Shabbat 150b (קנ:) — the Talmud in English

However,

the accounts of a king

Exact location of page

and similarly, accounts of no consequence, one may calculate them

on Shabbat. And it might have been understood at this point that “past accounts” means accounts that he no longer needs.

And we raise a contradiction:

It was taught in a beraita:

One may calculate accounts that one does not need

anymore.

But one may not calculate accounts that one needs

anymore

on Shabbat.

How so? —

A person may say to another: I hired such-and-such workers for

the work of

this field.

Or,

I spent such-and-such dinars on this apartment.

But he may not say

to his fellow:

I spent such-and-such dinars,

but I have not yet completed my expenditures,

and such-and-such

more

I am destined to spend.

In any event, it is taught that one may say, “I spent such-and-such,” which refers to past accounts. Whereas above we learned that past accounts are prohibited.

And we answer:

But according to your reasoning,

that you understand “past accounts” to mean accounts that he no longer needs,

you have a difficulty

with the earlier beraita,

from the beraita itself

in and of itself. For it is taught there at the end: “And accounts of no consequence, one may calculate them on Shabbat.”

Rather, necessarily,

this

that it is taught at the beginning, that past accounts are prohibited, concerns

a case where the workers’ wages are still owed to him

[the wages of the workers]

by him.

He has not yet paid the workers, and therefore he needs these accounts. And

this

that it is taught at the end, that accounts of no consequence are permitted, as well as the other beraita that states, “I spent such-and-such,” concerns

a case where no wages of the workers are still owed to him.

He has already paid their wages, and he no longer needs the account at all.

We learned in the Mishna:

One may not remain after dark

at the Shabbat boundary.

The Sages taught: There was an incident involving a certain pious man whose field had a breach made in it

[a breach]

and he resolved to close it, but then remembered that it was Shabbat. And

as a result,

that pious man refrained

from doing so

and did not close it. A miracle was performed for him, and there grew in

his field

a caper bush

[a large tree whose fruits provide three types of food: the buds, capers, and leaves].

And from it came his livelihood and the livelihood of the members of his household .

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: It is permitted for a person to say to his fellow on Shabbat: I am going to such-and-such a city

tomorrow.

[The same applies to saying to his fellow, “You go there tomorrow.” Tosafot] . Although that city is beyond the boundary, and anything that is prohibited to do on Shabbat is also prohibited to command verbally, here it is permitted to make such a statement. This is because

if there are sukkot of city watchmen

[booths of the city watchmen] between the two cities, he is

walking

from one city to the other.

The accepted halakha is that a house located within seventy cubits and two-thirds of a cubit from a city is considered part of the city. From that house onward, one begins measuring the two-thousand-cubit boundary. If, on its other side as well, it stands within seventy cubits and two-thirds of another city, it joins the two cities, and both are considered one city. It is permitted to walk from one to the other and beyond them for two thousand cubits.

A permanent house is not required for this purpose; even a temporary booth of the city watchmen is considered a house in this regard.

Likewise, if the two cities are very far from one another, but there are several booths between them, one after another, and each booth is within seventy cubits and some additional measure of its fellow, both cities and all the area between them are considered one city.

And Shmuel is stating that even if there is currently no watchman’s booth between the two cities, and it is prohibited to walk from one city to the other, nevertheless, since if a watchman’s booth were there it would be permitted to walk from city to city, it is permitted for him to say on Shabbat that he will go there tomorrow. Anything that can be permitted on Shabbat through an arrangement is permitted to be mentioned verbally, even though the actual permission does not yet exist.

And we raise an objection:

We learned: One may not remain after dark at the boundary in order to hire workers and bring produce.

This is difficult.

Granted,

it is prohibited to remain after dark in order

to hire workers;

that is understandable. Because

on Shabbat

itself

he cannot hire

them, and there is no arrangement that can permit this.

But to bring produce,

why is it prohibited to remain after dark?

Let us say

that the Mishna means that, since

if there are partitions there

surrounding the orchard and his house, he can, even on Shabbat itself,

bring

produce from there.

Just as Shmuel said that anything that can be permitted through an arrangement may be mentioned verbally on Shabbat, so too one should say that anything that can be permitted through an arrangement on Shabbat may be preceded by remaining after dark for its sake. For we learned: Anything that I am entitled to mention verbally, I am permitted to remain after dark for its sake .

And we answer:

You can find

a case where he has no permission through an arrangement

with produce still attached

to the ground. Such produce has no permission whatsoever on Shabbat, since it is prohibited to detach it. Therefore, it is also prohibited to mention it verbally, and one may not remain after dark for its sake.

And we raise another objection:

But Rabbi Oshaya taught: One may not remain after dark at the boundary

on Shabbat in order

to bring straw and stubble

after Shabbat.

Granted, “stubble”

which is the ends of the stalks remaining after the harvest,

you can find

a case where it has no permission on Shabbat, such as

with

stubble

still attached.

It is prohibited to detach it because doing so improves the ground, and this is a derivative of plowing [Tosafot] .

But “straw,”

which is always detached,

how can you find

a case where it has no permission? He can bring it through partitions, and this is difficult for Shmuel.

And we answer: You can find it

with rotten straw

[rotten straw], which is fit for nothing. Even through partitions, it is prohibited to move it because of the prohibition of muktzeh. Since there is no arrangement that permits it, it is prohibited to remain after dark for its sake.

And we raise another objection:

Come and hear: One may remain after dark at the boundary to attend to the affairs of a betrothed woman and to the affairs of the deceased.

And we infer:

For the affairs of

the

betrothed woman and

for the affairs of the

deceased

specifically,

yes

[one may remain after dark], because they are matters of Heaven. But

for the affairs of

another

need

similar to these,

no,

one may not remain after dark.

We consider this:

Granted,

the need of

another, similar to the

affairs of

a betrothed woman, you can find

when one remains after dark and brings himself closer on Shabbat to the place of the myrtles, in order

to cut myrtle branches for him

[myrtle] immediately after Shabbat. One may remain after dark specifically for myrtles needed for the bridal canopy, but not for myrtles that are not for a mitzva. Cutting myrtles certainly constitutes something that has no arrangement permitting it on Shabbat. Therefore, one may not remain after dark for its sake.

But

the affairs of the

deceased—what are they? —

They are

to bring him a coffin and shrouds. And it is taught

that specifically

for the deceased, one may not

[remain after dark].

But

for the need of

another, one may not.

This is difficult for Shmuel, who said that for anything that has an arrangement permitting it on Shabbat, one may remain after dark.

Why

may one not remain after dark?

Let us say

that since

if there are partitions there

surrounding the place of the coffin and his house, he can

bring

a coffin and shrouds even on Shabbat. Therefore, it should be permitted to remain after dark even as long as the permission provided by the partitions does not exist.

And we answer: The need of another, similar to the need of the

deceased, can also be found

in a case where he has no arrangement permitting it on Shabbat. For example, he remains after dark in order

to cut

[to cut]

a garment for him

for the deceased and prepare his shrouds. It is permitted to remain after dark for this specifically for the needs of the deceased, because they are matters of Heaven. But for another need it is prohibited, since it has no permission whatsoever on Shabbat.

We learned in the Mishna:

But he may remain after dark

to guard his produce, and bring the produce in his hand.

We consider this: Does he leave for the orchard immediately after Shabbat and bring produce to his house,

even though

he has

not yet recited Havdala?

But Rabbi Elazar ben Antigonus said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov: It is prohibited for a person to attend to his needs before he recites Havdala .

And if you would say that

he first prays wherever he is, and

recites Havdala in the Amida

and says, “You have granted us understanding”—that is not sufficient.

For

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: One who recites Havdala in prayer must recite Havdala

also

over a cup.

And if you would say

that this refers

to

someone who has already

recited Havdala over a cup

beforehand—that cannot be said, for he left the city while it was still day and remained after dark in the field.

Is there a cup in the field?

And we answer:

Rabbi Natan bar Ami explained it before Rava:

The statement that he “brings produce in his hand” refers to one who remained after dark

among the winepresses.

For there is a cup of wine there.

Rav Abba said to Rav Ashi:

In any event, there is no difficulty, for

in the West we say: “Who distinguishes between sacred and profane”—

as a mere indication, in order to escort the King—

and

afterward

we attend to our needs.

Only afterward did we recite Havdala over a cup. Although one must still recite Havdala over a cup, as Shmuel said, it is nevertheless permitted to perform labor even beforehand . All the more so, once he has already recited Havdala in prayer and said, “You have granted us understanding,” it is permitted to perform labor before reciting Havdala over a cup .

Rav Ashi said: When I was in the study hall of Rav Kahana, Rav Kahana would say

Rav Kahana,

“Who distinguishes between sacred and profane,”

and

afterward

we would chop wood

[chop wood], despite the fact that we had not yet recited Havdala over a cup.

We learned in the Mishna:

Abba Shaul stated a general principle: Anything that I am

entitled to mention verbally, I am permitted to remain after dark for its sake.

We consider this:

With regard to what did Abba Shaul

make his statement? Which passage of the Mishna does it refer to?

If we say that it refers to the beginning,

where it is taught

“One may not remain after dark at the boundary to hire workers and bring produce,”

it cannot be explained that way.