Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Shabbath

Folio 131a

houses and courtyards¹  open into it, whereas here we have houses but not courtyards?²  Then even if they are not combined, let us regard these houses as though closed [up],³  so we have courtyards but not houses? — They can all renounce⁴  their rights in favour of one.⁵  But even so, we have a house, but not houses?⁶  — It is possible that from morning until midday [they renounce their rights] in favour of one, and from midday until evening in favour of another.⁷  But even so, when there is one there is not the other? — Rather said R. Ashi: What makes the courtyards interdicted [in respect of the alley]? [Of course] the houses; and these are non-existent.⁸

R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: Not in respect of everything did R. Eliezer rule that the preliminary preparations of a precept⁹  supersede the Sabbath, for lo! the two loaves¹⁰  are an obligation of the day,¹¹  yet R. Eliezer did not learn them¹²  from aught but a gezerah shawah.¹³  For it was taught, R. Eliezer said: Whence do we know that the preliminaries of the two loaves supersede the Sabbath? 'Bringing' is stated in connection with the 'omer,¹⁴  and 'bringing' is stated in connection with the two loaves:¹⁵  just as with the 'bringing' stated in connection with the 'omer, its preliminaries¹⁶  supersede the Sabbath, so with the 'bringing' stated in connection with the two loaves their preliminaries supersede the Sabbath. These must be free,¹⁷  for if they are not free one can refute [this analogy]: as for the 'omer, [its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath] because if one finds it [already] cut,¹⁸  he must cut [other sheaves]; will you [then] say [the same] in the case of the two loaves, seeing that if one finds [the wheat therefore] cut he does not cut [any more]? in truth they are indeed free. [For] consider: it is written, then ye shall bring the sheaf of the first-fruits of your harvest unto the priest:¹⁹  what is the purpose of 'from the day that ye brought'? Infer from it that it is in order to be free. Yet it is still free on one side only, while we know R. Eliezer to hold that where it is free on one side [only], we deduce, but refute? — 'Ye shall bring' is an extension.²⁰

What is it to exclude?²¹  Shall we say that it is to exclude the lulab,²²  surely it was taught: The lulab and all its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath: this is R. Eliezer's view! Again, if it is to exclude sukkah,²³  — surely it was taught: The sukkah and all its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath: this is R. Eliezer's view! Again, if it is to exclude unleavened bread, — surely it was taught: Unleavened bread and all its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath: this is R. Eliezer's view! If, on the other hand, it is to exclude the shofar,²⁴  surely it was taught: The shofar and all its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath: this is R. Eliezer's view! — Said R. Adda b. Ahabah: It is to exclude fringes for one's garment and mezuzah for one's door.²⁵  It was taught likewise: And they agree that if one inserts fringes in his garment or affixes a mezuzah to his door,²⁶  he is culpable. What is the reason? R. Joseph said: Because no [definite] time is appointed for them. Said Abaye to him, On the contrary, since no time is appointed for them,

1. I.e., two courtyards with two houses opening into each. V. 'Er. 5a and 73b.
2. And for this reason when the courtyards are combined with the houses it is not permissible to carry save within four cubits.
3. Since one cannot carry from the houses into the alley on account of the intervening courtyards. [The courtyards were in front of the houses.]
4. Lit., 'annul'.
5. The tenants of all the houses save one can renounce their rights in the courtyard in his favour; the courtyard is then his, and he may carry from his house into it.
6. Whereas Rab needs at least two houses, v. p, 654, n. 8.
7. Thus we have houses.
8. Rab holds ('Er. 74a) that a roof, courtyards, enclosures, and the alley are all one domain, and carrying is permitted from one to another, provided, however, that the houses are not combined with the courtyards, so that no utensils belonging to the houses are to be found in the courtyards which might then be carried into the alley. Hence the same applies to carrying in the alley itself: for if there are no houses at all a formal partnership is unnecessary, and carrying in the alley is permitted, just as from the alley into the courtyard. Since the houses are not combined with the courtyards and no utensils may be moved from the former into the latter, for all practical purposes the houses are non-existent: therefore one may carry over the whole of the alley itself.
9. As distinct from the precept itself.
10. Which are offered on the Feast of Weeks, v. Lev. XXIII, 17.
11. Sc. the Feast of Weeks, and must not be postponed for the next day.
12. That their baking supersedes the Sabbath; not the baking, but the offering 'unto the Lord' is the actual precept, the former being merely a necessary preparation.
13. V. Glos. But if he held that all preparations supersede the Sabbath, the would not require the gezerah shawah in this particular case.
14. V. Glos.
15. Ibid. vv. 15, 17.
16. Viz., the reaping, grinding. and sifting; Men. 72a.
17. I.e., from the day that ye brought (v. 15) and 'ye shall bring' (v. 17) must have no other purpose than this gezerah shawah. There are three views on this matter: (i) Both parts of the gezerah shawah must be free, otherwise it can be refuted if they are dissimilar in other respects; (ii) Only one part must be free; and (iii) Even if both parts are required for another teaching too, the gezerah shawah cannot be refuted.
18. But not for the express purpose of fulfilling the precept.
19. Lev. XXIII, 10.
20. Since Scripture could write, and ye shall offer a new meal-offering unto the Lord out of your habitations etc. The extension embraces the preliminaries of bringing, and intimates that these supersede the Sabbath.
21. R. Johanan's statement that R. Eliezer did not rule that the preliminaries of all precepts etc.
22. V. Glos. and Lev. XXIII, 40.
23. V. Glos. and ibid. v. 42.
24. V. Glos. and ibid. v. 24.
25. These must not be inserted or affixed on the Sabbath.
26. On the Sabbath,

every moment¹  is the [proper] time for them? — Rather said R. Nahman b. Isaac others state, R. Huna son of R. Joshua: Because it is in one's power to renounce their ownership.²

The Master said: 'The lulab and all its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath: this is R. Eliezer's view.' Whence does R. Eliezer know this? If from the 'omer and the two loaves, [that may be] because they are requirements of the Most High?³  — Rather Scripture saith, [And ye shall take ye] on the [first] day [...branches of palm trees, etc.]:⁴  'on the day' [intimating,] even on the Sabbath.⁵  Now in respect of which law?⁶  Shall we say, in respect of handling?⁷  Is a verse necessary to authorize handling!⁸  Hence it must be in respect of its preliminaries.⁹  And the Rabbis?¹⁰  That is required [to teach], by day,¹¹  but not by night. Then R. Eliezer: whence does he [learn] 'by day but not by night'? He deduces it from, and ye shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days:¹²  days only, not nights. And the Rabbis?¹³  — It is necessary: you might argue, Let us learn [the meaning of] seven day's from the seven days of sukkah.- just as there 'days' [means] and even nights,¹⁴  so here too 'days', and even nights: hence it teaches us [otherwise]. Then let the Divine Law state it¹⁵  in the case of lulab, and these [others]¹⁶  could be adduced and learnt therefrom?¹⁷  — Because one could refute [the analogy]: as for lulab, [its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath] because it requires four species.¹⁸

'The sukkah and all its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath: this is R. Eliezer's view.' Whence does R. Eliezer learn this? If from the 'omer and the two loaves, — [there it may be] because they are requirements of the Most High; if from lulab, — [that may be] because it requires four species! Rather [the scope of] seven days' is deduced from the 'seven days' of lulab: just as there its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath, so here too its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath.¹⁹  Then let the Divine Law write it in connection with sukkah, and these [others] could be adduced and learnt therefrom? — Because one could refute [the analogy]: as for sukkah, that is because it [the precept] is binding by night just as by day.

'Unleavened bread and all its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath: this is R. Eliezer's view.' Whence does R. Eliezer know this? If from the 'omer and the two loaves, — [there it may be] because they are requirements of the Most High? If from lulab, because it requires four species? If from sukkah, — because it is binding by night just as by day? Rather the meaning of 'the fifteenth [day]' is learnt from the Festival of Tabernacles:²⁰  just as there its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath, so here too its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath. Then let the Divine Law State it in connection with unleavened bread, and these [others] could be adduced and learnt therefrom? — Because one could refute [the analogy]: as for unleavened bread, that is because it is obligatory upon women just as upon men.²¹

'The shofar and all its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath: this is R. Eliezer's view., Whence does R. Eliezer know this? If from the 'omer and the two loaves, — because they are requirements of the Most-High? If from lulab, — because it requires four species? If from sukkah, — because it is binding by night just as by day? if from unleavened bread, — because it is obligatory upon women just as upon men? — Rather Scripture saith, It is in day of blowing of trumpets unto you:²²  [it must be blown] by day, even on the Sabbath. And in respect of what?²³  Shall we say in respect of blowing [the shofar], — but the School of Samuel²⁴  taught: Ye shall do no servile work:²⁵  the blowing of the shofar' and the removal of bread [from an oven] are excluded as being an art, not work. Hence [it must be] in respect of [its] preliminaries. And the²⁶  Rabbis? — That is required [to teach], by day but not by night. Then R. Eliezer, whence does he learn, by day but not by night? — He deduces it from, in the day of atonement shall ye send abroad the trumpet throughout all your land,²⁷  and these²⁸  are learnt from each other.²⁹  Now, let the Divine Law state it in connection with shofar, and these [others] can come and be learnt therefrom? One cannot learn from the blowing of the shofar on New Year, because it brings the remembrance of Israel to their Father in Heaven.³⁰  One cannot learn from the blowing of the shofar on the day of atonement [either], because a Master said: When the Beth din blew the shofar, slaves departed to their homes and estates reverted to their [original] owners.³¹

Circumcision and all its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath: this is R. Eliezer's view. Whence does R. Eliezer learn this? If he learns [it] from all [the others, the objection is] as we stated.³²  Moreover, as for those,

1. Lit., 'hour'.
2. Thus, when he comes to do it on the Sabbath, he could renounce ownership of the garment or the house, in which case these precepts are no longer incumbent on him.
3. I.e., they are a direct offering.
4. Lev. XXIII, 40.
5. For 'on the first' suffices: hence 'day' teaches that the ceremony must be performed whatever the day.
6. Is this intimation necessary?
7. Permitting the handling of the lulab on the Sabbath.
8. Surely not, for the interdict of handling is only Rabbinical.
9. E.g., carrying the lulab through the streets, which would otherwise be Biblically forbidden.
10. How do they interpret the superfluous 'day'?
11. The lulab precept has to be performed by day.
12. Ibid.
13. Do they not admit that it can be deduced from this latter verse?
14. This is deduced in Suk. 43a.
15. This law that the preliminaries supersede the Sabbath.
16. Sc. the 'omer and the two loaves.
17. That there too it is thus: why are separate verses required?
18. Vis., those enumerated in Lev. XXIII, 40. Hence it is important that even its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath.
19. Since this analogy is based on a gezerah shawah, it cannot be refuted as before, when the suggested analogy was based purely on logical grounds. (Rashi).
20. Lev. XXIII, vv. 6 and 39.
21. They too must partake thereof; v. Pes. 43b. But the precepts of lulab and sukkah are not incumbent upon women.
22. Num. XXIX, 1.
23. Does 'day' extend the law even to the Sabbath.
24. This is rather unusual. Generally we have 'the School of R. Ishmael', and the present passage is so quoted supra 117b in cur. edd. R. Han. however, reads 'the School of Samuel' there too, and it is likewise so in R.H. 29b in cur. edd. Weiss, Dor, III, p. 169 maintains that the reference is to a collection of Baraithas compiled by Samuel. It may also be observed that the verse quoted here is not the same as that quoted supra in cur. edd., though Tosaf.'s reading is identical in both places. It is barely possible that two different Baraithas are referred to, both making the same deduction but from different verses.
25. Lev. XXIII, 25.
26. Hence no verse is required to teach that it is permitted.
27. Ibid. XXV, 9.
28. Sc. the blowing of the shofar on New Year and on the day of atonement.
29. As shown in R.H. 33b.
30. Hence it is so important that even its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath. But the same may not apply to other precepts.
31. In accordance with Lev. XXV, 10. Hence this too was of particularly great importance.
32. Each differs in some respect.