Shabbat 35a — the Talmud in English

Rather ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location of the page")

two-thirds,

two-thirds

of a mil.

And we explain:

what is the difference between them,

what is the measure of the time difference between the bein ha-shemashot according to Rabba and Rav Yosef? —

there is between them half of a danka",

half of a sixth. That is, the time of walking one-twelfth of a mil. For this is the difference between three-quarters of a mil [which are nine-twelfths] and two-thirds of a mil [which are eight-twelfths].

And the reverse,

and we find another dispute dealing with the matter of a measure, in which Rabba adopts the smaller measure, whereas Rav Yosef is the one who adopts the larger measure —

with regard to

the law of carrying

a beehive,

a beehive, on Shabbat.

Below, on page 123b, it is explained that Nehemiah wished to strengthen observance of Shabbat, and decreed that nothing may be carried except food and tableware. After the decree succeeded in strengthening observance of Shabbat, they gradually began to be lenient and to carry useful utensils.

The permission was given only for utensils. But very large utensils, as the measure of their size will be explained below, are not included in the “category of utensils,” and therefore they are forbidden to carry on Shabbat.

For Rabba said: a beehive,

a beehive, which 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 it is a beehive

of three kor —

it is forbidden to carry it,

since, on account of its size, it has left the category of utensils.

And Rav Yosef said:

a beehive

of three kor is also permitted

to carry, for it still has the status of a utensil; only a beehive

of four kor is forbidden .

Abaye said: I asked my master,

Rabba,

at the time of the incident,

when the opportunity arose for me 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 whom

did Rabba forbid carrying a beehive containing only two kor?

In accordance with this tanna:

The law of the impurity of wooden utensils was likened in Scripture to the law of the impurity of a sack. And 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 it is full and when it is empty.

Therefore, a large sack, which cannot be carried when it is full, because then it will tear, does not become impure.

And since wooden utensils were likened to a sack with regard to impurity, large wooden utensils as well, which are not carried when they are full so that they should not break, do not receive impurity.

For we learned in a Mishna: a beehive made of

made of

straw, and a beehive made of

made of

reeds, and

also a large wooden utensil serving like a

pit

of drinking water in a

“Alexandrian ship" [

a large ship], these

even though they have bottoms,

a bottom—that is, they are like all utensils—nevertheless are not fit to receive impurity, since they are wooden utensils that do not receive impurity if it is impossible to carry them when full [for fear that they will break].

And

these utensils, when

they hold forty seah of liquid ,

which are two kor when dry,

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

pure.

And according to this tanna, Rabba forbade carrying a beehive containing only two kor. For according to him, it is not carried when it is full, for fear that it might break; therefore it is forbidden even to carry it on Shabbat by the law of muktzeh.

Abaye said:

from the fact that the tanna said that these utensils hold forty seah of liquid, which are two kor [sixty seah] when dry,

learn from it:

This heap,

the heap of the dry measure, which may be heaped above the utensil,

is one-third.

For one may heap above the quantity contained in the utensil half the quantity contained in the utensil itself, so that the heap constitutes one-third of the entire quantity. For he can heap, in the dry measure, another twenty seah above the forty seah.

Abaye saw Rava

at bein ha-shemashot

turning his face and looking,

turning his face and looking

toward

the direction of

the west,

to determine whether night had already arrived.

He said to him,

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

But it was taught: As long as the eastern face is reddening!?

He said to him,

Rava to Abaye:

Do you think “the eastern face” literally?

No.

This is not the tanna’s intention. Rather, his intention is the western side, from which the rays of the sun’s light arrive, which is the

“face that reddens the east".

Some say

that this is how the incident occurred:

Rava saw Abaye turning his face and looking,

turning and looking

toward the east.

He said to him,

Rava to Abaye:

Do you think “the eastern face” literally?

That is not so. Rather, the tanna’s intention is the west, which is

“the face that reddens the east".

The matter is analogous to a window located on the western side, through which the rays of the sun enter and illuminate the wall on the eastern side.

And your sign is: a window,

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

We learned in a Mishna:

Rabbi Neḥemya says

bein ha-shemashot is a period of time

for a person to walk from when the sun sets half a mil.

Rabbi Ḥanina said: One who wishes to know Rabbi Neḥemya’s measure should leave the sun

when it is visible

at the top of Mount Carmel,

which is a high place,

and descend

to the bottom of the mountain,

and immerse in the sea, and ascend.

And then it is already night .

And this is Rabbi Neḥemya’s measure.

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

toward the sea,

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

of Miriam.

Rav said: A spring that is carried —

pure,

even though it is carried. It does not receive impurity, and its waters are fit for immersion.

And

there is no instance of a spring that is carried except

this is Miriam’s well,

which was carried with all Israel in the wilderness through Miriam’s merit.

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

priests

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

they may immerse in it.

And we inquire concerning Shmuel’s words:

For whom,

according to whom did he say his words?

If you say, for Rabbi Yehuda —

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

is a doubt!

Rather,

perhaps his intention is to say that during

Rabbi Yehuda’s bein ha-shemashot —

according to Rabbi Yosei, priests may immerse in it.

This is

obvious!

Since Rabbi Yosei’s time is after Rabbi Yosei’s time, and its measure is longer, it is obvious that, according to Rabbi Yosei, the priests may then immerse, and some of the day will remain after their immersion, so that it will be considered that they had sunset after the immersion.

And we answer: Actually, Shmuel said his words according to Rabbi Yosei. In his view, it is possible to immerse during Rabbi Yehuda’s bein ha-shemashot, since it is still day, and after the immersion he will even have “sunset”.

And Shmuel’s novelty is:

What might you have said: Rabbi Yosei’s bein ha-shemashot —

is connected to Rabbi Yehuda’s,

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

he teaches us

Shmuel

that

before

the

time of

Rabbi Yehuda’s bein ha-shemashot is completed, and

only

afterward,

afterward,

Rabbi Yosei’s bein ha-shemashot begins.

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

that the time of bein ha-shemashot is

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda —

with regard to Shabbat.

And

on the other hand,

the halakha

that the time of bein ha-shemashot is

in accordance with Rabbi Yosei —

with regard to teruma.

And we inquire about this: Since Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda with regard to Shabbat and in accordance with Rabbi Yosei with regard to teruma, it is evident that he is uncertain according to whom one should rule. If so, one should wonder:

Granted,

that which Rabbi Yoḥanan ruled that

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda with regard to Shabbat —

because he ruled

stringently,

not to perform labor on the eve of Shabbat, during Rabbi Yehuda’s bein ha-shemashot, and if he did so, he must bring a provisional guilt-offering, because it is possible that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

But with regard to teruma —

what is it

that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei?

If you say, with regard to immersion,

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

It cannot be said so. For according to Rabbi Yoḥanan

it is a doubt

whether the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda or Rabbi Yosei, and it is impossible that he should rule that the priests are permitted to immerse at that time.