Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Shabbath

Folio 95a

She who paints [is culpable] on the score of dyeing; she who plaits and rouges, on the score of building. Is this then the manner of building? — Even so, as R. Simeon b. Menassia expounded: And the Lord God builded the rib [… into a woman]:¹  this teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, plaited Eve['s hair] and brought her to Adam, for in the sea-towns plaiting is called 'building'.

It was taught, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: If [a woman] plaits [hair], paints [the eyes], or rouges [the face], — if [she does this] to herself, she is not culpable; [if to] her companion, she is culpable. And thus did R. Simeon b. Eleazar [say on R. Eliezer's authority: A woman must not apply paint to her face, because she dyes.

Our Rabbis taught: One who milks, sets milk [for curdling],²  and makes cheese, [the standard is] the size of a dried fig. If one sweeps [the floor], lays the dust [by sprinkling water], and removes loaves of honey, if he does this unwittingly on the Sabbath, he is liable to a sin.offering; if he does it deliberately on a Festival, he is flagellated with forty³  [lashes]: this is R. Eliezer's view. But the Sages say: In both cases it is [forbidden] only as a shebuth.⁴

R. Nahman b. Guria visited Nehardea. He was asked. If one milks, on what score is he culpable? On the score of milking, He replied. If one sets milk, or what score is he culpable? On the score of setting milk, he replied. If one makes cheese, on what score is he liable? On account of making cheese, he replied. Your teacher must have been a reed-cutter in a marsh, they jeered at him. [So] he went and asked in the Beth Hamidrash. Said they to him, He who milks is liable on account of unloading.⁵  He who sets milk is liable on account of selecting.⁶  He who makes cheese is liable on account of building.⁷

'If one sweeps, lays the dust, and removes loaves of honey, if he does this unwittingly on the Sabbath, he is liable to a sin-offering; if he does it deliberately on a Festival, he is flagellated with forty [lashes]: this is R. Eliezer's view.' R. Eleazar observed, 'What is R. Eliezer's reason? Because it is written, and he dipped if in the forest of honey:⁸  now, what is the connection between a forest and honey.?⁹  But it is to teach you: just as a forest, he who detaches [aught] from it on the Sabbath is liable to a sin-offering, so are loaves of honey, he who removes [honey] therefrom is liable to a sin-offering.

Amemar permitted sprinkling [the floors] in Mahoza.¹⁰  He argued: What is the reason that the Rabbis said [that it is forbidden]? [It is] lest one come to level up depressions [in the earthen floor]. Here there are no depressions.¹¹  Rabbah Tosfa'ah¹²  found Rabina suffering discomfort on account of the heat — others state, Mar Kashisha son of Raba found R. Ashi suffering discomfort on account of the heat. Said he to him — Does not my Master agree with what was taught: If one wishes to sprinkle his house on the Sabbath, he can bring a basin full of water, wash his face in one corner, his hands in another, and his feet in another, and thus the house is sprinkled automatically? I did not think of it,¹³  he replied. It was taught: A wise woman can sprinkle her house on the Sabbath.¹⁴  But now that we hold as R. Simeon,¹⁵  it is permitted even at the very outset.¹⁶

MISHNAH. IF ONE DETACHES [AUGHT] FROM A PERFORATED POT, HE IS CULPABLE;¹⁷  IF IT IS UNPERFORATED, HE IS EXEMPT. BUT R. SIMEON DECLARES [HIM] EXEMPT IN BOTH CASES.

GEMARA. Abaye pointed out a contradiction to Raba — others state, R. Hiyya b. Rab to Rab: We learnt, R. SIMEON DECLARES [HIM] EXEMPT IN BOTH CASES, which proves that according to R. Simeon a perforated [pot] is treated the same as an unperforated [one]. But the following contradicts it. R. Simeon said: The only difference between a perforated and an unperforated [pot]

1. Gen. II, 22.
2. Rashi: Jast.: who beats milk into a pulp. Levy, Worterbuch, s.v. [H]: if one curdles milk in order to press butter out of it; v. also T.A. II, 135.
3. Strictly speaking, thirty-nine.
4. v. Glos. This being a Rabbinical interdict, there is neither a sin-offering nor flagellation.
5. It is similar thereto, the milk being unloaded from whence it is collected in the cow. As such it is a secondary form of threshing, where the chaff is separated and unloaded, as it were, from the grain.
6. For the whey is thereby selected and separated from the rest of the milk which is to curdle.
7. The solidifying of the liquid is regarded as similar to the act of putting together an edifice.
8. I Sam. XIV, 27, lit. translation. E.V.: honeycomb.
9. Surely none at all!
10. V. p. 150, n. 11.
11. All the houses had stone floors.
12. Perhaps of Thospia. Neub. Geogr. p. 332: capital of the Armenian district Thospitis.
13. Others: do not agree with it.
14. By the foregoing or a similar device.
15. That what is unintentional is permitted. When one sprinkles it is not his intention that the water should knead together bits of earth and thus smooth out the depressions.
16. Without resort to any expedient.
17. Cf. p. 388, n. 3.

is in respect of making [its] plants fit [to become unclean]?¹  — In all respects, answered he, R. Simeon treats it as detached, but in the matter of uncleanness it is different, because the Torah extended [the scope of] cleanness in the case of plants [seeds], for it is said, [And if aught of their carcase fall] upon any sowing seed which is to be sown, [it is clean].²

A certain old man asked R. Zera: If the root is over against the hole, what is R. Simeon's ruling then?³  He was silent and answered him nought. On a [subsequent] occasion he found him sitting and teaching: Yet R. Simeon admits that if it is perforated to the extent of making it clean, [there is culpability].⁴  Said he to him, Seeing that I asked you about a root that is over against the perforation and you gave me no reply. can there be a doubt concerning [a pot that is] perforated to the extent of making it clean?⁵  Abaye observed: If this [dictum] of R. Zera was stated, it was stated thus: Yet R. Simeon agrees that if it is perforated below [the capacity of] a rebi'ith, [there is culpability].⁶

Raba said: There are five principles in the case of an earthen utensil: [i] If it has a perforation sufficient [only] for a liquid to run out, it is clean in that it cannot be defiled when already a mutilated vessel,⁷  yet it is still a utensil in respect of sanctifying the water of lustration therein.⁸  [ii] If it has a perforation sufficient for a liquid to run in,⁹  it is 'clean' in respect of sanctifying the water of lustration therein,¹⁰  yet it is still a utensil to render its plants fit [to become unclean].¹¹  [iii] If it has a perforation as large as a small root, it is 'clean' in respect of making its plants fit [to become defiled], yet it is still a utensil in that it can hold olives.¹²  [iv] If it has a perforation large enough to allow olives to fall out, it is clean in that it cannot hold olives, yet it is still a utensil to contain pomegranates.¹³  [v] If t has a perforation large enough to allow pomegranates to fall through, it is clean in respect of all things.¹⁴  But if it is closed with an airtight lid — [it ranks as a utensil] unless the greater portion thereof is broken.¹⁵

R. Assi said: I have heard that the standard of an earthen vessel is [a hole] large enough to allow a pomegranate to fall out.¹⁶  Said Raba to him: Perhaps you heard [this] Only of [a vessel] closed with a tight-fitting lid!¹⁷  But it was Raba himself who said: If it is closed with a tight-fitting lid, [it ranks as a utensil] unless the greater portion thereof is broken? — There is no difficulty:

1. Edibles, e.g., grain, vegetables, etc-, can be defiled only if moisture has fallen upon them after they were detached from the soil. Now, a perforated pot is regarded as attached to the soil, and therefore its plants cannot become susceptible to uncleanness; whereas an unperforated pot is detached, and so if moisture falls upon its plant, when grown it is henceforth fit to become unclean — This shows that R. Simeon too recognizes this difference.
2. Lev. XI, 37, i.e., if it is in any way attached to the soil it is clean, and this includes a perforated pot.
3. If one tears out that root on the Sabbath (Rashi). Here the root draws sustenance directly from the ground.
4. If a utensil becomes unclean and then a hole is made in it large enough for an olive to fall through. It technically ceases to be a utensil and becomes clean. Thus here too, if the perforation is if that size, R. Simeon admits that the pot and its contents, even such as are not over against the perforation. are regarded as attached to the soil.
5. It is certain that such a case is doubtful and one cannot positively state R. Simeon's views thereon.
6. I.e., if the perforation is so low in the sides of the pot that the portion of the pot beneath it cannot hold a revi'ith. Then it is certainly not regarded as a utensil, and its plants are held to grow direct from the ground. Accordingly the perforations spoken of hitherto, and in the Mishnah, are high up in the sides of the pot, and certainly not in the bottom, as is the case with our pots.
7. If the vessel is sound, such a small hole does not deprive it of its character as a utensil and it is still susceptible to uncleanness. But if it was already mutilated, e.g..cracked, this added perforation renders it incapable of becoming unclean.
8. If otherwise sound, v. Num. XIX, 17: putting the water in a utensil is designated sanctification.
9. That is naturally somewhat larger than the preceding.
10. 'Clean' is employed idiomatically to imply that it is not a utensil in respect of what follows; thus one cannot sanctify, etc.
11. V. p. 456. n. 6. Even the Rabbis admit that if the perforation is not larger the pot and is contents are treated as detached.
12. And hence susceptible to defilement. If a utensil is not designated for any particular purpose, it must be able to hold olives in order to be susceptible to defilement.
13. I.e., if it was explicitly designated for holding pomegranates, it is still a utensil and susceptible to defilement.
14. It is no longer susceptible, or, if it was defiled before it was perforated, it becomes clean. Henceforth it is susceptible to defilement only if its owner puts it aside to use as a mutilated vessel (Rashi).
15. The reference is to Num. XIX, 15, q v. If the vessel is closed with a tight-fitting lid, its contents too remain clean, unless the greater portion is broken, in which case it does not rank as a vessel and cannot protect its contents from the contamination spread by the corpse.
16. I.e. — unless it has such a large hole it ranks as a utensil.
17. I.e. — that it affords no protection if it has such a large hole.