Shabbat 148b — the Talmud in English

And if you say, let them make a variation through

spreading a cloth

over the mouth of the jug, this should not be done. For we must be concerned lest

it come to squeezing

the cloth from the water.

And if you say,

let her cover the jug with a cover

[a covering], and through this let it be a variation, we do not have to require this. Because

sometimes the covering is torn

the covering.

And

if we require her to cover it,

she will come to tie it

[to bind it]. And it is a permanent knot, which is forbidden by Torah law.

Therefore it is not possible

to make a variation in drawing the water. And for this reason we do it in the manner in which they do it on weekdays.

And Rava bar Rav Hanan said to Abaye: We learned: One may not clap

[striking one palm against the other] on a Festival, to display mourning.

And one may not strike

the heart on a Festival, for mourning.

And

likewise

they may not dance

for joy

on a Festival.

And the reason is explained in Beitza: a decree lest he repair a musical instrument.

And he challenged him:

But we see that people do

these acts on a Festival.

And

why

do we not say anything at all to them

to protest against them?

Abaye said to him: According to your reasoning,

one should ask this also concerning that

which Rava said:

A side street that opens into the public domain, and they made a side-post for it to permit carrying in it,

a person should not

sit at the mouth of the side-post

[at the entrance of the side-post adjoining the public domain]. Because

perhaps it will roll

[become rolled]

an object to him

into the public domain, within four cubits. And since the distinction between the side street and the public domain is not so recognizable, we are concerned lest

he come to bring

this object from the public domain, and return it to the side street. And it will emerge that he transgresses the prohibition of bringing in.

And

the difficulty is:

but we see women who place jugs

[stand their jugs],

and sit at the mouth of the side street.

And

why

do we not say anything at all to them,

that this matter is forbidden, in accordance with Rava?

Rather,

the reason that we do not protest against them is because in any event the protest will not help.

And leave Israel alone.

For

it is better that they be unwitting, and not be deliberate.

They understood from this

Rava bar Rav Hanan from Abaye, that what he said was:

These words apply to

a prohibition

of rabbinic origin. But with

a prohibition

of Torah origin,

we protest. And

we do not

concern ourselves lest they not listen.

And we conclude:

That is not so.

Rather,

it makes no difference whether it is

a prohibition

of rabbinic origin, and it makes no difference whether it is

a prohibition

of Torah origin; whenever they have become accustomed to it, one should not protest against them. For it is better that they be unwitting and not deliberate.

And we prove it:

For

the addition of Yom Kippur is of Torah origin.

For one must add from the ordinary to the sacred, and begin the fast somewhat while it is still day. As we expound from that which is written, “And you shall afflict your souls on the ninth of the month in the evening.”

And

even so,

we see them

people

eating and drinking

until it becomes dark, and they add nothing from the ordinary to the sacred,

and we do not say anything at all to them.

Because of, “Leave Israel alone. It is better that they be unwitting and not deliberate.” Thus, even when they transgress Torah prohibitions, one should not protest against them.

We learned in the Mishna:

And likewise, a woman may ask loaves from her female companion.

And we considered this: It implies that specifically

on Shabbat is it forbidden

to say “Lend me,” because he will come to write.

But on weekdays it is fine.

And it is permitted to borrow a loaf, and we are not concerned here about interest, even though he says it in the language of a loan.

Let us say that the Mishna is not in accordance with Hillel,

who prohibited doing this even on weekdays.

For

this

we learned:

It is forbidden to borrow a se'a of wheat on condition that he repay a se'a of wheat in return. For if the wheat becomes more expensive between the loan and the repayment, it turns out that the borrower is repaying a greater sum of money than the value of the loan.

And likewise Hillel would say: A woman may not lend a loaf to her female companion until they establish its monetary value.

That is, she should assess its value, how much it is worth at the time of the loan, and likewise undertake to repay that value. For otherwise, we are concerned

lest the wheat become more expensive, and

if she repays it according to the value of a loaf at the time of repayment,

they will come into a situation of interest.

And we reject this:

Even if you say

that the Mishna proceeds

in accordance with Hillel, it is nevertheless not difficult from there. For

the

that

which is implied by the Mishna, that on weekdays it is permitted to borrow a loaf in exchange for a loaf, is speaking

in a place where the value of the loaf is assessed

and known to everyone. Therefore it is permitted even to borrow without specification. And if its price rises, he gives its value according to what it was worth at the time of the loan.

And

the

fact that Hillel prohibited borrowing without specification is speaking

in a place where the value of the loaf is not assessed. For the market price has not yet been established, and the value of the loaf is not known to everyone. In such a case, we must be concerned that the loaf may become more expensive. And since its value at the time of the loan was not known to them, she will repay it according to the price at the time of repayment, and she will come into a situation of interest.

We learned in the Mishna:

If

he does not trust him,

he places his garment with him, and makes an account with him after Shabbat.

It was stated: A Festival loan—

Rav Yosef said: It is not given to be claimed

in court. If he claimed this loan from his fellow in court, asking him to repay it, the court never attends to it and does not obligate him to repay it.

And Rabba

said: A Festival loan

is given to be claimed

in court.

And we explain:

Rav Yosef said, “It is not given to be claimed,”

because

if you say

that it

is given to be claimed, he will come

the lender

to write

the loan [and even though he takes it in the language of “borrowing,” there is likewise concern for this. Tosafot].

And Rabba said, “It is given to be claimed,”

because

if you say

that it

is not given to be claimed, a person will give nothing

to his fellow on a Festival.

And he will come to refrain from the joy of the Festival.

And we challenge:

We learned: If he does not trust him, he places his garment with him,

and makes an account with him after Shabbat.

If you say, it is well, “A Festival loan

is not given to be claimed,” and for that reason

he places his garment with him

he

places his garment with him

as collateral,

and makes an account with him after Shabbat.

For if he does not hold collateral in his hand, he will not be able to collect the repayment from him in court.

Rather, if you say

like Rabba, that it

was given to be claimed, why

must he

leave his cloak with him?

Let him give it to him,

the lender the loan,

and let him claim it

in court after Shabbat.

And we answer: Even though he can claim it from him, he is not prepared to lend him without collateral. Because

he says: I do not want him to stand

and come with him

to judgment, and

not to choose for me

a judge,

and trouble myself.

Rav Idi bar Avin raises an objection

against Rav Yosef:

We learned: One who slaughters a cow and divides it

on credit among the purchasers

on Rosh Hashanah at the conclusion of the Sabbatical year, if the month

of Elul

was intercalated, the Sabbatical year remits

this debt. For it is established for us that the Sabbatical year remits at its end. And since they intercalated Elul, it turns out that the first day of Rosh Hashanah is the thirtieth of Elul. And it is still the year of the Sabbatical year.

And if

Elul

was not

intercalated, it turns out that this day is the first of Tishrei of the eighth year. Therefore,

it does not remit.

And

this is difficult:

if

a festival loan

was not given to be claimed, what is the meaning of “it remits”?

For in any event he cannot claim the purchasers in court, since on the festival of Rosh Hashanah he lent them the meat.

And we answer:

It is different there,

for since they intercalated Elul,

it becomes clear that

that day

was a weekday.

And if so, it was not a festival loan. And if it were not for the fact that the Sabbatical year remits it, it would have been given to be claimed. And we ask again:

Come and hear from the latter clause: If it was not [intercalated], it does not remit.

And if they did not intercalate Elul, that day is the festival of Rosh Hashanah.

Granted, if you say

that a festival loan

was given to be claimed, this is why it teaches, “it does not remit.”

For we are situated in the eighth year.

But if you say, “it was not given to be claimed,” what is the meaning of

“it does not remit”?

For in any event it was not given to be claimed.

And we answer: Even though he cannot claim a festival loan in court, nevertheless,

if he gives it to him

the borrower, the repayment voluntarily,

he takes

the lender from him. And this is what it says: if Elul is not intercalated, if the borrower gives it to him willingly, he is permitted to take it from him.

And we ask again:

By implication,

“it remits,” which it teaches in the

first clause,

comes to say that even

if he gives it to him,

the borrower, voluntarily, also

he does not take

it, the lender. And if the borrower gives it to him willingly, why should he not take it?

And we answer: Both the first clause and the latter clause deal with a case in which the borrower gives it to him voluntarily. However,

the first clause,

since the Sabbatical year remits it,

the lender must

the lender

say to him

the borrower,

“I remit it.”

But

the latter clause,

since the Sabbatical year does not remit it,

the lender does not need

to say to him, “I remit it.”

Rather, if he gives it to him, he takes it.

As we learned: One who repays a debt during the Sabbatical year, the lender says to him

the lender:

I remit it.

And if he says to him,

the borrower,

“Even so,

I do not wish that it be remitted,”

he accepts it from him,

the lender, the repayment.

As it is said: “This is the matter of the remission: he shall surely remit.”

For even if in the end he accepts it from him, he must mention the remission in his speech.

Rav Avya,

when he would lend on a festival, would

take collateral.

As it is stated in the Mishna: “He leaves his cloak with him, and makes an account with him after the festival.”

Rabba bar Ulla

would not take collateral. Rather, after the festival he would

employ a ruse

with the borrower: he would ask him for some object and retain it with him against his debt.

We learned in the Mishna:

And likewise, on Passover eve

in Jerusalem, when it occurs on Shabbat, he leaves his cloak with him and makes an account with him after the festival.

Rabbi Yohanan said: A person may consecrate his Paschal offering on Shabbat

on which Passover eve occurs.

And

likewise he consecrates his

festival offering on the festival,

which is the day of its offering. And although it is established for us that one does not consecrate on Shabbat or on a festival, on the day of their offering it is permitted to consecrate them. For just as their offering overrides Shabbat, so their consecration overrides Shabbat.

And we say:

Let us say that this supports

Rabbi Yohanan from our Mishna.

For we learned:

And likewise, on Passover eve in Jerusalem, when it occurs on Shabbat,

if he comes to purchase a lamb for his Paschal offering,

he leaves his cloak with him

[with the seller],

and makes with him

an account after the festival.

Evidently, on Shabbat he may take his Paschal offering and consecrate it.

And we reject this: There is no proof from here, because it is not dealing with beginning the consecration of the lamb on Shabbat. Rather,

what are we dealing with here? With

a lamb that had already been consecrated for the Paschal offering, and

he appoints

the owner of the lamb additional subscribers

to his Paschal offering.

And they undertake to pay him the value of their portion of the lamb. And for this debt the subscriber leaves his cloak with the one who appoints the subscribers. And in this there is no prohibition of consecrating on Shabbat,

for

indeed

it was consecrated from the outset,

the lamb,

and was standing [already consecrated].

And we wonder: How can you establish the Mishna as referring to someone coming to join [the group] on Shabbat?

For we learned: One does not join an animal initially on a festival.

And all the more so on Shabbat, because of the prohibition of purchase and sale on Shabbat and on a festival.

And we answer:

It is different here,

for it deals with a person who is accustomed to be subscribed with the owner of the lamb. And

since he is accustomed to be with him,

he is not considered as coming to join initially on Shabbat. Rather,

as one who had joined it

to the lamb

from the outset [before Shabbat]

[he was already considered so]

is he considered.

For from the outset he consecrated the lamb with the intention that this person too would join it. [

Tosafot did not have this question and answer at all. For there it deals with joining voluntarily, and it is not appropriate to raise a question from it concerning joining for a mitzva. And furthermore, there it explains it in an entirely different manner.]

And we prove again:

And

there is still support for Rabbi Yohanan from

that

which

Rabbi Hoshaya taught: A person goes

on Shabbat that occurs on Passover eve

to a shepherd accustomed to him, and

the latter

gives him a lamb for his Paschal offering, and

the purchaser

consecrates it and fulfills [the mitzva] with it

for his Paschal offering. Evidently, he may consecrate the Paschal offering on Shabbat, which is the day of its offering.

And we reject this:

There too

there is no proof of anything, for

since he is accustomed

to take

from him

his Paschal offering,

the shepherd consecrates it

the shepherd

from the outset

on the eve of Shabbat, for this lamb, for the Paschal offering of this purchaser.

And we wonder:

But “

he gives him a lamb for his Paschal offering

and consecrates it,”

it teaches.

It is explicit, then, that the purchaser consecrates it on Shabbat.

And we answer: In fact, it is already consecrated by the shepherd from the eve of Shabbat. But the purchaser must consecrate it again with

“an enhanced consecration,”

which imposes consecration upon consecration,

by rabbinic ordinance.

And it is merely an enhancement that the owner himself should consecrate it.

And we ask:

But did Rabbi Yohanan say this,

that a person may consecrate his Paschal offering on Shabbat?

For Rabbi Yohanan said: The halakha follows an unattributed Mishna.

And we find an unattributed Mishna that explicitly teaches that one does not consecrate on Shabbat.

For we learned: One does not consecrate, nor assign valuations,

[the vow “My valuation is upon me”],

nor dedicate to the ban

[the ban of the priests or the ban for the Most High],

nor separate terumot and tithes, on a festival.

And

all these

that

they said concerning a festival

that one may not perform them,

by a kal va-chomer

that

on Shabbat

they are prohibited. And this is difficult for Rabbi Yohanan, who said, “A person may consecrate his Paschal offering on Shabbat.”

And we answer:

There is no difficulty. Here,

in Rabbi Yohanan’s statement, it deals

with

the Paschal offering and the festival offering, which are

obligations whose time is fixed.

For the obligation to offer them is specifically on that day. And just as their offering overrides Shabbat, so their consecration overrides Shabbat. And

here,

in the Mishna, it deals

with obligations whose time is not fixed,

such as vow-offerings and freewill-offerings. For even their offering does not override Shabbat. Therefore, one may likewise not consecrate them on Shabbat.

Mishna:

A person counts

on Shabbat

the

number of

his guests and his delicacies

[the types of his delicacies], and brings them out

from his mouth. But he may not

read them

from writing.

For if he wrote the names of his guests or his delicacies on the eve of Shabbat, he may not read them on Shabbat from this writing. And the reason is explained in the Gemara.

A person casts lots

[casts a lot]

with his sons and with the members of his household at the table,

to determine by the lot who will receive each and every portion.

Provided that

the portions are equal, and

he does not intend to make a large portion

for one

in contrast to a small portion

for another. And the reason is explained in the Gemara.

And they cast lots

[lots] among the priests

over

meat

of consecrated offerings on a festival. But they do not

cast lots

over the portions.

And it will be explained in the Gemara.