: Garment merchants who go out with folded cloaks placed on their shoulders on Shabbat

are

liable to bring a sin-offering.

And

it was not said

only with regard to garment merchants

so.

Rather, every person

who goes out in this manner is liable to bring a sin-offering. And it was stated with regard to garment merchants

only

because

it is the practice of merchants to go out in this manner.

And a shopkeeper who goes out with coins tied in his garment is liable to bring a sin-offering.

And it was not said

so

only with regard to a shopkeeper.

Rather, it applies to

every person. Rather

it was stated with regard to a shopkeeper because

it is the practice of a shopkeeper to go out in this manner.

And the Rattanim

(people called by this name after their place of residence)

go out

on Shabbat

with scarves over their shoulders.

This is not considered carrying a burden; rather, it is the manner of wearing a garment.

And

it was not stated

only with regard to Rattanim

so.

Rather, it applies to every person. Rather

the term “Rattanim” was stated because

it is the practice of Rattanim to go out in this manner.

Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving Hyrcanus, the son of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, who went out with a scarf over his shoulder on Shabbat. Except that

there was

a thread

(a thread) from the scarf

wrapped around his finger.

This was the only manner in which he went out with the scarf, so that it would not fall from his shoulder. But otherwise, this would not be the manner of wearing a garment.

And when the matter came before the Sages, they said:

It is permitted to go out with a scarf over one’s shoulder,

even

when

there is no thread wrapped around his finger.

In every case, this is considered the manner of wearing a garment.

Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda taught in the name of Rav Ḥisda: The halakha is that although there is no thread wrapped around his fingers

it is permitted to go out with a scarf over one’s shoulder.

Ulla happened to come to the house of Asi bar Hini. They asked him: What is the ruling with regard to making a gutter

from one’s garments

on Shabbat?

The meaning of this will be explained shortly.

He said to them: This is what Rabbi Ela’i said: It is prohibited to make a gutter on Shabbat.

And we discussed this:

What is meant by “a gutter”?

Rav Zeira said: A Babylonian pocket.

When garments were long and reached the ground, their edges were raised and folded upward, and they were held folded by strings. In this way, a pocket was formed in the garment, resembling a gutter.

Rabbi Ela’i prohibited doing this because it is like making a utensil.

Rabbi Yirmeya was sitting before Rabbi Zeira.

He was folding his robe in his presence,

and said to him: What about this

with regard to its law on Shabbat?

And he said to him: It is prohibited.

He then folded it in another manner and asked him:

And what about this?

Again he

said to him: It is prohibited.

Rav Pappa said: Take this principle in your hand: Any

folding of a garment that one performs

with the intention of gathering it

(so that the garment will remain gathered in this manner permanently)

is prohibited

to do on Shabbat, because it is like making a utensil.

But anything

that one does in order

to adorn himself

with it temporarily and not permanently

is permitted.

This is like the case of Rav Shisha, son of Rav Idi, who would adorn himself with his scarf

during the week;

it was

his practice to do so. Since this was his usual manner, it is permitted even on Shabbat, as he was not doing it for the purpose of making a utensil.

When Rav Dimi came, he said: Once Rabbi went out to the field

on Shabbat,

and the two sides of his cloak

the lower ones, on his right and left,

were placed on his shoulders. Yehoshua ben Zeruz, the son-in-law of Rabbi Meir, said to him:

But

did Rabbi Meir not deem one liable to bring a sin-offering for this?

For Rabbi Meir said that this is the manner of carrying a burden and not the manner of wearing a garment, and one is liable to bring a sin-offering for carrying it out.

Rabbi said to him:

Indeed,

did Rabbi Meir scrutinize the matter to this extent?

He accepted his words, and

Rabbi lowered

the sides of

his cloak

from his shoulders and brought them down.

When Ravin came, he said: It was not

with

Yehoshua ben Zeruz

that the incident occurred.

Rather, it was Yehoshua ben Kaposai.

He was

Rabbi Akiva’s son-in-law, and he said

to Rabbi: But

did Rabbi Akiva not deem one liable to bring a sin-offering for this?

And Rabbi said to him

Rabbi

Akiva scrutinize the matter to this extent?

And

Rabbi lowered

his

cloak, and accepted his words.

When Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda came, he said: “Rabbi was asked,”

Rabbi

it was stated.

Rabbi did not in fact act this way. Rather, he was asked whether it is permitted to go out when the sides of one’s cloak are on one’s shoulders, and he sought to permit it. In response, they told him in the name of Rabbi Meir or Rabbi Akiva that it is prohibited.

Mishna:

a.

One who bathes in the waters of a cave

(a covered hot mikve)

and in the waters of Tiberias, and dries himself

even

with ten towels

(towels),

may not carry them in his hand

to his home. Nor may he carry them to a place where an eruv has been established and there is no prohibition of carrying out, because we are concerned that he may forget and wring out the towels. Even though he dried himself with ten towels, so that there is not a large quantity of water in each one, it is prohibited.

But ten people may dry themselves

even

with one towel

their

faces, hands, and feet, and may carry it in their hands

to their homes. Although they all dried themselves with one towel, and it absorbed a great deal of water, we are not concerned that they might wring it out. Since they are numerous, one will remind the other not to wring it out.

b.

One may anoint

the body with oil on Shabbat,

and

likewise

rub

the entire body with one’s hand for pleasure.

But one may not exercise

(rub the body forcefully), nor scrape the body with a scraper, because these are weekday activities.

One may not descend

on Shabbat

to

the river

Kordima.

The Gemara explains the reason.

And one may not perform

on Shabbat

an emetic

(vomiting, a term composed of the words “bring out” and “food,” meaning removing the food before it has time to be digested, according to Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishna) by means of a drug. Although one does not do this for medical treatment, but only so that he can eat and drink a great deal, it is prohibited because he is “improving the person.”

And one may not shape a child,

to arrange and set his bones and vertebrae.

And one may not reset a fracture

(the broken bone) in its place.

One whose hand or foot has been dislocated

(whose bone has left the joint connecting it)

may not rub it

(massage it)

with cold water

at the site of the dislocation.

All these activities are prohibited because they are medical procedures. The Sages prohibited medical treatment on Shabbat because of the decree against grinding medicinal substances.

But

if his hand or foot has been dislocated,

he may wash

them

in the usual manner. And if he is healed

by this,

he is healed.

He need not be concerned about the prohibition of medical treatment on Shabbat, because it does not appear that he is doing this for medical purposes.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “One who bathes in the waters of a cave and in the waters of Tiberias, etc.”

And we infer:

It teaches “the waters of a cave” by analogy with “the waters of Tiberias.”

Just as the waters of Tiberias

are

hot, so too “the waters of a cave”

are referring to

hot waters.

And since it teaches

“one who bathed”

rather than “one who bathes,” this implies that

after the fact, there is no

permission to bring a towel to his home after bathing. But

initially, he may not

bathe at all in hot water, because on Shabbat they issued a decree prohibiting bathing in hot water, even when it was heated before Shabbat.