Shabbat 79a (עט.) — the Talmud in English

“After he repaid it” means

until the debtor says, “I repaid it,”

at which point the document has no value,

and “I did not repay it,”

at which point it does have value.

This is how the beraita is to be understood: If a creditor carries out a promissory note on Shabbat, then before he has been repaid—that is, before the debtor has claimed, “I repaid it”—the creditor is liable for carrying it out, since he needs it in order to collect the debt with it. But after he has been repaid—that is, when the debtor claims, “I repaid it”—the creditor is exempt for carrying it out on Shabbat, since this document has no value, as the debtor is believed to invalidate it .

And Rabbi Yehuda says: Even after he has been repaid, when the debtor claims, “I repaid it,” the creditor is liable. For the debtor is not believed to invalidate the document.

Rava said: Everyone

agrees that

one who admits the document that he wrote

must

the creditor

authenticate it.

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

And here they disagree concerning whether one writes a receipt

—whether the practice is for the creditor to write the debtor a receipt as evidence that the debt was repaid, or whether the promissory note itself is returned.

The first tanna holds: One writes a receipt.

Therefore, if the creditor carries out a repaid document, he is exempt, since he has no need for it: He is forbidden to keep it, and he also need not return it to the debtor, as he can write him a receipt, and it is fit only to be burned.

[And if he returned it to the debtor and the debtor carried it out, he too is exempt, since he does not keep the document out of concern that it might come into the creditor’s possession.]

And Rabbi Yehuda holds: One does not write a receipt,

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

Rav Ashi said:

Here the case is one in which the debtor carried out the repaid document on Shabbat. The reason Rabbi Yehuda holds that he is liable is

because he needs

the debtor

to show it to a second creditor,

another one,

saying to him: “See

that I am

a man who repays

debts,

I am!”

We learned in the Mishna:

Leather sufficient to make

an amulet.

Rava asked Rav Naḥman: One who carries out leather—

how much

is he liable?

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman:

As we learned: Leather sufficient to make an amulet.

[Rava knew the answer, but asked this as an introduction to the questions that followed, Rashi.]

Rava again asked Rav Naḥman:

If he tans it,

the leather,

how much

is the measure for which he is liable on account of tanning?

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman:

It is no different.

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

He asked him again:

To tan it,

leather designated for tanning but not yet tanned,

how much

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

He said to him: It is no different.

Its measure is enough 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 combs

it,

and dyes

it,

and spins

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

its measure

for which one is liable on Shabbat is that the wool which he whitened, combed, dyed, or spun 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 distance is the measure.

And

likewise,

one who weaves two threads

of the weft into the warp threads—

its measure

is that each of the two weft threads woven among the warp threads be, across the width of the fabric,

the full width of a sit

[doubled].

That is, although he did not weave them across the entire width of the fabric, but only across this measure, he is nevertheless liable.

Apparently, since

the whitening, combing, and dyeing

are directed toward spinning,

their measure

is

like that of 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 carries out leather in order to tan it,

since it is designated for tanning,

its measure

for carrying it out is

like

leather

that has been tanned.

Rava again asked Rav Naḥman:

And if it is not for tanning,

leather that is not designated for tanning,

how much

is the measure for carrying it out?

Rav Naḥman said to him:

Rav Naḥman

It is no different.

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

And

is it

not different between tanned and untanned leather?! He challenged him

from the following beraita:

One who carries out soaked dyes,

which are already fit for dyeing—their measure is

enough to dye with them

a little wool for

a sample,

as is customary with dye: one displays the shade on wool to people and asks whether they want this color. This measure corresponds to the quantity of dye needed

for an ira,

to stop up the mouth of the reed around which the weaver winds the weft thread; it is a small measure.

But with regard to

the measure for carrying out

dyes that are not soaked,

but are still raw materials from which dye is produced,

we learned:

Walnut shells,

the moist outer shell over the walnut’s hard shell,

and pomegranate shells, ista, and fu’a—types of herbs, all of which are used to produce dye—their measure for carrying out is

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

enough to dye with them

using the colors produced from them

a small garment according to a hairnet.

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

This measure is greater than enough to dye a sample, because the dyes are not yet fit to dye with. Why, then, did you say regarding leather that there is no difference between tanned and untanned leather?

We resolve this:

This was stated concerning it: Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said:

The reason regarding dyes is

that a person does not trouble himself to soak dyes

in a quantity insufficient for anything more than

dyeing with them a sample for an ira.

Rather, when he needs to soak them, he soaks at least enough for a hairnet. Therefore, untsoaked dyes are not considered significant when they are less than this measure.

But regarding leather, a person troubles himself to tan even a small amount of leather, even if it is only enough to make an amulet. Conversely, tanned leather too is not significant in an amount less than enough for an amulet. Therefore, the two have the same measure with regard to carrying out on Shabbat.

And we further consider an objection to Rav Naḥman, who said that there is no difference between tanned and untanned leather:

But there are garden seeds, concerning which we learned before they are sown: Garden seeds

whose measure is

less than a dried fig; Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: Five

seeds are the measure.

Whereas concerning them after they have been sown, we learned: Fine manure and sand—

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

—a type of grass.

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

If so, regarding leather too, should we not say that tanned leather is more significant than untanned leather?

We resolve this:

This was stated concerning it: Rav Pappa said:

This

—the fact that one is liable for manure intended for a single seed—

is because it has been sown.

The seed has already been sown and has significance in its own right.

That

—the fact that one is liable only for many seeds—

is because they have not been sown. For a person does not trouble himself to carry out

a single thread

of a seed

for sowing.

We further consider an objection to Rav Naḥman:

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

before it is mixed,

it is taught

[above, 78b]:

The Sages concede to Rabbi Shimon regarding one who carries out waste liquids into the public domain, that their measure is a quarter-log. And we considered this: What use are waste liquids?

And Rabbi Yirmeya said: To knead mud with them.

Whereas after

they have been

kneaded, it is taught: Mud

whose measure is

enough to make with it the mouth of a large storage vessel.

Although less than a quarter-log of waste liquids is sufficient for this mud, it is significant because it has already been kneaded.

Why, then, did you say regarding leather that there is no distinction between tanned and untanned leather?

We resolve this:

There too, it is as we said: Because a person does not trouble himself to knead mud to make with it the mouth of a large storage vessel,

but kneads a greater quantity. Therefore, waste liquids are not significant in an amount less than a quarter-log. But kneaded mud is significant even in a smaller measure.

But regarding leather there is no difference between tanned and untanned leather.

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

Three stages in the process of tanning leather:

Unprocessed, salted, and parchment-like.

Each has a different measure with regard to carrying it out on Shabbat.

We explain:

Unprocessed—

as its plain meaning: neither salted

nor treated with flour nor treated with gall,

for the leather was treated neither with salt nor with flour [and water], nor processed with tannins [which grow on trees and are used in tanning]. That is, it has not been processed at all, like matza, which has neither leavened nor been prepared in the proper manner for bread .

And what is its measure

with regard to carrying it out?

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda taught: Enough to wrap

and enclose

a small weight in it.

For merchants customarily wrap a lead weight in leather so that it will not wear down and lose some of its weight.

And how much

is the size of the weight?

Abaye said: A quarter of a quarter—

a quarter of a litra

according to the measure of Pumbedita.

Salted—

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.

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

Parchment-like—

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 text of the bill of divorce, “Behold, you are permitted to any man,” together with his name, her name, the signatures of the witnesses, and the date]. This measure is the smallest of all.

In any event, it teaches

with regard to unprocessed leather:

Enough to wrap a small weight in it.

And Abaye said: A quarter of a quarter according to the measure of Pumbedita.

It is therefore evident that the measure of untanned leather is greater than enough to make an amulet, which presents a difficulty to Rav Naḥman.

We resolve this:

There—

with freshly stripped leather.

This refers to moist leather immediately after it has been stripped, which is still unfit for processing; therefore, its measure is greater than that of processed leather. But Rav Naḥman is speaking about leather that has already dried, and although it has not been processed, since it is fit for processing it is like processed leather, and their measures are equal.

We further challenge Rav Naḥman:

But we learned

in tractate Kelim:

A garment—

its measure is

three

handbreadths

by three

handbreadths

for

susceptibility to

midras impurity.

At this measure it is fit to be used for lying or sitting. If a zav 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.

All these measures, from a sack onward, were stated

both for

impurity of

midras

of a zav

and

for impurity through contact with a

corpse.

And it was taught concerning this: A garment, a sack, and leather—

the measure

stated for them

with regard to impurity, so is their measure

for

liability for

carrying

out

on Shabbat.

But five handbreadths is more than enough to make an amulet. Necessarily, the measure of five handbreadths is stated with regard to untanned leather, whereas the Mishna’s statement “enough to make an amulet” is speaking of tanned leather. This presents a difficulty to Rav Naḥman.

We resolve this:

That refers to kurṭovla,

leather hardened by boiling in hot water, which is fit only for sitting upon, covering beds, and making a table from it. Therefore, its measure is five handbreadths.