Shabbat 67b — the Talmud in English

The one who says: “Gad, my fortune”

“my fortune has prospered,”

“and sanok not,”

“and do not grow weary,”

“my night and my morning”

“day and night”—

there is in it of the ways of the Amorite.

Rabbi Judah says: “Gad” is only an expression of idolatry, as it is stated: [Isaiah 65]

Isaiah 65

“Those who arrange a table for Gad.”

He in her name and she in his name

they exchange the man’s name for the woman’s name at night because of divination]—

there is in it of the ways of the Amorite.

The one who says:

“Duno, my Deni,”

“strengthen yourselves, my barrels”—

there is in it of the ways of the Amorite.

Rabbi Judah says: “Dan” is only an expression of actual idolatry

literally.

As it is stated: [Amos 8]

Amos 8

“Those who swear by the guilt of Samaria and say: ‘As your god lives, Dan.’”

And he is liable on account of it as one who calls in the name of idolatry.

The one who says to the raven: “Cry out,”

for this is a whisper to the raven, because he thinks that the raven announces tidings,

“and to the female raven: ‘Whistle, and return to me your tail for good’”—

there is in it of the ways of the Amorite.

The one who says: “Slaughter this rooster that crowed in the manner of an evening prayer,”

like a raven,

and

slaughter

a hen that crowed in the manner of a man,

like a rooster—

there is in it of the ways of the Amorite .

The one who says:

“I shall drink and leave over; I shall drink and leave over,”

so that the blessing should be present in his wine—

there is in it of the ways of the Amorite.

The one who fastens

the shells of the

eggs

from which chicks emerged

in the wall,

as a segula so that the chicks will remain alive, and does this

in the presence of the chicks—

there is in it of the ways of the Amorite.

And the one who stirs in the presence of chicks—

there is in it of the ways of the Amorite.

The one who dances and counts seventy-one chicks so that they should not die—

there is in it of the ways of the Amorite.

The one who dances before

the

kutah,

so that it will strengthen in its cooking,

and the one who silences

those standing around it

for

the benefit of cooking the

lentils, and the one who cries out for

the benefit of cooking the

groats—

there is in it of the ways of the Amorite.

The one who urinates in the presence of her pot so that it will cook quickly—

there is in it of the ways of the Amorite.

But one may place a mulberry twig and pieces of glass in the pot so that it will cook quickly.

And the Sages prohibit [placing] pieces of glass, because of the danger.

The Sages taught: One places a bol

a fistful

of salt into the lamp so that it will give light and ignite.

And this is not divination; rather, it causes the oil to become clear, and it burns well.

And

likewise

one places mud and clay

which cool the oil

under the lamp, so that it will wait and ignite

for a long time.

Rav Zutra said: One who covers an oil lamp

causes it to burn the oil more quickly,

and

likewise one who

uncovers an oil lamp,

who raises the cover of the oil lamp, causes unnecessary burning—

has transgressed “Do not destroy.”

And one who says at the time of pouring the cup:

“Wine and life according to the Sages”—

there is not in it of the ways of the Amorite.

For this is nothing but a blessing.

There was an incident involving Rabbi Akiva, who made a feast for his son, and over each and every cup that he brought he said: “Wine and life according to the Sages; life and wine according to the Sages and according to their students” .

We have completed you, chapter “With What May a Woman Go Out.”

Mishna:

They stated a great general rule regarding Shabbat,

with regard to the number of sin-offerings for which one is liable for various forms of unwitting profanation of Shabbat.

And in the Gemara it will be explained why the Mishna used the wording “a general rule”

“great.”

1.

Anyone who forgets the fundamental principle of Shabbat,

who thinks that there are no Shabbat commandments at all in the Torah,

and performs many labors,

even from different primary categories of labor,

on many Shabbatot,

when it becomes known to him that he sinned —

he is liable only for one sin-offering

for all the Shabbatot and labors that he performed on them, because everything is considered one unwitting act, namely, his lack of knowledge of the commandment of Shabbat!

2.

One who knows the fundamental principle of Shabbat,

that there is a commandment of Shabbat in the Torah and recognizes the labors forbidden on it,

and performs many labors on many Shabbatot,

because on each Shabbat he forgot that today was Shabbat, and his sin was not made known to him during the intervening weekdays —

he is liable

for one sin-offering

for each Shabbat.

Because the days in between, between one Shabbat and the next, are considered as though there were “knowledge” in them, which divides his period of unawareness into liability for separate sin-offerings.

For it is impossible that he did not hear during the weekdays between the Shabbatot that that day had been Shabbat. And although he did not then remember the labors that he had performed on that day, nevertheless, since the cause of the unwitting act was his lack of knowledge that that day was Shabbat, this knowledge is sufficient to divide the unawareness of the sin and to consider the Shabbatot separate unwitting acts; and each Shabbat is an unwitting act in itself, requiring its own offering.

Yet, on the other hand, he is not liable for a sin-offering for each labor separately, because all of them are one unwitting act. For he did not err regarding the labors, but knew that they were forbidden, and only regarding knowledge of the day of Shabbat did he err. Therefore, each Shabbat is one unwitting act.

[Rashi. And according to the opinion of Tosafot, the rule that “the days in between constitute knowledge to divide” is not because he certainly remembered from them that it was Shabbat, but it is a scriptural decree, that when one knows the fundamental principle of Shabbat, each Shabbat is a separate unwitting act].

3.

One who knows that

today

is Shabbat and performs many labors on many Shabbatot,

because he did not know that these labors were forbidden, and performed them several times on several Shabbatot —

he is liable for each primary category ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

of labor

a sin-offering, because each primary category of labor is a separate unwitting act, since his unwitting act consists in not knowing that it was forbidden on Shabbat.

And, conversely, he is not liable for that labor for each Shabbat separately, since everything is one unwitting act, for his knowledge that the labor was forbidden was not made known to him in the interim.

And in such a case it is not applicable to say that “the days in between constitute knowledge to divide,” since the interruption of the days does not add knowledge to him regarding the prohibition of the labor until he learns the halakha.

The general principle is: in unwittingness regarding Shabbat and deliberate knowledge regarding the labors, the Shabbatot divide; and in deliberate knowledge regarding Shabbat and unwittingness regarding the labors, the labors divide.