Shabbat 149a — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

My uchili v Mishne: no iz pisannogo.

I my zadali vopros:

pochemu?

Rav Bibi skazal:

postanovleno, chtoby

chelovek, uvidya, chto podgotovil nedostatochno, ne peredumal i ne reshil, chto pozval slishkom mnogo gostey,

ne ster

iz spiska neskolko imen, chtoby sluzhitel ne priglasil ikh.

Abaye skazal:

prichina, po kotoroy zapreshcheno chitat iz pisannogo, zaklyuchaetsya v

postanovlenii,

tak kak my opasaemsya, chto esli eto razreshit, on

mozhet prochitat

takzhe

obychnye delovye dokumenty.

Naprim­er, dokumenty o kuple i prodazhe. Ikh zapreshcheno chitat v Shabbat, tak kak skazano: «Ne staraysya dostich zhelannogo i ne govori o povsednevnom». I tolkuem my eto tak: rech v Shabbat ne dolzhna byt takoy zhe, kak rech v budni [Rosh].

I my zadali vopros:

v chem raznitsa mezhdu nimi

— etimi dvumya prichinami? I otvechaem:

raznitsa mezhdu nimi

v tom sluchae,

esli zapisat

spisok gostey

na stene, i

mesto nadpisi

raspolozhit vysoko [A0031][vyshe], tak chto chelovek ne mozhet do nego dostat i steret ego.

, so that he cannot reach it to erase it.

Po mneniyu togo, kto govorit,

chto eto zapreshcheno iz-za

«vozmozhnogo stiraniya»,

v takom sluchae

my ne opasaemsya. A po mneniyu togo,

kto govorit, chto eto zapreshcheno iz-za

«vozmozhnogo chteniya

obychnykh delovykh dokumentov», v takom sluchae

my opasaemsya.

I vozrazhaem:

po mneniyu togo,

kto govorit, chto prichina v

«vozmozhnom stiranii», neuzheli nuzhno opasatsya

takzhe

«vozmozhnogo chteniya

obychnykh delovykh dokumentov» i zapretit chtenie dazhe nadpisi na vysokoy stene?

Krome togo,

voz­razhaem: razve v sluchae vysokogo raspolozheniya

my ne opasaemsya vozmozhnogo stiraniya?

Ved my uchili: nelzya chitat pri svete maslyanoy lampy,

potomu chto opasayutsya, chto chelovek naklonit lampu, chtoby uluchshit svet.

I skazal

ob etom

Rava: dazhe

esli lampa

raspolozhena na vysote dvukh etazhey, i dazhe

esli ona

raspolozhena na vysote dvukh ostolbov, i dazhe esli desyat domov postavleny odin nad drugim,

a chelovek nakhoditsya vnizu, a lampa vverhu, tak chto vo vsekh podobnykh sluchayakh on ne mozhet dostat do lampy, chtoby naklonit ee, vse ravno

nelzya chitat

pri svete lampy. I khotya v etom sluchae net prichiny dlya postanovleniya, my vse ravno vveli postanovlenie i na etot sluchay, chtoby ne delat razlichiy v postanovlenii.

Sledovatelno, i v sluchae nadpisi, raspolozhennoy vysoko, sleduet vvesti zapret na chtenie. I khotya zdes net prichiny «vozmozhnogo stiraniya», nelzya delat iz etogo razlichie, potomu chto v postanovlenii ne delayut razlichiy.

I otvechaem:

no

— na samom dele dazhe tot, kto govorit «vozmozhno stiranie», soglashaetsya, chto nuzhno opasatsya takzhe «vozmozhnogo chteniya».

Raznitsa mezhdu nimi

v tom sluchae,

esli zapisat na stene, i

da­zhe esli

opustit [A0072][vniz] mesto nadpisi, tak chto mozhno dostat do nego i steret ego.

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

Po mneniyu togo,

kto govorit, chto chitat zapreshcheno iz-za

«vozmozhnogo stiraniya»,

my opasaemsya.

No

po mneniyu togo,

kto govorit, chto eto iz-za

«vozmozhnogo chteniya

obychnykh delovykh dokumentov», esli nadpis nakhoditsya na stene,

my ne opasaemsya

etogo, potomu chto

stena

[stena]

ne podobna dokumentu.

I snova vozrazhaem:

po mneniyu togo, kto govorit «vozmozhno chtenie»,

nuzhno opasatsya

takzhe

«vozmozhnogo stiraniya»,

i zapretit dazhe nadpis na stene.

I otvechaem:

net, raznitsa mezhdu nimi

v tom sluchae,

esli vyrezat

[vyrezat] nadpis nozhom

na doske i v zapisnoy knizhke,

sdelannykh iz dereva.

Po mneniyu togo,

kto govorit, chto eto zapreshcheno iz-za

«vozmozhnogo stiraniya», my ne opasaemsya

stiraniya takoy nadpisi, tak kak ee nelzya legko steret. A pokuda chelovek budet pytatsya ee steret, on vspomnit o zaprete stiraniya i vozderzhitsya ot etogo. No

po mneniyu togo,

kto govorit, chto eto iz-za

«vozmozhnogo chteniya

obychnykh delovykh dokumentov», dazhe v etom sluchae

my opasaemsya

etogo.

I snova vozrazhaem: po mneniyu togo, kto govorit «vozmozhno stiranie», nuzhno opasatsya takzhe «vozmozhnogo chteniya» i zapretit chtenie dazhe na doske i v zapisnoy knizhke.

A esli ty skazhesh, chto tot mudrets schitaet, chto pri vyrezannoy nadpisi na doske i v zapisnoy knizhke net prichiny opasatsya «vozmozhnogo chteniya», tak kak doska i zapisnaya knizhka ne podobny obychnym delovym dokumentam, eto nelzya skazat.

Tak kak

v bareyte skazano: chelovek mozhet schitat

v Shabbat

skolko

gostey on posadit

vnutri [A0118][na bolee pochtnom meste],

[in the more honored place],

i skolko

on posadit

snaruzhi.

I

on takzhe schitaet

skolko blyud

on

sobiraetsya postavit pered nimi.

On mozhet schitat eto tolko

po nadpisi na stene. No

ne

mozhet chitat ikh chislo

po nadpisi na doske i v zapisnoy knizhke.

I my zadali vopros:

kak eto vygladit?

Esli, naprim­er, nadpis byla napisana

chernilami na stene i na doske,

chem otlichaetsya zdes,

gde zapreshcheno,

ot togo, chem otlichaetsya zdes,

gde razresheno?

Net, ne tak li, chto vyrezana

nadpis rezboy?

I skazano,

chto mozhno chitat

nadpis, kotoraya

vyrezana

na

stene,

no ne nadpis, kotoraya

vyrezana

na doske i v zapisnoy knizhke.

Znachit, dazhe doska i zapisnaya knizhka mogut byt prin­yaty za obychnye delovye dokumenty, i my opasaemsya, chto chelovek mozhet priyti k ikh chteniyu.

I delayem vyvod:

net, na samom dele

raznitsa mezhdu nimi v sluchae, esli

nadpis sdelana na stene, a mesto nadpisi podnyato [A0156][vyshe]. Po mneniyu togo, kto govorit «vozmozhno stiranie», my opasaemsya etogo dazhe pri vysokom raspolozhenii, potomu chto v postanovlenii ne delayut razlichiy. A po mneniyu togo, kto govorit «vozmozhno chtenie», my ne opasaemsya etogo, tak kak chelovek ne mozhet dostat do nadpisi i steret ee. I «vozmozhnogo chteniya» zdes tozhe net prichiny opasatsya, tak kak stena ne podobna dokumentu.

[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.

A esli tebe trudno

iz-za togo,

chto

skazal

Rava: «Dazhe esli lampa raspolozhena na vysote dvukh etazhey, nelzya chitat pri ee svete» iz-za pravila «ne delat razlichiy», —

eto ne trudno. Tak kak to, chto skazal

Rava, —

spor

tannayev.

Tak kak v bareyte skazano: chelovek mozhet schitat svoikh gostey i svoi blyuda ustno, no ne po pisannomu.

Rav Akha razreshaet

chitat

nadpis na stene.

I my zadali vopros:

kak eto vygladit?

Esli, naprim­er, napisano

na stene

vnizu,

v meste, k kotoromu mozhno dostat i kotoroe mozhno steret, pochemu on razreshaet? Ved dazhe Rav Akha soglasa­s­en s etim postanovleniem, tak kak on razreshil tolko na stene. No esli nadpis raspolozhena nizko, to i v etom sluchae

nuzhno opasatsya vozmozhnogo stiraniya.

Net, ne tak li, chto nadpis sdelana i podnyata

vysoko na stene? Pri takom polozhenii net prichiny opasatsya vozmozhnogo stiraniya.

My ne govorim, chto v postanovlenii ne delayut razlichiy. Tolko kogda est prichina dlya postanovleniya, ego vvodyat. A esli takoy prichiny net, ego ne vvodyat. I «vozmozhnogo chteniya» obychnykh delovykh dokumentov my tozhe ne opasaemsya, tak kak dokument ne podoben nadpisi na stene.

A pervyy tannay, kotoryy zapreshchaet vo vsekh sluchayakh, schitaet kak Rava: dazhe kogda net prichiny dlya zapreta, postanovlenie vvodyat, chtoby ne delat razlichiy v zaprete, svyazannom s Shabbat.

I

del­aem vyvod:

Conclude from this

chto to,

chto

govorit

Rava: «Ne delat razlichiy», —

spor

tannayev.

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

A eti tannayi

sporyat

tak zhe, kak

spor

etikh tannayev,

kotoryy privoditsya v sleduyushchem fragmente.

Tak kak v bareyte skazano: v Shabbat nelzya smotret v zerkalo,

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.

A Rabbi Meir razreshaet

smotret

v zerkalo, zakreplennoe na stene.

I my zadali vopros:

chem otlichaetsya

zerkalo,

zakreplennoe na stene,

v kotoroe Rabbi Meir razreshaet smotret? Ved prichina v tom, chto

za eto vremya [A0209][poka on skhodit za britvoy ili nozh­nit­sami]

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

on vspomnit,

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

ne zakreplennoe

na stene,

tozhe

razreshim smotret po etoy prichine, tak kak

za eto vremya on vspomnit

and will not shave.

I otvechaem:

zdes rech idet o metallicheskom zerkale.

Esli on zakhochet britsya, emu ne nuzhny nozh­nitsy: on mozhet britsya samim zerkalom.

I eto soglasno mneniyu Rav Nakhmana bar Avukha.

Tak kak Rav Nakhman bar Avukha skazal: «Pochemu Mudretsy skazali, chto metallicheskoe zerkalo zapreshcheno

rassmatrivat v Shabbat?» —

«Potomu chto chelovek mozhet ustranit im

samo

torchashchie voloski».

Vot prichina mneniya Rabbi Meira: esli zerkalo zakrepleno na stene i chelovek ne mozhet britsya im samim, a dolzhen prinesi nozh­nitsy, to pokuda on ikh prineset, on vspomnit, chto seychas Shabbat. I Rabbi Meir ne prinimaet pravilo «ne delat razlichiy», kak Rav Akha.

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.

Mudretsy uchili: nadpis, idushchaya pod izobrazheniem, i pod

portretami

— naprim­er, izobrazheniyami razlichnykh zhivotnykh ili scen, na kotorykh vidny izobrazheniya lyudey, narisovannymi na stene, pri kotorykh pis­hut: «Eto izobrazhenie takogo-to zhivotnogo» ili «takogo-to cheloveka» —

zapreshcheno chitat

etu nadpis

v Shabbat.

Tak kak opasayutsya, chto chelovek prochitaet obychnye delovye dokumenty, naprimer dokumenty o kuple i prodazhe, kotorye zapreshcheno chitat iz-za skazannogo: «Ne staraysya dostich zhelannogo i ne govori o povsednevnom».

A na samo izobrazhenie nelzya smotret dazhe v budni, tak kak skazano: «Ne obrashchaytes k idolam».

[Vidimo, zapreshcheno tolko izobrazhenie, sdelannoe dlya idolopoklonstva. No esli ono sdelano tolko dlya ukrasheniya, smotret na nego razresheno. Tosafot].

I my zadali vopros:

kakovo dokazatelstvo?

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

Skazal Rabbi Khanin:

This is what the verse is saying:

«Ne obrashchaytes k

tomu, chto vy delaete

po sobstvennomu zamyslu».

To est po zamyslu vashego serdtsa i vashey pustoty. Slovo «idoly» svyazano po smyslu so slovom «pustoty».

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

My uchili v Mishne:

chelovek mozhet brosat zhrebiy s synovyami

i chlenami svoey semyi za stolom.

I my vyvodim: znachit,

s synovyami i chlenami svoey semyi — da

[mozhet brosat zhrebiy]. No

s

drugim chelovekom

nelzya

brosat zhrebiy, chtoby delit mezhdu nimi blyuda.

I my zadali vopros:

pochemu

s drugim chelovekom nelzya brosat zhrebiy? I otvechaem: prichina

takaya, kak skazal Rav Yehuda ot imeni Shmuela: «Chleny druzheskoy kompanii

kotorye sidyat v odnom dome, no kazhdyy iz nikh est otdelno, i kotorye

strogo otnosyatsya drug k drugu

i ne proshchayut drug drugu dazhe neznachitelnuyu veshch, — esli v Yom Tov oni berut drug u druga, to

narushayut zaprety mery, vesa i scheta».

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].

Takzhe oni narushayut pri etom

zapret

zanimat

i vozvrashchat dolg v Yom Tov.

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.

Takzhe opasayutsya, chto oni budut vozvrashchat drug drugu v Yom Tov. I kak zapreshcheno zanimat v Yom Tov, tak zhe zapreshcheno vozvrashchat v nem dolg.