Shabbat 75a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Rabba and Rabbi Zeira both say: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

For a curtain in which a derana fell,

a worm made a small hole in it -

they tear it

above and below the hole so that folds will not form from the sewing,

and they sew it.

Rav Zutra bar Toviah said in the name of Rav

three things concerning three different matters:

Rav Zutra heard these three statements from Rav together, and therefore he also stated them that way, although there is no connection between them.

a.

One who stretches a sewing thread on Shabbat,

in a sewn garment in which the sewing thread has loosened, and the two parts of the garment have become somewhat separated, stretches the two ends of the thread in order to tighten the sewing -

is liable for a sin-offering,

since this is the manner of sewing the garment.

b.

And one who studies

even

one thing from a magosh,

a sectarian who is devoted to idolatry, and even if he studies a matter of Torah from him -

is liable to death,

because he may draw him toward idolatry.

c.

And one who knows how to calculate the seasons and the constellations,

who knows how to calculate, on the basis of the constellations, the seasons of the year, such as whether the year will be rainy or hot,

and does not calculate

[calculates] -

it is forbidden to speak of him,

to speak in his praise, as the reason is explained below.

“Magushta”

which is mentioned everywhere in the Talmud—who is he?

They disagree about it:

Rav and Shmuel.

One said: a sorcerer

—a magician.

And one said: a blasphemer,

who is a sectarian, devoted to idolatry, who constantly blasphemes the Name and incites people to idolatry.

And we say:

It can be established,

it can be proved

that Rav

is the one

who said: a blasphemer!

For Rav Zutra bar Toviah said in the name of Rav: One who studies one thing from the magosh is liable to death.

For if it enters your mind

that the magosh is

a sorcerer,

a magician, why is it forbidden to study sorcery from him? And

it is written

concerning a sorcerer:

“You shall not learn to do”,

and we expound: it is specifically in order to perform sorcery that it is forbidden to study sorcery,

but you may study in order to understand

and to instruct,

so that if a false prophet comes and performs a sign or a wonder, you will know that he is a sorcerer.

Rather, certainly,

it can be established

that according to Rav the magosh is a blasphemer. Therefore, it is forbidden to study anything from him, since all his words are words of idolatry, and one must withdraw from him so as not to be drawn through him toward idolatry.

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Kappara: Whoever knows how to calculate the seasons and the constellations and does not calculate, concerning him the verse says: “And they do not behold the work of the Lord, and they have not seen the deed of His hands.”

Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: From where is it that it is a mitzva for a person to calculate the seasons and the constellations?

As it is stated: “And you shall observe and perform them, for that is your wisdom and your understanding in the eyes of the nations.”

What

is

the wisdom and understanding that is in the eyes of the nations?

You must say: This is the calculation of the seasons and the constellations!

For it is wisdom recognizable to all, which can be demonstrated: one says on the basis of the calculation of the constellations that this year will be rainy or hot, and the matter comes to pass.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who traps a deer.

The Sages taught: One who traps a chilazon and wounds it,

squeezing out its blood for the purpose of making from it the color of tekhelet or purple -

is liable only once,

for trapping.

Rabbi Yehuda says: He is liable twice.

For Rabbi Yehuda would say: Wounding

is included within threshing

The extraction of the blood from the fish is essentially similar to separating the kernels from the grain.

They said to him,

the Sages:

Wounding is not included within threshing!

Rava said: What is the reason of the Sages?

They hold: There is threshing only with produce of the ground!

And we raise an objection:

And let him also be liable on account of taking a life?

For he also kills the chilazon when he extracts the blood from it.

And we answer:

Rabbi Yohanan said:

In what case are we dealing here?

He wounded it

after it was

dead.

Rava said: You may even say that he wounded it while alive,

he is nevertheless exempt on account of taking a life, because

he is “occupied” with regard to taking a life [

The expression “occupied” is borrowed language, and its meaning here is that he does not intend to kill it, but is occupied with extracting its blood, and it dies of itself].

And we challenge this:

But Abaye and Rava both say: Rabbi Shimon concedes,

who says that an unintentional act is permitted,

in a case of “cutting off its head, and it will not die”

which is forbidden [for one who says, “I will cut off the head of this animal on Shabbat, and I do not want it to die,” since it is impossible that it will not die, this is considered as though he intended it. Rashi, Sukkah 33b].

And here too, certainly the chilazon will die, so there is no permission of “he does not intend”?

[And as stated, the expression “occupied” used by the Gemara here is not “occupied” in its usual sense, but “he does not intend.”]

And we answer:

Here it is different,

as he does not intend to kill it,

for the more life it has

the chilazon has,

the more

pleased he is!

For it is preferable to him that the fish be alive, and he takes pains to keep it from dying in his hands while he extracts its blood from it,

so that its dye will be clearer.

For the blood of a living chilazon is clearer than the blood of a dead one.

Therefore, even if the fish dies in his hand, he is not liable for it on account of taking a life, for he is “occupied” with killing it, since he wants and takes pains that it should not die. And what Rabbi Shimon makes one liable for in a case of cutting off its head is specifically in a situation where he does not care whether the labor is performed, but merely does not intend it. But here, he does not want the fish to die. [And see Ramban, who wrote that concerning every case of cutting off its head whose results are bad for him, all agree that he is not liable for it.]

We learned in the Mishna:

And one who slaughters it.

And we raise an objection:

One who slaughters—

on account of what is he liable?

Where was the labor of slaughtering in the Tabernacle? For they did not specifically need to slaughter the rams reddened with dye and the tachashim in order to use their skins; rather, they could have strangled them.

And we answer:

Rav said: On account of dyeing,

for the flesh of the place of slaughtering becomes dyed with the blood of the slaughtering, and dyeing is a primary labor that was in the Tabernacle. [And below the words of Rav will be explained, for dyeing was already counted above, among the labors performed with wool].

And Shmuel said: On account of taking a life,

that is, the labor of slaughtering mentioned in the Mishna is not specifically “slaughtering,” but the taking of the life that is involved in it. And this indeed was in the Tabernacle, for they took the lives of the tachashim and the rams reddened with dye.