Shabbat 50b — the Talmud in English

D

:

We learned: ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact column location")

A nazirite shampoos and scratches

[and breaks apart] his hair. And although he may thereby cause his hairs to fall out, he does not violate the positive prohibition of “Let the hair of his head grow freely,” since he does not intend this

But he may not comb

his hair with a comb, for through this he certainly removes hair, and it is a psik reisha.

And a nazirite on weekdays is like any other person on Shabbat. For both of them are prohibited from removing hair.

It follows that merely shampooing is not considered a psik reisha. And if so, it is impossible to establish the above beraita as being in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

And we answer:

Rather,

whether

this,

the beraita from which it follows that one may shampoo silver with natron and sand,

and

whether

this,

the one that teaches, “With natron and sand it is prohibited”—both of them are

in accordance with Rabbi Judah,

who prohibits an unintentional act. And therefore, shampooing the hair is certainly prohibited. Rather,

they are two tannaim

who disagree

according to

the explanation of the position

of Rabbi Judah:

view:

This tanna,

who prohibits shampooing silver,

according to Rabbi Judah, holds

that natron and sand

scrape

the silver. And there is thereby a concern of “smoothing.”

And this tanna,

who permits it,

according to Rabbi Judah, holds

that natron and sand

do not scrape

the silver. And there is no Shabbat labor involved.

And we ask again:

How did you establish

this beraita, which teaches at its end, “But he may not shampoo his hair,”

as being in accordance with Rabbi Judah?

Come and hear the conclusion

of the conclusion of this beraita:

But

to shampoo

his face, hands, and feet

with natron and sand—

it is permitted.

And if it is according to Rabbi Judah, who prohibits an unintentional act, why is it permitted?

Does he not pass over

the

hair

of his beard and body?

It is understandable according to Rabbi Shimon; it works out well. For one can say that the hairs of his face, hands, and feet do not fall out quickly, and it is not a psik reisha. But Rabbi Judah prohibits it in every case.

And we answer:

Alternatively, it is referring to a minor

who has no beard, and it teaches that it is permitted.

And alternatively, it is referring to a woman,

and it teaches that it is permitted.

And alternatively, it is referring to a eunuch,

and it teaches this, since he has no beard.

Rav Judah said: Earth

that comes from the crushing of

a brick

[a brick],

is permitted

for shampooing his face with it, even if he has a beard, because it does not remove the hair.

Rav Joseph said: Sesame refuse

[the refuse of sesame],

is permitted

for shampooing his face with it.

Rava said: Pepper earth

[crushed pepper],

is permitted

for shampooing his face with it.

Rav Sheshet said: Barda—

it is permitted

to shampoo his face with it.

And we inquire about it:

What is “barda

”?

Rav Joseph said:

A mixture made of

one third

[one third]

ahala

[the root of a grass called ahal],

one third myrtle

[myrtles],

and one third violets

[a type of grass that has three leaves]. But if there is more than one third “ahala,” it is prohibited to shampoo with it, because ahal is made to whiten and polish like soap, and it removes the hair.

Rav Nehemiah bar Joseph said: Wherever there is not a majority of ahal

in the mixture,

it is quite proper.

And it is permitted to shampoo with it until there is more than half ahal in the mixture, unlike Rav Joseph, who permitted it only when there was one third ahal.

They asked Rav Sheshet: What is the law regarding crushing

[pressing]

olives on Shabbat

on a rock in order to sweeten their bitterness?

And they were asking whether it is prohibited on Shabbat because of making food fit and improving food.

He said to them,

Rav Sheshet:

And on a weekday, who permitted you

to do this?!

He holds

that Rav Sheshet maintains that even on a weekday it is prohibited to crush olives,

because of food loss.

For the oil liquid that flows from them is lost.

Let us say that Rav Sheshet disagrees

with

Samuel.

For Samuel said: A person may use bread for all his needs,

both for his uses and for crumbling it and mixing it into a hot dish.

It follows that he is not concerned about food loss.

And we reject this:

They said,

they do not disagree. For

bread is different, because

it

does not become repulsive

when he uses it. But

these

[olives]

become repulsive

when he crushes them.

Ameimar, Mar Zutra, and Rav Ashi were sitting

on Shabbat.

They brought barda before them. Ameimar and Rav Ashi washed

[bathed] with barda.

And Mar Zutra did not wash.

They said to him,

Ameimar and Rav Ashi to Mar Zutra: Is it that

the Master does not hold in accordance with that which Rav Sheshet said: Barda is permitted!?

Rav Mordechai said to them: Leave the Master alone!

And Mar Zutra does not hold this ruling of Rav Sheshet, because

even on a weekday as well he does not hold

that it is permitted. Rather,

he holds in accordance with that which was taught:

A person may scrape off crusts of excrement and crusts of a wound that are upon his flesh for the sake of his pain.

And specifically when he is distressed by it is it permitted. But

if it is for beautifying

himself,

it is prohibited

to do so because of “A man shall not wear a woman’s garment.” And likewise, washing his face with barda is prohibited for this reason.

And we inquire:

But they,

[Ameimar and Rav Ashi], who washed with barda—

in accordance with whom did they hold?

And we answer:

In accordance with that which was taught: A person may wash his face, hands, and feet every day for the sake of his Creator,

as it is stated, “Every work of the Lord

is for His purpose,”

that He created everything for His honor. And through beautifying himself, the honor of the Omnipresent is increased, for it is written, “In the image of God He made man.”

Moreover, through this people bless the Lord. As it is stated: One who sees beautiful creatures says, “Blessed is He Who has such as these in His world”!

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah says: A basket—

one tilts it onto its side and takes

the pot from it.

Lest he take it

and be unable to return it. And the Sages say: He takes it and returns it.

Rabbi Abba

said in the name of Rabbi Hiyya bar Ashi: Everyone agrees that if

after he took the pot, the coals fell into the place of the pot and

the hollow became damaged, it is prohibited to return

the pot to its place inside the basket, because he moves the coals back and forth, and they are muktze and prohibited to move.

And we challenge this: But

we learned

in the Mishna:

And the Sages say: He takes it and returns it.

What are the circumstances?

If the hollow did not become damaged—

the Sages have said properly.

For since the hollow still remains, and he can return the pot without moving the coals, it is certainly permitted to return it. And why does Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah disagree?

Rather, is it not that even though the hollow became damaged,

the Sages permit returning it, while Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah prohibits it because of moving muktze? And this is difficult for Rabbi Abba.

And we answer:

No,

they do not disagree about this. Rather,

in fact,

the Sages permitted returning it specifically when the hollow

did not become damaged. And in truth, if he has already taken it, they do not disagree after the fact. Rather, if the hollow became damaged, everyone agrees that it is prohibited to return the pot. And if it did not become damaged, everyone agrees that it is permitted to return it.

And here, they disagree

about whether

we are concerned

beforehand about damage to the hollow

.

One Master

[Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah]

holds: We are concerned that it may have become damaged

[may become damaged]

the hollow

if he takes the pot without tilting the basket onto its side. And therefore he prohibits taking it without tilting it, lest the hollow become damaged and he come to return it and move the coals from their place.

And the other Master

[the Sages]

holds: We are not concerned

about damage to the hollow. Therefore, he takes the pot without tilting the basket. But only if the hollow indeed did not become damaged is it permitted to return it.

Rav Huna said: This salikusta

[a plant attractive in appearance and fragrance]—if he

inserted it

[stuck it] into the earth in a jar and

pulled it out

outside,

and afterward inserted it again

into the earth before Shabbat,

it is permitted

to pull it out again on Shabbat and return it to the earth, because by doing so he does not move the earth. For its place has already been widened and smoothed before the day, by his taking it out and putting it back.

And if not, it is prohibited

to take it out and return it to the jar on Shabbat, because he moves the earth, which is muktze.

Samuel said: This knife

that one sticks

between the rows of bricks

[between the rows of bricks in a building]—if he

inserted it

[stuck it]

and pulled it out and afterward inserted it again

before Shabbat,

it is permitted to

take it and return it there on Shabbat. And if not, it is prohibited, because he moves the earth that falls into the place of the knife. But if he inserted it, pulled it out, and inserted it again before the day, the place of the knife has been sufficiently widened, and the earth does not block it.

Mar Zutra, and some say Rav Ashi, said:

To stick a knife

into the cluster of reeds

[palm reeds] on Shabbat,

is quite proper.

And we are not concerned lest he scrape their bark and become liable because of smoothing.

Rav Mordechai said to Rava: Rav Katina raises a refutation.

And this is how he challenged: We learned:

One who buries turnips and radishes

in the earth

beneath a vine—

if some of their leaves were exposed

outside the earth,

he need not be concerned.