Shabbat 67b (סז:) — the Talmud in English

One who says: Gad, my luck

has prospered for me,

and sanok not

and do not become weary,

ashkhai u-vushkhai

day and night—

there is in this a violation of the ways of the Amorites.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Gad is only an expression referring to idolatry, as it is stated [

Isaiah 65]

“Those who set a table for Gad”.

He in her name and she in his name [

meaning that they exchange the man's name for the woman's name at night because of divination]—

there is in this a violation of the ways of the Amorites.

One who says:

Dunu, my jars

may my barrels grow strong—

there is in this a violation of the ways of the Amorites.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Dan is only an actual expression referring to idolatry

itself.

As it is stated [

Amos 8]

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

and one who says this is liable because he invokes the name of an idolatry.

One who says to a raven: Cry out

—this is a spell addressed to the raven, because he thinks that the raven announces tidings—

and to the female raven: Whistle, and return your tail to me for good—

there is in this a violation of the ways of the Amorites.

One who says: Slaughter this rooster that has called in the manner of a woman,

like a raven,

and

slaughter

a hen that has called in the manner of a man

like a rooster—

there is in this a violation of the ways of the Amorites .

One who says:

I will drink and leave some; I will drink and leave some

so that blessing will be present in his wine—

there is in this a violation of the ways of the Amorites.

One who affixes

the shells of the

eggs

from which chicks have hatched

to a wall,

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

in the presence of the chicks—

there is in this a violation of the ways of the Amorites.

And one who stirs in the presence of chicks—

there is in this a violation of the ways of the Amorites.

One who dances and counts seventy-one chicks so that they will not die—

there is in this a violation of the ways of the Amorites.

One who dances before the

the

kutah,

so that it will strengthen as it cooks,

and one who silences

those standing around it

for the

benefit of cooking the

lentils, and one who cries out for the

benefit of cooking the

groats—

there is in this a violation of the ways of the Amorites.

One who urinates in front of her pot so that it will cook quickly—

there is in this a violation of the ways of the Amorites.

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

And the Sages prohibit shards of glass because of the danger.

The Sages taught: One places a bul

a fistful

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

This is not divination; rather, it causes the oil to become clear, enabling it to burn well.

And

likewise

one places mud and clay

which cool the oil

beneath the lamp, so that it will remain and burn

for a long time.

Rav Zutra said: One who covers an oil lamp

causes it to burn up the oil more quickly,

and

likewise one who

uncovers an oil lamp,

removing the cover of the oil lamp, causes unnecessary burning—

has transgressed the prohibition of bal tashchit.

And one who says while pouring the cup:

“Wine and life according to the Sages”—

there is no violation of the ways of the Amorites.

For this is merely a blessing.

There was an incident involving Rabbi Akiva, who made a banquet 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 disciples” .

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

Mishna:

They stated a major general principle with regard to Shabbat,

concerning the number of sin-offerings for which one is liable for various forms of unwitting desecration of Shabbat.

The Gemara will explain why the Mishna used the expression “general principle”

“major.”

1.

One who forgets the fundamental principle of Shabbat,

believing that the Torah contains no mitzva of Shabbat at all,

and performs many labors,

even from different primary categories of labor,

on many Shabbatot,

when he eventually learns that he sinned

is liable for only one sin-offering

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

2.

One who knows the fundamental principle of Shabbat,

that there is a mitzva of Shabbat in the Torah and is familiar with the labors forbidden on it,

and performs many labors on many Shabbatot,

because on each Shabbat he forgot that the day was Shabbat, and he did not learn of his sin during the weekdays in between

is liable

for one sin-offering

for each and every Shabbat.

This is because the intervening days between one Shabbat and the next are considered as though they contain “awareness,” which divides his period of unawareness into separate liabilities for sin-offerings.

For it is impossible that during the weekdays between the Shabbatot he did not hear that that day had been Shabbat. And although at that time he did not remember the labors that he had performed on that day, nevertheless, since the cause of his unwitting transgression was his lack of awareness that that day was Shabbat, this awareness is sufficient to divide the period of unawareness of the sin and to regard the Shabbatot as separate unwitting transgressions; each Shabbat is an unwitting transgression in its own right, requiring its own offering.

On the other hand, he is not liable for a sin-offering for each labor separately, because all of them constitute one unwitting transgression. For he was not unaware of the labors; he knew that they were forbidden, and was unaware only with regard to the day of Shabbat. Therefore, each Shabbat constitutes one unwitting transgression.

[Rashi. According to Tosafot, however, the principle that “the intervening days constitute awareness that divides” is not because he certainly remembered during them that it had been Shabbat; rather, it is a scriptural decree that when one knows the fundamental principle of Shabbat, each Shabbat constitutes a separate unwitting transgression] .

3.

One who knows that

the day

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

is liable for each primary category

of labor

a sin-offering, because each primary category of labor constitutes a separate unwitting transgression. His unwitting transgression consists of not knowing that it was forbidden on Shabbat.

Conversely, he is not liable for that same labor for each Shabbat separately, because everything constitutes one unwitting transgression, as he did not learn in the interim that the labor was forbidden.

In such a case, it is not applicable to say that “the intervening days constitute awareness that divides,” since the passage of the days does not add awareness concerning the prohibition of the labor until he studies the halakha.

The general rule is: When one is unwitting with regard to Shabbat and deliberate with regard to the labors, the Shabbatot divide the transgressions; and when one is deliberate with regard to Shabbat and unwitting with regard to the labors, the labors divide the transgressions.