BUT NOT TEBEL, etc. That is obvious? — It is necessary [to teach it] only of tebel made so by Rabbinical law, e.g., if it was sown in an unperforated pot.1
NOR THE FIRST TITHE, etc. That is obvious? — It is necessary [to teach it] only where it had been anticipated in the pile, the tithe having been separated but not the great terumah. You might argue as R. Papa proposed to Abaye:2 hence he [the Tanna] informs us [that it is] as Abaye answered him.
NOR THE SECOND TITHE, etc. That is obvious? — It is necessary [to teach it] only where they have been redeemed, but not in accordance with their laws; [i.e.,] the [second] tithe was redeemed by uncoined metal,3 for the Divine Law states, And thou shalt bind up [we-zarta] the money in thine hand,4 [implying], that which bears a figure [zurah];5 [and] hekdesh which was secularized by means of land,6 for the Divine law states, Then he shall give the money and it shall be assured to him.7
NOR LOF. Our Rabbis taught: We may handle hazab,8 because it is food for gazelles, and mustard, because it is food for doves. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: We may also handle fragments of glass, because it is food for ostriches. Said R. Nathan to him: If so, let bundles of twigs be handled, because they are food for elephants. And R. Simeon b. Gamaliel?9 Ostriches are common, [whereas] elephants are rare. Amemar observed: provided he has ostriches. R. Ashi said to Amemar: Then when R. Nathan said to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, 'let bundles of dried branches be handled, because they are food for elephants', — if one has elephants, why not? But [he means,] they are fit for [elephants]; so here too they are fit for [ostriches].10
Abaye said: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, R. Simeon, R. Ishmael, and R. Akiba, all hold that all Israel are royal children. 'R. Simeon R. Gamaliel', as stated.11 'R. Simeon': for we learnt: Royal children may anoint their wounds with oil, since it is their practice to anoint themselves thus on weekdays. R. Simeon said: All Israel are royal children. 'R. Ishmael and R. Akiba': for it was taught: If one is a debtor for a thousand zuz, and wears a robe a hundred manehs in value, he is stripped thereof and robed with a garment that is fitting for him. It was taught in the name of R. Ishmael, and it was taught in the name of R. Akiba: All Israel are worthy of that robe.
BUNDLES OF STRAW, TWIGS, etc. Our Rabbis taught: Bundles of straw, bundles of branches, and bundles of young shoots,12 if one prepared them as animal fodder, may be handled; if not, they may not be handled. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Bundles which can be taken up with one hand may be handled; with two hands, may not be handled. As for bundles of si'ah,13 hyssop and koranith:14 if they were brought in for fuel, one must not draw on them [for food] on the Sabbath; [if brought in] as animal fodder, he may draw on them on the Sabbath; and he may break [it] with his hand and eat [thereof], provided that he does not break it with a utensil. And he may crush it and eat, provided that he does not crush a large quantity with a utensil: the words of R. Judah. But the Sages maintain: He may crush [it] with the tips of his fingers and eat, provided, however, that he does not crush a large quantity with his hands in the [same] way as he does on weekdays; the same applies to ammitha, the same applies to higgam [rue], and the same applies to other kinds of spices. What is ammitha? Ninya.15 [What is] si'ah? — Said Rab Judah: Si'ah is zithre;16 ezob is abratha [hyssop];17 koranith is what is called koranitha. But there was a certain man who asked, 'Who wants koranitha,' and it transpired [that he meant] thyme? — Rather si'ah is zithre, ezob is abratha, and koranitha is hashe [thyme].
It was stated: Salted meat may be handled on the Sabbath; unsalted18 meat, — R. Huna says: It may be handled; R. Hisda rules: It may not be handled. 'R. Huna says: It may be handled'? But R. Huna was Rab's disciple, and Rab agrees with R. Judah who accepts [the prohibition of] mukzeh?19 — In [the interdict of] mukzeh in respect of eating he agrees with R. Judah;20 in [the interdict] of mukzeh as regards handling he agrees with R. Simeon.21
'R. Hisda rules: It may not be handled.' But R. Isaac b. Ammi visited R. Hisda's house and he saw a [slaughtered] duck being moved from the sun into the shade, and R. Hisda observed, I see here a financial loss.'22 — A duck is different, because it is fit as raw meat.
Our Rabbis taught: Bones may be handled because they are food for dogs;
MISHNAH. A BASKET MAY BE OVERTURNED BEFORE FLEDGLINGS, FOR THEM TO ASCEND OR DESCEND.3 IF A FOWL RUNS AWAY [FROM THE HOUSE], SHE IS PUSHED [WITH THE HANDS] UNTIL SHE RE-ENTERS. CALVES AND FOALS MAY BE MADE TO WALK, AND A WOMAN MAY MAKE HER SON WALK.4 R. JUDAH SAID: WHEN IS THAT? IF HE LIFTS ONE [FOOT] AND PLACES [ANOTHER] DOWN; BUT IF HE DRAGS THEM IT IS FORBIDDEN.5
GEMARA. Rab Judah said in Rab's name: If an animal falls into a dyke, one brings pillows and bedding and places [them] under it, and if it ascends it ascends. An objection is raised: If an animal falls into a dyke, provisions are made for it where it lies so that it should not perish. Thus, only provisions, but not pillows and bedding? — There is no difficulty: here it means where provisions are possible; there, where provisions are impossible. If provisions are possible, well and good;6 but if not, one brings pillows and bedding and places them under it. But he robs a utensil of its readiness [for use]?7 — [The avoidance of] suffering of dumb animals is a Biblical [law], so the Biblical law comes and supersedes the [interdict] of the Rabbis.8
IF A FOWL RUNS AWAY. We may only push [it], but not make it walk. We have here learnt what our Rabbis taught: An animal, beast, or bird may be made to walk in a courtyard, but not a fowl. Why not a fowl? — Said Abaye, Because she raises herself.9
One [Baraitha] taught: An animal, beast, and bird may be made to walk in a courtyard, but not in the street; a woman may lead her son in the street, and in the courtyard it goes without saying. Another taught: An animal, beast, and bird may not be carried10 in a courtyard, but we may push them that they should enter. Now this is self-contradictory. You say, We may not carry, which implies that we may certainly make them walk; then you say, we may only push but not lead? — Said Abaye: The second clause refers to a fowl.
MISHNAH. ONE MAY NOT DELIVER AN ANIMAL [IN GIVING BIRTH] ON A FESTIVAL, BUT ONE MAY ASSIST IT. WE MAY DELIVER A WOMAN ON THE SABBATH, SUMMON A MIDWIFE FOR HER FROM PLACE TO PLACE, DESECRATE THE SABBATH ON HER ACCOUNT, AND TIE UP THE NAVEL-STRING. R. JOSE SAID: ONE MAY CUT [IT] TOO. AND ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF CIRCUMCISION MAY BE DONE ON THE SABBATH.
GEMARA. How may we assist? Rab Judah said: The new-born [calf, lamb, etc.] is held so that it should not fall on the earth. R. Nahman said: The flesh is compressed in order that the young should come out. It was taught in accordance with Rab Judah. How do we assist? We may hold the young so that it should not fall on the ground, blow into its nostrils,13 and put the teat into its mouth that it should suck. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: We stimulate pity14 to a clean animal15 on a Festival. What was done? — Said Abaye: A lump of salt was brought and placed in its womb so that it [the mother] might remember its travails16 and have pity upon it; and we sprinkle the water of the after-birth17 upon the newly-born [animal] so that its mother might smell it and have pity upon it. Yet only [in the case of] a clean [animal], but not an unclean one. What is the reason? An unclean animal does not spurn its young, and if it does spurn it, it does not take it back.18
ONE MAY DELIVER A WOMAN, etc. Consider: He [the Tanna] teaches, ONE MAY DELIVER A WOMAN AND SUMMON A MIDWIFE FOR HER FROM PLACE TO PLACE, then what does AND DESECRATE THE SABBATH ON HER ACCOUNT add? — It adds the following taught by the Rabbis: If she needs a lamp, her neighbour may kindle a lamp for her. And if she needs oil, her neighbour brings her oil19 in her hand;20 but if that in her hand is insufficient, she brings it in her hair; and if that in her hair is insufficient, she brings it to her in a vessel.
The Master said: 'If she needs a lamp, her neighbour may kindle a lamp for her.' That is obvious? — This is necessary [to be taught] only in the case of a blind [woman]: you might argue, Since she cannot see it, it is forbidden; hence he informs us that we tranquillize her mind, [as] she reasons, if there is anything [required] my friend will see it and do it for me.
'If she needs oil, etc.' [But] deduce it on the grounds of wringing out?21 — Rabbah and R. Joseph both answer: [The interdict of] wringing out does not apply to hair. R. Ashi said: You may even say that wringing out does apply to hair: she brings it to her in a vessel by means of her hair,22 [because] as much as we can vary it we do so.23
Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: If a woman is in confinement, as long as the uterus is open, whether she states, 'I need it,' or 'I do not need it,' we must desecrate the Sabbath on her account. If the uterus is closed, whether she says,
- To Next Folio -