Shabbat 153b — the Talmud in English

Jew. And even if he separated it

with his permission

of the Jew,

his heave-offering is not a heave-offering, because a gentile is not a person capable of agency. We derive agency from the verse, “So shall you also raise.” And we expound: Just as you are members of the covenant, so too your agents must be members of the covenant.

And according to the Rabbis, there is a doubt, if he has with him a deaf-mute and a minor,

what is the law? May we say

he gives it to the deaf-mute, his purse, and not to the minor, because

the minor, although he is not a person of understanding,

will come to the state of understanding when he grows up?

Or perhaps, he gives it to the minor and not to the deaf-mute, because

the deaf-mute is an adult. And although he is not a person of understanding,

he may come to be confused with an adult who is competent. And they will come to give the purse even to one who is obligated in the commandments. But an adult is not confused with a minor.

from

And we conclude:

There are those who say: He gives it to the deaf-mute.

And there are those who say: He gives it to the minor.

And we raised this question: If the road became dark for him,

and there is

no

gentile, no donkey, no deaf-mute, no imbecile, and no minor with him, what

should he do?

Rabbi Isaac said: There was yet another measure

for them,

but the Sages did not wish to reveal it.

And we raised this question:

What is the

other measure

that

was

theirs? And we answer: That he should

carry it, the purse, in the public domain

less than four cubits at a time.

He should uproot the purse and carry it less than four cubits, and stand to rest. Through this, the first uprooting is nullified. Then he should uproot it again and carry it less than four cubits, and stand, and so he should do until he reaches his house. It follows that he did not carry it four cubits in a single carrying. Therefore he is not liable by Torah law.

when he grows up?

Or perhaps, he gives it to the minor

and not to the deaf-mute, because

the deaf-mute

is an adult, and although he lacks awareness,

people may confuse him with an adult of sound mind. They might come to give the pouch even to someone who is obligated in the commandments. But an adult will not be confused with a minor.

And the Gemara concludes:

Some say: He gives it to the deaf-mute.

And some say: He gives it to the minor.

The Gemara asks: If his journey became dark,

and there is

no one with him—

neither a non-Jew, nor a donkey, nor a deaf-mute, nor a mentally incompetent person, nor a minor—what

should he do?

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: There was another

solution

available

to them,

but the Sages did not wish to reveal it.

The Gemara asks:

What

was this

other

solution

that

was

was

available to them? And the Gemara answers: He should

carry it

the pouch in the public domain

less than four cubits at a time.

He should lift the pouch and carry it less than four cubits, then stop to rest. This cancels the initial lifting. He should then lift it again, carry it less than four cubits, and stop, and continue in this manner until he reaches his home. It follows that he never carried it four cubits in a single transfer, and therefore he is not liable by Torah law.

And we ask again:

Why did the Sages not wish to reveal it?

Yet by doing so they conceal words of Torah.

And we answer:

Because: “It is the honor of God to conceal a matter, and the honor of kings to investigate a matter.”

It is permitted to conceal words of Torah for the honor of Heaven. But one should not conceal a person's honor, wealth, and importance; rather, one should investigate them.

And we ask:

And here, what honor of God is there

in concealing this ordinance?

And we answer: For if the matter were revealed and they carried it four cubits at a time,

perhaps

as a result

he would come to carry four cubits in the public domain

at once, and they would transgress a prohibition of Torah.

And since the matter is liable to lead to a prohibition of Torah, they did not wish to reveal it.

However, they did not prohibit the matter entirely. Rather, if there is no gentile, animal, or deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor with him, he is permitted to carry it four cubits at a time. But if he has one of these, he should not do so.

It was taught: Rabbi Eliezer says: On that day

when they went up to the upper chamber of Hananiah ben Hizkiah and decreed eighteen matters [and this decree as well—that he should not carry his purse four cubits at a time, but should give it to a gentile—is included among the decrees of the eighteen matters ],

they filled the measure.

That is, they increased the protective fence for Torah to a heaping measure, and they measured well, in order to increase the fence in Israel.

Rabbi Joshua says: On that day they erased the measure.

There are three measures: heaping [which is the greatest of all], level-full [intermediate], and erased [which is the least of all]. Since they heaped the measure and decreed excessively, the public cannot withstand their decree. As a result, they come to transgress words of Torah. And through this their measure is found to be erased. It would have been better for them to measure with a level-full measure [intermediate], because then it would not come to erasure due to its excessive heaping.

It was taught: A parable

that he gave as a parable

of Rabbi Eliezer,

who called this decree “a heaping measure”:

To what is the matter comparable? —

To a basket

that is

full of cucumbers and pumpkins. A person puts mustard into it, and it

holds

that as well. For the mustard seeds are small, and they fall between the cucumbers and remain inside the basket. So too here, they enacted properly and added a prohibition against a matter that remains.

And the parable of

that which he gave as a parable

of Rabbi Joshua,

who called this decree “an erased measure”:

To what is the matter comparable? —

To a trough

that is

full of honey.

A person

puts pomegranates and nuts into it, and it vomits

the honey inside it outward.

So too here, by increasing the prohibitions, they caused the earlier prohibitions to be transgressed. Perhaps he will not rely on the gentile to take the purse from him. And since they prohibited him from carrying it four cubits at a time where there is a gentile, he will come to carry it four cubits at once. For a person does not restrain himself over his money.

The Master said: If there is no gentile with him, he places it on the donkey.

And we wonder:

But he is leading an animal laden with a burden.

For he is leading the donkey on Shabbat in the public domain while it is laden with the burden of the purse. And it is a prohibition of Torah, for

the Merciful One said

“You shall

not perform any labor

—you and your animal.” And what is the ordinary labor performed jointly by a person and an animal? This is leading a laden animal: he leads it in the public domain while it is laden with a burden. And from here we derive concerning all labors of Shabbat that he may not perform them through an animal.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: He places it

the purse

upon it

on the animal

while it is walking.

For we hold that the obligation for carrying on Shabbat exists only when one uproots the object from one place and deposits it in another place. And the animal did not uproot the purse from its place; rather, he uprooted it and placed it upon her. But if he placed it upon the animal while it was standing, then when it begins to walk, it uproots the object, because the uprooting of its body is considered like the uprooting of an object. As it is stated above [3a]: If his fellow loaded him with food and drink and he carried them outside, he is liable, for this is properly considered his uprooting and depositing. But if he placed the purse upon the animal after it had already begun walking, there is no uprooting of an object on the part of the animal. Since even a person in such a case would not be liable for carrying, there is likewise no prohibition of leading a laden animal here.

And we ask again:

But it is impossible that it does not stop

the animal

to urinate and drop dung

before it reaches the city. Therefore, there is properly uprooting and depositing on its part. For whenever it stopped to rest, once it began walking again, it is considered a new uprooting. And again we should say: the uprooting of its body is considered like the uprooting of an object.

And we answer: This is what he does:

while it is walking

he

places it

the purse

upon it. And when it stops

to drop dung, he

takes it from her

before she uproots it again from her place. And he places it upon her again only after she has uprooted herself from her place. It follows that she never uproots herself from her place while the object is upon her. Consequently, it is not considered that she uprooted the object together with the uprooting of her body.

And we ask:

If so, even

on top of

his fellow as well

he can place the purse in this manner. Why is it necessary to place it on the donkey?

Rav Pappa said:

They permitted this only by placing it on the donkey.

For if he himself uprooted the object while walking and carried the purse in the public domain, he would be liable for a sin-offering [for we require standing only when his fellow loaded it upon him, since in that case there is no uprooting of the object except through the uprooting of his body from its standing place. But where he himself uprooted the object with his hands while walking, we do not require standing].

Therefore,

whenever

if he himself were carrying it

with his body

he would be

liable for a sin-offering, by

placing it on

his fellow

while walking, he is indeed

exempt, but prohibited

to place it upon him by rabbinic law.

And whenever

placing it on

his fellow is exempt but prohibited, by

placing it on

his donkey it is permitted

initially.

Since there is no Torah prohibition of leading a laden animal in this, they permitted him to do so, because if we do not permit him, he will come to carry it with his body four cubits in the public domain.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: If his bundle was placed upon his shoulder

on Friday, while it was still daytime, he is

running beneath it

[that is, while it is placed upon him] in the public domain even after the onset of Shabbat,

until he reaches his house.

Since he began running before the onset of Shabbat and did not stop to rest, it follows that he did not uproot the bundle on Shabbat. And for depositing without uprooting one is not liable.

And we infer:

Specifically

when

running

did they permit him.

But

if he walks

little by little

[a little at a time, that is, calmly],

they did not

permit him, even though in such a case too there is no uprooting on Shabbat, since he did not stop to rest.

And we explain:

What is the reason

that walking is prohibited? —

Since

he walks in his ordinary manner,

he has no reminder.

And we are concerned that he will forget and stop to rest after the day has become holy, and then continue walking. And

he will come

thereby

to perform uprooting and depositing

on Shabbat, for the uprooting of his body after he has stopped is considered like the uprooting of the object.

But when he is running, he has a reminder, and he will remember and will not stop to rest.

And we ask: How is it permitted to run with his bundle? After all,

in the end, when he reaches the house, it is impossible that he does not stand

he will stand

briefly

a little outside his house before entering. And there it is still the public domain. And when he uproots himself to enter the house, there is again uprooting in the public domain. And when he deposits the bundle in the house, there is depositing in the private domain.

And

it follows that he

is bringing it from the public domain into the private domain

through uprooting and depositing.

And we answer: When he comes to his house, he does not deposit the bundle in the usual manner. Rather,

he throws it in an unusual manner.

For example, he throws it behind his shoulder, and this is not the usual manner of depositing. It follows that he performs uprooting without depositing, and for this too he is not liable.

Rami bar Hama said: One who leads a laden animal on Shabbat

when it is carrying a burden in the public domain—if he did so

unintentionally, he is liable for a sin-offering. And intentionally, he is liable to stoning.

His law is like that of one who desecrates Shabbat through one of the thirty-nine labors in every respect.

What is the reason

of Rami bar Hama?

Rava said:

Because

the verse says, “You shall not perform any labor—you and your animal.”

And from this verse we derive the prohibition of leading a laden animal.

And from here we likewise derive that its law is like that of one who desecrates Shabbat in every respect. For since it is written, “you and your animal,” one who leads

his animal

is equated

as analogous

to the performance of labor

by himself.

Just as he,

if he performed the labor himself,

unintentionally

he is

liable for a sin-offering, and intentionally he is liable to stoning, so too

when he performs labor through

his animal also

so it is.

Unintentionally, he is liable for a sin-offering, and intentionally, he is liable to stoning.

Rava said: There are two answers

that exist

in the matter,

to refute the words of Rami bar Hama and prove that the law is not like him.

One: for

this

is written

regarding the sin-offering for idolatry:

“There shall be one Torah for you, for one who acts unintentionally.”

And adjacent to it is

“But the person who acts defiantly”

from the native and from the convert, he blasphemes the Lord, and that person shall be cut off from among his people. And we expound:

The entire Torah was equated with idolatry.

Just as with idolatry,

one is not liable for its unintentional act to bring a sin-offering until

he performs

the person

an act with his body,

as it is written, “for one who acts unintentionally,”

so too

with all those liable for sin-offerings, he is not liable

until he performs an act with his body.

But one who leads a laden animal, who performs an act through his animal, is not liable for a sin-offering.

And further,

this

we learned: One who desecrates Shabbat through a matter for which one is liable for a sin-offering for its unintentional act and excision for its intentional act,

if he desecrated it in the presence of witnesses and with a warning, he is liable to stoning. And since it teaches, “through a matter for which one is liable for a sin-offering for its unintentional act,”

by inference, there is something

of desecration of Shabbat

for whose unintentional act one is not liable for a sin-offering, nor for whose intentional act is he liable to stoning. And what is it? —

The negative commandment

of

“leading a laden animal.”

But according to Rami bar Hama, who says that even one who leads a laden animal is liable for a sin-offering and stoning, this is difficult. We do not find a Torah prohibition on Shabbat that does not involve a sin-offering and stoning.

And we reject this: That which implies that there is something on Shabbat that does not involve a sin-offering and stoning

does not

refer to leading a laden animal, but to

the boundaries, according to Rabbi Akiva

who holds that the prohibition against going beyond the Shabbat boundary is of Torah origin. But it does not involve a sin-offering and stoning; it is merely a negative-commandment prohibition.

Alternatively, it refers to the prohibition of

kindling

on Shabbat.

And according to Rabbi Yose,

who says: What is the purpose of the verse, “You shall not kindle fire throughout your settlements on the day of Shabbat”? It is already stated, “You shall not perform any labor.” Rather, kindling was singled out for a negative commandment, so that it does not involve a sin-offering and stoning like the other labors of Shabbat, but only a plain negative-commandment prohibition.