Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Shabbath

Folio 102a

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]

1. Before it falls to the ground.
2. The exact meaning is discussed infra.
3. This assumes that the Mishnah means, AND RECALLS, and, ANOTHER CATCHES, etc.
4. Tied together. I.e., the second clause can refer only to one who throws a bolt whilst retaining the cord in his hand. If he recollects before it reaches the ground, he can pull it back; hence if he does not pull it back the end (sc. its alighting) is deliberate. But if the article has left his hand entirely and he cannot prevent its falling, the end too is regarded as unwitting. whether he recollects or not.
5. That is not throwing at all.
6. Rashi reads: But we learnt this explicitly why then intimate it in the general principle?
7. Sc. the last clause: if he recollects, he can stop before he has traversed four cubits.
8. This is all one, not as Raba interprets it.
9. Before it alighted.
10. The thrower or carrier (v. infra to which this actually refers) was unaware of the Sabbath (or that throwing is prohibited) during the first two cubits of its passage, recollected for the next two, and forgot again for the last two. — Of course, this is a most unlikely hypothesis almost impossible in fact. Many similar unlikely contingencies are discussed in the Talmud, and their purpose is to establish the principles by which they are governed and which may then be applied to normal possibilities.
11. Cf. p. 341. n. 8. Here too' two cubits is half the standard.
12. Even if he recollects, since it has left his hand and he cannot bring it back.
13. Not to complete the action.
14. Thus there is no controversy, each referring to a different case.
15. For heleb and nothar v, Glos.
16. He is liable to separate sin-offering because he has violated the interdicts of heleb, nothar, eating on the Day of Atonement, and the prohibition against an unclean person's consumption of sacred food. Again. since the heleb of a sacrifice belongs to the altar, he is liable to a guilt-offering for trespass.
17. On account of carrying.
18. Sc. eating, for this liability is on account of carrying, not of eating; v. Ker. 13b.
19. One is not liable for performing an action in an abnormal manner.
20. For holding the food in to carry it out. R. Han.: his design renders his mouth the equivalent of a place four handbreadths square, whence and whither removal and depositing can take place.
21. Sc. that the dog should catch it, etc.

CHAPTER XII

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:

1. 'However little' applies to all the foregoing labours.
2. I.e., it is not necessary to add thereto, which on occasion may be complete in itself
3. This is explained in the Gemara.
4. Perutah. pl. perutoth, a very small coin. Thus we find an instance of very little building, and therefore this sets the standard. Money was hidden in the earth. Cf. B.M. 42a: 'Money can only be guarded by placing it in the earth'; Josephus. Wars, V. 7. 2: 'which the owners have treasured up underground against the uncertain fortunes of war'.
5. The labors performed there being the basis for the principal Sabbath labours, v. supra 73a.
6. This would never be necessary there, for everything was prepared in large quantities.
7. All these are instances of building.
8. Shifting the stone about on the ground until it is in the right spot.
9. For building, even if no mortar is used.
10. But not the former, which contradicts Samuel.
11. Tosaf. omits 'R. Jose said', and Wilna Gaon makes a somewhat similar emendation.
12. But no mortar, and Samuel refers to this.
13. This means all the rows between the bottom and the top rows.
14. Without the meticulous care needed for the bottom row, since nothing was to go upon it.
15. This being the completion of the work, v. supra 75b.
16. For ventilation, etc.
17. Rashi: the pin passed through the handle and made it fast to the blade.
18. Chiselling a stone to smooth it is an essential part of building.
19. By reversing the former argument.
20. The latter being explanatory of the former.