Shabbat 149a (קמט.) — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: But not from writing.

And we raised the question:

What is the reason?

Rav Beivai said:

There is a decree lest he see that he did not prepare enough and regret having invited too many guests

and erase

— several names from the list, so that the attendant will not invite them

.

Abaye said: The reason that he may not read from writing is because of

a decree,

lest if we permit him to do so, we must be concerned

that perhaps he will read

even

ordinary documents

,

such as documents of sale and purchase, which may not be read on Shabbat, because it is written: “From finding your desire and speaking a word.” And we derive from this that your speech on Shabbat should not be like your speech during the week [Rosh .

I my zadali vopros:

What difference is there between them

—these two reasons? And we answer:

There is a difference between them

in a case

where he wrote

the list of guests

on a wall, and

the place where the writing is

high

, so that he cannot reach it to erase it.

According to the one who says

that it is forbidden because of

“lest he erase”

,

we are not concerned in such a case. But according to the one

who says that it is forbidden because of

“lest he read”

ordinary documents, even in such a case

we are concerned.

And we raise an objection:

According to the one who says

that the reason is

“lest he erase,” should we not be concerned

also

lest he read

ordinary documents, and prohibit reading even writing that is high on the wall?

Furthermore,

we raise another objection: Is it true that when something is in a high place

we are not concerned lest he erase it?

But we learned: One may not read by the light of a lamp,

because we are concerned lest he tilt it.

And

with regard to this

Rava said: Even

if the lamp is

two stories high, and even

if it is

two goad-lengths high, and even if ten houses are one atop the other,

with him below and the lamp above, so that in all such cases he cannot reach the lamp to tilt it, nevertheless

he may not read

by the light of the lamp. And although the reason for the decree does not apply in this case, we nevertheless issue the decree here as well, so as not to distinguish within the enactment.

If so, even with regard to writing that is in a high place, we should decree that one may not read from it. And although the reason of “lest he erase” does not apply, we should not distinguish in this manner, because of the principle that one does not distinguish within a rabbinic enactment.

And we answer:

Rather,

in fact, even the one who says “lest he erase” agrees that we are also concerned about “lest he read.”

And there is a difference between them

in a case

where he wrote on a wall, and

even where

the place

where the writing is is low and he can reach it and erase it.

According to the one who says

that it is forbidden to read because of

“lest he erase,”

we are concerned.

But

according to the one who says

that it is because of

“lest he read

ordinary documents,” where the writing is on the wall

we are not concerned

about this, because

a wall

is not confused with a document.

ne podobna dokumentu.

And we raise another objection:

According to the one who says “lest he read,”

let us be concerned

also about

“lest he erase,”

and prohibit even writing that is on the wall.

And we answer:

Rather, there is a difference between them

in a case

where he engraved

the writing with a knife

on a tablet and notebook

of wood.

According to the one who says

that it is forbidden because of

“lest he erase,” we are not concerned

that he will erase writing of this type, since it is not easily erased; and in the meantime he will remember the prohibition against erasing and refrain from doing so. But

according to the one who says

that it is because of

“lest he read

ordinary documents,” even in this case

we are concerned

about this.

And we raise another objection: According to the one who says “lest he erase,” let us also be concerned about “lest he read,” and prohibit reading even from a tablet and notebook for this reason.

And if you would say that this tanna holds that there is no concern of “lest he read” with regard to engraving on a tablet and notebook, because a tablet and notebook are not confused with ordinary documents—that cannot be said.

For

it was taught in a beraita: A person may count

on Shabbat

how many

guests he will seat

inside

[in the more honored place],

and how many

he will seat

outside. And

he may likewise count

how many portions

he

is destined to place before them.

He may do so only

from writing on the wall. But

he may not

read their number

from writing on a tablet and notebook.

And we raised the question:

What are the circumstances?

If you say that it is written

with ink on the wall and on the tablet,

what is the difference here

that it is forbidden

and what is the difference here

that it is permitted?

gde razresheno?

Rather, is it not a case where he engraved

the writing by carving it?

And it teaches

that he reads

writing that is

engraved

on

the wall,

but not writing that is

engraved

on a tablet and notebook.

Evidently, even a tablet and notebook are confused with ordinary documents, and we are concerned lest he come to read them.

And we conclude:

Rather, in fact

there is a difference between them in a case

where he wrote on a wall, and the place of the writing is high

[raised]. According to the one who says “lest he erase,” we are concerned even when it is high, because of the principle that one does not distinguish within an enactment. But according to the one who says “lest he read,” we are not concerned, since he cannot reach it and erase it. And there is likewise no concern of “lest he read,” because a document is not confused with a wall.

And what troubles you

is the following:

that

Rava

said, “Even if the lamp is two stories high, one may not read by its light,” because one does not distinguish within the enactment—this is not difficult. For the statement of

eto ne trudno. Tak kak to, chto skazal

Rava

is a dispute between

tannaim.

As it was taught in a beraita: A person may count his guests and his dishes orally, but not from writing.

Rabbi Aḥa permits

reading

writing on a wall.

And we raised the question:

What are the circumstances?

If you say that it is written

on the wall

below,

in a place that he can reach and erase, why does he permit it? Does Rabbi Aḥa not also accept this decree? For he permitted reading only from a wall; and if it is low, there is

also concern lest he erase it.

Rather, is it not a case where he wrote the

writing high on the wall? In such a case there is no concern of “lest he erase.”

And we do not say, “One does not distinguish.” Rather, wherever the reason for the decree applies, we issue the decree; and if it does not apply, we do not issue it. And we are likewise not concerned about reading ordinary documents, because a document is not confused with a wall.

And the first tanna, who prohibits it in every case, follows Rava. Even where the reason for the prohibition does not apply, we issue the decree, so as not to distinguish in the prohibition of Shabbat.

And

we conclude:

Conclude from this

that the statement

that

Rava

said, “One does not distinguish,” is a dispute between

tannaim.

And Rav Beivai and Abaye above likewise disagree in this matter.

I imenno v etom, kak bylo skazano vyshe, sporyat Rav Bibi i Abaye.

And these tannaim

disagree

in accordance with

the dispute between

these tannaim

that follows.

As it was taught in a beraita: One may not look in a mirror on Shabbat.

For one who looks in a mirror does so only to arrange the hair of his head and beard, and we are concerned lest he see loose hairs that are not even with the rest of the hair and shave them.

But Rabbi Meir permits

looking

in a mirror fixed in a wall.

And we raised the question:

What is the difference

with regard to a mirror

fixed in a wall

that Rabbi Meir permits looking into it? Is it not because

in the meantime

[while he goes to bring a razor or scissors],

he will remember

that it is Shabbat and will not shave? If so, even with regard to a mirror

that is not fixed

in a wall,

also

let us permit it for this reason, since

in the meantime he will remember

and will not shave.

And we answer:

Here we are dealing with a metal mirror.

If he wishes to shave, he need not obtain scissors; rather, he can shave with the mirror itself.

And this is in accordance with Rav Naḥman bar Avuha.

For Rav Naḥman bar Avuha said: For what reason did they say that it is forbidden to look

at a metal mirror

on Shabbat?

Because a person may remove with it

loose hairs.

And this is the reason for Rabbi Meir’s ruling: If it is fixed in a wall, he cannot shave with it; rather, he must bring scissors, and by the time he brings them he will remember that it is Shabbat. And Rabbi Meir does not accept the principle that one does not distinguish within the enactment, in accordance with Rabbi Aḥa. And the Rabbis, who prohibited it even in this case, do so because one should not distinguish within the prohibition of Shabbat. This accords with the first tanna of Rabbi Aḥa’s beraita and with Rava.

A Mudretsy, kotorye zapretili i v etom sluchae, schitayut, chto nelzya delat razlichiy v zaprete, svyazannom s Shabbat. Eto sootvetstvuet mneniyu pervogo tannaya v spore s Ravom Akhoi i mneniyu Ravy.

The Sages taught in a beraita: Writing that runs beneath an image and beneath

portraits

—for example, unusual drawings of animals, or drawings of stories in which human figures appear, which are depicted on a wall, with writing beneath them stating: “This is the image of such-and-such an animal,” or “such-and-such a person”— \-

it is forbidden to read

that writing

on Shabbat.

This is lest he read ordinary documents, such as documents of sale and purchase, which are forbidden to read because of “From finding your desire and speaking a word.”

And as for the portrait itself, even during the week it is forbidden to look at it, because it is stated: “Do not turn to the idols.”

[It appears that the prohibition applies only to an image made for the purpose of idolatrous worship. But an image made merely for decoration is permitted. Tosafot].

And we raised the question:

What is the derivation?

How does it follow that the verse is referring to this?

Rabbi Ḥanin said:

This is what the verse is saying:

“Do not turn to

that which you make

of your own mind.”

That is, according to the inclination of your heart and your emptiness, for the word “idols” is an expression of “empty things.”

[And the Arukh explained: By looking at the image, you turn the deity away from your heart].

We learned in the Mishna:

A person may conduct a lottery with his sons

and members of his household at the table.

And we deduce: It implies that

with his sons and members of his household, yes

[he may conduct a lottery]. But

with

another person

he may not

cast lots in order to divide the portions among them.

And we raised the question:

What is the reason

that he may not conduct a lottery with another person? And we answer: The reason is

in accordance with what Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel. For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: A group of people

who sit in one house, each eating separately, and who

are particular with one another

and do not waive their claims against one another even with regard to something minor—if they take from one another on a Festival, they

transgress the prohibitions of measuring, weighing, and counting.

For it is established that on a Festival it is forbidden to say to another: “Fill this measuring vessel for me.” Similarly, it is forbidden to take something by weight, because one may not use scales on a Festival. Likewise, one may not say: “Give me a count of such-and-such nuts to complete the amount corresponding to the dinar that I gave you.” This is the case, for example, where he gave him a dinar for one hundred nuts and has already taken ninety. He may not say to him: “Give me twenty nuts, and I will remain indebted to you for ten of them,” because it appears that he is doing so in order to complete the amount corresponding to the dinar he gave him.

And it is forbidden for everyone to do this, not specifically for members of a group who are particular with one another. Rather, this is advice given to those who are particular: They should not participate with one another at all on a Festival, since they are likely to come to these prohibitions and take from one another by measure or weight. We are likewise concerned lest one say to the other: “You took such-and-such a number of nuts; therefore I too will take this number.” This too is included in the prohibition of counting on a Festival [Tosafot].

And by doing so they likewise transgress

the

prohibition of

borrowing and repaying on a Festival.

Since they are particular with one another, the person taking for himself may reason: If I say to him, “Lend me,” this will imply that I must return the item itself to him. Therefore, he will use the language of “a loan.” But it is forbidden to say this, because we are concerned lest he write, as stated in the Mishna. Accordingly, they should not take from one another at all.

We are likewise concerned that they will return items to one another on a Festival. Just as it is forbidden to borrow on a Festival, so too it is forbidden to repay a debt on it.