Shabbat 80 – Ink and oil

We learned that one transgresses Shabbat if he carries enough ink to write two letters. Whether this ink is an an inkwell (with more ink on the walls) or in a quill, the amount liquid ink must be sufficient for writing the letters. Rava asked, “If he took ink for one letter in a ink-well, and for another letter in a quill, do they combine?” – No one found an answer.

The minimal amount of lime is defined as “enough to smear on a little girl.” What does this mean? Rav Yehudah explained, “Jewish daughters who matured but were still young in years and desired to remove unwanted hair: the daughters of the poor would smear themselves with lime; the daughters of the rich would use flour; and the daughters of the kings – would smear themselves with virgin olive oil.

Rabbi Nechemyah gives a larger limit on lime: enough to smear on the “andipi.” What is “andipi?” We learn this from the following story. A person from Galilee came to Babylon. They asked him to expound on the deep secrets of “The working of the chariot,” and he unhesitatingly agreed. Before he started, however, a hornet emerged from a nearby wall and stung him on the forehead (“andipi”), so that he died. We learn from here that “andipi” is the forehead.

Art: Benjamin Walter Spiers - Art and Letters

Shabbat 79 – Carrying a document on Shabbat

We learned earlier that a piece of paper is considered important if it is large enough to write a tax receipt on it, and one who carries it on Shabbat by mistake needs to bring a sacrifice.

If one carries the actual receipt, the situation is different. Here he is liable only until he has shown the receipt to the tax collector, but after that he does not need it as the receipt; the paper itself at this time could not be re-used by erasure, and thus he is not liable. However, Rabbi Yehudah says that he is always in need of the tax receipt and is always liable for carrying it. What can he do with it? He will show it to another tax collector and say, “Look, I am a trustworthy person who always pays his taxes.”

A similar discussion concerns a loan document. If one carries it in a public area on Shabbat, he transgressed Shabbat if the loan has not been paid, but he is not liable afterwards. Again, Rabbi Yehudah says that he is always in need of this document. What is the reasoning here? The first teacher is of the opinion that it is forbidden to keep the loan document after the loan has been paid. Rather, it should be torn up or returned to the borrower, to avoid a double payment. Therefore the document is not useful, and for carrying something that is not useful one does not need to bring a sacrifice. Rabbi Yehudah, however, says that it is not forbidden to keep a paid-up loan document, rather, it can be used as a bottle-stopper. The Talmud gives three more possible explanations.

Art: Hendrick Heerschop or Herschop - A scholar seated at his writing desk in an interior, books and documents in the foreground

Shabbat 78 – Useful small amounts

It is forbidden to carry in a public area on Shabbat. How much? – Enough to be useful. For example, oil – enough to anoint a small limb of a small child; rope – enough to make a handle for a basket; paper – enough to write a tax collector's receipt; erased paper – enough to make a bottle stopper for balsam oil.

Hide – enough to make an amulet; parchment (thinner, processed hide) – enough to write the smallest paragraph of the four paragraphs that are written inside a tefillin; ink – enough to write two letters. Why two and not one? – Because in the Temple the beams were marked with letters, so that two specific beams would always be assembled together. Eye paint – enough to paint one eye – because in some countries women would go out covering their head and leaving an opening for only one eye.

Art: Dirck Hals - Woman Tearing a Letter

Shabbat 77 – Rav Yehudah in a jovial mood

Continuing with the amounts of matter carrying which violates Shabbat, wine is significant if one can make a cup used for a blessing after a meal. Since we are talking here about pure wine, which in the times of this ruling was first diluted, we arrive at a measure called “reviit,” or about 75 grams. Honey is considered significant if there is enough of it to be put on a sore. Rav Ashi asked, “At the top of the sore, or from the top down?” – No answer was found.

Rav Yehudah said, “Of all things that God created in His world, He did not create anything needlessly. For example, a slug can be used as a remedy for a sore; a fly as a cure for the sting of a hornet; snake provides cure for skin conditions.”

Rav Zeira once found Rav Yehudah (a usually austere Sage) at the door of his father-in-law in such a lighthearted mood that if Rav Zeira were to ask him any question in the world, Rav Yehudah would tell him. Rav Zeira asked multiple questions, such as “Why goats always walk in front of the flock?” – Because darkness always precedes light, just as in the creation of the world. “Why are sheep's hindquarters covered with a tail, but goat's aren't” – Because people cover themselves with shearing of the sheep, but not of goats”.

He also asked questions about word construction, such as “Why outer cloak called 'levushah'?” – Because it is a contraction of “No shame – 'lo bushah.'”

The Talmud adds one more statement on natural phenomena, that three creatures grow stronger as they grow older: the fish, the snake and the pig. All of these statements have a spiritual meaning behind them.

Art: Heinrich Martin Krabb - Watching the little pigs

Shabbat 76 – How much to carry?

We mentioned many times that one should not carry items in a public area on Shabbat. What is considered a significant amount for which one would have to bring a sacrifice if he carries it by mistake? Here is a general rule: if it is something that people normally store, and its quantity is significant enough for people to care about it and store it, carrying this amount is considered a bona fide violation of Shabbat.

It also depends on the intended use. For example, if one carries processed straw, then the significant amount is a cow's mouthful. If it is stalks of straw, it should measure lamb's mouthful, and if it is grass, fit for young goats or sheep, the amount is their mouthful.

Leaves of garlic and of onion are fit for human consumption, so the amount for which one is liable on Shabbat becomes a standard measure of minimal amount of food, that is, a dried fig. If these leaves dry out, then again they are not fit for humans and revert to animal food, so the significant amount is the mouthful of a young sheep or goat.

Art: Pierre Auguste Renoir - Onions

Shabbat 75 – A special talent in math

One who has a special talent and knowledge of mathematics, astronomy and other sciences, and fails to use this talent, to him we apply the verse “And the work of God they do not regard and the action of His hands they do not see.” Since he failed to use his chance to appreciate the God's world in full measure, one is forbidden to relate Torah teachings in his name.

Another source and reason for this view is “You shall safeguard and perform those laws, since it is your wisdom and discernment in the eyes of the nations.” What is this wisdom? You have to say that this astronomy and mathematical calculations.

Another one of the prohibited Shabbat labors is slaughtering an animal. What exact prohibited action is he performing? Rav said, “He is dyeing. When he makes the cut in the animal's throat, required for proper slaughter, the blood spurts out and colors the animal's neck. ” Shmuel said, “He is taking a life.” But according to Rav, isn't he also liable for taking a life? – Indeed, he is, and Rav meant, “Also for dyeing.” Rav also said, “If I don't explain my view, the future generations will come to ridicule me. Why is the slaughterer interested in dyeing the throat of the animal with blood? – Because then the meat commands a higher price in the market.”

Art: North-Italian School - Mathematicians in an Interior

Shabbat 74 – What is selection?

One of the labors forbidden on Shabbat is selection, such as selecting rocks from a heap of grain. Regarding it, we learned a cryptic rule: "If one had different foods in front of him, he may select and eat, and he may select and leave for others to eat, and he may not select, and if he did select, he needs to bring a sacrifice."

Obviously, the four parts of the rule must all be talking about different situations to which each of it applies. Ulla explained, "He may select for this day and eat, but he may not select for the needs of the next day, because real selection is usually done for storage." Rav Chisda objected, "If one then allowed to bake for today?" Meaning, if it is a labor forbidden when done for tomorrow, how can it be permitted for today's needs? Rather, he can select less than the minimal amount of food, that is, a dried fig, but he may not do so for more than that.

Rav Yosef took issue with that, "How can it be allowed to performed forbidden labor in small amounts?" Rather, he is allowed to select with the hand, but not with an implement, such as a funnel. Rav Hamnuna challenged this also: "Does the rule mention anything about a funnel?" Rather, one can select good food and eat, but not bad food and leave it, similar to pebbles and grain! Abaye argued in turn, "Does the rule mention anything about good food and bad food?" Rather, he may select and eat immediately, or give to others to eat now; however, he may not select and leave for later, and if he did, it is as if he selected for storage, and that is prohibited.

In conclusion, the selection that is allowed follows all of the criteria: it should be for immediate consumption, selecting good for from the bad, and done with the hand. That, too, is subject to interpretation based on the order of how the opinions listed above combine.

Art: Eastman Johnson - Winnowing Grain

Shabbat 73 – Thirty nine, the complete list

Any activity that was performed in constructing the Tabernacle is prohibited on Shabbat. This is derived from the phrase of “Build My Temple, but stop the work and observe Shabbat.” It also includes preparatory activities.

Outside the Temple, the list includes other activities similar to the main ones. For this reason, the primary thirty-nine designate groups rather than specific types of work. The list begins with eleven labors necessary for baking bread: sowing, plowing, reaping, gathering (sheaves) together, threshing, winnowing, selecting (rock out of grain), grinding, sifting, kneading, and baking.

Then come the thirteen labors involved in the preparation of clothing: shearing wool, whitening it, disentangling it, dyeing, spinning, mounting the warp, setting two neddles on the loom, weaving at least two threads, removing threads in order to re-weave, tying a knot and untying a knot, sewing two stitches and tearing in order to sew another two stitches.

Hides and writing: trapping a deer, slaughtering it, skinning it, salting it, tanning its hide, smoothing, cutting it, writing at least two letters and erasing in order to write another two letters.

Finally, six more labors: building and demolishing, extinguishing and kindling, adding a finishing touch to his work (such as striking the final blow with the hammer), and carrying within the public domain or from a domain to another domain.

Art: Francis Blackwell Mayer - Leisure and Labor

Shabbat 72 – Guilt

A woman slave may be designated for another male slave, and in that case she is prohibited to other men. However, the punishments for cohabiting with her is different from the standard one of a regular married woman, and consists of bringing a guilt offering. Moreover, for multiple acts of cohabitation he is still liable for only one offering. This stands in contrast to Shabbat violation, where one brings an offering for each violation.

Yet another leniency is that one brings the same offering whether one cohabits with a woman slave by mistake or intentionally. And, as Ulla stated, even if one brings a guilt offering without being aware that he brings it for his cohabitation with a woman slave, it is still effective.

Rav Hamnuna challenged Ulla: “Imagine that one cohabited with a woman slave, then cohabited again, then designated and brought a sacrifice to the Temple, and now he tells the Kohen to wait a little longer till he cohabits again and comes back, so that his sacrifice will atone for the newest act also, will it work? Do you mean to go that far?” To this Ulla replied, “You are talking about an act after the designations of the sacrifice? That I never have meant; after designation he will need another offering.”

Art: William James Muller - The Slave Market

Shabbat 71 – Drag-along atonement

Reaping the grain and grinding it are two separate prohibited labors on Shabbat. If one forgot that it was Shabbat, and reaped in the amount of a dried fig (sufficient for Shabbat violation) and then ground it, then, as we learned earlier, he brings one sacrifice for both, since the root cause was his one error regarding Shabbat.

However, if he then remembered that it was Shabbat, but this time forgot that reaping and grinding were prohibited, he would be liable to two sacrifices, one for each error. Finally, if he becomes aware of his first mistake, then his initial reaping connects to the second one, his initial grinding connects to the second one, and the end result is that he brings only one sacrifice for all, and it drags along the atonement for his other acts. The other way around is not completely true: if he finds out about his later reaping, it connects to the previous one, but his later grinding does not connect to the first one, and he needs a separate sacrifice for that. We don't use the principle of drag-along twice – this is the opinion of Rava.

However, Abaye says that we do use the drag-along twice, and only one sacrifice is brought in either case.

In another place, we find that Rava does not subscribe to drag-along!? – After he heard the idea from Abaye, he started using it. But then let him agree to Abaye completely! – No, he applied only a part of Abaye's principle, but not all of it.

Art: Vincent Van Gogh - Reaper With Sickle

Shabbat 70 – Shabbat in a desert

If one was walking all alone in a desert, and one day he realized that he forgot which day is Shabbat, how is he to behave? – He must count six days, including the day on which he realizes his predicament, and then observe the seventh day as Shabbat.

Rava added that on every day he can only do as much labor as is needed to stay alive, because this might actually be Shabbat, and he can't desecreate it, even out of doubt. On the seventh day he does no labor. The Talmud asks, and on the seventh day he should die? – He should work twice as much on the day before! – But maybe the day before is Shabbat? Rather, he should work the same amount on every day. But then, how is Shabbat different? – Because he says the kiddush – prayer welcoming Shabbat – at the beginning of it, and the Havdallah – prayer welcoming weekdays – at the end.

Earlier we learned that if one knows that it is Shabbat and does multiple acts of prohibited work by mistake, he is liable for a sacrifice for each violation. Why should this be the case? – Because he brings a sacrifice for each mistake. – Still, why not say that this is all one mistake? – Because the Torah said, “One who violates Shabbat will die, he will die” - we see multiple punishments for multiple mistakes. But that is talking about one who violates Shabbat knowingly!? – That we already know from another verse, and therefore, since the new law is not needed for its own sake, let's apply it to another context, where he violates Shabbat by mistake. This proves it.

Art: Carl Haag - In the Desert

Shabbat 69 – What can one forget about Shabbat?

The second part of the “major rule” states that if one knows that it is Shabbat, but mistakenly performs many forbidden labors, he has to bring a sacrifice for each specific labor.

Since there are thirty-nine types of work prohibited types of work, he can potentially be liable to thirty-nine sacrifices. However, how is this extreme case possible? If he knows that it is Shabbat, but forgets about each specific prohibited work, then what exactly does he know? He may know that the name of the day is Saturday, but since to him it is no different from any other day, he in fact does not know that it is Shabbat! If so, we are back to the rule where he does not know about Shabbat altogether, and has to bring only one sacrifice!?

Answers Rabbi Yochanan: “He knew that each labor was prohibited, but he forgot that for performing them he becomes liable to be cut off from the spiritual source.” That too is considered “forgetting the prohibition” in some sense, and thus become obligated to bring all thirty-nine sacrifices.

Art: Frank Duveneck - Woman With Forget Me Nots

Shabbat 68 – A “major” rule about Shabbat

The Sages stated a major rule about Shabbat: “Anyone who forgets the essence of Shabbat and consequently performs multiple labors and violates the Shabbat many times on multiple weeks – when he realizes that it was wrong, he has to bring only one sacrifice, collectively for all violations.” Why is this so? Since some phrases of the Torah refer to single sacrifice, and some – to multiple ones, it is entirely logical to say that when there exists one root cause for all his violations – forgetting that there is a prohibition to do work on Shabbat in the Torah – that is the case where one sacrifice is brought.

What about someone who never even knew about Shabbat, like a child who was taken away in captivity when he was very young, or one who converts to Judaism on his own accord, without any Jews around to tell him about Shabbat? He did not forget, rather, he never knew! Still, Rav and Shmuel both say that he is responsible for one sacrifice for all his actions.

However, Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish both say that the rule of one sacrifice refers only to one who knew about Shabbat and then forgot. One who never knew about it cannot be blamed for violations, and is thus free from any obligation to bring a sacrifice when he understands Shabbat.

Why is this rule called “major?” – Because there are more ways to violate Shabbat than, for example the sevenths year, or Sheviit – since its prohibitions refer only to plants still in the ground, whereas Shabbat laws refers also to things disconnected from the ground.

Art: Henry Farny - The Captive

Shabbat 67 – Fox's tooth and nail from the gallows

The mother of Abaye died while giving birth to him, and he was brought up by his nurse, so every time Abaye says, “My mother told me...” he means her. She taught him very many things quoted in the Talmud, and here is one.

Abaye said, “My mother told me that one afflicted with daily fever should take a white, newly-minted zuz coin, measure its weight in salt, then tie the salt by the neck opening of his shirt with a strand of hair.”

“If this remedy is not available, he must sit at the crossroads and when he sees a large ant carrying something, he must take the ant and place it into a copper tube, close the tube with lead, and seal it with sixty different type of seal. Then he must shake the tube, carry it, and say to the ant, 'Your burden is upon me, and my burden is upon you.'”

But, says the Talmud, what if another person already placed his burden on this ant? Rather, he should say, “My burden is upon you, and your burden is upon you.”

One may go out on Shabbat with a locust's egg, with a fox's tooth, or with a nail from the gallows of one that was hanged. All these items have therapeutically value, and are thus ornaments, not a forbidden burden – these are the words of Rabbi Meir. However, the Sages prohibit these practices even on weekdays, since they involve magic and were used by other nations.

Art: Mihaly Munkacsy - Mother and Child

Shabbat 66 – Cripple

An amputee may have a wooden foot which is not used to support his weight, but only to hide his body defect. His weight is then supported by a crutch or a wooden stump. Nevertheless, Rabbi Meir considers this a shoe and permits wearing it on Shabbat. However, Rabbi Yose disagrees: according to him, it is not a shoe unless it is made out of leather, nor is it an ornament, since most people would not use it, and therefore our amputee cannot go out in such shoe on Shabbat.

One who has both feet severed cannot walk without crutches. He will often fashion leather pads for his shins and knees. These are made to support his weight, so he may wear then on Shabbat; however, since they are not worn on his feet, but on his legs, they do not have the legal status of shoes, and one can enter the Temple in them (where the shoes are normally prohibited).

One whose lower legs have atrophied uses a chair, leg supports, and crutches. The chair and crutches are essential for his moving about, but the leg supports are not, and he should not go out with them on Shabbat. And, since they are worn on his feet, he may not enter them Temple in them.

Masks used to playfully frighten small children are neither ornaments nor garments, and consequently one may not wear them on Shabbat outside.

Art: Adriaen Pietersz. Van De Venne - Crippled Beggar Dancing with a Peasant Woman

Shabbat 65 – Golden tooth

Can a woman (or for that matter a man) go out on Shabbat with a false tooth made of gold? Rabbi Yehudah the Prince allows it, but the Sages forbid it. What are their reasons?

The Sages say that a woman may show her tooth to her companions, then forget and carry it. Rabbi Yehudah says that this is not such an outstanding show-and-tell item. Alternatively, the Sages' concern is that people will ridicule her, and she will take it out, and then carry. Again, Rabbi Yehudah, in this explanation, does not consider a golden tooth to be an object of ridicule. None of these reasons apply to a silver tooth, and certainly to a naturally-looking tooth.

Women residing in Arabia often wore headcloths that would wrap their head; though unusual, it is a garment, and therefore may be worn on Shabbat. Similarly, Median women used to fasten their cloaks with stones; normally considered “muktzeh”, set aside from use on Shabbat, a stone is allowed as part of clothing. In fact, this all is allowed for any person, but the rulings are given in terms of prevalent custom.

Art: C. Durif-Bedel - The False Teeth Workshop

Shabbat 64 – Ornaments of a woman on Shabbat

A woman may go out on Shabbat with her hair braided with strands of other hair, whether the strands are of her own hair, of her companion, or of an animal. All parts of this ruling are necessary. Otherwise we might have thought that her own hair is acceptable because she is used to it, but not that of her companion. Or we might think that human hair would blend into hers, whereas the animal's would not, and she might then take it off and carry – so the ruling tells us that there is no such concern.

However, a elderly woman should not go out with strands of a young woman's hair, nor the young woman with the old one's hair. Here we understand the first part: they might mock an elderly woman for her attempts, and she might then carry the strands, but why would a young woman wear the old one's hair strands? – In truth, she would not, but the ruling just mentions this possibility for symmetry.

A frontlet or head bangles can be worn when sewn into a woman's hat – because she would not take the hat off in the street and uncover her hair. A woman may go out with a wad in her sandal, for comfort, or with a peppercorn in her mouth, for pleasant breath – provided that she puts these in before Shabbat, for otherwise the onlookers may think that it is just a design to carry in a public area.

Art: Albrecht Durer - The Furlegerin with braided hair

Shabbat 63 – Weapons

On Shabbat, a man may not go out into a public area with his sword, bow, shield, club, or spear, and if he did, he needs to bring a sacrifice. Rabbi Eliezer says, “These are his ornaments,” since they enhance his appearance. However, the Sages, who forbid it, say that it is nothing but a disgrace, following the Isaiah that “They will beat their swords into plowshares.”

If so, what is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer? He quotes the psalms, “Gird your sword upon your thigh, O mighty one, for it is your glory and your splendor.” However, Rav Kahana said in explaining this verse, “This is talking about the words of Torah. Just as a sword is always ready, so should be your learning, and this ability to recall it at will is your glory and splendor.” Then Mar, the son of Rav Huna, told him, “You may be right, and learning is the main import of this phrase, but what about the rule that a literal meaning of any verse is never completely discarded!?”

To this Rav Kahana replied, “When I was eighteen, I already learned the entire Talmud, but I never knew this rule!” Why did he have to tell us this? – To teach that one may learn even without understanding, just accumulating knowledge, and afterwards reason about it. So too Rav Kahana did not completely understand the reason of Rabbi Eliezer, yet he persevered in his studies.

Art: John Singer Sargent - Charles Stewart, Sixth Marquess of Londonderry

Shabbat 62 – Balsam oil

On Shabbat, a woman may not go out with a needle that has an eye and is used for sowing. Carrying such a needle is prohibited by the Torah, and one needs to bring a sacrifice if she did so inadvertently. This is true even if the needle is pinned to her clothing. Usually, only the normal way of doing an act is prohibited by the Torah. However, since it is quote normal to carry a needle this way, it too is prohibited. Certainly it is prohibited to simply carry it in one's hand.

Nor may she wear a signet ring, although she can wear a regular ring. Ulla noticed: “With men, it is the reverse.” Is this logic then always true? On the contrary, since some people (shepherds) wear sackcloth, it becomes permitted for all people? – That is because Ulla considers women as a separate nation: just because a woman wears something, it does not become permitted to men.

A woman may not wear a spice bundle or a flask of balsam oil, and if she does, she is liable to bring a sacrifice – this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. However, the Sages hold that these items are ornaments, and in fact Rabbi Eliezer completely allows this, since a woman wearing such perfumes will not take them off.

Balsam played a role in the Temple's destruction, and Rabbi Yehudah wanted to forbid its use, but the Sages did not agree. Jewish women used to flaunt their beauty and to seduce young men by spraying balsam perfume over them. However, the decree of destruction was sealed because of the attitude of men, who used flowery language to describe their deeds. They would ask each other, “On what did you dine today, on bread that was well kneaded or on bread that was not well kneaded? On white wine or dark wine? On a wide couch or on a narrow couch?” All these were hints to illicit relations.

The logs of Jerusalem were of the cinnamon tree, and when they burned, their fragrance would waft through all of the Land of Israel. After destruction they were hidden, except a piece the size of a barley grain found in the storehouses of Queen Tzimtzemai.

Art: Thomas Wade - The Seamstress

Shabbat 61 – How to put on shoes

One may not go on out Shabbat in a single shoe. If people start mocking him, he may be tempted to take if off and carry, which is forbidden. However, if he has a wound, then it is allowed, because he won't take the shoe off. Which foot has to be wounded, the one with the shoe or the one without it? Those who hold that the shoes are mainly for protection say that the shoe is on the foot with the wound, but those who hold that the shoes are mainly for comfort will say that the shoe is on the healthy foot.

Rabbi Yochanan said that there is a connection between shoes and tefillin: just as arm tefillin is work on the left arm, which shows its importance, so too one should put on the left shoe first. However, there is a contradictory general rule that the right should always take precedence. Therefore, one should try to behave himself according to both views. How can this be accomplished? He puts on the right shoe first, but when he ties them, he ties the left shoe first.

Health amulets were popular, and they either had the names of God in various combinations or contained special herbs. One may not go out on Shabbat with such an amulet, but if it is from a proven amulet-writer and has already cured at least three people, then this is part of his attire, and it is allowed.

Art: John George Brown - Shoeshine Boy Smoking

Shabbat 60 – Sandals

A man may not go outside on Shabbat wearing a hobnailed sandal, which is a sandal with short nails (hobnails) used to increase its durability and to connect the shoe's upper to the sole. This is prohibited because of the following incident.

Once, in the times of Roman persecution, people were hiding on Shabbat in a cave. They made a rule: anybody can come in, but nobody can leave. One person came in a sandal that became reversed (this sandal could be worn from both ends), and people mistakenly thought that someone has gone to denounce them. In the ensuing panic people pushed and kicked, and they killed more of each other than did the enemy. To prevent people from remembering this sad incident, the Sage forbade wearing such shoes on Shabbat. – But if so, let these shoes be forbidden altogether!? – The prohibition was only in circumstances similar to the incident.

Some relate a story where the people hiding in a case heard a noise, some say that they were hiding in a synagogue, and some say that all three incidents actually happened. However, multiple variants of hobnailed shoes are allowed: those that are made for ornamental purposes (as evidenced by fewer of the nails being used), and those whose hobnails have worn out and are now level with the sole.

Art: Vincent Van Gogh - Three Pairs Of Shoes

Shabbat 59 – Jerusalem of gold

An animal should not go out in a public area with a bell around its neck, whether sounding or stopped, because it looks as if the owner is taking it to the marketplace. Incidentally, this bell is susceptible to ritual impurity. But in another place we learned that is not susceptible!? – Not a problem: the first case is when it has a clapper, and the second one is when it does not. But why should this be the case? It is either a utensil or it is not, with the clapper or without!? – That is exactly the point, without a clapper it is not fit for its original purpose.

To illustrate, consider a metal shoe of an animal. For impurity, what use can it be fit for if not worn by an animal? Rav says, to drink from it in battle; Rav Chanina says, to anoint oil with it for the battle; Rabbi Yochanan says, to use it to flee from battle, stepping over thorns. Their disagreement is about how close to the original use does the new use have to be. The differences between them emerge when it is dirty (you won't drink from it) or when it is heavy (you won't run in it).

“Jerusalem of gold” was a golden ornament with the likeness of Jerusalem, like the one Rabbi Akiva fashioned for his wife. Can a woman wear it on Shabbat? Some say that it is burden and she would violate the Torah; some that it is an ornament, but it is prohibited, since she can show it off to her friend, and then carry; and some – that it is completely allowed, since a prominent women wearing it won't take it off to show.

Art: Anthonie Palamedesz - A gentleman offering a piece of jewelry to a woman

Shabbat 58 – Servant's emblem

Shmuel stated, “A servant may go out in the public place on Shabbat wearing his master's emblem – if it is tied around his neck, but not if it is sown into his clothing.” Elsewhere, however, he said that a servant may not go out even when an emblem around his neck. However, these two contradictory rulings apply to different situations: in one case the the emblem was made for the servant by the master, and in another case he fashioned it by himself.

If it was made by his master, then the master obviously insists on the servant's wearing it, and there is thus no danger that he will remove it and carry it in his hands or pocket. However, if he made it by himself, he may indeed remove it, to hide the indication that he is someone's servant, and continue carrying it, and that is why the Sages prohibited him wearing it on Shabbat.

Then why is it prohibited to wear an emblem sown into clothing? According to our explanation, it should be allowed, at least when it is made by the master? For that we have another reason: commonly these emblems were made of clay, and they could break and fall of the garment. Should that happen, the servant might be afraid lest his master see it and be angry; so the servant would take the cloak off and fold it, hiding the place of the emblem. Then he would be liable for carrying his cloak. Therefore, the Sages prohibited him from wearing such cloak on Shabbat in a public area.

Art: Pieter De Hooch - A Mistress and Her Servant

Shabbat 57 – What a woman may not wear outside

Wearing clothes is perfectly permitted on Shabbat. However, jewelry and ornaments could present a problem: a woman might take them off, to show off to a friend, and then forget to put them back on and carry in a public area, thus violating Shabbat. The Sages composed a list of items that may not be warn on Shabbat, to prevent this possibility.

A woman may not go outside on Shabbat wearing either woolen strands or linen strands, or straps on her head, and she may not immerse herself in a mikveh while wearing them, until she loosens them.

What does mikveh have to do with it? – It actually gives another reason: if a chance to perform a mikveh immersion (such as needed for eating tithe) will present itself, she may take them off, immerse herself, and then forget  to tie them back and come to carry in a public area.

Neither may she go out with a “totefet” - an ornamental band going to from one ear to the other, made either of colored strands or of gold or silver. It is called a “totefet” because it is warn in the place of tefillin.

Some say that the prohibition is not only against wearing these items in a public area, but even in one's own courtyard, for she may then forget and step outside. Regardless of the rules above, it was a custom of Jewish women to wear jewelry and ornaments on Shabbat as far back as the tenth century. The reason for it is a subject of much discussion.

Art: Isidor Kaufmann - A Jewish Bride

Shabbat 56 – Wrong conclusions

Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan, “Whoever thinks that Reuven sinned with Bilhah, his father's concubine,  is simply mistaken. Rather, he defended his own mother, by moving Jacob's bed out of Bilhah's tent to that of his mother.” What is the proof? – In the next Torah phrase, “And the sons of Jacob were twelve” – all equal in statue. However, there is also an opinion that he was greatly tempted but stopped himself, and even another opinion, that he did cohabit with her.

He also stated, “Whoever says that the sons of Eli, the High Priest, sinned with women who brought their sacrifices, is simply mistaken. Rather, they delayed these sacrifices and thus prevented the women from returning to their husbands.” The proof? – Since they are listed in the honorable line of the priests, they were also righteous; however, their actions were as bad as if they had lain with the women.

He also stated, “Whoever says that the sons of Shmuel (who 'went after monetary gain') sinned, is simply mistaken. They only 'did not go in the ways of their father,' who visited all places in Israel to resolve disputes. Instead, they lived in their place, attended their own affairs, and thus increased the wages of their scribes.” However, there is an opinion of Rabbi Yehudah that they gave goods to merchants to sell and were then partial to these merchants, which is equivalent to taking bribes.

He also stated, “Whoever says that David sinned with Batsheva, is simply mistaken. He only wanted to do so, but did not.” The proof? – “David was successful in his ways, and God was always with him.” In fact, the soldiers in David's army all gave conditional divorces to their wives, so that in the case of their death without witnesses she would have a permission to remarry. Thus after Uriah's death his divorce took place retroactively. This practice David had learned from his family. David only wanted to cohabit with her before she got the document.  All the phrases in the story then take on a different meaning.

Art: Lucas The Elder Cranach - David And Bathsheba

Shabbat 55 – The cow of Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah

Continuing the list of items that an animal may not wear in a public area on Shabbat – because it would be carrying these items for the needs of its owner – chicken may not go out with cords or straps on its legs. A cow may not go with a hedgehog skin around its udder (made as protection against rodents), nor can it have a strap between its horns. The cow of Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah used to go out with a strap between her horns, and it was against the will of the Sages.

Now, this last fact is strange: Rabbi Elazar ben Arayah's tithe alone constituted twelve thousand calves yearly, so he indeed had more than one cow! – In truth, it was a cow of his female neighbor, and because he did not stop her, the ruling ascribes the transgression to him.

In general, one must improve not only himself but other people as well. If one can improve the people of his family but does not, he is held accountable for them. The same is true for his town and even the whole world. However, if one knows that he won't be listened to, he must be silent, for otherwise, they may do the opposite on purpose.

Before the destruction of Jerusalem, God told angel Gabriel to put a letter "tav" in black on the foreheads of the righteous (for "tihye" - he will live), and the letter "tav" in red n the foreheads of the bad ones (for "tamut" - he will die). However, the attribute of Strict Justice asked, "How are two different?" God replied, "Clearly, these are righteous, and they have fulfilled all the laws of the Torah, from the letter aleph to the letter tav, but the others are not!" The Strict Justice, however, said, "The righteous should have stopped the bad!" God said, "They would not listen, I know." The Attribute of Justice then said, "You know, but how do they know?" and the decree was reversed, and the righteous were killed first.

Art: Jehan Georges Vibert - The Reprimand

Shabbat 54 – What animal may not wear

If an animal wears something which it does not need, but which is there for the needs of its Jewish owner, then the owner made it carry something in the public area, and carrying on Shabbat is prohibited. What are the examples of such items? A camel may not go with a saddle cloth, since if it falls, the owner of the camel might carry it further. Nor may it go out bound (with its legs chained together) or hobbled (with its one lower foreleg bent upward toward the upper foreleg and tied). These cause pain to the animal, and are hence not welcomed by it and are a burden. In fact, this applies to any animal.

One may not tie camels to each other and pull one of them so that the others follow – because then he looks as if taking them to a marketplace for sale. However, he may gather their ropes into his hand and pull each one by his own rope – provided that he does not wind the ropes around his hand.

What is the reason for the last rule? This is talking about a special case when the rope is made of wool and linen – and one is forbidden to derive benefit, such as to warm his hand, from this combination. Wool reminds of Abel, who was a shepherd, and linen reminds of Cain, who worked the land, and the combination reminds of Cain killing Abel, so by refraining from this we correct his action in some measure.

Art: Belgian Unknown Masters - A Landscape With Camels

Shabbat 53 – Additional wear for the animals

A donkey may go into a public area on Shabbat with a saddle cloth, provided that it was tied onto it before Shabbat. Donkeys are always cold, and that is why they need the saddle cloth, which goes underneath the saddle. However, the saddle cloth needs to have been tied before Shabbat, for then it is a proof that the donkey indeed needs it, and that is it not for the needs of the owner. The reason that it has to be tied at all is this: if the saddle cloth falls off the donkey, the owner may come to carry it at least four steps himself, and thus violate the prohibition of carrying on Shabbat.

Rams may go attached (in pairs) – the same term is used in the Song of Songs, “You attached (captivated) my heart, my sister, my bride.” Ulla gives a different explanation: attached means with leather attached close to their hearts, next to the underbelly. When a wolf attacks, the ram gets up on its hind legs to fight the wolf, and the wolf then bites the underbelly. Do wolves then attack only male sheep, and not females? Females also need protection! – Rather, the males are attacked because they are fat. Are females then never fat? And furthermore, do wolves know the difference? – Rather, the male sheep are attacked because they hold their noses high and look from side to side when walking, so the wolves think that they are being attacked.

Art: Alfred Wierusz-Kowalski - Attack of Wolves

Shabbat 52 – What may an animal wear on Shabbat

The Torah prohibited one to work his animal on Shabbat, by saying “On Shabbat don’t do anything that constitutes work, you, your son, your daughter,… and your animal.“  Therefore, one cannot make his animal carry a load. If so, how can it graze, being that this is a prohibited labor of reaping? – The animal should be at ease, and restraining it would cause pain. Accordingly, the following rule tells us what constitutes not a burden, but normal animals’ wear and can therefore be worn by animals on Shabbat.

A camel may wear a halter – a rope that is used to control it. All animals that normally wear a collar may go into a public area on Shabbat while wearing.

Incidentally, if one needs to sprinkle the animal with the ashes of a red heifer, to remove the impurity of the dead, one needs not take the collar off. So too, if he needs to immerse the animal, he may keep the collar on.

However, we know that only humans can become ritually impure, and that the laws of ritual impurity do not apply to animals at all. – It is the collar that became impure and requires purification. But even so, it is an animal’s collar, not a utensil used by people, and the Torah talked about impurity only for utensils in people’s use!? – This collar was initially made for humans, and then re-used for an animal.

Art: Jean-Léon Gérôme - Camels at a Watering Trough

Shabbat 51 – Warm food on Shabbat

Earlier we saw that there is a prohibition to wrap, or insulate hot pot of food on Shabbat. Before it is night, one should not use materials that add heat, and on Shabbat itself – not even materials that don’t add heat.

However, that only applies if he did not wrap his pot while it was yet day. If he did, then even if the pot became uncovered, he can cover it again. Why? The whole reason for wrapping prohibition is so that he would not rake the coals and would not reheat the pot, if he finds that it has somewhat cooled off. If there is no such suspicion, accordingly, there is no prohibition.

Therefore, if he poured the food into another, different container, then he can wrap one. The logic here is that he already cooled the food off by pouring it into another container, so certainly he won’t reheat that new container.

In a similar vein, one may wrap cold food so that they stay cold, and even to take the chill off – again, for the reason that there is no prohibition to stop him from doing.

Art: Jean-Baptiste-Simeon Chardin - Leeks, a casserole with a cloth, a copper pot and cover, an onion and eggs with a pestle and mortar, on a stone ledge

Shabbat 50 – Are branches prepared to sit on them on Shabbat?

It happened once that Rav Chanina ben Akiva came to a certain place and found branches of date palms that were harvested for firewood. He told his students, “Go and mentally designate these branches for us, so that we may sit on them tomorrow (on Shabbat)." Zeiri, who was retelling this episode, added, “And I don’t know if it was for the house of feasting (wedding) or for the house of mourning.”

From these words of Zeiri we see that only in such a place where people are preoccupied did Rav Chanina permit a mental designation, but in a normal situation he would require a physical action - tying the bundles - in order to sit on them on Shabbat. Otherwise they would be considered muktzeh, set aside from Shabbat use. However, although the Talmud goes into details elucidating it, the law does not follow this strict view.

Ameimar, mar Zutra and Rav Ashi were sitting together one Shabbat, and they brought them “barda,” a mix of aloe, myrtle, and violets. Ameimar and Rav Ashi washed their faces and hands with it, but Mar Zutra did not. They asked him, “Are you afraid that you will accidentally remove some hair from your skin on Shabbat, through the use of aloe? – But the law is like Rabbi Shimon, that it is permitted, since the hair is removed only accidentally!” However, his reason was different – a man should not beautify himself as a woman does. Then what was their reason? – Just the opposite, one should clean and beautify himself, since this brings glory to God. In fact, one must say a blessing on a seeing handsome creature.

Art: Francisco De Goya y Lucientes

Shabbat 49 – Elisha with the dove's wings

Continuing with the list of materials that may be used to wrap, or insulate hot food before Shabbat – one can use clothing, produce (such as wheat or beans), dove's feathers, carpenter's sawdust, and flax combings – because all these don't add heat, an thus there is no danger that using them one can also start using ashes and then even rake the coals.

Actually, any feathers can be used, but dove's feathers are mentioned because they were more common and because of a story that follows. What was Elisha's relationship with dove's wings? Once the Roman government passed an edict that anyone who dons tefillin will have his brain under tefillin taken out. Nevertheless, this person named Elisha was wearing them in the marketplace. A certain Roman quaestor saw him; Elisha fled from him, and the officer pursued. As the officer caught up, Elisha took the tefillin off and held them in his hand. “What is in your hand?” – asked the officer. Elisha answered, “Dove's wings”. He opened his hand, and indeed they were found to be dove's wings, and that is how Elisha got his nickname.

Why did Elisha refer specifically to a dove? – Because of its connection to the Jewish people, who is protected with good deeds just as the dove is protected with wings. Why was Elisha not required to sacrifice his life, and on the other hand, how was he allowed to put his life in danger in the first place – these questions are also discussed.

One may insulate the food with hides, and even move them, because even unprocessed hives can be used for reclining. However, there is still a question about the hides of a craftstman, who plans to sell them – perhaps they are not designated for use on Shabbat and may not be handled, as muktzeh.

Art: Franz Werner von Tamm - Doves

Shabbat 48 – Wrap the food

On Friday afternoon before Shabbat, when one takes hot food off the stove, he may want to wrap, or insulate it, in order to keep it warm. That is allowed, as long as the material he uses does not add heat on its own. The reason is that if he were allowed to put his pot into heating substance, he might come to put it into hot ash mixed with live coals, and that in turn could lead him to rake the coals.

Therefore, one should not put the hot pot into olive pulp, manure, salt, lime, or sand, whether wet or dry, because all these add heat. He also may not use straw or grape skins if they are moist, but the dry ones are safe. He may use dry flocking (tufts of unprocessed cotton or soft wool).

Rav Adda bar Matnah asked, “Granted that one may insulate his food with flocking, but can he then move that flocking? Is it not set aside, and not fit for Shabbat use?” Abaye answered with a question, “Just because he does not have a box of straw and uses expensive material, does he renounce his use if it for later? – Of course not, he will do something with it later, and therefore he should not move it on Shabbat!” The Talmud answers, “It could be that this logic only applies if he did not use flocking for insulation, and he is not going to lie down on it, so indeed it has no use on Shabbat, but if he used it as insulation, that's exactly its use!” The question thus remains not completely resolved.

Art: Gustave Caillebotte - Interior Of A Studio With Stove

Shabbat 47 – Ash

Rabbi Assi stated that Rabbi Yehudah the Prince permitted moving a censer on Shabbat, along with its ashes. Rabbi Zeira said to him, “How could this be? Granted that one may move a basket with a stone inside, but that is only because this basket also has fruit in it; censer has only ashes, and they are not fit for use on Shabbat, and therefore muktzeh!”

Rabbi Assi was confounded for a moment, and then said, “Here too we are dealing with a censer that has granules of unburned incense! They are not muktzeh, and the censer can be carried because of them.” However, Abaye rejected this explanation: “Granules are not considered as anything in the household of Rabbi Yehudah the Prince. Rather, Rabbi Yehudah wanted the unpleasant censer moved away.” Rava, in turn, rejected this: “Censer is not repugnant, and besides, the ashes in a censer are covered. Rather, the ashes themselves were planned to be used on Shabbat, for covering dirt, and that is why they were not muktzeh, in fact, they were the important part, even if the rest was muktzeh.”

We thus see the rule: a muktzeh object may be moved together with another, permitted object, if they are together in one container, and if the permitted object is the more important one.

Going back to the Shabbat lamp, one may put a vessel under it, to catch the falling sparks, but not place water in that vessel. How is this different from a plate to collect dripping oil, which was forbidden? – Sparks are insignificant. Then why not put water? – Because that would be too close to actively extinguishing them.

Art: Wolfgang Heimbach - Young woman with an oil lamp

Shabbat 46 – Finer distinctions in muktzeh

Rav Yosef (who lived in Babylon) wanted to know the opinion of Rabbi Yochanan (who lived in Israel) on muktzeh – objects set aside and not used on Shabbat. When Rav Yitzhak arrived from Israel, he said, “Rabbi Yochanan agrees with the stricter, more inclusive prohibitions of Rabbi Yehudah on muktzeh.” At this, Rav Yosef exclaimed, “Now I understand the previous report!” For Rabbi Yochanan had said, “They (my colleagues) hold that the law agrees with the less strict opinion of Rabbi Shimon.” Now Rav Yosef understood that it meant, “They hold so, but I (Rabbi Yochanan) don't agree to it!”

At this, Abaye said to Rav Yosef, “How come you did not deduce this on your own!? For when Rabbi Assi, a choice student of Rabbi Yochanan, came to Rabbi Abba's house on Shabbat, a candelabra fell on his cloak, and he did not move it! That can only agree with the strict opinion on muktzeh, and surely Rabbi Assi behaved like his teacher, Rabbi Yochanan, would.” However, Rav Yosef replied, “You cannot deduce anything from this. For candelabra is different: if it is large and consists of part, one may come to assemble the parts, thus performing the forbidden labor of building, and other candelabras were prohibited on the account of this one.”

But Rabbi Shimon's opinion contradicts his other rulings. For while it is true that he permits to use the oil in the Shabbat lamp, after the light went out, he at the same time does not permit to slaughter a firstborn animal which developed a blemish on a holiday (Yom Tov), and says that the animal is muktzeh, not prepared for use on a Yom Tov! – Rabbi Shimon will answer that there is a big difference: a man sits and waits till his lamp goes out and he can use the oil; however, a blemish occurring in an animal is completely unforeseen, people do not sit and wait for it to develop, so the animal is indeed not prepared for slaughter on a Yom Tov.

Art: Georges Croegaert - A Gentleman Waiting in an Interior

Shabbat 45 – The right approach to muktzeh

We saw that objects set aside and not intended for use on Shabbat are considered muktzeh (set aside), and are forbidden to be handled on Shabbat. We also saw that Rabbi Yehudah extends this prohibition to many more situations than does Rabbi Shimon. How did this disagreement progress throughout the generations?

For example, Rav said that if someone designated a bed for storing money on, and then actually placed money there, then it becomes a “money bed,” and it should not be moved on Shabbat, even if he later removed that money. However, if he did not designate it for use with money, then if there is money on it on Shabbat, he should not move it, but if there is no money there, then he can move it – provided that there was no money there at twilight on Friday. That sounds very restrictive. The mere presence of money on the bed at twilight makes the bed muktzeh for the whole Shabbat!

On the other hand, we learned a rule about a wooden bed, in the laws of purity, and there it was allowed to drag a bed on wheels on Shabbat, as long as there was no money on it – even if money was there at twilight. So how could Rav say his rule, in view of this more lenient approach to the “money bed?” – The answer is that first rule of Rav follows the more stringent approach of Rabbi Yehudah, whereas the latter rule about a wooden bed follows the less restrictive view, belonging to Rabbi Shimon. We thus see that Rav inclined toward the stricter view of Rabbi Yehudah, with its broader muktzeh prohibitions.

Art: George Frederick Watts - Lady on a day-bed

Shabbat 44 – A new lamp, but not the old one

A new clean lamp may be handled on Shabbat. Since one can use it for something else, like storing objects, it is not considered, “muktzeh,” or set aside. However, once it has been used, it becomes dirty, and one cannot store anything in it. True, it is usable as a lamp, but kindling it is exactly what is prohibited on Shabbat. It follows then that a used lamp may not be handled on Shabbat.

The above is the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah, who takes the concept of muktzeh very expansively. Rabbi Shimon, however, permits all lamps to be moved on Shabbat,  except for the one that is actually burning on Shabbat – lest he extinguish the flame.

Rabbi Meir's is an in-between opinion: if the lamp was burning when Shabbat started on Friday night, it remains muktzeh even when the flame goes out, and should not be handled the whole day. Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Shimon takes the opinion of his father further, and he permits carrying a lamp that is actually burning. One just have to be careful not to extinguish it.

How could there be such a difference of opinions on the laws of muktzeh? When the law was formulated by the Sages, it was unambiguous! Even the eventual loss in the learning capacity over the generations could not explain such a variety?! – True, and when the law was initially formulated, it was the most strict version. However, it was not accepted by the majority of the people, and was later repealed, and the argument is how far did this process reach.

Art: Gerrit Dou - A young woman with a lamp

Shabbat 43 – Corpse in the sun

If one has an oil lamp that is leaking oil, he nevertheless may not put a plate next to the lamp, in order to collect the dripping oil. Why not? – The oil in the lamp is designated to be burned on Shabbat, and it is not designated for consumption. Therefore, the oil is considered “not prepared for use,” or “muktzeh”, and muktzeh objects cannot be handled or used on Shabbat. When one puts a plate to collect the oil, he effectively “cements” the plate to the floor: since the plate with the muktzeh oil may be not carried any longer, it is as if glued to the floor, and he has thus performed the prohibited labor of building on Shabbat.

Another possible explanation is that he would be moving a non-muktzeh object (plate) for the sake of a muktzeh object (oil), and that too would be prohibited. However, that question, can one move a non-muktzeh object for the sake of a muktzeh object, is itself a subject of disagreement. Let's look at a couple examples.

One may want to put a basket under a hen, so that its egg would not fall and break on Shabbat. That, however, is prohibited, just as putting a plate under dripping oil. However, one can put an overturned basket to cover the egg, even though this is using a permitted object for the sake of forbidden. Can we thus use permitted objects for the sake of muktzeh? – No, this is a special dispensation, to prevent a commonly occurring loss.

If a dead body is lying in the sun on Shabbat, two people can come and sit by its sides. When it gets hot for them, they bring mats and sit on them. This establishes that they care for the themselves, not for the dead. Then, if it is still hot, they can bring a tent and place it over themselves (and the dead). Then they can leave, and the dead is protected. Are we using a permitted object for the sake a muktzeh (corpse)? – No, they use it for themselves. Then do we see that moving a permitted object for the sake of a muktzeh is NOT allowed? – Really, it is, but the procedure with the corpse also became law.

Art: Baldassare De Caro - A Cockerel And Chickens In A Shed With An Earthenware Bowl And Baskets With Eggs

Shabbat 42 – From the frying pan into the fire

When one pours hot water into cold water, we have this question: does the hot water cook the cold water (which would be forbidden), or does the cold water cool the hot water (and it’s allowed). Here we apply the universal principle that “the lower one rules,” with the result that pouring into cold water is permitted, but not the other way around. The Talmud makes further distinctions regarding the relative amounts of water.

When one removes a boiling pan from fire (usually right before Shabbat), the pan is hot. Its heat is considered the extension of the fire itself, and the pan is called “the first degree from fire.” This pan can therefore cook the food put into it, as if it were still on the stove. Consequently, one should not put spices into it, because he would then be cooking spices on Shabbat. However, once he serves the food in a plate, the plate is only “second degree from fire,” and one can safely add any spices he wants.

Rav Yosef wanted to say that salt has the same law as spices, but Rav Nachman told him, “Salt needs as much cooking as the meat of an ox,” that is, salt can be cooked only the hottest of the pots, and it is thus no problem putting salt into a hot pan removed from fire.

Art: Pietro Falca - The Spice-vendor's shop

Shabbat 41 – Shabbat swim

Rav Zeira said, “I have observed Rabbi Abahu in a pool, but I still don’t know if he swam or not.” What was Rav Zeira’s problem? The Sages forbade swimming in lakes and rivers on Shabbat, lest one come to make a flotation device, and this refers even to pools!? Rav Zeira did not know if this refers to pools without embankments, which are more similar to lakes, or even to pools with embankments. The Talmud discusses two more instances of Rav Abbahu’s behavior about which Rav Zeira was not sure.

When Rav Zeira was planning to go live in Israel, he avoided Rav Yehudah, because Rav Yehudah forbade leaving the Diaspora and moving to Israel, until God makes it so. His reason was the phrase from prophet Jeremiah, “I will bring you to Babylon, and there you will stay”. However, as Rav Zeira craved the teachings of Rav Yehudah, he sneaked to listen from behind the bathhouse, where he heard Rav Yehudah say in Hebrew, “Please bring me soap and a brush,” and then continue in Aramaic, talking to his attendants, “Drink some of the hot water of the bathtub.” Rav Zeira deduced from here that one is permitted to talk about daily matters in Hebrew in a bathtub, and that it is beneficial to drink hot liquid while in a bathtub. Incidentally, one who leaves the bathtub and does not rinse himself in cold water is similar to metal that has been heated but not put into cold water for hardening. Rav Zeira then said, “Had I come to hear only these things, it would be enough.” Some say, he meant, “Had I only been born.”

One can drink hot water from a samovar from which hot coals have been removed – if the coals are on the inside of the samovar. However, if its coals are in a large compartment on the outer sides of the samovar, then this compartment keeps adding heat throughout Shabbat, and drinking this water is forbidden.

Art: Petrov-Vodkin - "Still life with samovar"

Shabbat 40 – Shabbat bath

People living in Tiberius – a place known for its hot underground springs – invented the following device: they passed pipes through the hot water of the springs, and used these pipes to heat water on Shabbat. They reasoned that since the underground springs are naturally hot and are not heated by human effort, and additionally since they had constructed the pipes during weekday, they should be allowed to use the clean hot water. However, the Sages told them that if the water passed through the pipes on Shabbat, then it had the laws of water heated on Shabbat, and was prohibited for both washing and drinking; and if the water passed through the pipes on a festival (Yom Tov), when cooking is allowed, then the water was allowed for drinking, but still not for washing oneself.

What is the reason behind this prohibition? Initially taking a hot bath on Shabbat, using water heated before Shabbat, was completely allowed. However, the bathhouse owners started heating water on Shabbat and saying that they heated it before. The Sages then forbade washing in any hot water on Shabbat. People kept washing on Shabbat, claiming that they used Tiberius springs. The Sages forbade using Tiberius springs, but the populace could not abide by it, so the Sages reversed this decree, but kept the other ones in place.

What kind of bath is meant? Rav said – washing the whole body, but washing one limb at a time is allowed, and Shmuel said that even that is not allowed. They asked Rav quoting a well-known rule that “only washing one’s hands and feet is allowed,” but he answered that this rule really means any washing similar to hands and feet, and thus washing individual limbs is really allowed, just as he had said. But the law here follows Shmuel.

Art: Camille Pissarro - Woman Washing Her Feet in a Brook

Shabbat 39 – Cooking in the sun

Not only it is forbidden to cook on Shabbat, but even when one takes the kettle off the stove, he should not put an egg next to the kettle, in order that it should get slightly cooked.

On the other hand, if one spread out cloth in the sun, he may try to fry eggs there, and, being that this is not a normal way of cooking with fire, it should be allowed. Nevertheless, the author of this ruling (usually the anonymous author is Rabbi Meir) forbids it – and Rabbi Yose allows it. What are their reasons? Both agree that cooking with fire derivatives (kettle) is forbidden. Both also agree that cooking in the sun is allowed, since this is unusual, and one cannot derive any wrong lessons seeing that someone cooks food in the rays of sun on Shabbat. Where they disagree is cooking with the derivatives of the heat of the sun (cloth spread out in the sun). Rabbi Meir says that it is forbidden, so that one should not come to cook with the kettle taken off the fire, while Rabbi Yose says that no one will confuse it, and therefore the additional prohibitions are unneeded.

Theodule Augustine Ribot - Still Life With Jugs And Eggs

Shabbat 38 – Putting the food back

As we learned before, Beit Hillel allow not only to leave food on the stove at the advent of Shabbat (provided that one cannot accidentally stoke the fire), but even put it back on the stove. However, here appears another concern – that it may look as if he is cooking on Shabbat. Nevertheless, this is allowed not only on Friday night, but even on the morrow, on the Shabbat day itself – so taught Rav Sheshet.

However, there are a few provisos. The food must be still warm. Our returning it on the stove is a continuation of originally leaving it there, in order to keep it warm, and if it completely cooled off, then this reason does not work. Should the pot still be in his hands? Rav Dimi and Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah disagreed about that, and therefore it is better to keep it in one’s hands while serving the food. Should one have the intention to return it, when he takes the pot? Again, here we have different versions of the ruling, and therefore it is better to keep in mind that one will return the food to the stove.

Rav Yirmiyah asked the following questions: if he hung the pot on a peg, what is the law? Is it like holding it in one’s hand, or is it like putting it on the ground? If he put it down on the bed, what then? Rav Ashi asked, “If he transferred the hot water from one kettle to another, can he return it to the stove?” These questions remained unanswered.

Art: Emil Carlsen - Still Life with Kettle and Jug

Shabbat 37 – Shabbat stoves

There are three types of stoves that we will be dealing with, two-pot, and one-pot, and the trapezoidal one. The two-pot oven is called kirah, and it produces the least amount of heat of the three types. Our modern ovens are mostly comparable to this kirah.

If one heated the two-pot oven (kirah) with straw or stubble, usually there are no coals and little residual heat. Therefore, one may place cooked food upon it before Shabbat. That rule, however, if subject to further disagreements: does the word “place” means that one can leave the food there at the advent of Shabbat, or does it mean that he can even return it back after he has taken the food off on Shabbat itself? Furthermore, “cooked” does not mean that it is completely cooked, but only that a certain bandit called “Ben Drusai” who always ate his food one-third cooked, would eat it. However, there is another disagreement about food which is already cooked, but which further improves with additional cooking. The question here is can one leave this type of food on the oven, and which foods are of this type. If the oven was heated by wood, one needs to first shovel away the coals or cover them with ash. Otherwise there is a danger that he will stoke the fire.

Beit Shammai further argue with the circumstances of this rule. According to them, it is talking only about hot water but not cooked food, and it discusses only leaving the food on the stove but not returning it; Beit Hillel disagree on both counts.

Art: Philippe Lodowyck Jacob Sadee - Lighting The Stove

Shabbat 36 -- Announcing Shabbat

The communities in the time of Talmud would announce Shabbat with six blasts of the shofar. About an hour before Shabbat they would sound the first one, to top the people from performing their labor in the fields, giving them enough time to journey back to town before Shabbat. Those working in the nearby fields were not permitted to enter the town, until those who were farther away came as well. They would all enter at once, so that those working later were not suspected of working after the shofar blast. The store in the town would still be open.

At the second blast the storeowners would shutter the windows and lock the stores. At the third blast people would finish their hot food preparation and stared lighting the Shabbat candles. Then one blew another long note (tekiah), a series of short notes (teruah), and another long note. The sexton had hidden place on the top of his roof where he would leave the shofar, in order not to carry it on Shabbat.

Art: Camille Pissarro - Peasant Woman and Child Harvesting the Fields, Pontoise