What is Talmud Tweets?

What is Talmud Tweets? A short, personal take on a page of Talmud - every day!

For several years now, I have been following the tradition of "Daf Yomi" - reading a set page of Talmud daily. With the start of a new 7 1/2 year cycle, I thought I would share a taste of what the Talmud offers, with a bit of personal commentary included. The idea is not to give a scholarly explanation. Rather, it is for those new to Talmud to give a little taste - a tweet, as it were - of the richness of this text and dialogue it contains. The Talmud is a window into a style of thinking as well as the world as it changed over the centuries of its compilation.

These are not literal "tweets" - I don't limit myself to 140 characters. Rather, these are intended to be short, quick takes - focusing in on one part of a much richer discussion. Hopefully, I will pique your interest. As Hillel says: "Go and study it!" (Shabbat 31a)

Thursday, January 31, 2013

Shabbat 120 – Indirect Causes

One can make a barrier on Shabbat, the Mishnah states, to prevent a fire from spreading. Even barrier of vessels filled with water. But R. Jose forbids new earthenware vessels filled with water because they can burst and extinguish the flame.

Remember that putting out a fire is one of the primary categories of work, just as lighting a fire.

So what about this kind of indirect extinguishing. After all, the primary purpose is to make a barrier, not to put out the fire. It was not the plan (intention) that the vessels burst.

Our Rabbis taught: If a lamp is on a board, one may shake [tip up] the board and it [the lamp] falls off, and if it is extinguished, it is extinguished. The School of R. Jannai said: They learnt this only if one forgot [it there]; but if he placed [it there], it [the board] became a stand for a forbidden article.

Again, intention.

Another example:

A Tanna taught: If a lamp is behind a door, one may open and close [it] naturally, and if it is extinguished it is extinguished.

Rab cursed this [ruling].

While there is disagreement, it seems that the indirect is permissible as long as it is not used as an excuse to intentionally do something forbidden, and reasonable precautions (i.e. using fire-resistant vessels)  are taken.
Oh – and by the way:

If one has the [Divine] Name written (temporarily) on his skin, he must not bathe nor anoint [himself] nor stand in an unclean place.

Bathing is not the intention to erase the Divine name. But it is an inescapable consequence.

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Shabbat 119 – Shabbat Stories and G-d’s Partner in Creation

Some of the best “celebrating Shabbat” stories are right here on this Talmud page!

  • · “R. Hanina robed himself and stood at sunset of Sabbath eve [and] exclaimed, 'Come and let us go forth to welcome the queen Sabbath.’ (bou v’netza lekrat Shabbat haMalka)”
  • ·         A man known as ‘Joseph-who-honors-the-Sabbaths’ (Yosef Moker Shabbi) finds himself greatly rewarded, by way of a precious stone, a turban and a fish, for his constant Shabbat preparations.
  • ·         The Emperor (Hadrian) desires the “spice” of Shabbat which makes all the food taste so good, and R. Joshua ben Hanania explains that the spice is the experience.
  • ·         The two angels, one good and one evil, who accompany a man home from the synagogue on Shabbat. One of them, depending on the quality of the home experience, is required to bless for the coming weeks, the opposite of what that blessing angel represents.
  • ·         Jerusalem is destroyed because of the neglect of Shabbat

But I love this statement:
R. Hamnuna said: He who prays on the eve of the Sabbath and recites 'and [the heaven and the earth] were finished,' (Va-yekullu haShamayim va-Aretz) the Writ treats of him as though he had become a partner with the Holy One, blessed be He, in the Creation, for it is said, Va-yekullu [and they were finished]; read not Va-yekullu but Va-yekallu [and they finished].

Shabbat represents the partnership with G-d and humanity. We celebrate that partnership on this day. Then during the rest of the week we act on it!

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Shabbat 118 – Charitable Shabbat

A discussion of whether there are three meals eaten on Shabbat or, as R. Hidka suggests, four. He bases it on the Torah text: And Moses said, Eat that (manna) today; for today is a Sabbath unto the Lord: today you shall not find it in the field (Ex. 16:25). There being three “today”s in the text – the fourth being the dinner of Shabbat evening.

This becomes important in relation to the responsibilities of charity.

First, the responsibility of the recipient:

He who has food for two meals must not accept [relief] from the daily charity plate (tamhuy): food for fourteen meals, must not accept from the weekly communal distribution (kuppah)

The community has the responsibility to provide for the immediate needs and for the ongoing needs of the poor. The poor have the responsibility to not take more than they need. But if there are 3 meals on Shabbat the total should be 15, if 4 meals it should be 16! R. Akiva (the author of this text) suggests that one should reduce even the Shabbat joy rather than depend on charity for luxury. Fourteen meals, then, is sufficient.

However, this is counted by a different text:

Now, as to what we learnt: 'A poor man travelling from place to place must be given not less than a loaf . . . if he stays overnight, he must be given the requirements for spending the night; while if he spends the Sabbath there, he must be given food for three meals'

For Shabbat is a delight to all – even those who require charity:

R. Johanan said in R. Jose's name: He who delights in the Sabbath is given an unbounded heritage, for it is written, Then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord, and I will make thee to ride upon the high places of the earth; and I will feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father, (Isaiah 58:14).

Monday, January 28, 2013

Shabbat 117 – Saving Shabbat

We’ve discussed saving sacred writings, now on to more practical things.

The Mishnah states that if a fire breaks out on Shabbat, one is permitted to save enough food for three meals – that is, three human meals and meals for the animals.

That is conditional, however, on the time of day. This is – how many meals are left before the end of Shabbat. For example, if it is Shabbat evening before the meal – three meals worth of food may be saved. In the morning, two and the afternoon only one. (R. Jose disagrees and allows three meals at all times).

The rabbis discuss this and wonder why there are even any restrictions. After all, food can be carried on the Shabbat and if it is brought out into a permitted area (an eruv) why limit? It is a preventative measure:

Said Raba: Since a man is excited over his property, if you permit him [to save more], he may come to extinguish [the fire].

Similarly:
Our Rabbis taught: If one forgets a loaf in an oven, and the day becomes holy upon him, food for three meals may be saved, and he may say to others, 'Come and save for yourselves.'

That is – 3 meals for himself and 3 meals for anyone else who wants to take.

And when he removes [the bread], he must not remove it with a baker’s shovel (mardeh) but with a knife.

As much as is possible to vary (it) we do so.

We make Shabbat special – even in rescue!

Sunday, January 27, 2013

Shabbat 116 – Seven Books of Torah!

A Torah scroll is considered too worn to be rescued from a fire on Shabbat  if there are not 85 legible letters. This comes from the 85 letters in section from Numbers 10:35-36

And it came to pass, when the ark set forward, that Moses said, Rise up, Lord, and let your enemies be scattered; and let them who hate you flee before you. And when it rested, he said, Return, O Lord, to the many thousands of Israel.

This section is set off in the text with a large Hebrew letter NUN before and after. Rabbi regards this as a separate book entirely! With the preceding and subsequent sections included, it makes for seven books of Torah – referenced in the verse She [Wisdom] hath hewn out her seven pillars (Prov. 9:1).

Others argue that these NUN’s mark the section to indicate that it is in the wrong place in the narrative – inserted there for dramatic purposes – and will be returned to it’s proper place in the messianic era.

The page also has tirades against the books of the Minim – possibly Judeo-Christians. It is not entirely clear, since much of the Talmudic text relating to early Christianity (when it was still a Jewish sect) was edited out in the Middle Ages so as not to be mistakenly seen as a critique of modern Christianity. That, by itself, if a really interesting subject!

(note: a very interesting book on the subject is “Jesus in the Talmud” by Peter Schafer).

Shabbat 115 – Bible in Translation

The Mishnah on this page states:

ALL HOLY WRITINGS MUST BE SAVED FROM A FIRE, WHETHER WE READ THEM OR NOT; AND EVEN IF THEY ARE WRITTEN IN ANY LANGUAGE, THEY MUST BE HIDDEN.

That is, biblical texts – be they Torah scrolls or sections from the Prophets or Writings (anything from TaNaCh) must be rescued from a fire even on Shabbat. Now this might be obvious for Torah and Prophets which are read publicly (and ceremonially) – but it also includes sections which are NOT read publicly.

And even biblical texts which are written in translation are considered “sacred” and are not thrown out with unusable – they are stored in chambers (called geniza) until they can be buried.

The question remains if one breaks the Shabbat to save these translations from fire. It is a rabbinic controversy.  

Come and hear: If they are written in Egyptian, Median, a trans[-Euphratean] Aramaic, Elamitic, or Greek, though they may not be read (publicly), they may be saved from a fire.

R. Jose said: They may not be saved from a fire

What about other items written in Hebrew?

Our Rabbis taught: Benedictions and amulets, though they contain letters of the [Divine] Name and many passages of the Torah, must not be rescued from a fire (on Shabbat) but must be burnt where they lie.

The Bible, whether in Hebrew or in translation, is sacred.

Friday, January 25, 2013

Shabbat 114 – Sharp Dressed Rabbi

The Mishnah on the previous page permitted folding clothes on Shabbat for use on Shabbat (not for after).

The rabbis refined that to only permit new garments – presumably because of the inclination to put a crease in older clothes (harder to do with new ones) which would not be permitted.

All this leads to a discussion on our page about the importance of a scholar to appear in clean clothes in public:

R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: It is a disgrace for a scholar to go out with patched shoes into the market place.
and

Any scholar upon whose garment a [grease] stain is found is worthy of death.

Ok, they didn’t mean literally (can you imagine the courtroom scene? “Your honor, exhibit A – the offending stain!”) They meant that if a scholar wants to be treated with respect, he needs to treat himself with respect.

Even in the clothes he wears.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Shabbat 113 – Making Shabbat Different



An interpretation of Isaiah 58: 13-14 (note: King James translation)

13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:
14 Then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.

The school of Rabbi Jannai interprets:

'and thou shalt honour it', (note that KJV translates “honour him” – vs honoring the Sabbath) that thy Sabbath garments should not be like thy weekday garments, and even as R. Johanan called his garments 'My honourers'. (i.e. the clothes make the man).

'Not doing thine own ways', that thy walking on the Sabbath shall not be like thy walking on weekdays.

'Nor finding thine own affairs': (note KJV translates as “pleasure”) thine affairs are forbidden, the affairs of Heaven [religious matters] are permitted.

'Nor speaking thine own words:' that thy speech [conversation] on the Sabbath should not be like thy speech on weekdays. (i.e. business talk) 'Speaking': speech is forbidden, but thought [about mundane matters] is permitted.

Shabbat is existentially different, but we mark that difference for ourselves not just by our restrictions (the primary theme of the tractate) but by our actions.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Shabbat 112 – Sandals and Scholars

The Mishnah on the previous page discusses the tying and untying of knots on Shabbat. “Permanent” knots are not permitted, but “temporary” ones are. In the Mishnah, R. Meir says:

ANY KNOT WHICH ONE CAN UNTIE WITH ONE HAND ENTAILS NO GUILT.

The Mishnah goes on to specify items of women’s clothing, i.e. a laced up garment, ribbons and sandals which may be tied.

Our page goes into a long discussion about sandals, which knots are “permanent” and which are “temporary.” There is contradictory evidence about whether a sandal with a strap broken in public is considered like a utensil, which may be carried on Shabbat, or not. Complicated by the fact that a sandal can carry impurity (if worn by someone with a leprous condition or having a discharge) AND is also used for the ceremony of halitzah – a release by a widow of her bother-in-law’s biblical obligation to marry her. Sandals are complicated!

A debate over some of the details is held between Hezekiah and R. Johanan. When R. Johanan solves an especially tricky problem in a brilliant way, Hezekiah exclaims: “This one is not the son of man!” – A superhero rabbi.

Which leads to a comment about the loss of scholarship over the ages:

R. Zera said in Raba b. Zimuna's name: If the earlier [scholars] were sons of angels, we are sons of men; and if the earlier [scholars] were sons of men, we are like asses.

All over sandals and their knots!

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Shabbat 111 – Impotence, Castration and Sterilization


A certain potion of roots mixed with beer was noted as a cure for jaundice – but had a side effect of impotence. The question then becomes – is this permitted? Since the Torah forbids offering a castrated animals as a sacrifice (Lev. 22:24), the rabbis understand that castrating a human is forbidden. Even as an unintended consequence.

But it is a permitted remedy for one already “castrated” ? Or perhaps it (sterilization) is permitted to women - who are not obligated to procreate?

But R. Johanan b. Beroka notes the command to be “fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28) is addressed to both man and woman (“And God blessed them: and God said unto them”).

It seems, then, that this cure would not be allowed except for the elderly.

It’s a big topic handled in only a few sentences. There is more to discuss.

Monday, January 21, 2013

Shabbat 110 – Cures for What "Ales" You

Several more “cures” – so that one knows what cannot be taken on Shabbat.

A few ways to respond if one is being hunted by a snake (jump and ditch, cross a river, sleep in a bed set on for barrels set outside [so it can’t attack from the ceiling], tie four cats to the legs of the bed and put plants fronds under the bed so the cats can hear when the snake is approaching and eat it. Bet you never thought of that!)

Also, how to extract a snake which has entered a woman’s uterus (did such things happen?). You don’t want to know.

The page also contains extensive and increasingly bizarre treatments for a woman who is a zabba – one having a non-menstrual discharge (i.e. gonorrhea) to cure and keep her from being barren. Also cures for jaundice but which will make a man impotent.

On the positive side, though, there is a recipe for Egyptian beer: one part barley (or wheat – there is some disagreement), one part safflower, and one part salt. When drunk after Passover until Shavuot it is a laxative for the constipated and a binding agent for those with diarrhea.

You’re welcome.

Sunday, January 20, 2013

Shabbat 109 – Deadly Wounds

Following on the principle on the previous page regarding healing on Shabbat, this page contains many kinds of plants and foods which have medicinal properties; including several cures for intestinal worms and snakebites. In general those things which can be used only for cures (i.e. plants which are normally not eaten) are not permitted on Shabbat.

Fascinating to read these “home remedies” from so long ago.

And then, there is a story:

Rabina visited R. Ashi (on the Sabbath): He saw that an ass had trodden on his foot, and he was sitting and reducing the swelling in vinegar. Said he to him, “Do you not accept R. Hillel's statement ‘Not vinegar’?”

“[A swelling on] the hand or on the foot is different,” he replied, “for R. Adda b. Mattenah said in Rab's name, [A blow on] the hand or on the foot is like an internal wound, and the Sabbath may be desecrated on its account.”

“Healing” is not permitted on the Sabbath, but saving a life – of course – is.

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Shabbat 108 – Healing Salt

The Mishnah forbids preparing pickling brine on Shabbat – but allows preparing salt water for eating or putting in stew. What is the difference?

Said Rab Judah in Samuel's name, He means this: One may not prepare a large quantity of salt water, but one may prepare a small quantity of salt water.

Well, that gets a little tricky to define. But, maybe it’s not quantity but quality?

R. Judah b. Habiba recited: We may not prepare strong salt water.

Ok – now define “strong” salt water:

Rabbah and R. Joseph b. Abba both say: Such that an egg floats in it.

And how much is that? — Said Abaye: Two parts of salt and one part of water.

This reminds us of the Dead Sea! Funny you should mention it. . .

When R. Dimi came, (to Babylon from Palestine) he said: ‘No man ever sank in the Lake of Sodom.’

R. Joseph observed: Sodom was overturned and that statement was overturned! ‘No man sank in it’ – but, what, a plank of wood did?

R. Joseph’s sarcastic comment is countered by Abaye:

He states the more surprising thing. It is unnecessary [to mention] a plank, seeing that it does not sink in any water; but not even a man, who sinks in all [other] waters of the world, [ever] sank in the Lake of Sodom.

All of this is necessary as an discussion of the healing properties of the Dead Sea (considered so even today!). Since healing a wound is not permitted on Shabbat (unless it is life-threatening) because we might be tempted to crush medicines, etc. – what about using the healing properties of the salt water?

it once happened that Rabin was walking behind R. Jeremiah by the bank of the Lake of Sodom, (modern “Dead Sea)” [and] he asked him, 'May one wash with this water on the Sabbath (in order to heal)?'

'It is well,' he replied.

'Is it permissible to shut and open' (one's eyes with drops of Dead Sea water in order to heal them?)

'I have not heard this', he answered, [but] I have heard something similar:;. . .one said: [To put] 'wine into one's eye is forbidden; [to put it] on the eye, is permitted.'

Dead Sea water applied directly in the eye (ouch!) could only be for healing. Around the eye (less ouch!) could be for other reasons. That is to say: if the purpose is not obviously one of healing, - maybe you’re just bathing in the salt water - it is permitted. But if it is applied directly for healing, it is not.

This is not just about Dead Sea water, but other things which can be "dual purpose" - for healing and for other uses. Ambiguity matters!

Friday, January 18, 2013

Shabbat 107 – Life of Pests


In the Kosher laws enumerated in Leviticus 11, The Torah mentions eight “reptiles” (Sherazim) – really “creeping things” or “vermin” – which are considered “unclean” (note that they do not appear in the parallel Kosher list in Deuteronomy 14).

The Mishnah states that capturing or wounding them on Shabbat is a culpable offense.

Since you asked, the eight are (according to the New JPS translation):

The mole, the mouse, great lizards of every variety; the gecko, the land crocodile, the lizard, the sand lizard, and the chameleon. (Lev. 11:29-30)

For other worms, snakes and insects – capturing them out of need (i.e. milking a snake for its venom) is forbidden, but to prevent biting or just to keep them from away from people is allowed.
But in any case, killing – even vermin – on Shabbat is not allowed.

Said R. Jeremiah, It is R. Eliezer. For it was taught, R. Eliezer said: He who kills vermin on the Sabbath is as though he killed a camel on the Sabbath.

Why?

a Master said: ‘The Holy One, blessed be He, sits and sustains [all creatures], from the horns of wild oxen to the eggs of vermin’

You may not care about the life of a vermin – but G-d does! On Shabbat we respect the sacredness of all life. Even pests.

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Shabbat 106 - Animal Traps

Trapping an animal, or bird on Shabbat is forbidden (fish and insects are not mentioned in the Mishnah, but the rabbis include them). But what is "trapping"? Forcing say a deer into a house is clear, but what about into a garden or an animal sanctuary?

R. Judah and the sages disagree on the definition. Some try to leave that disagreement alone but that doesn't go over too well ("should we learn the tradition as if it were a mere song?" [just repeating the words without thinking about the meaning] Abaye says, sarcastically.

So R. Shimon ben Gamliel comes up with a compromise: it depends on the size of the garden:

"Said R. Ashi: Where one can run after and catch it with a single lunge, that is a small sanctuary (where one is liable) any other is large (where one is exempt)."

Or if the shadows of the walls overlap, or if there are recesses for an animal to hide - it is considered "small" and therefore a forbidden trap.

"THIS IS THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE: IF IT [STILL] NEEDS TO BE CAUGHT, HE IS EXEMPT IF IT DOES NOT STILL NEED TO BE CAUGHT, HE IS LIABLE." The Mishnah says.

And just to cap the discussion:

"Jeremiah b. Abba said in Samuel's name: If one catches a lion on the Sabbath he is not culpable unless he entices it into its cage."

As opposed to all the other ways we might catch a lion. Glad we got THAT settled!

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Shabbat 105 – Word Games


An expansion of the idea that two letters can stand for a full word – one word can stand for a whole phrase. Thus an interpretation of the very first word of the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:1): “Anochi” – “I” (as in “I am the Lord your God” - more formal than the common for word "I" - Ani).

Anochi” is made up of the Hebrew letters Aleph, Nun, Kaf, Yud.

“Rabbi Johanan on his own authority” (a rare phrase by itself – the rabbis generally prefer to attribute to elders) said:

Aleph = “Ana” : “I”
Nun = “Nafshi” : “Myself”
Kaf = “Kativat” : “Have Written”
Yud = “Yehabit” : “The Script”

A Divine attribution to the Ten Commandments!

Others read it backwards:

Yud = “Yehabiah” : “Was Given”
Kaf = “K’tivah” : “Scripture”
Nun = “Ne’eman” : “Faithful”
Alef = “Amreha” : “Her words”

Grammatical interpellation:

           “Scripture was given [to humanity]. Faithful are its words”

So much contained in a simple word: "I"!

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Shabbat 104 - Alphabet Lessons

A meditation on the Hebrew letters is sparked by a statement about the Ten Commandments.

It is a common rabbinic assumption that the words of the Ten Commandments were not just inscribed on the stone tablets, they were written all the way through, piercing the stone so it could be read on both sides. Two letters, though, the final "mem" and the "samech" are completely closed letters (like the English "O"). So how could they stand in the tablets?

By a miracle.

This leads to a lovely set of stories about each of the letters and some combinations. These come from children's tales. For example, the first two letters "aleph" and "bet" together make the phrase "aleph bina" which means "learn wisdom." "Gimmel" and "Daled" mean "gemol dallim" which means "show kindness to the poor."

If so, the shape of the letters also tell a story:

"Why is the foot of the "Gimmel" stretched toward the "Daled"? Because it is fitting for the benevolent to run after [reach out to] the poor. And why is the top of the "Daled" stretched out toward the "Gimmel"? Because he [the poor] must make himself available. And why is the face of the "Daled" turned away from the "Gimmel"? Because he must give [help] in secret, lest he be ashamed."

There is much more. How beautiful that even the shape of the letters can tech us lessons in kindness!

Monday, January 14, 2013

Shabbat 103 – Finished Writing


Continuing from the past page with rules on building, hammering and boring a hole on Shabbat: specifics and a principle:

THIS IS THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE: WHOEVER DOES WORK ON THE SABBATH AND HIS WORK ENDURES, IS CULPABLE.

So along with the concept of enduring (that is not necessarily “completing” – but to a point where it is meaningful on its own) we come to writing:

HE WHO WRITES TWO LETTERS, WHETHER WITH HIS RIGHT OR WITH HIS LEFT HAND, OF THE SAME DESIGNATION OR OF TWO DESIGNATIONS OR IN TWO PIGMENTS, IN ANY LANGUAGE, IS CULPABLE.

Now, as to the nod to left handed people – it is my opportunity to be righteously indignant. The Gemara refers to right handed writing as the “usual” so why even bother talking about left handed writing? Just let the left handed person conceptually switch: “Then let his left hand be as the right hand of all [other] people, and so let him be liable on account of his left, but not his right hand?”

No – he’s actually left handed!

But enough of that. The question really is, what is a “completion” of writing? Writing one letter (or mark) is not because it cannot stand on its own. Two letters have at least the potential of carrying meaning for two reasons: a mark indicating alignment, or abbreviations of words.

SAID R. JOSE: THEY DECLARED ONE CULPABLE [FOR WRITING] TWO LETTERS ONLY BECAUSE [HE MAKES] A MARK, BECAUSE THUS DID THEY WRITE ON EACH BOARD OF THE TABERNACLE, TO KNOW WHICH WAS ITS COMPANION.

That is, some kind of an alignment marking: A – A, for example, written when the boards are in place, so that they can be reassembled correctly later.

R. JUDAH SAID: WE FIND A SHORT NAME [FORMING PART] OF A LONG NAME: SHEM (two letters: ShM) AS PART OF SHIME'ON (ShMoN) OR SHEMUEL (ShML) (several other examples follow)

So even though the goal of writing a longer name is not completed, the act of writing a shorter name (even if inadvertent) is.

So these two letters "endure" as they carry meaning. Thus the power of the written word!

Sunday, January 13, 2013

Shabbat 102 - Throw and Catch; It's a Dog's Life

This page begins a new section dealing with laws of "building." But before we get there, one last thing having to do with "carrying" - throwing:

IF ONE THROWS [AN ARTICLE] AND RECALLS [THAT IT IS THE SABBATH] AFTER IT LEAVES HIS HAND, AND ANOTHER CATCHES IT, OR A DOG CATCHES IT, OR IT IS BURNT (by falling into a furnace), HE IS NOT LIABLE.

Now this is pretty interesting. An action (throwing) is begun and remembering occurs after the object is no longer under the person's control: he is free of culpability (for Sabbath violations - he would still have to pay for any damages!) this would not be the case if, for example, the object was tied to his hand with a chord and he could pull it back before it landed!

"Remembering" by the way, could be either that the day is Shabbat, or that throwing is not permitted on Shabbat.

And here, the Mishnah gives a general principle:

ALL WHO ARE LIABLE TO SIN-OFFERINGS ARE LIABLE ONLY IF THE BEGINNING AND THE END [OF THE FORBIDDEN ACTION] ARE UNWITTING.

The Talmud then discusses an absurd circumstance to help understand the general principle:

"[What if the object travels] two cubits unwittingly, two cubits deliberately, and two cubits unwittingly"

That is: he throws, remembers, and then forgets again, all before the object lands. Wow, forgetful tosser! Actually there is disagreement about his liability. Also if a dog catches it. It depends: was that his intention? Or is this a last minute excuse to get around the law?

Don't use this as an way to play catch with Rover! At least not on Shabbat.

Saturday, January 12, 2013

Shabbat 101 – Ship Ahoy!

The Mishnah (from the previous page) refers to ships which are connected – are they one space or two?

IF SHIPS ARE TIED TOGETHER, ONE MAY CARRY FROM ONE TO ANOTHER. IF THEY ARE NOT TIED TOGETHER, THOUGH LYING CLOSE [TO EACH OTHER], ONE MAY NOT CARRY FROM ONE TO ANOTHER. (100b)

In other words, there must be some kind of physical connection holding the ships together.
This becomes clarified with an extra-mishnah text (a beritah):

it was taught: If ships are tied to each other, one may combine them and carry from one to another. If they become separated, they are prohibited. If they are rejoined, whether in ignorance or willfully, accidentally or erroneously, they revert to their original permitted condition.

This becomes much like an eruv ; a string tied around an area of virtually any size – but unbroken – which creates a kind of artificial “private space.” Tying two ships together makes them one “private space” – and even if they become separated and then rejoined they become one again. And, according to Samuel, they can be tied together with anything that will hold – a chain, a rope or even a ribbon.

Keep that rope handy!

Friday, January 11, 2013

Shabbat 100 – Relativity and Gravity


Objects at rest – how are they regarded in terms of “carrying out”?

For example, a thrown object. We have learned (Shabbat 7a-b) that if an object is thrown between a private and a public area, if it travels less than 4 cubits or over 10 cubits high, the thrower is not liable.
But what if it lands on a sloped area which is within 4 cubits distance and then it rolls beyond the limit? The Mishnah states:

IF ONE THROWS[ [AN OBJECT] WITHIN FOUR CUBITS BUT IT ROLLS BEYOND FOUR CUBITS, HE IS NOT CULPABLE;
BEYOND FOUR CUBITS BUT IT ROLLS WITHIN FOUR CUBITS, (by the wind, for example) HE IS CULPABLE

But Rabbi Johanan says: “Providing it rests [beyond four cubits] on something”

The object at rest is its definition of distance.

However, Rab Judah said in Rab’s name regarding a very steep slope: “If a [sloping] mound attains [a height of] ten [handbreadths] within [a distance of] four, and one throws [an object] and it alights on top of it, he is culpable”

Gravity, it seems, is inevitable. The wind is not.

Objects on top of other objects are also interesting. For example, a nut landing on water is “not at rest” (natural state).  Here is where it is interesting:

Raba propounded: If a nut [lies] in a vessel, and the vessel floats on water, what [is the law]? Do we regard the nut, and behold it is at rest; or do we regard the vessel, and behold it is not at rest?

The question is not answered – but it is a classic question of Relativity! The reality depends on perspective.

Einstein’s Physics in Talmud? Not exactly. But fun to read with modern eyes. That is also relative!

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Shabbat 99 - The Well

In defining "public spaces" we have dealt with heights - particularly when thrown objects alight on a pillar or balcony. But depth counts, too.

The Mishnah deals with a cistern with a bank around it - if combined they are 10 x 4 handbreaths (height x breath) it is considered "public". Smaller, and it is private and water can be drawn.

But the rabbis teach "for a cistern in public ground ten [handbreadths] deep and four broad [square]. We may not draw [water] from it on the Sabbath, unless a wall ten handbreadths high is made around it; and one may not drink from it on the Sabbath unless he brings his head and the greater part of his body into it."

The well (deep) becomes defined as a separated space with a wall (height).

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Shabbat 98 - Covered Wagons

The Torah gives precise measurements of all the parts of the Tabernacle. The Talmud here goes into even greater detail about the floorboards and how they might have fit in the wagons which transported them while the Israelites were wandering. Why?

Because of the principle that "if one carries [an article in public on Shabbat] four cubits in a covered public ground, he is liable."

You might think that because the wagons carrying the boards of the Tabernacle were covered, it would be considered private space. But the rabbis go to some length to show that there was open space beneath or between the boards as they were transported, making them public.

It might feel like much ado about nothing, but this is how they try to anchor the rulings. Everything is subject to inquiry.

Public Space Wagons, Ho!

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Shabbat 97 - Good Comes Faster Than Evil

Commenting on this scene from Exodus, when G-d demonstrates power to Moses:

"And the Lord said furthermore to him, Put now your hand into your bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom; and when he took it out, behold, his hand was diseased, white as snow."

"And he said, Put your hand into your bosom again. And he put his hand into his bosom again; and plucked it from his bosom, and, behold, it was turned again as his other flesh." (Ex. 4: 6-7)

Raba (or according to others Jose b. R. Hanin) noted that "The dispensation of good comes more quickly than that of punishment [evil]."

Why? Note the language: when his hand became leperous:

and when he took it out, behold, his hand was diseased

That is, it became white after he took it out and observed it.

But when it was cured:

and plucked it from his bosom, and, behold, it was turned again as his other flesh

It was normal before it was removed!

Nice to feel that G-d's presence comes faster than absence.

Monday, January 7, 2013

Shabbat 96 - Father of Daughters

Throwing, carrying and other principal and derivative labors are discussed. But the Torah also gives an example of "gathering" which is forbidden.

And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. (Num. 15:32)

That unnamed man is put to death for his crime.

R. Akiva here identifies him as Zelophehad, the father of daughters who challenged the law of inheritance which excluded women - even if there were no brothers to carry on the family name. Their father "died in the wilderness" (Num. 27:3), while unnamed gatherer was found (and executed) "in the wilderness" the rabbis decide that they are one and the same.

But Akiva gets in a bit of trouble for this:

"Said R. Judah b. Bathyra to him, ‘Akiba! in either case you will have to give an account [for your statement]: if you are right, the Torah shielded him (by not naming him), while you reveal him; and if not, you cast a stigma upon a righteous man.’"

Akiva's trouble arrives in part because there is no tradition of this reading. Be careful when you touch someone's reputation - especially a father of daughters!

Sunday, January 6, 2013

Shabbat 95 – 'Just Because'

As noted, any action forbidden on Shabbat must fall into one of the 39 categories of “work” defined by the rabbis as actions involved in the construction of the Tabernacle. Sometimes, it is a bit of creative work to figure out what category things fall into. For example, the Mishnah states that a woman plaiting her hair, painting her eyelids or putting rouge on her face is liable (although there is debate about whether these are biblical or rabbinic).

The Talmudic text debates what categories these fall into. Is plaiting the hair “weaving”? Is it “building”? (note this sweet midrash: And the Lord God builded the rib [… into a woman]: (Gen. 2:22) this teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, plaited Eve['s hair] and brought her to Adam, for in the sea-towns plaiting is called 'building'. )

But a story of told of one rabbi who didn’t bother trying to fit things into categories.

R. Nahman b. Guria visited Nehardea. He was asked. If one milks, on what score is he culpable? On the score of milking, He replied. If one sets milk, or what score is he culpable? On the score of setting milk, he replied. If one makes cheese, on what score is he liable? On account of making cheese, he replied.

In other words, R. Nahman’s responds to the people – “just because.” That does not fly. And the people knew it:

"Your teacher must have been a reed-cutter in a marsh," they jeered at him.

R. Nahman goes back to the study hall and gets the answers (milking is like “unloading”, setting milk is like “selecting”). The people were right not to accept high-handed answer.

The result is not the point, the process is. And it is not arbitrary. There has to be a logical reason for a law, particularly a restriction – ultimately backed by text.

The answer is never: “Just because.”

Saturday, January 5, 2013

Shabbat 94 - Carrying a Horse

The Mishnah from page 93b states that if you carry out something – say food – which is less than the minimum quantity, but carry it out in a dish, bowl or other kind of utensil, you are liable for carrying out the utensil because it is “subsidiary” (taflah) to the item.

What is discussed on this page has to do with other subsidiaries. For example:

[IF ONE CARRIES OUT] A LIVING PERSON IN A BED, HE IS NOT CULPABLE EVEN IN RESPECT OF THE BED (BECAUSE THE BED IS SUBSIDIARY TO HIM)

That is because carrying a living person is not a culpable offense. So carrying him in a bed is not either, because the bed is subsidiary.

That subsidiary idea carries to animals as well. However there is a discussion about the difference between a live animal, which could carry itself, and a dead one which “stiffens.”

An analogy is given in respect to a living horse. One is not allowed to sell cattle to a Gentile because it may be used for plowing on Shabbat. A horse, though, may be sold – because at that time they were not used as draught animals, only for riding. Similarly – a horse carries itself!

Friday, January 4, 2013

Shabbat 93 – Two By Two

The discussion up until now has been one person moving one object from one domain to another (between public and private) on Shabbat. But what if TWO people move one object?

IF ONE CARRIES OUT A LOAF INTO THE STREET, HE IS CULPABLE; IF TWO CARRY IT OUT, THEY ARE NOT CULPABLE. IF ONE COULD NOT CARRY IT OUT AND TWO CARRY IT OUT, THEY ARE CULPABLE; BUT R. SIMEON EXEMPTS [THEM]

How so? The rabbis interpret this through the biblical verse: And if one person of the common people shall sin unwittingly, in his doing. . . (Lev. 4:27)

Rabbi Simon reads the sentence to list 3 limitations based on: “person”, “one shall sin” and “in his doing”

1.  excludes the case where one person moves an article from one domain and a second person puts it in the other domain
2.  excludes the case whereby each of these two individuals has the ability to perform the action
3. excludes where neither of them is able to perform the action alone.

And yet, they don’t agree! Rabbi Judah, reading the same text see different limitations

1. excludes [the case where] one [person] removes and another deposits
2. excludes [the case of] each being able
3.  excludes [the case of] an individual who acts on the ruling of Beth din (Rabbinic court)

And Rabbi Meir sees only two limitations from the same text but reading only “one person” and “in his doing”:

1. excludes [the case where] one removes and another deposits
2. excludes [the case of] an individual who acts on the ruling of Beth din

All from the same text. This is the fun of close reading!

Thursday, January 3, 2013

Shabbat 92 – What Do the Simple Folk Do?

The Mishnah on this page makes clear that the manner of “carrying out” matters. That is:

IF ONE CARRIES OUT [AN ARTICLE], WHETHER WITH HIS RIGHT OR WITH HIS LEFT [HAND], IN HIS LAP OR ON HIS SHOULDER, HE IS CULPABLE, BECAUSE THUS WAS THE CARRYING OF THE CHILDREN OF KOHATH

That is the Biblical tribe of Levites who had the obligation of carrying by hand some articles of the tabernacle: But to the sons of Kohath he gave [no wagons]; because the service of the sanctuary belonging to them was that they should carry upon their shoulders (Num. 7:8). And the general principle is that the categories of Sabbath laws all relate to the Tabernacle (see Shabbat 49b).

However, the corollary is that those who carry (in public on Shabbat) in a non-standard way are not culpable, because. . .

HE HAS NOT CARRIED [IT] OUT AS PEOPLE [GENERALLY] CARRY OUT

“Non-standard” being, for example:

WITH HIS FOOT, IN HIS MOUTH, WITH HIS ELBOW, IN HIS EAR, IN HIS HAIR, IN HIS BELT WITH ITS OPENING DOWNWARDS, BETWEEN HIS BELT AND HIS SHIRT, IN THE HEM OF HIS SHIRT, IN HIS SHOES OR SANDALS

But, then, we have an interesting controvery:

Rab said on R. Hiyya's authority: If one carries out a burden on his head on the Sabbath, he is liable to a sin-offering, because the people of Huzal do thus.

Huzal is a place mentioned several times in the Talmud. It may refer to a village in Israel north of Jerusalem, or to a place in Babylonia (see Ketubot 111a, for example). In any case, it seems to be a place where the custom was to carry burdens on one’s head without holding it. So, should this be the universal standard?

Are then the people of Huzal the world's majority! Rather if stated, it was thus stated: Rab said on R. Hiyya's authority: if a Huzalite carries out a burden on his head on the Sabbath, he is liable to a sin-offering, because his fellow-citizens do thus.

In other words, if it is a local custom, then the penalty is in force.

But let his practice be null by comparison with that of all men?

It is a non-standard practice outside of Huzal. So, why should this small example apply to everyone else?

Rather if stated, it was thus stated: If one carries out a burden on his head, he is not culpable. And should you object, ‘But the people of Huzal do thus’, their practice is null by comparison with that of all men.

Or, another way of saying it might: what happens in Huzal stays in Huzal.

More interestingly, it gives an indication that local practice can determine the application of Jewish law. We have to pay attention to what the people are actually doing and modify accordingly; in this case more strictly, other times more leniently. Another example of the flexibility of Jewish law.

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Shabbat 91 – Thresholds

We have been clear about the private space, where one can carry on Shabbat – and the public space, where one cannot carry on Shabbat – and that we cannot move something forbidden between the public and the private space. But what about the transition area?

Mishnah: IF ONE CARRIES OUT FOOD AND PLACES IT ON THE THRESHOLD, WHETHER HE [HIMSELF] SUBSEQUENTLY CARRIES IT OUT [INTO THE STREET] OR ANOTHER DOES SO, HE IS NOT CULPABLE, BECAUSE THE [WHOLE] ACT WAS NOT PERFORMED AT ONCE.  

That does not seem reasonable – isn’t the threshold simply part of either the public or the private domain? No, it belongs to a third category: karmelet (which we learned about on 6a).

Karmelet is a special space, not exactly private and not exactly public. It can be a little trafficked area in the public sphere, like the section off the main thoroughfare. Here, though, the threshold of a private home is considered this in-between, non-specific space.

[IF ONE CARRIES OUT] A BASKET WHICH IS FULL OF PRODUCE AND PLACES IT ON THE OUTER THRESHOLD, THOUGH MOST OF THE PRODUCE IS OUT (in the street), HE IS NOT CULPABLE UNLESS HE CARRIES OUT THE WHOLE BASKET.

What is fascinating is the nature of the basket – is that what ties the whole thing together?

Hezekiah said: They learnt this only of a basket full of cucumbers and gourds; but if it is full of mustard, he is culpable.

What’s different? Cucumbers and gourds, being long, can be in both spaces at once. Mustard, being small, is either in the private or the public – even if it is in the basket which is technically in both spaces. So the basket does not make it whole – it’s the object itself. Even in a transition space.

I find transitions fascinating. Jewish tradition likes to focus on categories of one or the other: kosher or not, Shabbat or weekday, public or private. That is where most of us live. But it is the space of transition – like havdalah – where the interesting things take place.

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Shabbat 90 – Wisdom Charm


The general principle (see Shbaat 75b) is that whatever is fit to be “put away” – that is, things that are generally saved for later use, indicating that they are valuable, are exactly the things which cannot be carried in public on Shabbat. These are plants, dyes, medicines, etc. But although the general principle has been explicated, there are many specific examples. Those continue on this page, including perfumes, scraps of metal – and, interestingly, the “moth-eaten [Torah] scrolls or their moth-eaten mantles” which are stored away to be “hidden.”

By looking at these specifics we see a lot of about the uses of certain materials at their time. Some are so specific, it is hard to imagine that rabbis intended their statements to be for all time.For example natron (natar) – a kind of soda ash which can be used for cleaning: The rabbis make it clear: “Alexandrian natron, but not natron of Antipatris.”

Obviously a difference which made a great deal of sense to them, but difficult for us to reconstruct.

More insight to the life of their times: it seems clear that locusts were kept as children’s pets!

But this “charm” charmed me.

The Mishnah speaks of a “Bird of the Vineyards” (tziporet karmayim) which cannot be carried out in any size, dead or alive. This seems to be not a bird at all, but a species of locust. And it has a use as a wisdom charm:

"Abaye observed: And it is found in a palm tree of [only] one covering, and it is prepared [as food] for [acquiring] wisdom; one eats half of its right [side] and half of its left, places it [the rest] in a brass tube and seals it with sixty [i.e., many] seals and suspends it around his left arm;

and the proof-text is. A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart is at his left.(Eccl. 10:2)"

(Ok, as a left-handed person, I am insulted. But let’s continue:)


"He acquires as much wisdom as he desires, studies as much as he desires, and [then] eats the other half, for if [he does] not, his learning will vanish."

A charm which involves an action to turn it on (eating half), wearing an amulet, and then eating something (the other half) to turn it off. 

Try it!