Previous Folio / Shabbath Contents / Tractate List / Navigate Site
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Shabbath
MISHNAH. IF ONE THROWS [AN ARTICLE] AND RECALLS [THAT IT IS THE SABBATH] AFTER IT LEAVES HIS HAND, AND ANOTHER CATCHES IT,1 OR A DOG CATCHES IT. OR IT IS BURNT, HE IS NOT LIABLE.2 IF ONE THROWS [AN ARTICLE] IN ORDER TO INFLICT A WOUND. WHETHER IN MAN OR IN BEAST, AND HE RECALLS [THAT IT IS THE SABBATH] BEFORE THE WOUND IS INFLICTED. HE IS NOT LIABLE THIS IS THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE: ALL WHO ARE LIABLE TO SIN-OFFERINGS ARE LIABLE ONLY IF THE BEGINNING AND THE END [OF THE FORBIDDEN ACTION] ARE UNWITTING. IF THEIR BEGINNING IS UNWITTING WHILE THEIR END IS WILFUL, IF THEIR BEGINNING IS WILFUL WHILE THEIR END IS UNWITTING. THEY ARE NOT LIABLE, UNLESS THEIR BEGINNING AND END ARE UNWITTING.
GEMARA. Hence if it alighted, he is liable:3 But surely he did not remind himself, and we learnt, ALL WHO ARE LIABLE TO SIN-OFFERINGS ARE LIABLE ONLY IF THE BEGINNING AND THE END [OF THE FORBIDDEN ACTION] ARE UNWITTING? Said R. Kahana: The last clause is applicable to a bolt and a cord.4 [You say.] 'A bolt and a cord'! But is not its tie in his hand?5 — It means, e.g., that he intended to inflict a wound. But this too we learnt:6 IF ONE THROWS [AN ARTICLE] IN ORDER TO INFLICT A WOUND, WHETHER IN MAN OR IN BEAST, AND HE RECALLS [THAT IT IS THE SABBATH] BEFORE THE WOUND IS INFLICTED, HE IS NOT LIABLE? — Rather said Raba: It refers to one who carries.7 But the statement, THIS IS THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE, is stated with reference to throwing? Rather said Raba: Two [contingencies] are taught. [Thus:] IF ONE THROWS [AN ARTICLE] AND RECALLS [that it is the Sabbath] after it leaves his hand, or even if he does not recall [it], but ANOTHER CATCHES IT, OR A DOG CATCHES IT, OR IT IS BURNT, HE IS NOT LIABLE' — R. Ashi said: It [the Mishnah] is defective, and teaches this: '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, HE IS NOT LIABLE.8 But if it alights, he is liable. That, however, is said only if he forgot again;9 but if he did not forget again, he is not liable, because ALL WHO ARE LIABLE TO SIN-OFFERINGS ARE LIABLE ONLY IF THE BEGINNING AND THE END [OF THE FORBIDDEN ACTION] ARE UNWITTING'.
THIS IS THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE: ALL WHO ARE LIABLE TO SIN-OFFERINGS. etc. It was stated: [If the object travels] two cubits unwittingly, two cubits deliberately, and two cubits unwittingly.10 — Rabbah ruled, He [the thrower] is not liable; Raba said: He is liable. 'Rabbah ruled, He is not liable': even according to R. Gamaliel. who maintained. Knowledge in respect of half the standard is of no consequence,11 that is [only] there, because when he completes the standard, he completes it unwittingly, but here that [he completes it] wilfully, it is not so. But to what [does this refer]? If to one who throws, [surely] he is an unwitting offender?12 — Rather it must refer to one who carries. 'Raba said, He is liable': even according to the Rabbis, who maintained, Knowledge in respect of half the standard is of consequence: that is [only] there, because it is in his power,13 but here that it is not in his power, it is not so. But to what [does this refer]? If to one who carries, surely it is in his power? Rather it must refer to one who throws.14
Raba said: If one throws [an article] and it falls into the mouth of a dog or a furnace, he is culpable. But we learnt, AND ANOTHER CATCHES IT, OR A DOG CATCHES IT, OR IT IS BURNT, HE IS NOT LIABLE? — There that is not his intention; here this is his intention. R. Bibi b. Abaye said, We too have learnt [thus]: A person may eat once, and be liable to four sin-offerings and one guilt-offering on account thereof, [viz.:] All unclean person who eats heleb, which is nothar15 of sacred food [sacrifices] on the Day of Atonement.16 R. Meir said: If in addition it is the Sabbath, and he carries it out in his mouth, he is liable.17 Said they to him, That does not fall under this designation.18 Yet why so? Surely this is not the normal way of carrying out?19 But [what you must say is.] since he intends it this, his design renders it [his mouth) the [right] place;20 so here too, since he intends [it this].21 his design renders it [the mouth of the dog or of the furnace] a place [for depositing]
MISHNAH. IF ONE BUILDS HOW MUCH MUST HE BUILD TO BE CULPABLE? HE WHO BUILDS HOWEVER LITTLE, AND HE WHO CHISELS, AND HE WHO STRIKES WITH A HAMMER OR WITH AN ADZE, AND HE WHO BORES [A HOLE], HOWEVER LITTLE,1 IS CULPABLE. THIS IS THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE: WHOEVER DOES WORK ON THE SABBATH AND HIS WORK ENDURES,2 IS CULPABLE. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: HE TOO IS CULPABLE WHO BEATS WITH THE SLEDGE HAMMER ON THE ANVIL AT THE TIME OF HIS WORK, BECAUSE HE IS AS ONE WHO IMPROVES HIS WORK.3
GEMARA. 'HOWEVER LITTLE' — what is that fit for? — Said R. Jeremiah: Because a poor man digs a hole to hide his perutoth therein.4 Similarly in connection with the Tabernacle5 such a labour was performed because those who sewed the curtain dug holes to put away their needles therein. Said Abaye. Since they would rust, they would not do so! Rather [say]: because a poor man makes the feet of a small stove to place a pot upon it. Similarly in connection with the Tabernacle, [such a labor was performed] because those who boiled the dyes for dyeing the curtains, when their materials [the finished dyes] were insufficient, they made the feet of a small stove to place a small kettle upon it. Said R. Aha b. Jacob: There is no poverty in the place of wealth.6 Rather [say] because a householder who finds a hole in his dwelling closes it up. Similarly in connection with the Tabernacle, [such a labour was performed] because when a board was attacked by wood-worms, one dropped molten lead into it and closed it.7
Samuel said: He who arranges a building stone8 is culpable.9 An objection is raised: If one places the stone and another the mortar, he who places the mortar is culpable?10 — But according to your view, consider the second clause: R. Jose said:11 Even if one lifts up [the stone] and sets [it] on the row of stones, he is liable? Rather [the fact is that] there are three modes of building, [viz., in connection with] the lower, the middle, and the upper [rows]. The lower requires arranging in place and [filling] earth [around it];12 the middle13 requires mortar too; whilst the top merely [requires] placing.14
AND HE WHO CHISELS. On what score is a chiseller culpable? — Rab said: On the score of building: while Samuel said: On the score of beating with a hammer.15 If one makes a hole in a hencoop,16 — Rab said: [He is culpable] on account of building; while Samuel said: On account of beating with a hammer. If one inserts a pin through the eyelet of a spade,17 — Rab said: [He is liable] on account of building; while Samuel said: On account of beating with a hammer. Now, these are [all] necessary. For if we were informed of the first, [I would argue]: in that case Rab rules [so], because such is a mode of building;18 but if one makes a hole in a hen-coop, seeing that this is not a mode of building, I would maintain that he agrees with Samuel. And if we were informed of this [latter one only], — here does Rab rule [thus], because it is similar to a building, since it is made for ventilation; but [as for inserting] a pin through the eyelet of a spade, which is not a mode of building, I would say that he agrees with Samuel. And if we were told of this [latter one], only here does Samuel rule [thus], but in the former two I would maintain that he agrees with Samuel:19 [hence] they are necessary.
R. Nathan b. Oshaia asked R. Johanan: On what grounds is a chiseller culpable? He intimated to him with his hand, On account of beating with a hammer. But we learnt, HE WHO CHISELS AND HE WHO BEATS WITH A HAMMER? — Say, 'HE WHO CHISELS, WHO BEATS WITH A HAMMER'.20 Come and hear:
- To Next Folio -