Shabbat 151a (קנא.) — the Talmud in English

If so, what is the meaning of

this

that he says,

“Whatever I am permitted to mention, I am permitted to attend to at nightfall”?

But hiring workers and bringing produce are matters that one is not permitted to mention on Shabbat. On the contrary,

he should have needed to say: “Whatever I am not permitted to mention, I am not permitted to attend to at nightfall.”

This is what he should have said.

Rather,

Abba Shaul

is referring to the latter clause.

For it teaches there:

“But he may attend to it at nightfall

in order

to watch over

his produce,

and

in the process he

brings the produce in his hand.”

And Abba Shaul came and formulated a general principle on the basis of this, permitting every similar matter that one is permitted to mention.

The difficulty nevertheless remains:

this statement, “Whatever I am permitted to attend to at nightfall, I am permitted to mention,” is what he should have needed to say.

For the permission to attend to the matter at nightfall was already stated explicitly by the first tanna, whereas the permission to mention it was not taught. How, then, can he make the permission to attend to the matter at nightfall, which was taught, dependent on the permission to mention it, which was not taught? He should have said the reverse.

And we answer:

Actually,

Abba Shaul

is referring to the latter clause.

And as for your difficulty—that the permission to mention the matter was not mentioned at all in the words of the first tanna, so how could Abba Shaul make the permission to attend to it at nightfall dependent on it—it is not difficult. The reason is that the permission to mention the matter of guarding produce was obvious to the first tanna and Abba Shaul.

And Abba Shaul is referring to this.

For

so

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: It is permitted for a person to say to his fellow: Guard my produce

that is mine

which

is located

within your Shabbat boundary

[within your Shabbat boundary, and outside my boundary],

and I will guard your produce

that is yours

which

is located

within my boundary.

Thus, this statement is permitted on Shabbat, for even the guarding itself is permitted .

And Abba Shaul says to the first tanna: Do you not concede that it is permitted

for a

person to say to his fellow, “Guard my produce that is within your boundary, and I will guard your produce that is within my boundary”?

And therefore, it is also permitted to attend to the produce at nightfall in order to guard it. Evidently, anything that one is permitted to mention, one is permitted to attend to at nightfall. Why, then, did you state specifically that one may attend to it at nightfall in order to guard it? You should have included the matter and said: Anything that one is permitted to mention, one is permitted to attend to at nightfall. For from this one can also infer that one may attend to matters within the boundary in order to oversee the affairs of a bride and of the deceased, as we will learn below .

We further inquire:

Perhaps

Abba Shaul means:

“Whatever I am permitted to mention, I am permitted to attend to at nightfall,”

and no more.

The general principle

stated by Abba Shaul—

what does it come to include?

And we answer:

It comes to include that which the Sages taught: One may not attend to something at nightfall within the boundary in order to bring

on Saturday night

an animal

that is located outside the boundary .

And if

the animal was

the animal

standing outside the boundary,

he

calls to it

from his place within the boundary,

and it comes

on its own. This is because he is not commanded concerning the boundary limits of his animal [Rashi, above 53b].

Abba Shaul stated a general principle: Whatever I am permitted to mention, I am permitted to attend to at nightfall.

Therefore,

one may attend to matters at nightfall in order to oversee the affairs of a bride and the affairs of the deceased, to bring him a coffin and shrouds.

For one is also permitted to mention these matters, as we will say below.

And this teaches us something novel. It is not only when one is permitted to tell his fellow to perform something on Shabbat itself [for example, telling his fellow to guard produce within his boundary] that one may attend to it at nightfall. Rather, even with regard to matters that one is permitted to tell his fellow to perform only after Shabbat, one may attend to them at nightfall. For example, overseeing the affairs of a bride, which may not be performed on Shabbat itself, and which one may mention on Shabbat only in order to perform them after Shabbat. [Tosafot.] This is what Abba Shaul’s “general principle” in the Mishna comes to include.

And they say to him

the messenger on Shabbat:

Go

tomorrow

to such-and-such a place,

and bring from there the needs of the deceased.

And if you do not find them in such-and-such a place, bring them from such-and-such a place.

And if

you do not find them for one hundred, bring them for two hundred .

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says:

It is permitted for him to tell his fellow, “Bring the needs of the deceased,”

provided that he does not mention to him

the

price of the purchase.

And he disagrees with the first tanna, who permits even mentioning the price of the purchase .

Mishna:

One may attend to something at nightfall within the boundary

[one may approach on Shabbat until the end of the boundary permitted on Shabbat], in order to go out after Shabbat

to oversee the affairs of a bride and the affairs of the deceased, to bring him a coffin and shrouds.

The reason will be explained in the Gemara.

If a gentile brought flutes on Shabbat

from outside the boundary,

a Jew may not eulogize with them

ever . This is a penalty. Whenever a gentile performed work on Shabbat for a Jew, and it is apparent that he performed it for him, it is prohibited for a Jew to benefit from it forever. Here too, it is apparent that they were brought for the Jew, since flutes are brought only for the burial of a Jewish dead person.

And one may not eulogize with these flutes after Shabbat,

unless they came

through the gentile on Shabbat

from a nearby place

that is within the boundary. Although in this case too the gentile performed the labors of carrying out and transferring for the Jew, they are not prohibited for that reason, because when he brought them from a nearby place, his bringing them was not of such significant benefit to the Jew after Shabbat . It is not considered in this case as benefiting from the gentile’s action [Tosafot] .

If

they made for him

the gentiles, for a gentile dead person, on Shabbat,

a coffin

[and similarly, if they made it for sale], or if they

dug a grave for him, a Jew may be buried in it.

Since they did not do this for the needs of a Jew .

And if

they made the coffin or dug the grave

for

a

Jewish dead person, a Jew may never be buried in it .

For anything done on Shabbat for the needs of a Jew is prohibited for benefit.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “Unless they came from a nearby place.”

And we inquire:

What is meant by “from a nearby place”?

Rav said: From a genuinely nearby place.

That it is known to us with certainty that they came from within the boundary, for example, we saw that the flutes had previously been in a house within the boundary.

And Shmuel said:

Even if he brought them from outside the city, and it is not known to us with certainty that they came from within the boundary—so long as it is not known with certainty that they came from outside the boundary, it is permitted to eulogize with them immediately after Shabbat. This is because

we are concerned

[that is, we assume leniently; we find the expression “we are concerned” used in a lenient sense as well. Rashi]

that perhaps they spent the night outside the wall,

near the city wall, within the Shabbat boundary .

Rava said: The Mishna is precise in accordance with Shmuel’s opinion. For

it

teaches: “They made a coffin for him and dug a grave for him, and a Jew may be buried in it.”

Although ordinarily it is made, and it is not known whether it was made for a Jew or for a gentile, it is permitted to benefit from it.

Evidently, when there is uncertainty, it is permitted

to benefit from it, for with regard to uncertain benefit from work performed on Shabbat, we rule leniently.

Here too,

when we are uncertain whether they came from outside the boundary or not,

when there is uncertainty, it is permitted .

And a beraita was taught in accordance with Rav’s opinion, as the Sages taught: In a city inhabited by Jews and gentiles, where there was a bathhouse that was heated on Shabbat—

if the majority

of the city’s residents are

gentiles, after Shabbat

[on Saturday night]

the Jew may bathe

in it

immediately.

Although it was heated on Shabbat by the gentiles, it is not considered to have been heated for the needs of a Jew, since the majority are gentiles.

And if the majority

of the city’s residents are

Jews,

the Jew may not bathe immediately after Shabbat, but

must wait until

a period has passed that is sufficient

for hot water to have been heated.

After this period, he no longer benefits from the heating that was done on Shabbat, since even if they had begun heating it after Shabbat, the water would already have been ready for him by then.

And even if the city’s residents are

half

Jews

and half

gentiles, he must likewise wait until after Shabbat,

until enough time has passed for hot water to have been heated.

A half-and-half population is considered an uncertainty whether the water was heated for the Jew or for the gentiles. Evidently, uncertain benefit from work performed on Shabbat is also prohibited, in accordance with Rav.

[But if you say: What is the difference between flutes brought on Shabbat, which we prohibit for eulogizing forever, and a bathhouse, where even when it was heated for the needs of a Jew, we prohibit bathing in it only until enough time has passed for it to have been heated after Shabbat?

One can say that with regard to the flutes, it is apparent that they were brought for a Jew. But with regard to the bathhouse, it is not so apparent that it was heated for the needs of a Jew, since there are also gentiles in the city. Rashi].

Rabbi Yehuda says: In the case of a small bath—

if there is

in the city an important official of the

government

[the authorities],

he may bathe in it

the Jew

immediately

after Shabbat. We can assume that the bath was heated for that important person after the conclusion of Shabbat, by means of many slaves and kettles.

And we inquire:

What is meant by “government”?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav Yitzhak, son of Rav Yehuda: If there is an important person in the city who has ten slaves who heat ten kettles for him simultaneously in a small bath, it is permitted to bathe in it

after Shabbat. Since they can heat it in a short time, we may assume that it was heated after Shabbat and not on Shabbat .

We learned in the Mishna:

“They made a coffin for him and dug a grave for him,”

and a Jew may be buried in it.

And we inquire:

Why

may he be buried in it immediately after Shabbat? Although it should not be prohibited forever, since it is not apparent that it was made for the Jew, nevertheless,

here too he should wait

after Shabbat for a period sufficient

for the coffin and grave to have been made.

For perhaps the coffin and grave were indeed made for the Jew. If he buries him in it immediately, it turns out that he benefited from the gentile’s work performed for him on Shabbat.

Ulla said:

What are we dealing with here?

With

a grave that is

standing in the main thoroughfare

[the king’s road]. Jews do not ordinarily get buried there, and it is apparent that it was dug for a gentile dead person.

We ask again:

That works for the grave,

but

what can be said regarding the coffin?

For we must be concerned that perhaps they made it for a Jew.

Rabbi Abbahu said:

What are we dealing with here?

With the coffin lying

the coffin

on the grave

of the gentile, which was dug in the main thoroughfare. Since the grave was certainly made for the gentile, it is apparent that the coffin too was made for that same gentile .

Mishna:

They attend to all the needs of the deceased

on Shabbat. And it proceeds to explain:

They anoint him

with oil,

and they wash him

with water,

provided that they do not move any limb of his.

For it is prohibited to raise the hand or foot of the deceased, or to move his eyelashes, because of the prohibition of muktzeh.