Shabbat 79a — the Talmud in English

From when he has repaid"—its meaning is

until the borrower says, "I have repaid",

at which point the document has no value, and

"I have not repaid",

at which point it has value.

And this is the explanation of the beraita: If a lender takes out a promissory note on Shabbat, then before he has repaid it—that is, before the borrower claims, "I have repaid"—the lender is liable for taking it out, for he needs it in order to collect the debt with it. But from when he has repaid it—that is, when the borrower claims, "I have repaid"—the lender is exempt for taking it out on Shabbat, for this document has no value whatsoever, since the borrower is trusted to invalidate it .

And Rabbi Judah says: Even after he has repaid it, when the borrower claims, “I have repaid,” the lender is liable. For the borrower is not trusted to annul the document.

Rava said: Everyone

holds that

one who admits the document that he wrote

must

the lender

authenticate it.

And the beraita is speaking of an authenticated document that was actually repaid.

And here, they disagree concerning whether a receipt is written.

Is the practice that the lender writes a receipt for the borrower as proof that the debt was repaid, or do they return the promissory note itself?

The first tanna holds: A receipt is written.

Therefore, if the lender takes out a repaid document, he is exempt. For he has no need for it, since he is forbidden to keep it, and he also does not need to return it to the borrower, because he can write him a receipt, and it stands only to be burned.

And if he returned it to the borrower and the borrower took it out, he too is exempt, since he is not keeping the document out of concern that it may come into the hands of the lender.

And Rabbi Judah holds: A receipt is not written

so that the borrower will not have to guard the receipt from mice. Rather, the lender returns the promissory note. Therefore, the lender is liable for it, since he needs it in order to return it to the borrower.

Rav Ashi said:

Here, the case concerns the borrower taking out the repaid document on Shabbat. And the reason that Rabbi Judah says he is liable is

because he needs

the borrower

to show it to a second creditor,

another one.

For he says to him: See,

that

I am a man who repays

debts,

I!

We learned in the Mishna:

Leather sufficient to make

an amulet.

Rava asked Rav Naḥman: One who takes out leather—

with how much

is he liable?

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman:

As we learned: Leather sufficient to make an amulet.

And Rava knew the answer, but asked this as an introduction to the questions that follow, Rashi.

Rava again asked Rav Naḥman:

To process it,

the leather—

with how much

is its measure for liability on account of processing?

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman:

It is no different.

Its measure in this case too is sufficient to make an amulet.

He again asked him:

To process it,

leather intended for processing, but not yet processed—

with how much

is the measure of taking it out? For at present it is not fit to make an amulet from it.

He said to him: It is no different.

And its measure is sufficient to make an amulet.

Rava said to him:

And from where do you say

that this is the law?

Rav Naḥman said to him:

As we learned: One who whitens

wool,

and one who combs

it,

and one who dyes

it,

and one who spins

threads from it—for all these are primary categories of labor—

its measure

for becoming liable for it on Shabbat, namely, that in the wool which he whitened, combed, dyed, or spun there should be enough to spin from it a thread whose length is

the full width of a sit.

This is the measure of the distance between the index finger and the middle finger,

doubled.

That is, twice this amount is the measure.

And

likewise,

one who weaves two threads

of the weft among the threads of the warp—

its measure,

that each of the two weft threads woven among the warp threads should extend across the fabric

the full width of a sit

[doubled].

That is, even though he did not weave them across the entire width of the fabric, but only across this measured width, he is liable.

It follows that, since

the one who whitens, combs, and dyes

is oriented toward spinning,

their measure

is

like spinning,

like the labor of spinning itself, which is the full width of a sit doubled.

If so,

here too,

in the case of one who takes out leather in order to process it,

since it is oriented toward processing,

its measure

for taking it out is

like

processed

leather.

Rava again asked Rav Naḥman:

And if not to process it,

leather that is not intended for processing—

with how much

is the measure of taking it out?

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman:

It is no different.

Its measure too is sufficient to make an amulet. Rava said to him:

And

indeed,

there is no distinction between processed and unprocessed? He raised an objection to him

from that which was taught:

One who takes out soaked dye materials,

which have already been prepared for dyeing with them—their measure is

sufficient to dye with them

a little wool for a

sample,

as is the way of a dyer, who displays the shade on wool to people and asks them whether they desire this dye. And this measure corresponds to the quantity of dye materials needed

for an ira,

to seal the opening of the rod upon which the weaver rolls the weft thread, and this is a small measure.

But with regard to

the measure for taking out

dye materials that are not soaked,

but are still raw materials from which dye is produced,

we learned:

Walnut peels,

the moist outer peel over the walnut shell,

and pomegranate peels, istिस and fu'a,

types of plants, and dye is produced from all of these—the measure for taking them out is

sufficient to dye with them,

with the dyes produced from them,

a small garment according to a hairnet.

A piece of cloth sewn at the top of the hairnet, which is the net that women place over the hair of their heads.

And this measure is greater than what is sufficient for dyeing a sample, because the dye materials are still not fit for dyeing with them. And why, with regard to leather, did you say that there is no difference between processed and unprocessed?

And we answer:

This was stated concerning it: Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha:

The reason concerning dye materials is

because a person does not trouble himself to soak dye materials

in an amount that is sufficient only

to dye with them a sample for an ira.

Rather, when he needs to soak them, he soaks at least enough for a hairnet. Therefore, unsoaked dye materials are of no importance when they amount to less than this measure.

But with leather, a person takes the trouble to process a small amount of leather even if it contains only enough to make an amulet. On the other hand, processed leather too is not important in an amount less than what is needed for an amulet. Therefore, the two are equal in their measure with regard to taking them out on Shabbat.

We further consider the matter against Rav Naḥman, who said that there is no distinction between processed and unprocessed leather:

But what of garden seeds, concerning which we learned before they were sown: Garden seeds

their measure is

less than a dried fig; Rabbi Judah ben Beteira says: five

seeds are the measure.

But concerning them after they were sown we learned: Manure and fine sand—

enough to manure one cabbage stalk, the words of Rabbi Akiva. And the Sages say: Enough to manure one leek

a type of grass.

And although the cabbage and the leek grow from only one seed, they are important, since the seed has already sprouted and become a vegetable.

If so, with leather too let us say that processed leather is more important than unprocessed leather?

And we answer:

This was stated concerning it: Rav Pappa said:

This

for which one is liable for manure intended for one seed, is

because it has been sown

the seed. It has already been sown and has importance in its own right.

This

for which one is liable only for many seeds, is

because it has not been sown. For a person does not trouble himself to take out

a single thread

of seed

for sowing.

We further consider the matter against Rav Naḥman:

But what of clay, concerning which, before it is kneaded,

before it is mixed,

it was taught [above, 78a]:

The Sages agree with Rabbi Shimon concerning one who takes out waste liquids into the public domain, that their measure is a quarter-log. And we considered it: What use are waste liquids?

And Rabbi Yirmeya said: To knead clay with them.

But after

it was kneaded,

it was taught: Clay

its measure is

enough to make with it the mouth of a furnace.

Although less than a quarter-log of waste liquids is sufficient for this clay, it is important since it has already been kneaded.

And why, with regard to leather, did you say that there is no distinction between processed and unprocessed?

And we answer:

There too, as we said: Because a person does not trouble himself to knead clay to make with it the mouth of a furnace

but kneads more. Therefore, the waste liquids are not important in an amount less than a quarter-log. But kneaded clay is important even in a smaller measure.

But with leather there is no difference between processed and unprocessed.

Come and hear: For Rabbi Hiyya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: There are three types of leather.

Three stages in the process of processing leather:

Raw, ḥifa, and diftara.

And each one has a different measure with regard to taking it out on Shabbat.

.

And we explain:

Raw—

as its plain meaning: neither salted

nor treated with flour nor treated with gall,

that they did not place the leather in salt, nor in flour [and water], and did not process it with tanning agents [which grow on a tree and are used for processing leather]. That is, it was not processed at all, like this raw substance, which was not leavened and was not prepared according to the law of bread .

And what is its measure

with regard to taking it out?

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Judah taught: Enough to wrap

around

a small weight.

For it is the practice of merchants to wrap a weight made of lead in leather so that it will not wear down and its weight will not decrease.

And how much

is the size of the weight?

Abaye said: A quarter of a quarter

of a litra

of Pumbedita.

Ḥifa—

salted but neither treated with flour nor treated with gall.

And what is its measure?

As we learned

in the Mishna:

Leather sufficient to make an amulet.

And this is less than enough to wrap a small weight in it.

Diftara—

salted and treated with flour but not treated with gall.

And what is its measure?

Enough to write a bill of divorce on it [that is, the essential part of the bill of divorce, which is: “Behold, you are permitted to any man,” together with his name and her name, the signatures of the witnesses, and the date]. And this measure is the smallest of all.

. .

In any event, it teaches

with regard to raw leather,

enough to wrap a small weight in it.

And Abaye said: A quarter of a quarter of Pumbedita.

It is thus proven that the measure of unprocessed leather is greater than what is needed to make an amulet, and this is difficult against Rav Naḥman?

And we answer:

There—

in the cooking stage.

With moist leather immediately after flaying, which is still not fit for processing; therefore, its measure is greater than that of processed leather. But Rav Naḥman is speaking of leather that has already dried, which, although unprocessed, since it is fit for processing is like processed leather, and their measures are equal.

We further raise a difficulty against Rav Naḥman:

But we learned

in Tractate Kelim:

A garment—

its measure is

three

handbreadths

by three

handbreadths

for

contracting the impurity of

a surface of support.

At this measure it is fit for lying and sitting. And if a man with a flux sat upon it, even if he did not touch it [for example, if there was an intervening separation between him and the garment], the garment becomes a primary source of impurity; but for impurity through contact, three fingerbreadths suffice.

A sack—

four by four

handbreadths.

Leather—

.

five by five.

A mat,

made of woven reeds—

six by six.

And all these measures, from a sack onward, were stated

both for

the impurity of

a surface of support

of a man with a flux

and

for the impurity through contact with a

corpse.

And it was taught concerning it: The garment, the sack, and the leather—

according to the measure

stated for them

for impurity, so is their measure

for them

for

liability for

taking out

on Shabbat.

But five handbreadths is greater than what is needed to make an amulet. Necessarily, the measure of five handbreadths was stated with regard to unprocessed leather. And the Mishna, which says “enough to make an amulet,” is speaking of processed leather, and this is difficult against Rav Naḥman?

And we answer:

That one concerns kurtevla.

Leather that became hardened through cooking in boiling water, which is fit only for sitting upon, covering beds with, and making a table from. Therefore, its measure is five handbreadths.