Good morning, everyone. This discussion from Tractate Shabbat, page 12b, is dedicated to the complete healing of all the sick among the Jewish people, especially those affected by the coronavirus. May God, blessed be He, remove the illness from our midst, Amen, may it be His will.
We are continuing our study of the Gemara. Previously, we discussed a person who has a seminal emission (a Zav) and wears a protective covering (a kis) on his organ to catch the discharge and prevent it from soiling his clothes. One Baraita stated that if he carries this kis on Shabbat, he is liable, while another Baraita said he is exempt. The Gemara attempted to reconcile these conflicting opinions but rejected the initial answers. Now, the Gemara provides its final resolution.
This brings us to a fundamental dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon regarding the type of labor (melacha) performed on Shabbat that incurs liability. This is known as Melacha She'eina Tzricha L'gufa. Rabbi Shimon understands that all labors performed in the Mishkan, which serves as the paradigm for Shabbat prohibitions, were constructive and aimed at achieving a positive outcome. They were not reactive, nor were they performed to prevent a potential problem. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon maintains that any labor on Shabbat, to incur liability, must similarly be constructive and proactive. In the case of the Zav wearing a kis, he carries it not for a constructive purpose, but to prevent his clothes from becoming soiled by the discharge. He is reacting to a negative situation. Since this is not a constructive labor, Rabbi Shimon rules that it is a Melacha She'eina Tzricha L'gufa, and thus the person is exempt. This aligns with the Baraita that stated "exempt."
Rabbi Yehuda, however, disagrees. He does not draw such a strict connection to the specific intent of the labors in the Mishkan. For him, if a labor is performed with the intent to do that specific labor, it is sufficient to incur liability, even if it is a Melacha She'eina Tzricha L'gufa. This aligns with the other Baraita that stated "liable." Rashi explains that Rabbi Yehuda's view means that the underlying purpose of the labor is irrelevant; what matters is that the labor itself was performed. For example, if a corpse is carried out of a house on Shabbat, Rabbi Yehuda would say one is liable for carrying the bed, regardless of the person's desire to remove the unpleasant smell. Rabbi Shimon, conversely, would argue that this is a reactive act, not a constructive one, and therefore one would be exempt. This distinction between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon is fundamental. Tosafot offers a different explanation for this dispute, which will be explored when we reach page 90a.
We now move to the next topic: a person may go out with their phylacteries (tefillin) on Friday afternoon, close to sunset. Although it is generally forbidden to wear tefillin in the public domain on Shabbat, due to concern that one might forget they are wearing them and carry them, the Gemara states that this concern is not applicable here. The reason is that a person is required to constantly remember and be aware of their tefillin. This is derived from the frontlet (tzitz) worn by the High Priest (Kohen Gadol). Just as the tzitz, which bore God's name once ("Holy to the Lord"), was to be "constantly on his forehead," meaning the Kohen could not divert his attention from it, so too with tefillin. Since tefillin contain many more mentions of God's name (21 in the hand-tefillin and 21 in the head-tefillin, totaling 42), one must be even more cognizant of them. Thus, there is no concern that one might forget they are wearing tefillin, and therefore no decree (gezera) against wearing them on Friday afternoon into Shabbat.
A significant question arises from this Gemara, based on the opinion of the Rosh. The Rosh holds that while one must avoid lightheaded behavior (kalut rosh) while wearing tefillin, activities like eating or working with tefillin on are not considered a lack of awareness (hesach hada'at). If so, it is possible that someone wearing tefillin on Shabbat, who is permitted to work with them according to the Rosh, might indeed forget about them. This would contradict the Gemara's premise that one constantly remembers their tefillin. This is a question posed by the commentators on the Rosh's view based on this Gemara.
Rabbi Hananya states that a person must check their garments on Friday evening, close to sunset. This means checking one's pockets for forgotten items before Shabbat begins. This is particularly important when a holiday (Yom Tov) falls on Friday, as carrying is permitted on Yom Tov, and pockets might be filled. When Shabbat follows, carrying is strictly forbidden. Therefore, before entering Shabbat, one must check their pockets. Rav Yosef comments that this is a great law to prevent a person from violating Shabbat by carrying.
We return to the Mishnah, which stated two prohibitions: one should not remove lice from their garments, and one should not read by the light of a candle. We previously learned that the reason for the latter is the concern that one might tilt the candle to draw the oil closer to the wick, which constitutes igniting (Mav'ir) a flame on Shabbat. The Gemara now questions whether the prohibition against removing lice is connected to reading by candlelight, meaning one should not remove lice by the light of a candle for the same reason (shema yateh – lest one tilt the candle). Or, are these two separate laws? Perhaps the prohibition against removing lice is forbidden even during the day, because one might kill the lice, which is forbidden on Shabbat. This would follow the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who equates killing any creature, no matter how small, to killing a large animal on Shabbat.
The Gemara explores this. Could it be that one should not remove lice from garments during the day because one might kill them, following Rabbi Eliezer's view? And the prohibition against reading by candlelight is a separate law, due to the concern of tilting the candle? Or are both prohibitions linked to the light of the candle and the concern of tilting it? Our Mishnah is ambiguous. A Baraita is brought: "We do not remove lice, and we do not read by the light of the candle." The phrasing "and we do not" might suggest a connection. However, the Gemara asks if this Baraita offers a clearer indication than the Mishnah, concluding that it merely states both prohibitions again without clarifying their connection.
Then, a definitive Baraita is presented: "One should not remove lice by the light of the candle, and one should not read by the light of the candle." This clearly connects both prohibitions to the light of the candle and the concern of tilting it. This ruling was among the laws declared in the attic of Hananya ben Hezkiah ben Garon. The Gemara concludes: "Learn from this [proof positive] that both laws are based on shema yateh."
Rav Huna, in the name of Shmuel, adds that this prohibition extends even to distinguishing between one's own clothes and one's wife's clothes by candlelight. It seems their garments were similar, requiring light to differentiate. Abaye clarifies that this specific concern applies only to the people of Mehoza. The women and men of Mehoza wore similar, wide, loose garments, making it difficult to distinguish them without light. Therefore, for them, using a candle for this purpose is forbidden due to shema yateh. However, for people of other places, like Haklita, where men's clothes were shorter (suitable for field work) and women's wider, there was no need for a candle to distinguish, so it was permissible. Furthermore, even in Mehoza, the concern applied only to the clothes of older women, whose garments resembled men's. Children's clothes were distinct, so no such decree applied to them. The principle is: if clothes are similar enough to require a candle for discernment, it is forbidden due to the decree of shema yateh.
The Rabbis taught: "One should not remove lice in the public domain, out of respect." This applies even on weekdays. It is considered disgusting and disrespectful to others. Similarly, one should not vomit in the public domain for the same reason. These are matters of proper conduct (Derech Eretz).
Returning to the law of removing lice on Shabbat: one may pull out lice, rub them between one's fingers to weaken them, and then discard them, provided one does not rub so tightly as to kill them. This opinion holds that killing lice on Shabbat is rabbinically forbidden. Abba Shaul disagrees; he says one should only pull them off and throw them away, without rubbing them at all. This is because Abba Shaul follows Rabbi Eliezer, who considers killing lice on Shabbat to be a Torah prohibition, as serious as killing a camel. Therefore, Abba Shaul institutes a decree against rubbing them, lest one come to kill them. The first opinion, which considers killing lice only a rabbinic prohibition, does not extend the decree to rubbing.
Rav Huna states that the accepted law (halacha) is to rub and then discard. However, the Gemara notes that Rav Huna himself would kill lice on Shabbat, as would Rav Sheshet. Rava would throw them into a bucket of water. Rav Nachman would tell his daughters to kill them, declaring, "May my enemies perish!" This indicates that these Sages held it permissible to kill lice on Shabbat.
A Baraita states that Rabbi Shimon ben Azai says: "We do not kill lice (kinim) on Shabbat." This is the opinion of Beit Shammai. But in the name of Beit Hillel, "We do kill lice on Shabbat." The accepted law is according to Beit Hillel. Why does Beit Hillel permit killing lice? Rashi explains that the paradigm for forbidden labors on Shabbat comes from the Mishkan, where rams (elim) were killed for their skins. Rams multiply through normal procreation (peru u'rvu). Lice, however, do not multiply through procreation but through spontaneous generation from human sweat and body. Although they are alive, their origin is different from animals that procreate. Therefore, killing them is not considered a labor like killing a ram in the Mishkan, and Beit Hillel permits it. This explains why the aforementioned rabbis would kill lice on Shabbat.
Rabbi Shimon ben Azai also states in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: "One should not arrange matches (shidduchim) for children on Shabbat." This is considered a personal need. "Nor should one hire a teacher for his son to learn Torah (Sefer) or a trade (ummanut) on Shabbat." "Nor do we console mourners (avelim) on Shabbat, nor do we visit the sick (cholim) on Shabbat." These are all prohibitions according to Beit Shammai, while Beit Hillel permits them. The Ben Ish Chai, in Torah L'shma, cites the Ari, who held that one should not kill any creature unless it poses a danger or is a matter of life-saving (pikuach nefesh). Thus, the Ben Ish Chai suggests it is better to simply weaken and discard lice rather than kill them, despite the general permission to kill them on Shabbat.
When visiting a sick person on Shabbat, one should say: "It is Shabbat, and we are not permitted to cry out, but your healing will soon come." This is the first opinion. Rabbi Meir offers a different phrasing: "If you observe Shabbat, this merit (zechut) itself will bring you healing." The merit of Shabbat has the power to bring mercy. Rabbi Yehuda says: "May God have mercy on you and on all the sick people of Israel." Rabbi Yosef makes a slight adjustment: "May you be included among the sick of all Israel." Rashi explains that when one includes the sick person in a collective prayer for all of Israel's sick, the prayer is heard more effectively due to the merit of the many. This differs from simply praying for the individual and then for others separately.
Shabna Ish Yerushalayim said: "Upon entering, one says 'Shalom' (peace), which is a blessing, as 'Shalom' is one of God's names. Upon leaving, one says: 'It is Shabbat, and we are not permitted to cry out. God's mercy is great, and Shabbat itself can bring healing. Rest on Shabbat, and you will have healing. May your Shabbat be peaceful.'" Tosafot, in the second Tosafot here, notes that the name Shabna is associated with a wicked person, and it is generally forbidden to name people after the wicked. However, the Ri argues that a good person named Shachna (a similar name) is found in the Prophets, making the name permissible. Thus, there is a dispute between the Ba'al HaTosafot, who changes the name to Shachna, and the Ri, who retains Shabna.
The Gemara reiterates that when visiting a sick person, one should include them among the sick of all Israel. This aligns with the opinion of Rabbi Yosef. Rabbi Hanina said that visiting the sick and consoling mourners on Shabbat is permitted only with difficulty (bekoshi) because these activities can lead to anguish, which the Sages wished to avoid on Shabbat.
When Rabbi Eliezer would visit the sick, he would sometimes say in Hebrew, "May God remember you for peace," and sometimes in Aramaic, "Rachmana Yadcherinach L'shlam" (May the Merciful One remember you for peace). The Gemara questions how he could pray in Aramaic, given the teaching that angels do not understand Aramaic (except for the angel Gabriel, according to Tosafot), and therefore prayers in Aramaic are not conveyed by them. The Gemara answers that the case of a sick person (choleh) is different, because the Divine Presence (Shechina) is with him. Therefore, there is no need for angels to convey the prayer. This is supported by the verse, "God supports him on his sickbed." A Baraita further supports this: when visiting a sick person, the visitor should not sit on a couch, bed, or chair, but should cover their head with a garment (talit) and sit on the ground, just as one would in the presence of someone awe-inspiring. This is because the Shechina rests above the sick person's head. This may also explain why certain prayers, like Kaddish and B'rich Sh'mei, are recited in Aramaic, as well as the opening of the Passover Haggadah, Ha Lachma Anya – because at these moments, the Shechina is present, and prayers go directly to God without angelic mediation.
Returning to our Mishnah's prohibition, "One should not read by the light of the candle," due to the concern of tilting it. Rabbah states that this applies even if the candle is very high, for example, two marda'ot (a measure of height, perhaps referring to a saddle) high, or even ten stories high. The Rabbis made no distinction based on height; the decree applies universally.
The Mishnah's phrasing, "One should not read," implies a single person. Does this mean two people reading together would be permitted? A Baraita states that neither one nor two people should read by candlelight. However, it then qualifies: if two people are reading the same subject matter, one will remind the other if the light flickers, thus acting as a guardian (shomer), and it is permitted. But if they are reading different subjects, they are not attentive to each other, and it is forbidden. Rashi explains that if each is engrossed in their own text, they will not notice the other's actions. However, if they are near a large fire, even ten people are forbidden to read, because they sit far from the fire and cannot easily stop each other. Also, there is a concern that one might instinctively move a small twig closer to the fire without anyone noticing.
An important person (Adam Hashuv) is permitted to read by candlelight. Such a person would not tilt a candle, even on a weekday, as it is beneath their dignity. Therefore, the decree of shema yateh does not apply to them. However, a challenge is posed from a Baraita: "One should not read by the light of the candle, lest one tilt it." Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha heard this and declared, "I will read, and I will not tilt it!" One time, he was reading on Shabbat and almost tilted the candle. He then exclaimed, "How great are the words of the Sages!" The Vilna Gaon explains that Rabbi Yishmael was impressed that the Mishnah did not provide a reason for the prohibition. He only almost transgressed because he knew the reason (shema yateh) and thought it didn't apply to him. The Sages' wisdom in sometimes issuing a decree without stating the reason prevents people from rationalizing their way out of it.
Rabbi Natan offers a different version of the story: Rabbi Yishmael actually read and tilted the candle on Shabbat. He then wrote in his ledger, "I, Yishmael ben Elisha, read and tilted a candle on Shabbat. When the Temple is rebuilt, I will bring a fat sin-offering (Korban Chattat Shemenah)." The question arises: Rabbi Yishmael was an Adam Hashuv, so why was he not permitted to read by candlelight? Rabbah answers that Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha treated himself like an ordinary person when it came to the laws of Torah. He did not claim the privilege of an Adam Hashuv, showing extreme humility.
Tosafot raises a profound question: How could a Tanna, a great Sage, commit a desecration of Shabbat (Chilul Shabbat)? The Gemara states in many places that even the animals of righteous people (tzaddikim) do not cause transgressions. How much more so the tzaddik himself? Tosafot offers a novel explanation: the Gemara's strong assertion that a tzaddik would not transgress applies specifically to eating forbidden foods (achilat isur). It is a great disgrace (genai) to suggest a tzaddik would eat something forbidden, because forbidden food becomes part of the body, and it causes spiritual dullness of the heart (timtum halev). We cannot tolerate the idea that the Sages who transmit the Torah could have such a defect. Other transgressions, even unintentional desecrations of Shabbat, though serious, are not considered as great a disgrace as eating forbidden food. In this case, Rabbi Yishmael's action was a mistake, and he placed himself in a situation where he might err, but it was not achilat isur.
The Gemara continues with a Baraita: A servant (shamash) checks dishes and bowls by candlelight. One Baraita says he may, and another says he may not, for the same reason of shema yateh. Rashi explains this by distinguishing between a permanent servant (shamash kavua) and a temporary servant (shamash she'eino kavua). A permanent servant, fearing his master, will meticulously check the dishes and is therefore more likely to tilt the candle to see better. Thus, he is forbidden. A temporary servant, being less concerned about the master, will not check so meticulously, and so the concern of tilting the candle is lessened, making it permissible for him. Tosafot, however, has a different reading and reasoning, arguing that a temporary servant, wanting to impress the master, might be more inclined to be meticulous and thus more likely to tilt the candle.
According to Rashi's understanding, if both Baraitot refer to a permanent servant, the distinction depends on the type of oil. If it is regular oil (mishcha), there is concern he might tilt it. But if it is kerosene (nefta), which smells bad, we are not concerned he will tilt it, and it is permissible even for a permanent servant. The Gemara then asks about a temporary servant using regular oil. On one hand, he is generally less meticulous. On the other hand, oil has no bad smell, making it easier to tilt. Rav ruled that it is permissible, but one should not publicize it, as people might become lax. Rabbi Yirmiya bar Abba, however, ruled that it is permissible and can be publicized.
The Gemara tells a story: Rabbi Yirmiya bar Abba was once at the house of Rav Assi. Rav Assi's own servant, who was temporary, was checking dishes by candlelight for Rabbi Yirmiya. Rav Assi's wife said to him, "My husband, you do not permit this!" Rabbi Yirmiya replied, "Leave him alone. He holds like his rabbi, Rabbi Yirmiya bar Abba, who said the law is permissible and can be publicized." This shows that the servant was following the ruling that it is permissible for a temporary servant to check dishes by candlelight, even with regular oil.