Shabbat 18a (יח.) — the Talmud in English

I vo vsekh sluchayakh

v ozhogah i sosudah],

Beit Hillel razreshayut

peredavat ikh neevreyu v kanun Shabata

s

voskhodom

poka solntse svetit], do nastupleniya nochi. I v etom net zapreta obrashcheniya k neevreyu. Ved neevrey rabotaet ne po ukazaniyu evreya, a deystvuet dlya sebya samogo.

Rabi Shimon ben Gamliel skazal: Tak bylo prinyato v dome moyego ottsa: oni otdavali beloe platye neevreyskomu prachechniku za tri dnya do Shabata.

Poskolku beluyu odezhdu trudno stirat i dlya polnogo okonchaniya stirki nuzhno tri dnya, ee peredavali neevreyu za takoe vremya, chtoby rabota byla nachata v srok, dostatochnyy dlya ee vypolneniya do Shabata. Tak oni prinimali na sebya strogoe mnenie Beit Shammaya.

I soglasny oba

[Beit Shammay i Beit Hillel],

chto nagruzhayut

v kanun Shabata

brus maslodavilni

olivkami,

i

takzhe nagruzhayut

krugi davilni

vinogradom, dazhe esli ego prodolzhayut vydavlivat v techenie vsego Shabata.

Dazhe esli vydavlivanie tozhe yavlyaetsya rabotoy, zapreshchennoy Toroy, kak proizvedenie ot raboty molotby, i Beit Shammay schitayut zapreshchennym privodit v kanun Shabata k tomu, chtoby rabota vypolnyalas v Shabat, zdes sluchay otlichayetsya: pri nagruzke brusa maslodavilni dazhe v sam Shabat net obyazannosti prinosit khatot, i eto ne yavlyaetsya rabotoy, zapreshchennoy Toroy. Ved do togo, kak olivki kladut pod brus, ikh snachala molotyat v zhernovakh. Podobno i vinograd snachala topchut nogami, prezhde chem nagruzit krugi davilni. Krome togo, dazhe bez nagruzki sok vytekal by iz nikh, tolko ne tak khorosho. Poetomu eto ne podobno rabote molotby. Beit Shammay zapretili v kanun Shabata tolko takuyu rabotu, za kotoruyu v sam Shabat trebuetsya khatot.

Gemara:

V Mishne skazano: ne zamachivayut chernila.

Ot syuda sleduet, chto esli zamachivanie chernil v vode razresheno, to eto rabota, zapreshchennaya Toroy, i yavlyaetsya proizvedeniem zam es raboty, poskolku Beit Shammay zapretili tolko rabotu, zapreshchennuyu Toroy, kak skazano v kontse Mishny.

I my sprosili:

kakoy

zhe etot

tan nay,

kotoryy schitaet, chto

«dobavlenie vody v chernila —

eto i est ikh zamachivanie»,

i chelovek vinoven za eto iz-za zam esa dazhe bez razmes h ivaniya?

Rav Yosef skazal:

Mishna —

eto mnenie Rabi.

Tak kak skazano v barayte: Odin dobavlyaet vodu, a drugoy dobavlyaet

posle nego

v nego

muku

vodu,

a ili odin dobavlyaet muku, a drugoy vodu, — dobavivshiy

poslednim vinoven

iz-za zam esa. Dobavlenie vody v muku, ili naoborot, schitaetsya zam esom, i ne trebuyetsya razmeshivanie.

Rabi Yosi, syn Rabi Yehudy, govorit:

chelovek ne vinoven iz-za zam esa

do tekh por, poka ne razmeshaet

muku s vodoy.

Tak zhe i dobavlenie chernil v vodu po mneniyu Rabi yavlyaetsya zam esom. I Mishna sled uet ego mneniyu.

Abaye skazal Rav Yosefu: A mozhet byt,

Mishna sled uet mneniyu vsekh?

Ved

Rabi Yosi skazal tolko,

chto trebuetsya razmeshivanie,

v otnoshenii muki, kot oraya «sposobna k razmeshivaniyu».

Poskolku takova ee obychnaya obrabotka, poka ee ne razmeshali, rabota zam esa eshche ne vypolnena.

No o chernilakh, kot orye ne «sposobny k razmeshivaniyu», mozhno skazat, chto chelovek vinoven

tolko za dobavlenie ikh v vodu, dazhe bez razmeshivaniya, poskolku tak vypolnyaetsya ikh rabota!? Rav Yosef skazal Abaye:

Nelzya tak schitat

razdelyaya eti sluchai.

I

the

skazano v barayte: odin dobavlyaet zol u, a drugoy dobavlyaet vodu —

posledniy vinoven, takovo mnenie Rabi.

Rabi Yosi, syn Rabi Yehudy, govorit:

chelovek ne vinoven

do tekh por, poka ne razmeshaet.

No zol a ne sposobna k razmeshivaniyu. I vse zhe Rabi Yosi, syn Rabi Yehudy, skazal v otnoshenii nee, chto chelovek ne vinoven bez razmeshivaniya. Znachit, oni sporyat i v otnoshenii veshchestva, ne sposobnogo k razmeshivaniyu!

Abaye skazal emu: iz etogo net dokazatelstva. Ved

chto oznachaet «zol a» —

zemlya, «sposobnaya k razmeshivaniyu». Poetomu Rabi Yosi, syn Rabi Yehudy, osvobozhdaet v etom sluchae, esli ee ne razmeshali. No o veshchestve, sposobnom k razmeshivaniyu, mozhno skazat, chto chelovek vinoven tolko esli razmeshal ego.

Therefore, Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda exempts one who has not mixed it. But with regard to something that can be mixed, one may say that he is not liable until he mixes it.

Rav Yosef otverg eto obyasnenie: nelzya skazat, chto v barayte pod «zoloy» podrazumevaetsya zemlya, ved v etom voprose my uchim dve otdelnye barayti.

A.

I ved skazano

v odnoy iz nikh

«zol a».

B.

I ved skazano

v drugoy

«zemlya».

Ot syuda sleduet, chto «zol a» — eto ne zemlya; znachit, oni sporyat v oboikh sluchayakh.

Otvechaem:

razve

vopros o tom,

pri vedeny li eti dve barayty vmeste? Razve ikh zapisal odin i tot zhe tanna? Ved kazhdaya barayta privoditsya otdelno. Odnu iz nikh peredal Rabi Kh iya, a druguyu — Rabi Oshay ya.

by the same person? Each beraita was taught separately. One was taught by Rabbi Chiyya, and the other was taught by Rabbi Oshaya.

Znachit, vpolne mozhno skazat, chto obe barayty govoryat o zemle, no odna iz nikh nazvala zemlyu «zoloy».

No v otnoshenii zoly, ne sposobnoy k razmeshivaniyu, Rabi Yosi soglasen, chto razmeshivanie ne trebuetsya. To zhe otnositsya i k chernilam.

I togda Mishna vpolne mozhet sledovat i ego mneniyu.

Mudretsy uchili: otvodyat vodu

otkryv ust e istochnika]

v sad

v

kanun Shabata s

do

nastupleniya temnoty, i

dazhe esli

sad prodolzhaet napolnyatsya

etoy vodoy

ves den.

Poliv yavlyaetsya proizvedeniem raboty poseva i rabotoy, zapreshchennoy Toroy, no vse zhe razresheno v kanun Shabata prichinit, chtoby eta rabota byla vypolnena v Shabat.

I

likewise

kladut blagovoniya

vidy blagovoniy] na ogon

pod sosudy

v kanun Shabata, chtoby dym voshel v sosudy i blagodarya etomu oni napolnilis aromatom.

I prokurivayutsya

sosudy

ves den.

This appears to be the simple meaning of the unqualified statements of the commentators. However, the Machatzit HaShekel wrote in section 252, explaining the position of the Magen Avraham there, that the passage is not discussing placing the incense on the coals. Rather, the incense was already placed there before Shabbat, and now one comes to place the incense together with the coals beneath the utensils, an act that is prohibited even on Shabbat itself only by rabbinic law.

I kladut seru

na ogon

pod sosudy

iz serebra v kanun Shabata, chtoby oni okoptilis i stal vid en risunok gravirovki na nikh,

i prokurivayutsya seroy v techenie vsego Shabata.

I my ne opasaemsya, chto v Shabat vozgoretsya ogon samo soboy.

I kladut kilor

povyazku]

na glaz

dlya lecheniya v kanun Shabata, chtoby on ostavalsya tam ves Shabat. No v sam Shabat ego zapreshcheno nakladyvat, poskolku lechenie v Shabat zapreshcheno iz-za opaseniya, chto chelovek izmelchit lekarstvennye veshchestva.

I

takzhe kladut

plastyr

povyazku]

na ranu

v kanun Shabata

i rana prodolzhaet zazhivat ves den.

No ne kladut zerno v vodianye zhernova

v kanun Shabata, chtoby ono melos v Shabat.

A

dopuskayut ego tolko

chtoby ono bylo smoloto do nastupleniya dnya, do Shabata [i tem bolee ne kladut zerno v zhernova, kotorye mel yut osel, ved chelovek preduprezhden o soblyudenii pokoya svoey skotiny].

before Shabbat [and certainly one may not place it in a mill operated by a donkey, since a person is warned to ensure that his animal rests].

I my sprosili:

po kakoy prichine

zapreshcheno klast zerno v vodianye zhernova, i chem eto otlichaetsya ot vsekh perechislennykh vyshe sluchaev, v kotorykh my razreshali, chtoby rabota vypolnyalas sama po sebe v Shabat?

Rava skazal: potomu chto

pomol v zhernovakh

proizvodit shum.

Poskolku stanovitsya ochevidnym, chto v Shabat vypolnyaetsya rabota, v etom est unizhenie dostoinstva Shabata.

Rav Yosef skazal

Rave:

pust gospodin skazhet

, chto eto zapreshcheno po Tor e

iz-za pokoya sosudov.

Ved chelovek preduprezhden, chtoby ego sosudy ne vypolnyali rabotu v Shabat.

I

tak ved skazano v barayte:

napisano: «Shest dney ty budesh delat svoi dela, a v den sedmoy otdykhay, chtoby otdokhnuli tvoi byk i osel, i voshel v sebya syn tvoey sluzhanki i pri shelets». A srazu posle etogo napisano

«I vo vsem, chto ya skazal vam, soblyudayte».

I etot stikh prikhodit

chtoby vklyuchit «pokoy sosudov».

No Rabi Yosef skazal:

zapret klast zerno v zhernova, chtoby ego mel i v Shabat,

svyazan s pokoe m sosudov

.

I my sprosili: ved eta barayta sootvetstvuet mneniyu Beit Hillel. Po mneniyu Beit Shammaya nuzhno bylo by zapretit takzhe blagovoniya i seru, podobno tomu, kak oni zapretili zamachivanie chernil i tomu podobnoe v kanun Shabata.

A teper, poskolku ty govorish

, chto prichina barayty — pokoy sosudov, togda

po mneniyu Beit Hillel

takzhe

oni schitayut, chto

maintain that

pokoy sosudov

— eto

obyazannost po Tor e.

Ved barayta sled uet ikh mneniyu. I togda

po kakoy prichine razresheny ser a i blagovoniya?

Ved v sosudakh vypolnyaetsya rabota razzhiganiya.

Otvechaem: zdes net problema pokoya sosudov,

poskolku sosud ne vypolnyaet

soderzhashchiy v nem ugli

akt

razzhiganiya; ugli gor yat sami po sebe. V otlichie ot zhernovov, kot orye samim svoim ustroystvom vypolnyayut akt pomola.

A chto kasaetsya pomeshcheniya

lnyanykh motkov

v pech, chtoby oni otbelilis v Shabat, po kakoy prichine Beit Hillel eto razreshayut? Zdes tozhe

poskolku pech ne vypolnyaet

sama

akt.

Ona lish

spokoyno lezhit,

a prigotovlenie proiskhodit samo po sebe.

I snova my sprosili: ved

lovushka dlya zhivotnykh, ptits i ryb vypolnyaet

sama lovushka

akt

lovli: kogda zhivotnye kasayutsya ee nogami, ona podskakivaet i zakryvaetsya na nikh. Poskolku eto narushaet pokoy sosudov,

po kakoy prichine razreshayut

Beit Hillel raskladyvat ih v kanun Shabata?

Otvechaem:

i zdes

rech idet ne o lovushkakh, kot orye lovyat posredstvom deystviya. A

o lovushke

kryuchke], kotoruyu ryba zakreplyaet svoim rtom i blagodarya etomu popadaet v lovushku. No sam kryuchok ne dvigaetsya s mesta i ne vypolnyaet nikakogo deystviya.

I

takzhe

v kukri

korzine], u kot oroy odno otverstie shirokoe, a drugoe ochen uzkoe. Ryba vkhodit cherez shirokoe otverstie i vysovyvaet golovu cherez uzkoe. Vyvesti cherez nego telo ona ne mozhet, kak ne mozhet i vt yanut golovu obratno iz-za zhabr po bokam. Poluchaetsya, chto ryba lovitsya sama, i

ne vypolnyaet

sosud nikakogo

deystviya.

Tak schitayut i Beit Hillel. No po mneniyu Beit Shammaya vo vsekh etikh sluchayakh est problema pokoya sosudov. Poskolku blagovonie, ln yanye motki i ryby nakhodyatsya v sosude v to vremya, kogda s nimi vypolnyaetsya rabota, eto tozhe schitaetsya deystviem sosuda.

I delaem vyvod: eto ne tak.

Ved

teper, poskolku Rav Oshay ya skazal ot imeni Rav Asi: kakoy tan nay

barayty, vyvodyashchey iz stikha

obyazannost pokoya sosudov po Tor e, —

eto Beit Shammay, a ne Beit Hillel,

ne sleduet razdelyat mezhdu sluchayami, kogda sosud vypolnyaet deystvie, i kogda on ne vypolnyaet ego.

Rather,

according to Beit Shammai—

whether he performs an act or whether he does not perform an act, it is prohibited

because of the requirement that utensils rest.

And according to Beit Hillel—

even though he performs an act,

the utensil

it is permitted,

as they do not hold at all that utensils must rest.

And the beraita that prohibits placing wheat into a mill on the eve of Shabbat is because of the requirement that utensils rest, and it follows the opinion of Beit Shammai. But Beit Hillel permit doing so. And we do not prohibit it because of the production of noise.

And again we challenge:

And now that you have said that according to Beit Shammai, even though he does not perform

the utensil

an act,