Shevuot 5b — the Talmud in English

And from where

that bringing in is also called taking out?

For it was taught

in tractate Shabbat, in the chapter Klal Gadol [73a], in the Mishna explaining the thirty-nine labors:

“One who takes out from one domain to another is liable!”

Are we not dealing with a case where he brings in

from the public domain to the private domain, since this transfer too is from one domain to another,

and he calls it taking out?

And the Gemara attempts to reject the proof:

Perhaps

the tanna speaks only when he

takes out from the private domain to the public domain

and that is why he says

“one who takes out”

from one domain to another?

And the Gemara rejects the rejection:

If so,

that the tanna speaks specifically of one who takes out from the private domain to the public domain,

let him teach: “One who takes out from the private domain to the public domain.” What

reason did the tanna use the expression

“from one domain to another”?

If only to tell you

that even from the public domain to the private domain—and he calls it taking out.

And the Gemara explains:

And the reason

for calling bringing in by the expression taking out,

what

is it? —

The tanna taught: Every uprooting of an object from its place—

he calls it taking out.

For the expression “taking out” refers to taking the object out of the place in which it is resting. And even when it is uprooted from the public domain, it is taken out of its place there.

Ravina said: Our Mishna

at the beginning of tractate Shabbat

also indicates

that the tanna calls bringing in by the expression taking out.

For it teaches: “The acts of taking out on Shabbat are two that are four

for the householder standing

inside, and two that are four

for the poor person standing

outside,” and he explains

which of the acts of taking out they are, and immediately at the beginning of his words he explains how the

bringing in

of the poor person from the public domain to the private domain is performed.

Learn from it

that bringing in too is an expression of taking out.

Rava said: It teaches “domains”

in the Mishna, and not “acts of taking out.” Therefore, it is not difficult why it calls bringing in taking out. And this is what the tanna of our Mishna says:

The domains of Shabbat

are

two,

namely, the private domain and the public domain. And through them there are two prohibitions for the one standing inside, and two prohibitions for the one standing outside.

We learned in the Mishna:

The appearances of afflictions—

two

primary categories,

which are four

together with their two derivatives.

The two primary categories and the two derivatives of the appearances of afflictions are learned from the verse: “When a person has on the skin of his flesh a swelling, or a scab, or a bright spot, and it becomes on the skin of his flesh an affliction of leprosy.” And we expound: The bright spot and the swelling are primary categories of afflictions, whereas the “scab” is not an affliction in itself, but is a designation for the two derivatives of the two primary categories, which are “attached” in the appearance of their whiteness, each derivative to its primary category.

And these are the appearances of whiteness of the primary categories and the derivatives:

The bright spot

has the appearance of the brightest whiteness, and appears like the whiteness of snow.

The swelling

is at the second level of whiteness, and appears like the whiteness of the clean wool of a lamb one day old.

The derivative of

the bright spot is at the third level of whiteness, and appears like the white plaster with which they would plaster the Sanctuary.

The derivative of the swelling

is at the fourth level of whiteness, and appears like the whiteness of an eggshell.

It was taught there,

at the beginning of tractate Nega’im:

“The appearances of afflictions are two

primary categories,

which are four

together with the two derivatives of the primary categories.

And these are the primary categories and the derivatives:

The bright spot

is the first primary category, whose whiteness is

strong as snow.

For it is the first level of whiteness!

The second to it,

its derivative, its whiteness is

like the plaster of the Sanctuary,

which is the third level of whiteness!

The swelling

is the second primary category, whose whiteness is

like white wool,

which is the second level of whiteness!

The second to it,

its derivative, its whiteness is

like an eggshell,

which is the fourth level of whiteness!

Until here is the language of the Mishna in tractate Nega’im.

And the practical difference resulting from dividing the four afflictions into two primary categories and their two derivatives is that each primary category combines with its derivative to complete the measure of a gris, which is the measure that renders one impure through afflictions!

Rabbi Hanina said: Who is the tanna

who taught the Mishna that

the appearances of afflictions

are divided into two primary categories and two derivatives—

not in accordance with Rabbi Akiva!

For if

our Mishna holds

like Rabbi Akiva, since he said

that the Sages arranged the four appearances according to the order of their degrees of whiteness,

“this one above that one, and this one above that one,”

so that we would know which appearance of an affliction combines with another to complete it to the measure of a gris [which is the smallest measure of an affliction that renders one impure through the impurity of afflictions], since only two appearances adjacent to one another in their degrees of whiteness combine, then if we divide the four appearances into two primary categories and their two derivatives, and they combine only as a primary category and its derivative, as we learned in the Mishna in tractate Nega’im,

if so, you have purified

the appearance of

the plaster of the Sanctuary from combining

half a gris measure of it with half the measure of any other affliction! For

with whom shall we combine it?

To which appearance of an affliction can the plaster of the Sanctuary be joined, according to Rabbi Akiva?

Let us combine it with the bright spot,

which is its primary category—but this is impossible according to Rabbi Akiva, who said that only two afflictions adjacent to one another in the degree of their whiteness combine. According to him, it is impossible to combine the appearance of white plaster, which is the third degree of whiteness, with the bright spot, which is the first degree. For between the bright spot and the plaster of the Sanctuary

there is the swelling,

which is at the second degree of whiteness,

which is superior to it,

for it is superior to the bright spot in combining with the plaster of the Sanctuary: the swelling is the second, adjacent to the third, whereas the bright spot is the first and is distant from the white plaster by two degrees of whiteness.

And if you say

let us combine it

with the plaster of the Sanctuary

with the swelling,

which is adjacent to it, then according to the tanna of our Mishna, who divides the four afflictions into two primary categories and two derivatives, it is impossible to combine the plaster of the Sanctuary with the swelling, since the plaster of the Sanctuary

is not a derivative

of it!

Therefore it is impossible to establish our Mishna as being in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, because according to him there must be no division into primary categories and derivatives. Rather, according to him the Mishna of the four appearances of afflictions must be taught according to the order of their whiteness: The bright spot is strong as snow, the swelling is like white wool, and the second to it are the plaster of the Sanctuary and the eggshell. And the fact that the appearances are taught one above the other teaches us that their combination is only between two adjacent appearances. According to Rabbi Akiva, the bright spot combines with the swelling adjacent to it, and the swelling with the plaster of the Sanctuary adjacent to it. Likewise, the plaster of the Sanctuary, which is third, can combine both with the swelling, which is second, and with the eggshell, which is fourth.

And we challenge this:

If so,

that you inferred that our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Akiva because it is impossible to combine the bright spot with the plaster of the Sanctuary since they are two degrees apart, and according to Rabbi Akiva a distance of two degrees between appearances prevents their combination,

the eggshell also

should pose a difficulty for you, since it is impossible to establish it as being in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, because

with whom shall we combine it?

If you say

let us combine it

with the eggshell

with the swelling, [

its father], this cannot be said according to Rabbi Akiva, for

there is plaster

of the Sanctuary between the swelling, which is at the second degree, and the eggshell, which is at the fourth degree,

which is superior to it,

the swelling. For the plaster of the Sanctuary is adjacent in its third degree to the eggshell, which is at the fourth degree, and according to Rabbi Akiva only appearances adjacent to one another combine!

And if you say

let us combine the eggshell with the plaster

of the Sanctuary, which is adjacent to it—

it is not of its kind!

For the eggshell is the derivative of the swelling, whereas the plaster of the Sanctuary is the derivative of the bright spot.

And since it is impossible to establish even the matter of the eggshell according to Rabbi Akiva, why did you not infer from it that the tanna of the appearances of afflictions is not in accordance with Rabbi Akiva?