Shabbat 150b — the Talmud in English

But

the accounts of a king

and accounts of what is of no consequence, it is permitted to calculate

on Shabbat. And it might have entered our minds now that “accounts that have passed” means accounts that he no longer needs.

And we raise a contradiction:

It was taught in a beraita:

One may calculate accounts that they do not need

—

but one may not calculate accounts that they need

—

on Shabbat.

How so? —

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

the work of

this field.

Or,

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

But he may not say to him

his fellow:

I spent such-and-such dinars,

but I have still not completed my expenditures,

and such-and-such

more

I am destined to spend.

In any event, it teaches that it is permitted to say, “I spent such-and-such,” which is accounts that have passed. Whereas above we learned that accounts that have passed are forbidden.

And we answer:

But according to your reasoning,

that you reason that “accounts that have passed” means those that he does not need,

you have a difficulty

from the earlier beraita

itself

from within itself. For there it teaches at the end: “And accounts of what is of no consequence are permitted to calculate on Shabbat.”

Rather, necessarily,

this

that it teaches at the beginning, that accounts that have passed are forbidden, concerns

where there is the wage of workers

[the workers’ wages]

with him.

For he has still not paid the workers. It follows that he needs these accounts. And

this

that it teaches at the end, that accounts of what is of no consequence are permitted, and likewise in the other beraita, “I spent such-and-such,” concerns

where there is no wage of workers with him.

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

We learned in the Mishna:

One may not darken himself

at the boundary.

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

[a breach]

and he decided to fence it, but he remembered that it was Shabbat. And

as a result

that pious man refrained

from this

and did not fence it. And a miracle was performed for him, and there grew in it

in his field

a caper bush

[a large tree whose fruits contain three types of food: 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 walled city

tomorrow.

And the same law applies: he may say to his fellow, “You go there tomorrow.” Tosafot] . And even though that walled city is outside the boundary, and anything that is forbidden to do on Shabbat is also forbidden to mention, here it is permitted to mention it. Because

if there are booth-settlements

[booths of the city’s watchmen] between the two walled cities, then he

will walk

from one city to the other.

For we hold as follows: A house that is found within seventy cubits and two-thirds of a cubit from the city is considered part of the city. From it onward, one begins to count a boundary of two thousand cubits. And if on its other side as well it stands within seventy cubits and two-thirds of a cubit 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.

And a permanent house is not required for this; rather, even a temporary booth of the city’s watchmen is considered a house for this matter.

And likewise, if the two cities are very far from one another, but there are several booths between them, one after the other, and each booth is within seventy cubits and remnants of a cubit of its fellow, both cities and all the area between them are considered one city.

And Shmuel says that even now there is no booth-settlement between the two walled cities, and it is forbidden to walk from one city to the other, but since if there were a booth-settlement 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. For anything that has a permitted way on Shabbat by means of a regulation is permitted to mention. And even though in practice the permission does not yet exist.

And we raise an objection:

We learned: One may not darken himself at the boundary in order to hire workers and bring fruit.

And there is a difficulty:

Granted,

it is forbidden to darken himself in order

to hire workers,

it is well. Because

on Shabbat

itself

he is unable to hire

them, and there is no regulation whatsoever to permit this.

But to bring fruit,

why is it forbidden to darken himself?

Let us say

the Mishna, since

if there are partitions there

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

brings

fruit from there.

For just as Shmuel said, anything that has a permitted way by means of a regulation is permitted to mention on Shabbat, so too one should say: anything that has a permitted way by means of a regulation on Shabbat, it is permitted to darken oneself for it. For we learned: Anything that I am entitled to mention, I am permitted to darken myself for it .

And we answer:

You find it

where he has no permitted way by means of a regulation,

with fruit attached

to the ground. For they have no permission whatsoever on Shabbat, since they are forbidden to detach. Therefore they are forbidden even to mention, and one may not darken himself for them.

And we raise another objection:

And Rabbi Oshaya taught: One may not darken himself at the boundary

on Shabbat, in order

to bring straw and chaff

at the conclusion of Shabbat.

Granted, “chaff

,” which is the tails of the ears of grain remaining after the harvest,

you find it

where it has no permission on Shabbat, such as

with

chaff

attached.

For it is forbidden to detach it, because by doing so he improves the ground, and it is a derivative of “plowing” [Tosafot] .

But “straw

,” it is always detached, and

how do you find it

where it has no permission? For he can bring it by means of partitions, and this is a difficulty for Shmuel.

And we answer: You find it

with rotten straw

[rotten straw], which is fit for nothing. And even by means of partitions it is forbidden to carry it, because of the prohibition of muktzeh. And since there is no regulation to permit it, it is forbidden to darken oneself for it.

And we raise another objection:

Come and hear: One may darken himself at the boundary to attend to the affairs of a bride and the affairs of the dead.

And we infer:

For the affairs of

the

bride and

for the affairs of the

dead

specifically,

yes

[one may darken himself]. Because they are matters of Heaven. But

for the affairs of

the need of

another

similar to these,

no,

one may not darken himself.

And we examine it:

Granted, the need of

another

similar to

the affairs of the

bride, you find it

when he darkens himself and brings himself closer on Shabbat to the place of the myrtles, in order

to cut the myrtle for him

[myrtle] immediately at the conclusion of Shabbat. It is permitted to darken himself specifically for myrtles that are needed for the bridal canopy of the bride, but not for myrtles that are not for a mitzva. And cutting myrtles is certainly a matter that has no regulation to permit it on Shabbat. Therefore one may not darken himself for it.

But

the affairs of the

dead—what are they? —

They are

to bring him a coffin and shrouds. And it teaches

that specifically

for the dead, yes

[one may darken himself].

But

for the need of

another, no.

And this is a difficulty for Shmuel, who says: Anything that has a regulation permitting it on Shabbat, one may darken oneself for it.

Why

may one not darken himself?

Let us say,

since

if there are partitions there

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

brings

a coffin and shrouds even on Shabbat itself. Therefore it should be permitted to darken himself even whenever the permission of the partitions is absent.

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

dead, you also find it

in a case where he has no regulation permitting it on Shabbat, such as when he darkens himself in order

to cut

[to cut]

a garment for him

for the dead and to prepare his shrouds. It is permitted to darken himself for this specifically for the need of the dead, because they are matters of Heaven. But for the need of another it is forbidden, for he has no permission whatsoever on Shabbat.

We learned in the Mishna:

But he may darken himself

in order to guard his fruit, and bring fruit in his hand.

And we examine it: Does he go out to the orchard immediately at the conclusion of Shabbat and bring fruit to his house,

even though

he has still

not made havdala?

But Rabbi Elazar ben Antigonus said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov: It is forbidden for a person to attend to his affairs before he makes havdala .

And should you say that

he first prays where he is, and

makes havdala in the prayer

and says, “You have granted us knowledge”—but this is not sufficient.

For

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: One who makes havdala in the prayer must make havdala

also

over a cup.

And should you say

that this is speaking

of

already

having made havdala over a cup

beforehand—this cannot be said. For he left the city while it was still day and darkened himself in the field. And

is there a cup in the field?

And we answer:

Rabbi Natan bar Ami explained it before Rava:

This that it teaches, “and brings fruit in his hand,” was stated concerning one who darkened himself

between the winepresses.

For there is a cup of wine there.

Rav Abba said to Rav Ashi:

Without this as well, there is no difficulty at all. For

in the West we say as follows: “Who distinguishes between the sacred and the profane

”—as a mere recognition, in order to escort the King—

and

afterward

we attend to our needs.

And afterward we made havdala over a cup. And even though he still needs to make havdala over a cup, as Shmuel said, it is nevertheless permitted to perform labor even beforehand . And all the more so, if he has already made havdala in the prayer and said, “You have granted us knowledge,” it is permitted to perform labor before havdala over a cup .

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

“the One who distinguishes

between the sacred and the profane

,” and

afterward

we would split wood

[chop wood], despite the fact that we had still not made havdala over a cup.

We learned in the Mishna:

Abba Shaul stated a general principle: For anything that I am

entitled to mention, I am permitted to darken myself for it.

And we examine it:

With regard to what does Abba Shaul

stand in the clause of the Mishna?

If you say that he stands with regard to the beginning,

which teaches in it

“One may not darken himself at the boundary to hire workers and bring fruit

,”