Shabbat 65b — the Talmud in English

And we reject this:

No

there is no proof from Shmuel’s father for Rav Huna, for even if they do not become disqualified for the priesthood,

he held

that they should not be allowed to do this,

so that they should not learn foreign behavior

that they would desire to lie with a man.

And he made a mikveh for them during the days of Nisan

and they did not immerse in the Euphrates during the days of Nisan.

This supports Rav, for Rav said: Rain in the West—

the Euphrates is the great witness:

when rains fall in the Land of Israel, the Euphrates testifies to this by its waters increasing through the rains of the Land of Israel, and therefore he did not allow them to immerse in the river during Nisan—

he held that the dripping waters would not exceed

the flowing waters.

A spring purifies when its waters are flowing, whereas a mikveh purifies only when its waters are standing. And during the days of the melting of the snows in Nisan, there is concern lest the rainwater in the Euphrates became more abundant than the spring water and nullified from it the status of spring water, and rainwater purifies only in a mikveh when it is standing, and not when it is flowing.

And

what Rav said, that the Euphrates is blessed by rainwater,

disagrees with Shmuel.

For Shmuel said: A river is blessed from its source

by itself and not from rainwater.

And his statement disagrees with his other statement

this statement of Shmuel disagrees with another statement

that Shmuel said

himself

Water purifies through flowing only in the Euphrates during the days of Tishrei

alone.

And because during the rest of the days of the year Shmuel was concerned that the rainwater had increased and the status of spring water had been removed from the river.

And it is demonstrated that he retracted from what he had said, that every river that increases, its increase comes from the springs within it.

We learned in the matnita:

She winds [her garment] around a stone

and around a nut and around a coin, provided that she does not wind it around them initially on Shabbat.

And we ask:

But you said in the first clause, “She winds”

and the intention of the Mishna is that it is permitted to wind it initially on Shabbat, for the tanna did not come to teach us that she goes out on Shabbat when her garments are wound, since we already learned: “Median women go out with their garments wound.” And the first clause, which says that she winds it around [a stone], is difficult in relation to the final clause, which says that she should not wind it initially on Shabbat.

Abaye said:

The first clause, which permits her to wind it initially on Shabbat, is speaking of a stone or a nut that does not have the status of muktze [a nut is not muktze—and a rounded stone that is customarily used for winding is not muktze when he designated it in his mind for this purpose while it was still day].

And the

final clause

which says that she should not wind it initially on Shabbat

comes to [speak of] a coin

which requires an act performed before Shabbat to remove from it the status of muktze .

Abaye raised a question: What is [the law concerning] a woman who schemes and winds [her garment] around a nut

when her purpose is

to take it out

in order to give it

to her small son

to eat it

on Shabbat?

In the chapter Kol Kitvei [below, page 120], they disagreed whether it is permitted to scheme at the time of a fire and put on everything that one is able to put on in order to save the garments, or whether it is forbidden. And the Gemara is uncertain whether the question of whether it is permitted to scheme and wind [the garment around a nut] depends on that same dispute.

And we say:

It is necessary according to the one who says

that in the case of a fire one

may scheme, and it is necessary

also

according to the one who says

that in the case of a fire one

may not scheme,

for it is possible to distinguish and say that scheming by winding [the garment] around a nut is different.

It is necessary according to the one who says that one may scheme in the case of a fire:

perhaps it is possible to distinguish that only

there

did the Sages permit one to scheme and take [the garments] out by way of wearing them, because

if you do not permit him

to take them out in this manner, since he is frantic over his property,

he will come to extinguish

and transgress a Torah prohibition;

but here, if you do not permit him

to take it out through scheming,

he will not come to take it out

for the needs of his son. Perhaps they did not permit it in such a manner?

Or perhaps,

it should be said conversely, that

even according to the one who says that one may not scheme in the case of a fire,

it is possible to distinguish and say: only

there is this the customary manner of taking out

for sellers of garments take out many garments by wearing them, and therefore they prohibited it;

but here there is no customary manner of taking out

a nut

in this manner

by tying the garment with it.

Say that it is entirely proper

and they permitted scheming.

The matter remains unresolved!

Мишна:

Mishna:

One whose leg is amputated

whose leg was amputated

goes out with his wooden leg

which supports his leg and enables him to walk [and besides this he has a support that he holds in his hand], because it serves him as a shoe,

the words of Rabbi Meir.