Shabbat 35a (לה.) — the Talmud in English

Rather,

two-thirds

two-thirds

a mil.

And we explain:

what is the practical difference between them,

what is the difference in the duration of bein ha-shemashot according to Rabba and Rav Yosef? —

There is a difference of half a danka, half of a sixth. That is, the time required to walk one-twelfth of a mil. This is the difference between three-quarters of a mil—which is nine-twelfths—and two-thirds of a mil—which is eight-twelfths.

half of a sixth. That is, the time it takes to walk one-twelfth of a mil. This is the difference between three-quarters of a mil—nine-twelfths—and two-thirds of a mil—eight-twelfths].

And the reverse is the case:

we find another dispute concerning a matter of measurement, in which Rabba adopts the smaller measure, whereas Rav Yosef adopts the larger one—

with regard to

the halakha of carrying

a beehive,

a beehive, on Shabbat.

It is explained below, on 123b, that Neḥemiah sought to strengthen observance of Shabbat and decreed that nothing might be carried except food and serving utensils. Once the decree had successfully strengthened observance of Shabbat, they gradually began to permit the carrying of useful utensils.

The permission applied only to utensils. However, extremely large utensils, as the measure of their size will be explained below, are not included in the category of utensils and are therefore prohibited to carry on Shabbat.

As Rabba said: A beehive

a beehive that is

of two kor,

which contains two kor—

it is permitted to carry it

on Shabbat, since at this size it is still included in the category of utensils.

But

if a beehive is

of three kor—

it is prohibited to carry it,

because, due to its size, it has ceased to be considered a utensil.

And Rav Yosef said:

A beehive

of three kor is also permitted

to carry, since it is still considered a utensil; only a beehive

of four kor is prohibited.

Abaye said: I asked my master,

Rabba,

at the time of the incident,

when I happened to have to carry a large beehive,

and even

a beehive

of two

two

kor—

Rabba did not permit me

to carry it!

And we explain:

In accordance with whose opinion

did Rabba prohibit carrying a beehive containing only two kor?

In accordance with this tanna:

The halakha of the impurity of wooden utensils was juxtaposed in the Torah to the halakha of the impurity of a sack. With regard to the impurity of a sack, it was established that it becomes impure only if it is fit to be carried both when full and when empty.

Therefore, a large sack that cannot be carried when full, because it would then tear, does not become impure.

And since wooden utensils were juxtaposed to a sack with regard to impurity, large wooden utensils that are not carried when full so that they will not break likewise do not contract impurity.

As we learned in the Mishna: A beehive made of

made of

straw, and a beehive made of

made of

reeds, and

also a large wooden utensil serving as a kind of

pit

for drinking water in a

Alexandrian ship"

a large ship—

although they have bases,

a bottom, meaning that they resemble all utensils, nevertheless they are not fit to contract impurity, since they are wooden utensils that do not contract impurity if they cannot be carried when full [out of concern that they might break].

And

these utensils, when

they hold forty se'a of liquid,

which is two kor of dry measure,

they are not carried when full so that they will not break, and therefore they are

pure.

According to this tanna, Rabba prohibited carrying a beehive containing only two kor. For according to him, it is not carried when full out of concern that it might break, and it is therefore prohibited to carry even on Shabbat by virtue of its being muktzeh.

Abaye said:

From the tanna’s statement that these utensils hold forty se'a of liquid, which is two kor [sixty se'a] of dry measure,

derive from it:

This heap,

the heap of a dry measure that may be heaped above the utensil,

is one-third.

One may heap above the amount contained in the utensil an additional half of that amount, so that the heap constitutes one-third of the total. For one can heap an additional twenty se'a of dry measure above the forty se'a.

Abaye saw Rabba

at bein ha-shemashot

turning his gaze,

turning his face and looking

toward

the direction of

the west,

to determine whether night had already arrived.

He said to him,

Abaye said to Rabba: Why are you turning to look toward the west?

But was it not taught: As long as the eastern face is reddening?!

He said to him,

Rabba said to Abaye:

Do you think “the eastern face” means literally the east?

No.

That is not the tanna’s intent. Rather, he means the west, from which the rays of the sun arrive, which is the

“face that reddens the east.”

Some say

that this is how the incident occurred:

Rabba saw Abaye turning his gaze,

turning and looking

toward the east.

He said to him,

Rabba said to Abaye:

Do you think “the eastern face” means literally the east?

That is not so. Rather, the tanna means the west, which is

“the face that reddens the east.”

This is analogous to a window on the west side through which the rays of the sun enter and illuminate the wall on the east side.

And your mnemonic is: a window,

a window through which the rays of the sun pass and illuminate the wall opposite it.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Neḥemiah says

that bein ha-shemashot is a period of time

in which a person can walk half a mil from sunset.

Rabbi Ḥanina said: One who wishes to know the measure of Rabbi Neḥemiah should let the sun remain

when it is visible

at the top of Mount Carmel,

which is a high place,

and descend

to the bottom of the mountain,

immerse in the sea, and ascend.

By then it will already be night.

And this is Rabbi Neḥemiah’s measure.

Rabbi Ḥiyya said: One who wishes to see Miriam’s well should ascend to the top of Mount Carmel and gaze

toward the sea,

and he will see something resembling a sieve in the sea. And this is the well of

Miriam.

Rav said: A spring that can be carried—

is pure,

despite being portable. It does not contract impurity, and its waters are fit for immersion.

And

there is no such thing as a portable spring other than

this, Miriam’s well,

which traveled with the Jewish people in the wilderness in Miriam’s merit.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: During Rabbi Yehuda’s bein ha-shemashot—

priests

who are impure and must immerse during the day in a ritual bath for their purification, so that they will have “sunset” after their immersion—

may immerse during it.

And we inquire concerning Shmuel’s statement:

According to whom,

according to whose opinion did he say it?

If you say it is according to Rabbi Yehuda—

but Rabbi Yehuda’s bein ha-shemashot—according to Rabbi Yehuda—

is a period of uncertainty!

Rather,

perhaps his intent is to say that during

Rabbi Yehuda’s bein ha-shemashot—

according to Rabbi Yosei, priests may immerse during it.

This is

obvious!

Since Rabbi Yosei’s time is later than Rabbi Yosei’s time, and his measure is longer, it is obvious that according to Rabbi Yosei the priests may immerse then, and some daytime will remain after their immersion so that they will have “sunset” after immersing.

And we answer: Actually, Shmuel stated his words according to Rabbi Yosei. In his opinion, one may immerse during Rabbi Yehuda’s bein ha-shemashot, since it is still daytime, and after the immersion he will indeed have “sunset.”.

And Shmuel’s novelty is:

Lest you say: Rabbi Yosei’s bein ha-shemashot—

extends within Rabbi Yehuda’s,

for the end of Rabbi Yehuda’s bein ha-shemashot is Rabbi Yosei’s bein ha-shemashot, and night begins immediately upon its conclusion. Consequently, if a priest immerses toward the end of bein ha-shemashot, he will no longer have “sunset,” since night begins immediately when Rabbi Yehuda’s bein ha-shemashot ends.

he teaches us

Shmuel

that

before

the time

the period of

Rabbi Yehuda’s bein ha-shemashot ends, and

only

then,

afterward,

does Rabbi Yosei’s bein ha-shemashot begin.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: The halakha

that the period of bein ha-shemashot is

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda—

with regard to Shabbat.

But

on the other hand,

the halakha

that the period of bein ha-shemashot is

in accordance with Rabbi Yosei—

with regard to teruma.

And we inquire: Since Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the halakha follows Rabbi Yehuda with regard to Shabbat and Rabbi Yosei with regard to teruma, it is apparent that he is uncertain according to whom the halakha should be decided. If so, this is difficult:

Granted,

the fact that Rabbi Yoḥanan ruled that

the halakha follows Rabbi Yehuda with regard to Shabbat—

because he ruled

stringently,

prohibiting work on Shabbat eve during Rabbi Yehuda’s bein ha-shemashot, and requiring one who did so to bring an uncertain-guilt offering, since it is possible that the halakha follows Rabbi Yehuda.

But with regard to teruma—

what is

the significance of ruling in accordance with Rabbi Yosei?

If you say it is with regard to immersion,

that priests may immerse during Rabbi Yehuda’s bein ha-shemashot, since there is a possibility that the halakha follows Rabbi Yosei and this time is still daytime.

This cannot be said, for according to Rabbi Yoḥanan

it is uncertain

whether the halakha follows Rabbi Yehuda or Rabbi Yosei, and it is impossible for him to rule that priests may immerse at that time.