Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Shabbath

Folio 93a

[If they hold] a round cake of pressed figs and carry it out into the street, or a beam, and carry it out into the street, — R. Judah said: If one cannot carry it out and both carry it out, they are culpable; if not, they are not culpable. R. Simeon ruled: Even if one cannot carry it out and both carry it out, they are not culpable: for this [reason] it is stated, 'in his doing', [to teach that] if a single person does it, he is liable; whereas if two do it, they are exempt.

Wherein do they differ? In this verse: And if one person of the common people shall sin unwittingly, in his doing, [etc.]. R. Simeon holds: Three limitations are written: 'a person' shall sin, 'one' shall sin,' in his doing' he shall sin.¹  One excludes [the case where] one [person] removes an article [from one domain] and another deposits [it in the other domain]; a second is to exclude [the case of] each being able [separately to perform the action]; and the third is to exclude where neither is able [alone]. R. Judah [holds]: one excludes [the case where] one [person] removes and another deposits; the second is to exclude [the case of] each being able; and the third is to exclude [the case of] an individual who acts on the ruling of Beth din.²  But R. Simeon is consistent with his view, for he maintains: An individual who acts on the ruling of Beth din is liable.³  While R. Meir [argues]: Is it then written, 'a person shall sin', 'one shall sin', 'in his doing he shall sin'! [Only] two limitations are written:⁴  one excludes [the case where] one removes and another deposits, and the other excludes [the case of] an individual who acts on the ruling of Beth din.

The Master said. 'If one is able but the other is not, all agree that he is culpable.' Which one is culpable? — Said R. Hisda: He who is able. For if the one who is unable, — what does he do then?⁵  Said R. Hamnuna to him: Surely he helps him? Helping is no concrete [act], replied he. R. Zebid said on Raba's authority: We learnt likewise: If he [a zab] is sitting on a bed and four cloths are under the feet of the bed,⁶  they are unclean, because it cannot stand on three;⁷  but R. Simeon declares it clean.⁸  If he is riding on an animal and four cloths are under its feet, they are clean, because it can stand on three. But why so? surely each helps the other? Hence it must be because we maintain that helping is not a concrete [act]. Said Rab Judah of Diskarta:⁹  After all I may tell you that helping is a concrete [act]; but here it is different because it [the animal] removes it [the foot] entirely [from the ground].¹⁰  But since it alternatively removes one foot and then another, let it be as a zab who turns about.¹¹  Did we not learn, If a zab is lying on five benches or five hollow belts:¹²  if along their length, they are unclean;¹³  but if along their breadth, they are clean. [But] if he is sleeping, [and] there is a doubt that he may have turned [about upon them],¹⁴  they are unclean? Hence¹⁵  it must surely be because we say, helping is no concrete [act].

R. Papi said in Raba's name, We too learnt thus.

1. I.e., each of these expressions limits the law to the action of a single individual.
2. And thereby sins; he is not liable to a sin.offering.
3. v. Hor. 2b.
4. v., 'one soul' and 'in his doing'.
5. He himself can effect nothing.
6. I.e., one cloth under each foot.
7. So that each one is regarded as affording complete support. since the bed cannot stand without it, and therefore the cloth under it is unclean as midras (v. p. 312, n. 9). — For a thing to become unclean as midras the greater weight of the zab must rest on it.
8. Consistently with his view here that where neither can do the work alone, each is regarded merely as a help.
9. Deskarah, sixteen parasangs N.E. of Bagdad, Obermeyer, p. 146.
10. Hence it is not even regarded as helping.
11. Shifting from one support to another, as in the Mishnah quoted.
12. Probably like long straps. but hollow, and can be used as money pouches.
13. Because he may have shifted from one to another, so that each received the greater part of his weight.
14. And come to be along their length.
15. In the case of the animal.

R. Jose said: A horse defiles through its forefeet, an ass through its hindfeet, because a horse rests its weight¹  on its forefeet, while an ass rests its upon its hindfeet.²  But why so, seeing that they [the feet] help each other [to bear the animal's weight]? Hence it must surely be because we say, helping is no concrete [act].

R. Ashi said, We too learnt this: R. Eliezer said: If one foot is on the utensil and the other on the pavement, one foot on the stone and the other on the pavement, we consider: wherever if the utensil or the stone be removed, he can stand on the other foot, his service is valid; if not, his service is invalid.³  Yet why so, seeing that they [the feet] help each other? Hence it must surely be because we say, helping is no concrete [act].

Rabina said, We too learnt this: If he [the priest] catches [the blood] with his right hand, while his left helps him,⁴  his service is valid. But why so, Seeing that they [the hands] help each other? But it must surely be because we say, helping is no concrete [act]. This proves it.

The Master said: 'If each alone is able: R. Meir holds [them] culpable.' The scholars asked: Is the standard quantity required for each, or perhaps one standard [is sufficient] for all?⁵  R. Hisda and R. Hamnuna [differ therein]: one maintains, The standard [is required] for each; while the other rules: One standard [is sufficient] for all. R. Papa observed in Raba's name, We too learnt thus: If he [a zab] is sitting on a bed and four cloths are under the feet of the bed, they are unclean, because it cannot stand on three.⁶  But why so: let the standard of gonorrhoea be necessary for each?⁷  Hence it must surely be because we say, One standard [suffices] for all.

R. Nahman b. Isaac said, We too learnt thus: If a deer enters a house and one person locks [it] before him,⁸  he is culpable; if two lock it, they are exempt.⁹  If one could not lock it, and both lock it, they are culpable. But why so? let the standard of trapping be necessary for each?¹⁰  Hence it must surely be because we say, One standard [suffices] for all.

Rabina said, We too learnt thus: If partners steal [an ox or a sheep] and slaughter it, they are liable.¹¹  But why so? let the standard of slaughtering be necessary for each? Hence it must surely be because we say, One standard [suffices] for all.

And R. Ashi [also] said, We too learnt thus: If two carry out a weaver's cane [quill], they are culpable. But why so? let the standard of carrying out be necessary for each? Hence it must surely be because we say, One standard [suffices] for all. Said R. Aha son of Raba to R. Ashi: Perhaps that is where it contains sufficient [fuel] to boil a light egg for each?¹² — If so, he [the Tanna] should inform us about a cane in general?¹³  why particularly a weaver's?¹⁴  Yet perhaps it is large enough for each to weave a cloth therewith?¹⁵  Hence nothing can be inferred from this.

A tanna¹⁶  recited before R. Nahman: If two carry out a weaver's cane, they are not culpable; but R. Simeon declares them culpable. Whither does this tend!¹⁷  — Rather say, They are culpable, while R. Simeon exempts [them].

MISHNAH. IF ONE CARRIES OUT LESS THAN THE STANDARD QUANTITY OF FOOD IN A UTENSIL, HE IS NOT CULPABLE EVEN IN RESPECT OF THE UTENSIL, BECAUSE THE UTENSIL IS SUBSIDIARY THERETO. [IF ONE CARRIES OUT] A LIVING PERSON IN A BED, HE IS NOT CULPABLE EVEN IN RESPECT OF THE BED, BECAUSE THE BED IS SUBSIDIARY TO HIM;¹⁸  A CORPSE IN A BED, HE IS CULPABLE. AND LIKEWISE [IF ONE CARRIES OUT] THE SIZE OF AN OLIVE OF A CORPSE, THE SIZE OF AN OLIVE OF A NEBELAH, OR THE SIZE OF A LENTIL OF A [DEAD] CREEPING THING [SHEREZ], HE IS CULPABLE.¹⁹  BUT R. SIMEON DECLARES HIM EXEMPT.²⁰

GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: If one carries out foodstuffs of the standard quantity, if in a utensil, he is liable in respect of the foodstuffs and exempt in respect of the utensil! but if he needs the utensil, he is liable in respect of the utensil too.²¹  Then this proves that if one eats two olive-sized pieces of heleb in one state of unawareness, he is liable to two [sacrifices]?²²  Said R. Shesheth: What are we discussing here? E.g.,

1. Lit., 'the leaning of a horse'.
2. The reference is to a cloth placed under the feet of these animals when a zab rides upon them.
3. A priest performed the service in the Temple barefooted, and nothing might interpose between his feet and the pavement.
4. Catching the blood of a sacrifice for its subsequent sprinkling on the altar is part of the sacrificial service, and like all other parts thereof must be performed with the right hand.
5. When two people carry out an article of food which each could carry out alone, must it be as large as two dried figs, so that there is the standard for each, Or is one sufficient to render them both culpable?
6. V. supra a for notes.
7. 'The standard of gonorrhoea' is that a whole zab rests on an article-then it is unclean. Then here too four zabim should be lying on the bed for the four cloths to be defiled.
8. So that it cannot escape. This constitutes trapping, which is a culpable labour; v. Mishnah supra 73a.
9. Cf. supra 92b.
10. Viz., two deers should be required.
11. v. Ex. XXI, 37.
12. Mishnah supra 89b.
13. The standard of which is boil a light egg.
14. The standard of which is different; v. next note.
15. This is the standard of a weaver's cane.
16. V. s.v. (b).
17. I.e.. surely R. Simeon rules in the opposite direction, that if two perform an action, even if each is unable to do it separately, they are exempt. Jast. translates: towards the tail! i.e., reverse it.
18. Carrying a living person is not a culpable offense, v. infra 94a.
19. These are the respective minima which defile. Hence carrying them out of the house ranks as a labour of importance, since a source of contamination is thereby removed.
20. For carrying out a corpse, etc. For its purpose is merely negative, i.e., he does not wish to have the corpse in his house, but does not actually want it in the street; hence it is a labour unessential in itself, and which R. Simeon holds is not a culpable offence, though it is forbidden.
21. Thus he is liable to two sacrifices.
22. Surely that is not so, yet the cases are analogous.