Shabbat 78a (עח.) — the Talmud in English

And we reject this:

No!

Rather,

everyone agrees that one must not carry out a small limb of a one-day-old small animal;

one is not liable for carrying it out,

and the statement of Rabbi Yannai is therefore untenable.

And here they disagree about this: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar holds: A small limb of a large animal and a large limb of a one-day-old small animal

are equivalent;

their measures are identical. One measures by either of them, whether by this one or by that one.

And Rabbi Natan holds: Yes, a small limb of a large animal,

only by it do we measure.

But

with regard to

a large limb of a one-day-old small animal, one does not

measure by it.

And we inquire:

What conclusion was reached?

What, ultimately, was the dispute between Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar and Rabbi Natan?

Come and hear, as it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Oil

[is carried out] in an amount sufficient to anoint the small limb of a one-day-old small animal.

If so, Rabbi Natan holds that either a small limb of a large animal or a large limb of a small animal determines the measure, as we originally said: Rabbi Yannai’s opinion is subject to a dispute among tanna’im.

We learned in the Mishna:

Water [in an amount] sufficient to dilute eye salve with it.

Abaye

asked:

Since

every

matter that is used both frequently and infrequently

—a substance suitable for two uses, one frequent and the other infrequent—

the Sages followed

the matter of the measures for the labors of Shabbat

the frequent use,

and even

for leniency

we follow it when the measure for that use is greater than the other measure, since presumably the substance is designated for the common use.

And where the two uses are

both frequent,

where both uses are common [and even if one is more common, according to the Meiri’s reading of the Mishna]—

the Sages followed the frequent use as a stringency,

following the more stringent of the two frequent uses.

Therefore,

wine,

which

is frequently drunk, whereas

its

medicinal use is infrequent, since it is not commonly used to dilute eye salve even though it is suitable for that purpose—for one can also dilute it with breast milk or water, and people are sparing with wine because it is costly—therefore,

that they should use it to rub the kilor, although it is suitable for this, since it is also possible to rub with a woman’s milk and with water, and one is sparing with wine, which is expensive. Therefore,

the Sages followed its frequent use, drinking,

even though this is

a leniency,

as its measure [the amount sufficient to dilute a cup] is greater than the measure required to dilute eye salve.

Similarly,

animal

milk,

is frequently consumed, whereas

its

medicinal use is infrequent,

namely, to dilute eye salve with it, although it too is suitable for this purpose, since one can also use water. Therefore,

the Sages followed its consumption,

even though this is

a leniency,

as the measure of a gulp is greater than the measure for diluting eye salve.

Honey is frequently consumed,

and

its medicinal

use is also

frequent,

since no other liquid is suitable for treating a wound. Therefore,

the Sages followed

the measure of

its medicinal use,

since it is

a stringency,

as the amount needed to apply to a wound is less than a quarter-log, which is the measure for all other liquids.

Rather,

this is what I ask:

Water—since

its

consumption is frequent,

as most drinking is of water, whereas wine is used only during a meal and not to quench thirst, while

its

medicinal use is infrequent, since other liquids are also suitable for eye salve—if so,

why did the Sages follow its medicinal use

and establish the measure as the amount sufficient to dilute eye salve

as a stringency?

Why did they not establish the larger measure, namely a quarter-log, which is the measure for drinking all liquids?

And we answer:

Abaye said:

The Mishna

was taught with regard to the Galilee,

which was a place of poor people who were particular about every unnecessary expenditure and spared their wine and milk, using water alone to dilute eye salve. For them, the medicinal use of water was frequent. Therefore, we follow it as a stringency.

Rava said: Even if you say

the Mishna was taught

with regard to other places,

it is nevertheless not difficult,

in accordance with Shmuel.

For Shmuel said: All liquids used for eye salve—

all liquids with which eye salve is diluted—

heal

the ailment of the eye.

And they cloud it,

as they create a kind of screen over the eye, because a scab forms from them that obstructs vision.

Except

for

water, which heals

but

does not cloud it;

it does not form a scab over the eye. Therefore, people prefer to use water for treating the eye, and its medicinal use is considered frequent.

We learned in the Mishna:

And all other liquids [are carried out] in a quarter-log.

The Sages taught: Blood, and

likewise

all types of liquids,

their measure for carrying them out is

a quarter-log.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: There is a type of

blood

of a particular living creature whose measure is less than a quarter-log, because it has a use

sufficient to paint

one eye with it

and place it

in one eye

for medicinal purposes.

For one paints

the eye with this particular blood

for

the eye ailment called

barqit.

And what is it?

What is the blood with which one paints for barqit?

The blood of a wild chicken,

a wild hen.

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: Blood

[is carried out in an amount] sufficient to paint one eye with it, for one paints [with it] for

the eye ailment called

yarod,

a cataract.

And what is it?

From what blood does one paint for yarod? From

the blood of a bat,

a bat.

And your mnemonic

for knowing which blood is used for painting the various ailments is this: The blood of a living creature found

inside,

namely, a bat, which is found within settled areas, is taken from it and applied

inside,

for yarod, which is sunken within the eye.

The blood of a creature found

outside,

namely, the wild rooster, is taken from it and applied

outside,

for barqit, which protrudes over the eye.

In what case is this statement said,

that a specific measure of blood is required with regard to carrying it out?

With regard to one who carries it out

to the public domain.

But with regard to one who stores it,

because it was important to him to preserve the blood, even if it was less than the requisite measure, and he subsequently carried it out, even

any amount—

he is liable.

Rabbi Shimon,

son of Yohai, disagrees with the opinions of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar and Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, and

says:

In what case is this statement said,

that he is liable even for any amount of blood used to paint the eye?

With regard to one who stores

blood in such an amount and then carries it out.

But with regard to one who carries it out,

meaning someone who did not store it but carried it out,

he is liable only for a quarter-log.

And the Sages concede to Rabbi Shimon: With regard to one who carries wastewater into the public domain,

when he did not store it,

its measure is a quarter-log.

For less than this amount it is not fit for its use, namely, kneading clay with it.

The Master said: In what case is this statement said? With regard to one who carries it out.

But with regard to one who stores it, any amount.

And we inquire:

Is one who stores it not also one who carries it out?!

After all, he is not liable without carrying it out!?

And we answer:

Abaye said: Here we are dealing with a student [

such as an assistant to a carpenter, called “the carpenter’s apprentice” ],

whose master said to him [

the carpenter ]:

“Go and clear a place for me for the meal!” He went and cleared it for him,

and in the process carried something out to the public domain.

Therefore,

a matter

that is

important to everyone,

which has the requisite measure,

one is liable for it.

But

a matter that is not important to everyone,

which does not have the requisite measure, then only

if his master had stored it is he liable for it,

even though the student did not store it. [And this tanna is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar [who is the first tanna of the beraita], who said above [76a] that if one person stored an item, everyone is liable for carrying it out in any amount.]

But if not,

his master did not store it,

he is not liable

for it, since it has no requisite measure.

And this is the explanation of the beraita: In what case is a measure required? Specifically, with regard to one who carries it out—that is, an item whose status depends solely on the carrier himself, since no other person had the intention of assigning importance to this object [and nor did the carrier himself]. But with regard to one who stores it—that is, an item whose status can be determined in accordance with the intention of the one who stored it, such as when another person stored it—one who carries it out is liable even for any amount.

Rashi explains that Abaye could in fact have answered simply that the statement refers to the carrier himself: A measure is required only when he did not store the item, but if he himself stored it, he is liable for any amount. However, since we have learned that this tanna holds that even another person is liable based on the intention of the one who stored it, he established the case as one in which someone else had stored it. And certainly, the same applies when he himself stored it.

The Master said: The Sages concede to Rabbi Shimon: With regard to one who carries wastewater into the public domain, its measure is a quarter-log.

And we inquire:

Wastewater—

what is it fit for?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yirmeya said: To knead clay with it.

And we challenge this:

But it was taught in a beraita: Clay

has a measure for carrying it out of

enough to make the opening of a furnace with it.

This means making the opening of the furnace of goldsmiths, through which the bellows are inserted. Less than a quarter-log of water is sufficient to knead clay for this purpose. Since with regard to carrying out clay, this amount is sufficient, the same should apply to carrying out wastewater: its measure should be the amount sufficient for kneading such clay. Why, then, is a quarter-log required?

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

This

is referring to

clay that has been kneaded.

Clay that has already been kneaded is important even in an amount sufficient to make the opening of a furnace.

This

is referring to

clay that has not been kneaded.

Before the clay has been kneaded, it is not considered important,

because no one takes the trouble to knead clay

in a limited amount merely

to make the opening of a furnace.

Rather, he kneads more, and uses the remainder of the clay for other purposes. Therefore, with regard to water, a quarter-log is required, as this is the amount needed to knead the quantity of clay that a person would take the trouble to knead.

Mishna:

One who carries out a rope—

its measure is

enough to make

from it

a handle for a basket,

a basket by which to hold it.

A reed fiber,

a thread,

[in an amount] enough to make a loop,

a loop

for a sifter or a sieve.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

The measure of the reed fiber is

enough to take from it the measure of a shoe for a small child.

One measures a child’s foot with it in order to show the measurement to a shoemaker, so that he will know what shoe size is required; this measure is smaller than that of a loop.

Paper—

[in an amount] enough to write on it a customs seal,

a certificate of payment of customs duties. The practice was to write two large letters as a sign that the customs had already been paid.

And one who carries out a customs seal—

is liable [

to teach us that even if the customs seal was written on parchment, whose measure is larger, as explained below, nevertheless he is liable, since it serves as a customs seal. Tosafot, on 78b, s.v. “and one who carries out” ].