Gemara, or Talmud, Shabbat, daf yud-bet (page 12). Today’s daf is being studied le’ilui nishmat (for the elevation of the soul of) Avraham ben Ester veYosef ben Sabut, ruach Hashem tenicham beGan Eden, amen. Today’s daf is being studied lirefu’ah shelemah (for a complete recovery) for Moshe ben Malka, veLeah bat Rachel, veDaniel ben Ester, vechol cholei amo Yisrael, amen.
We begin today’s daf on yud-alef amud bet, three lines from the bottom. The sugya (discussion) we’re talking about here concerns a zav, somebody who has a secretion coming out of his body. He wears what’s called a kis (pouch) in that area to catch the zivut (discharge). The Gemara was discussing whether one who wears a kis there is chayav (liable) for hotza’ah (carrying). Is it considered carrying or not? The Gemara gave previous answers: sometimes it is considered carrying, and sometimes it isn’t. It depends on the variables.
Now the Gemara asks, what is the question? “Veha miba’ei lei shelo yitanfu cheilav,” which means he needs this kis so the zivut doesn’t dirty his clothes. He doesn’t want the zivut to get on his pants or garments. Therefore, this is derech hotza’ah (the normal way of carrying). Whenever he puts it there, it is the normal way to wear a garment like that in order to save the other garment from getting dirty. So he should always be chayav.
The Gemara says, “Amar Rabbi Zeira, hai tanna hu de’amar kol atzulei tinuf (preventing soiling) lo kachashiv”: it is not considered significant. Therefore, if the only reason you’re wearing it is not for itself, but so your clothes don’t get dirty, that is not considered a significant reason, and one is not going to be chayav.
Where do we see that if a person is doing something only to save something from getting dirty, it is not considered chashuv (significant)? “Detnan,” we have a Mishnah (oral teaching). Let’s review some rules before we read it. There is a law of machshirin (things that render susceptible to impurity). What does machshirin mean? If, for example, mayim (water) falls on a peri (fruits), that peri now becomes muchsher letum’ah (susceptible to impurity). That means that if tum’ah (impurity) touches it, it can receive tum’ah. If it has never gotten wet, it cannot receive tum’ah, even if a sheretz (creeping creature) falls on it. It has to be muchsher first.
But there is a rule when it comes to hachsherah (rendering susceptible): even if a sheretz fell on it, the fruit cannot receive tum’ah if it never received hachsherah. Sheretz is tamei (impure). That being said, hachsherah applies only when it is leda’at (with intention). He has to want it to go on the fruit. But if it goes there against his will, that is not considered hachsherah either. They learn this from pesukim (verses).
So now we have a story: “Detnan, hakkofeh ke’arah al hakkotel.” There is a kotel (wall), and geshamim (rain) are falling on it. He takes a ke’arah (bowl), a pot, and turns it upside down against the wall. “Im bishvil shetudach hakke’arah”: if his intention is to clean the vessel—“I’ll put the vessel on the wall, and the rain will come down and clean it”—“harei zeh bechi yutan (with willing intent).” Therefore, the peirot (fruits) in this keli (vessel) will be considered muchsher, because he wants the water. Although he wants the water for the ke’arah, that doesn’t matter. Since he wants the water there, that makes hachsherah.
“Ve’im bishvil shelo yilkeh hakkotel”: but if he is covering it only because he doesn’t want the wall to get dirty—“shelo yilkeh hakkotel”—because the rain is falling on the wall, “eino bechi yutan.” Rashi says, “shelo yilkeh,” at the top of yud-bet, “dehainu atzulei tinuf.” So what do you see? If you’re doing it to save the wall from getting dirty, and that’s why you’re covering the keli, it is not considered muchsher. So what do you see here? That it is not considered significant. So just like when it comes to hechsher (rendering susceptible), when you stick the keli against the wall, since you're not doing it for the water, you're doing it for the wall so it doesn't get dirty, the water that falls on the peirot will not be machshir (render susceptible).
Similarly, this kis shel zav, since the man wears it not because he wants to wear it but le’atzulei tinuf, in order to protect his pants from getting dirty, is not considered chashuv. Therefore, it is not derech hotza’ah. The Rabbis are comparing atzulei tinuf of the kis shel zav with atzulei tinuf of the wall. Just as over there it is not considered hachsherah when you put the keli on the wall to save the wall from getting dirty, the same applies here.
The Gemara says, “What are you talking about? Mi damei?” Are these two cases similar? They’re not similar! “Hatam,” in the case where he was kofeh, where he put the keli on the wall, “lo ka ba’ei lehu lehanei mashkin kelal.” He doesn’t want the water at all. He doesn’t want the water anywhere—not on the keli, not on the wall, nowhere. He wants to save the wall from getting dirty, so he protects it. If you ask the man, “Hey, what do you think about the rain here?” he’ll say, “I’m terrible. I don’t want the rain. I’m against the rain. I don’t want it to rain on the wall. I’m upset.” In that case, he doesn’t want it bichlal (at all). Therefore, there is no chashivut at all. And what is the proof? Why does he take the keli and put it on the wall? That shows he doesn’t want the rain to fall on the wall. That’s why he puts the keli there, to protect it.
However, “hacha,” here, in the case where the man wears the kis shel zav on Shabbat and wants to save his garment from getting dirty, “ka ba’ei leih lehahai kis lekabulei zeivah.” He wants the kis there! Ask the man, “You want this kis here?” “Of course! I want it to receive the zivut.” Therefore, since he wants it there, it is considered chashuv. In the water case, ask him, “Do you want the water there?” “No.” What’s the proof that I don’t want the water? Look at what I did: I took this keli and put it upside down against the wall so the water wouldn’t ruin the wall. So you ask me, “Do you want the water?” Look at my actions; they show I don’t want the water. Here, with the kis, ask the man, “You want the kis?” “Of course I want the kis.” “Why do you want the kis?” “Well, I don’t want my garments to get dirty.” So this is not a comparison.
The Gemara says, “Oh, halo damya”—if you want to compare it to something, to a case of machshirin, you can compare it to the following case: “Ela leseifa.” There is another case in that Mishnah. “Areivah”—a trough; areivah is a bucket. “Shenatnah sheyeired delef letochah”: a man has a leak in his roof and doesn’t want water to go all over the floor, so he puts a bucket underneath the leak. What happens? “Mayim hanitazin,” water that splashes: when the water falls into the bucket, sometimes it squirts and splashes. There are peirot here, so the water splashes from the bucket onto the peirot. “Vehanitzafin”: sometimes, when the bucket fills to the top, it overflows, and the water spills onto the peirot beside it. “Einam bechi yutan.” That is not considered putting the water there willingly to make the peirot muchsharin letum’ah. Why? “Einam bechi yutan.” “Veshebetochah, harei zeh bechi yutan.” But the water in the bucket itself is water he wants there. He put the bucket there. Why? To catch the water! Therefore, if the peirot became muchshar from the water that was in the bucket itself—not the water that splashed all over the place—that is considered bechi yutan.
Now, why did he put the bucket there? He was saving the house from getting dirty. Rashi says, “halo damya”: “al korchach, im lehachshir zera’im bata ledamuyei, lo tidmei ela lehah.” If you want to compare the case of the kis shel zav to a case of hachsharah bezera’im, compare it to the following case: “sheyeired delef letochah.” The Mishnah in Masechet Machshirin comes after the case we just learned, of his turning the keli upside down against the wall. It says, “dekofeh et hake’arah vehachi tenan, areivah sheyeired hadelef letochah.” “Henichah sheyeired hadelef letochah”: he put it there so the falling water would go into it. “Mayim hanitazim vehatzafim,” the water that splashes and the water that overflows. Beit Shamai (School of Shammai) say “bechi yutan”: even that water is considered wanted, and therefore the peirot are muchsharin. Beit Hillel (School of Hillel) say, “einam bechi yutan.” “Netalah leshafchah”: now the bucket is full, and he takes the water to pour it out into the sewer. As he pours it, it falls on peirot. “Eilu va’eilu modim,” everyone agrees, Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel, that it is considered muchshar.
“Umikol makom,” what do you learn from this case? “Yesh lishmoa meha seifa,” as we read in the books: “natnah le’arevah zo sheyered hadelef letochah.” Even though the reason he put the keli there was to save the house from getting dirty—he doesn’t want the rain, the sewer, the water from the roof to fall on the rug, so he puts the keli there—you ask the man, “Why did you put the keli there?” It’s obvious: he’s saving the rug from getting dirty. That is clearly atu letinuf. “Afillu hachi, midelo kafa’ah”: if you wanted to save the rug from getting dirty, you could have put the keli upside down, and the water would simply have gone over the top of it. The fact that you put it right-side up must mean that you wanted the water to go into the container. “Gallei da’ateih de’achshevinhu lekabelan, vehavei chashuvim otah shebetochah.” That shows he gives importance to the water inside. “Vehacha nami achshavah lekabulei behai kisa dezivah.”
Back to the man wearing the kis. Bottom line, even though it is atu letinuf, the ultimate reason he wears the kis is that he doesn’t want the zivut to dirty his clothes. “Af al gav devezivah lo nicha leih”: you’re right, he doesn’t want the zivut, just as this man doesn’t want the water. But bottom line, the fact that he puts something there to catch the water is chashuv. Therefore, on Shabbat, what are we worried about? Carrying. “Anan achyovei behotza’at zivah lo madrinan ela hotza’at kis.” I’m not worried about carrying the zivut; I’m worried about carrying the kis. Therefore, aderebbah, the Gemara is back to its original question. You’re telling me that a man who wears a kis on Shabbat is patur al hotza’ah (exempt). Why should he be patur al hotza’ah? Atu letinuf is not considered a chashuv reason to be chayav. Why shouldn’t it be a chashuv reason? When a man puts a keli there to receive the water, even though he does it atu letinuf—to save the house from getting dirty—we still say that the water in the keli is considered bechi yutan. It is water he wants, and it can make peirot susceptible when it falls on them, huchshar letum’ah, when he pours it on the zera’im.
The Gemara gives a new answer: “Ela amar Abbaye veRava de’amrei tarvaihu, lo kashya, ha Rabbi Yehudah veha Rabbi Shimon.” Now we go back to the old machloket (dispute), which is the first time we really see it in Masechet Shabbat (Tractate Shabbat), between Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon. What is this machloket? Melachah she’enah tzrichah legufah, a labor that you really are not interested in the result of this melachah. You’re doing it as a reaction, but you’re not really interested in doing the constructive melachah. Ask this man, “Do you really want to carry this kis shel zav? Is that your intention?” He says, “Rabbi, I wish I didn’t have to wear it. I wish I didn’t have the zivut. I’m reacting to the situation, but I’m not interested in transferring this kis shel zav.” It’s not like a person picking up an apple and wanting to transfer it bechavanah (intention) from one place to another. You ask him, “What are you doing?” He says, “I want to transfer the apple. I’m not reacting to anything. This is my constructive kavanah.” But the man wearing the kis says, “I wish I didn’t have to wear the kis. I wish I wasn’t a zav. I wish this hadn’t happened to me.” So that case is a melachah; it is a melachah, there is hotza’ah, “aval enah tzrichah legufah.” You don’t need the actual melachah to take place. You wish it hadn’t taken place in the first place.
Machloket Rabbi Shimon veRabbi Yehudah: Rabbi Yehudah says melachah she’enah tzrichah legufah, chayav. Chayav. Therefore, the kis shel zav, even though it is atu letinuf, is chayav. Rabbi Shimon says melachah she’enah tzrichah legufah, patur. Therefore, the kis shel zav will be patur.
It’s worth reading this Rashi. Rashi says, “ha Rabbi Yehudah de’amar melachah she’enah tzrichah legufah shebirtzono lo te’aseh.” You wish it hadn’t happened in the first place. “Ve’eno tzarich le’ikar tachlitah”: you don’t need the result of the melachah, “ki hacha delo tzarich lezivah zo she’al yadah ba hakis hazeh.” Ask the man, “Are you happy that you have this zavah on you?” “I wish I wasn’t a zav in the first place.” “Ve’af al pi chen chayav aleha ufligta bemotzi kegon motzi et hamet bemitah chayav af al pi shehotza’at hamet lo nicha leih bah veRabbi Shimon poter.” That is the Gemara.
Now we go to the next piece, and we start moving quicker. “Tana debei Rabbi Yishmael: yotze adam bitefillin be’erev Shabbat im chashechah.” A person is allowed to wear tefillin (phylacteries) on his body erev Shabbat (Friday) im chashechah, near nightfall. “Mai ta’ama?” As Rabbah bar Rav Huna said, “chayav adam lemashmesh bitefillin bechol sha’ah vesha’ah.” What are we worried about? Maybe the man will forget he’s wearing the tefillin and go into Shabbat wearing them. You’re not allowed to wear tefillin on Shabbat, because it is carrying. Also, how can you let a man wear tefillin on erev Shabbat? We just learned in the Mishnah earlier that there are certain things a person shouldn’t carry erev Shabbat to avoid—he is never going to forget that he has the tefillin on. How do we know that he always has to touch the tefillin? “Kal vachomer” (an argument from lesser to greater), from the Tzitz (High Priest’s forehead plate). The Kohen Gadol (High Priest) used to wear the Tzitz on his forehead. On the gold plate it said, “Kodesh laHashem” (Holy to Hashem). Hashem’s name appeared once on the Tzitz. What does the pasuk say? “Mah tzitz she’ein bo ela azkarah achat, amrah Torah, vehayah al mitzcho tamid.” The Tzitz has only one name of God, yet the Torah says it must be on his forehead constantly. What does “constantly” mean? “Shelo yasiach da’ato mimenu”: he can’t even take his mind off it. Tefillin, which have many azkarot—42 shemot of Hashem in them—“al achat kamah vechamah.” “Hilkach midkar dechir lei”: he’ll remember! Therefore, I’m not worried about his forgetting the tefillin on; he’ll never forget them, and every second he’ll still be touching them.
“Detanya: Chananyah omer, chayav adam lemashmesh bivgadav erev Shabbat im chashechah.” A new halachah (law)! Erev Shabbat im chashechah, a person has to put his hands in his pockets to make sure they’re empty. Rav Yosef says, “hilcheta rabati leShabbat.” This is a davar gadol, an important matter the Rabbis are telling us about, so that we abstain from making a chillul Shabbat (desecration of Shabbat).
“Lo yefaleh et kelav.” We learned two dinim (laws) in the Mishnah: “lo yikra adam le’or haner,” a person should not read by the light of a candle on Shabbat. That is clearly shema yatteh (lest he tilt it). We’re worried he might tilt the oil toward the wick, which is considered hav’arah (kindling). Similarly, the Mishnah says, “velo yefaleh adam kelav.” In the old days, it was a big problem that people had lice in their garments. They would pull out the lice. Don’t do that on Shabbat. But the Mishnah doesn’t really give us a reason. There are one of two options. I’ll tell you the first option: it’s the same reason as “lo yikra adam le’or haner.” Why? They used to take the lice out by the light of a ner (candle); you have to see what you’re doing! So it’s the same thing. Just as when you read a book, shema yatteh, don’t take the lice out of your garment, because you’ll bring it to the light of the ner and shema yatteh. Or, no, there are two different reasons: shema yatteh applies to the book, and the reason for the lice is that he might kill them. We don’t want him to pull out a louse and kill it.
That is the Gemara’s question: what is the reason one isn’t allowed to delouse a garment on Shabbat? We begin: “Ibayah lehu, lo yefaleh et kelav bayom, shema yaharog.” A person should not delouse his garments during the day, lest he kill the louse. Oh, that’s the reason! “VeRabbi Eliezer hi, detanya, amar Rabbi Eliezer, hahoreg kinah beShabbat ke’ilu horeg gamal.” There’s no difference! You tell me, “Oh, but it’s so small!” Small, but it’s a living creature! What difference does it make if he kills a camel or a louse? Can you tell the difference between a man killing Og Melech HaBashan and killing a midget? We don’t measure shi’urim (minimum measures) that way. The bottom line is life!
“Velo yikra le’or haner,” and don’t read by the light of the ner, “shema yatteh.” Oh, shema yatteh! So that’s one way of learning: the reason for this is shema yaharog, and the reason for that is shema yatteh. “O dilma tarveihu shema yatteh”: or perhaps both are shema yatteh. Don’t delouse the garment by the light! “Ta shema, ein folin”—folin means delousing the garment—“ve’ein korin le’or haner.” Ah, so you see that it puts both together! “Ein folin ve’ein korin le’or haner.” The fact that it puts them together must mean they have the same reason.
The Gemara says, I don’t understand: what are you getting excited about? “Leima alima mimatnitin?” It’s no better than our Mishnah! Our Mishnah also puts the two together, and we’re still asking whether it’s the same reason or two different reasons. So you bring me a beraita (early rabbinic teaching) that also puts them together? “Chazak uvaruch!” What? You saw that our Mishnah put them together too—“lo yikra velo yefaleh”—and you still had a question about our Mishnah. So you bring me a proof from a beraita? “Oh, the beraita puts the two of them together!” Well, our Mishnah puts them together too, and you still had a question. What makes the beraita better than the Mishnah?
“Ta shema: ein folin le’or haner ve’ein korin le’or haner.” Ah, now it’s clear! It says, “ein folin le’or haner ve’ein korin le’or haner, elu min hahalachot she’amru ba’aliyat Chananyah ben Chizkiyah ben Garon.” There was a tzaddik (righteous person), Chananyah. You’re going to learn about him: the Rabbis made many halachot there in his attic, and one of them was, “ein folin le’or haner ve’ein korin le’or haner.” Now it clearly says “or haner”! Why would it have to say “or haner”? If the whole issue were that you might kill the lice, just say “velo yefaleh”! The fact that it says “le’or haner” implies that it’s an inyan (matter) of shema yatteh. “Shema minah detarveihu shema yatteh, shema minah.” Therefore, according to this reason, would it be permissible to delouse a garment during the day? Yes. During the day there is no shema yatteh; I’m using the sunlight. I’m not worried that I’ll kill the lice. So the Gemara proves from here that these are two separate halachot: shema yatteh applies to the ner, and shema yaharog et hakinah applies to the lice.
Rav Yehudah amar Shemuel: “afilu lehavchin bein bigdo levigdei ishto.” You can’t even use the light to go into your closet and distinguish between your garments and your wife’s garments. In the old days, the garments looked similar, because men used to wear robes, almost like dresses. So it’s dark in the closet, you have the ner there, and you look in with the ner to see. No: shema yatteh.
The Gemara says, “amar Rava, lo amaran ela bivnei Mechoza.” This applies only to the people of Mechoza, whose men’s and women’s garments looked similar, Rashi says. Why? The begadim (clothes) of the people in Mechoza were very wide. They were retired people and didn’t work much, so their garments were not fitted. Their garments were wide, just like the women’s garments. Therefore, there was a gezeirah (rabbinic decree): it was hard to tell the difference, and we’re worried you’ll come to be mateh.
“Aval divnei chakleita meida yad’ei.” However, people in other places were workers and farmers, so their garments were short. You don’t need a ner; you can see without it. It’s obvious which is the short garment and which is the wide garment, so we’re not worried about shema yatteh when the difference is obvious. “Uvivnei Mechoza nami, lo amaran ela dizekenot”: even in Bnei Mechoza, we said this only about old women. “Aval diyeldot meida yad’ei.” Rashi says, “dizekenot ktzarim bimktzat, veshel anashim me’unagim rechavim udomim zeh lazeh, vegazrinnan shema yatteh.” The old women’s garments were partly short, while the garments of pampered men were wide and similar to each other, so we decree lest he tilt it. “Aval diyaldot rechavim harbeh, ve’ein shel anashim domim lahem”: when it came to the children, the young ones’ garments were different from the old men’s, so we don’t have to worry about shema yatteh. However, with the old women, we are concerned.
“Tanu rabanan, ein polin birshut harabbim (public domain) mipnei hakavod (dignity).” Another halachah, hilchot derech eretz (rules of proper conduct): we don’t want you to delouse your clothes in the reshut harabbim. Why? It’s not kavod. It’s disgusting. A man walks by and sees you pulling lice out of your garment. That’s not kevod habriyot (human dignity); you shouldn’t do it.
“Kayozei vo amar Rebbi Yehudah ve’amri lah Rebbi Nechemyah, ein osin afikteizin birshut harabbim mipnei hakavod.” Afikteizin is a certain medicine that would cause people to throw up. If someone had an upset stomach and wanted to release everything, he would put some sam (potion) in his mouth and vomit. So you don’t do that in public. People are walking down the street, and there’s a man vomiting all over. It’s not kavod.
Now we discuss the procedure for delousing clothes and how a person should do it. The Gemara says, “tanu rabanan, hamfaleh et kelav”: a person taking lice out of his begadim on Shabbat “molel”—crushes them lightly. How do you take them out? You take the lice and squeeze them a little. Squeeze them a little, and you take away their ko’ach (strength). Once you take away their ko’ach, they can’t come back. You don’t want to put them on the floor, where they can crawl right back to the garment. So when you take them out, you squeeze them a little, molel, just to weaken them a little.
“Tanu rabanan, hamfaleh et kelav molel vezorek,” and then throw them away, “uvilvad shelo yahorog”: make sure you don’t squeeze them too hard, or you’ll kill them. Abba Shaul says, “notel vezorek”: pull them off and throw them away, “uvilvad shelo yimlol.” Why? He’s worried that if you squeeze them a little, “shema yahorog,” you might kill them.
Rav Huna says, “halachah molel vezorek.” The halachah is like Tanna Kamma (the first Tanna): squeeze them and throw them away. “Vezehu kevodo”: that’s the way to do it. “Ve’afilu bechol”: not only on Shabbat, but during the week too, that’s the way to do it. Again, why are you doing this? So they don’t come back. That is the proper way.
Rava mekata lehu. Now we have a big chiddush (novel insight): Rava used to take lice out on Shabbat and kill them. He killed them! I thought we said it was like killing a camel? Not only that: Rav Sheshet mekata lehu; Rav Sheshet also killed them. Rava shadei lehu lekana demaya: Rav Sheshet would take the lice and throw them into water. Well, if they’re swimming there, they can’t come back.
Rav Nachman told his daughters, “ketulin,” kill the lice! “Velo ashme’ina li kala desanvatei”: I want to hear the voice of my enemies as they die. The lice are his enemy; they bother him. He says, “Kill the lice. I want to hear my enemies suffer. I want to hear them dying here.”
Now the Gemara says, “Tanya, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar omer, ein horgin et hama’acholet beShabbat, divrei Beit Shamai, uVeit Hillel matirin.” Now we see the machloket between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel. Beit Hillel says you can kill a louse on Shabbat.
“Vechein hayah Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar omer mishum Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, ein meshadchin et hatinokot le’ares.” It is a known halachah that we should not make shiduchim (match) on Shabbat, bringing a boy and a girl together to make a match between them. “Velo et hatinok lelamdo sefer”: nor should you bring a child to the teacher on Shabbat to make a deal between the teacher and the student for him to study Torah, “lelamdo umanut,” either to teach him sefer or a trade.
What is the reason? The pasuk says, “mimetzo cheftzecha” (seeking your own affairs): you shouldn’t do your own needs on Shabbat. You’re making shiduchim; those are your needs. You’re making a deal on Shabbat: “Oh, come teach my son every day after school.” “Mimetzo cheftzecha”: you’re not supposed to do your own things on Shabbat. However, the Gemara says, “ve’ein menachamin avelim ve’ein mevakrin cholim beShabbat,” you shouldn’t comfort mourners or visit the sick on Shabbat. These are the words of Beit Shamai. Exactly, because that brings tza’ar (distress), and Shabbat is a happy day. You’re going to start visiting the sick? The Gemara says these are the words of Beit Shamai, while Beit Hillel permits it, because all these are mitzvot (commandments). The verse says “mimetzo cheftzecha”: you cannot do your own needs on Shabbat, but this is considered cheftzei Shamayim (heavenly matters). Cheftzei Shamayim is mutar (permitted).
Going back to what we said earlier, why do we follow Beit Hillel, who says you can kill a louse on Shabbat? Isn’t the louse alive? Isn’t it a creature? What does it mean that it’s mutar laharog kinim beShabbat according to Beit Hillel? Look at Rashi. Rashi says, “ma’acholet,” four lines from the bottom, “kinah.” “Matirin, kideimfaresh, detana debei Rebbi Yishmael sheratzim me’eilim me’odamim shebaMishkan (Tabernacle) (creatures are compared to the red rams in the Tabernacle), mah eilim parim veravim.” We learn this from the Mishkan, where all the melachot (prohibited labors) were done. One of the melachot was taking the rams and killing them to get their red hides. You can’t get the hide off an animal unless you kill it. So where do we learn killing from in the Mishkan? From the eilim (rams). It has to be like the eilim, like the rams. What is the nature of a ram? It multiplies. However, “af kol shepareh verabeh kemoto”: every animal born through periyah ureviyah (procreation), through mating that results in offspring. But “vechinah einah parah veravah.” Rashi is giving a big chiddush here: lice do not come about through periyah ureviyah. There’s no male louse mating with a female louse and having a baby louse. It doesn’t work that way. “Ela miziat adam hi shoreitzet.” They call it spontaneous generation. It just happens from the environment, from a person’s sweat, from his body; these creatures appear. Yes, from the dirt. So although it is alive, this creature got here spontaneously. It didn’t come from ordinary mating, and therefore, according to this, it is mutar laharog kinim beShabbat.
That’s the way the Shulchan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law) rules: mutar laharog kinim beShabbat. However, today scientists will tell you, “Rabbi, we see that lice are parim veravim.” Ela, there must be different species of lice. Maybe the ones they had in the times of Chazal (the Sages), kaima lan (we have established), were not parah veravah. Now there’s a different species, and therefore it is parah veravah. There’s a big machloket among haposkim (halachic authorities) today, bizmanenu zeh (in our time), because they say that maybe it’s better to refrain. But other poskim say no: Maran did not mechalek (distinguish). When he said mutar laharog kinim, he didn’t say only species B, not species L. All mutar laharog kinim. Did he make a chiluk (distinction)? Therefore, he holds that when the Chachamim (Sages) said mutar, they permitted all species and did not distinguish between them.
“Hanichnas levaker et hacholeh” (one who enters to visit the sick): a person going to visit a sick person on Shabbat wants to console him and make him feel better. “Omer,” he tells him, “Shabbat hi miliz’ok”: listen, it’s Shabbat today, and we can’t cry out. “Urfu’ah kerovah lavo, be’ezrat Hashem” (with God’s help), you should have refu’ah sheleimah. Rabbi Meir says, “yecholah hi sheterachem.” You tell the sick person, “Listen, you keep Shabbat. Shabbat itself is powerful; it can give you a refu’ah (healing).”
Rabbi Yehudah says, “HaMakom” (God) “yerachem alecha v’al cholei Yisrael”: God should have mercy on you and all the sick people of Israel. Rabbi Yose says, “HaMakom yerachem alecha b’toch cholei amo Yisrael, b’toch cholei Yisrael.” Not only should God have mercy on you and all of Israel; God should have mercy on you among all of Israel. It seems that when a person includes himself or the sick person with everybody else, he now has z’chut harabim (the merit of the many), and therefore the tefillah (prayer) is answered more. So he says you should be healed among all those of Israel.
“Shevna ish Yerushalayim”: there was a man in Yerushalayim, an ish gadol, called Shevna. “B’chnisato omer shalom.” When he entered to visit a sick person on Shabbat, he would say, “Shalom.” “B’yitziato omer Shabbat hi miliz’ok urfu’ah kerovah lavo v’rachamav merubim,” and God’s mercy is great, “v’shivtu,” which means rest on Shabbat, “b’shalom.” You shouldn’t have any tzarah (trouble) or yagon (sorrow).
“K’man azla ha d’amar Rabbi Chanina, mi sheyesh lo choleh b’toch beito tzarich sheye’arvenu b’toch cholei Yisrael k’man k’Rabbi Yose.” Where do we learn that when someone has a sick person in his house, God forbid, and prays for him, he should include him among the other sick people of Israel? We see it from Rabbi Yose. When Rabbi Yose used to visit, he would say, “b’toch she’ar cholei amo Yisrael.”
Rabbi Chanina says, “b’koshi hitiru l’nachem avelim ulevaker cholim b’Shabbat.” The Rabbis struggled to permit visiting sick people and comforting mourners on Shabbat. Why? Because visiting brings tza’ar to the person, but they permitted it. “D’havu matir, amar Rabbah bar bar Chanah, ki havainan azlinan batreih d’Rabbi Elazar l’shiyulei bitficha”: when we used to go with Rabbi Elazar to visit sick people during the week, “zimnin amar HaMakom yifkadcha l’shalom, v’zimnin amar Rachamana yidkrinach lishlam.” Sometimes he would say in Hebrew, “God should remember you in peace,” and sometimes in Aramaic.
What’s the difference? The Gemara says, “heichi avid hachi?” Why would he do that? Why would he speak in Aramaic? “V’ha amar Rav Yehudah, l’olam al yish’al adam tzarchav bilshon Arami.” A person should never make a request or prayer in Aramaic. Rabbi Yochanan says, “kol hasho’el tzarchav bilshon Arami,” anybody who prays in Aramaic, “ein mal’achei hasharet nizkakin lo.” He’s stuck! The angels won’t be able to deliver his tefillah. Why? “She’ein mal’achei hasharet makirin bilshon Arami.” Besides Gavriel, all the other angels don’t understand Aramaic. So why did the rabbi go to the sick person and pray in Aramaic? “Sha’ani choleh d'Shechinah (the Divine Presence) imo.” That’s different: with a sick person, the Shechinah is with him. Since the Shechinah is with him, you don’t need the angels. You’re speaking directly to the Shechinah.
Where do we learn that the Shechinah is with the sick person? “D’amar Rav Anan amar Rav, minayin sheShechinah so’ed”—so’ed means He is leaning—“et hacholeh,” or He is somech (supporting), lifting up the choleh, holding him up. “Shene’emar Hashem yis’adenu al eres devai.” When a man is on the bed of his sickness, God is there; yis’adenu means God is holding him up. When you visit a sick person, you are in the presence of the Shechinah, so you can speak directly to the Shechinah, even in Aramaic.
“Tanya nami hachi, hanichnas levaker et hacholeh lo yeshev lo al gabei hamitah”: he should not sit on the bed where the person is, “v’lo al gabei chise,” not on a chair, “ela mit’atef.” Look at that: when he visits a sick person, he has to put on his— in the old days, it was a sign of fear; they covered the head with a tallit and all that—“v’yoshev lefanav,” and sit in front of the sick person in great fear. Why? “ShehaShechinah l’malah mirashotav shel choleh shene’emar Hashem yis’adenu al eres devai.” So when a person visits a sick person, there is a certain protocol. It’s not—I mean, there’s more than a sick person there; there’s a Shechinah.
Rava amar Ravin says, “minayin shehaKadosh Baruch Hu zan et hacholeh?” How do we know that God sustains the choleh? The choleh often can’t eat when he’s very sick. God sustains him, “shene’emar Hashem yis’adenu,” from the language of se’udah, so’ed, “al eres devai.”
“V’lo yikra l’or haner.” The Mishnah says that a person should not read by the light of a ner. Why shouldn’t he read by the light of a ner? Because I forgot the keys, Thursday night. Ah. “Lo yikra l’or haner.” Why shouldn’t he read by the light of a ner? Because we said shema yatteh: he might come to flick it.
Rava says, “afilu gavoha shtei komot.” Amazing! Even if the ner is two stories high! He’s on the—there is a chandelier of oil. Is the man going to climb up and tilt it? It doesn’t matter. Once the Rabbis made a gezeirah, they made a gezeirah. “Ve’afilu shtei marda’ot”: even if it’s the size of two saddles. They used to measure things by the size of a saddle, two saddles high. “Ve’afilu asarah batim zu al gav zu”: even if there are ten houses, one on top of another, very high up. It doesn’t matter. Once the Rabbis made a gezeirah, they made a gezeirah.
“Chad,” now, one person should not read by the light of the ner. What are we worried about? Shema yatteh. The Gemara says, however, “ha terei shapir damei”: two is fine. Why is two okay? Because if his friend is going to come and adjust the candle, the other friend will remind him. Very good.
“Vehatanya”: we learned, “lo echad”—oh, we have a question—“lo echad velo shenayim.” Ah, who told me two is allowed? We have the beraita that says two are forbidden. Rabbi Elazar says, “lo kashya. Kan be’inyan echad, kan bishnei inyanim.” It depends. If they’re both reading the same book, they’re both me’ayen (studying) together, so they’re paying attention to each other. They’re reading the same book, so if one friend moves, he’ll remind him. But if each person is reading his own book, he isn’t paying attention to the other, so it’s a problem. That’s the chiddush.
Rav Huna says, “uvedurah”: if a person is sitting in front of a big fire, a fireplace, he doesn’t sit close. He sits far away and reads. “Afilu asarah benei adam asur.” Why? When you sit in front of a fireplace, you sit far from each other because the light goes out a lot, so you don’t sit right next to your friend. You can sit far apart. What’s going to happen? You’re worried a spark might come out and the man will put it out. But it happens so fast, and you’re far from him; by the time you say, “Hey, stop!” he’s already done it. Therefore, with a medurah (bonfire), even ten people sitting there are a concern: it will happen so fast that you won’t be able to stop him, and because you aren’t sitting close together, you won’t be able to catch it.
The Gemara says another chiddush. The truth is, we analyze this correctly; look at Rashi, “bemedurah.” “Medorot esh gedolah”: what does the Gemara mean by medurah? A large fire is forbidden, “deho’il veyoshvim rachok zeh mizzeh,” because they sit far from each other and won’t be able to see what the other man is doing. “Ve’od shezanvot ha’udim semuchim lahem, ein zeh makir bechavero lehav’ir velachot.” Rashi is learning that the gezeirah is that you might come to stoke the fire, not put it out. Sometimes when the fire gets low, you shake it or push it together. Since they’re sitting far from each other, one won’t be able to stop the other or see when he comes to stoke the fire—not put it out, as I told you, but stoke it. Okay.
The Gemara says, “amar Rava, im adam chashuv hu mutar.” If a person is chashuv, it is mutar for him to read by the light of the ner on Shabbat. Why? He’s a chashuv man; he doesn’t play around with the nerot (candles). It’s not their way, darkam, for a rich man or aristocrat to start playing around with candles. If it doesn’t work, they leave it; they don’t start playing around.
The Gemara says, “meitivi”: what do you mean, an adam chashuv? “Lo yikra le’or haner shema yatteh.” We learned in the beraita, don’t read by the light of the ner, shema yatteh. Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha says, “ani ekra velo atteh.” He said, “Oh, that’s the reason, shema yatteh? No problem. I’ll read and I won’t do it.” “Pa’am achat kara uvikesh lehatot.” What happened? One Shabbat, he was reading, and suddenly he found himself about to do it. He said, “Kamah gedolim divrei chachamim.” Wow, the Chachamim are amazing. “Shehayu omerim lo yikra le’or haner.” They knew what they were talking about.
Rabbi Natan says an even better story: “kara vehittah.” He did it! “Lo bikesh lehatot,” he didn’t just attempt to tilt it; he tilted it! Wow. After Shabbat was over, he wrote in his ledger, “ani Yishmael ben Elisha, kariti vehittiti ner beShabbat.” Vay vay vay. “Lichsheyibaneh Beit Hamikdash” (Holy Temple), “avi chatat smenah.” When the Beit Hamikdash is built, I’ll bring a fat chatat (sin offering). We actually did it. Also, what do you see here? He was an adam chashuv! I thought you told me an adam chashuv doesn’t need to worry, but he was an adam chashuv and he did it!
Then Rabbi Abba said, “sha’ani Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha, ho’il umesim atzmo al divrei Torah kehedyot.” That’s different with Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha. When it came to divrei Torah (words of Torah), he loved them so much that he treated himself like an ordinary person. Even though the protocol for an adam chashuv was that they didn’t fidget, he loved divrei Torah so much that he wanted to read the chiddushim. Therefore, he treated himself like a hedyot (ordinary person) in that regard. He didn’t hold himself to the protocol of a chashuv person when it came to divrei Torah. You see that sometimes, if an adam chashuv isn’t makpid (careful) with himself, then you have to worry even about such a person.
Now there’s a big question we have to ask. This is the question of Tosafot (Talmudic commentators). According to one version of this Gemara, we clearly see that Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha was mechalel Shabbat beshogeg (unintentionally desecrated Shabbat). He did it. Many times, when the Gemara discusses Chachamim, God forbid, committing an averah (transgression), it says, “uma behemtan shel elu ein HaKadosh Baruch Hu mevi takalah leyadam, tzaddikim lo kol sheken?” The animals of the tzaddikim didn’t commit aveirot. The Gemara tells many stories where even the animals of the tzaddikim observed Shabbat and didn’t eat things that hadn’t had ma’aser (tithe) taken from them. So the Gemara says: if Hashem protected the animals, doesn’t Hashem protect the tzaddik? Why doesn’t the Gemara ask that question here, when it says Rabbi Yishmael kara veheita? It should say, “uma behemtan shel elu, eich hatzaddik nichshal?”
What’s Tosafot’s answer? Look at Tosafot: “Rabbi Natan omer kara veheita.” See Tosafot? “Hacha uvimakot gabei Yehudah ben Tabai.” There’s another story in Masechet Makkot (Tractate Makkot), about Yehudah ben Tabai, “sheharag ed zomem”: he killed an innocent man by mistake. He was in beit din (court). He ruled that a certain witness should be killed. After they killed him, Yehudah ben Tabai realized he had made a mistake according to halachah. The Gemara doesn’t say there, “uma behemtan shel tzaddikim,” and it accepts it.
And in Eichah Rabbah, about the Sefer Torah (Torah scroll) that was torn in anger, there was a story where the Rabbis were arguing and, as a result of the argument, they ripped a Sefer Torah. The Gemara doesn’t ask there, “lo parich uma behemtan shel tzaddikim HaKadosh Baruch Hu mevi takalah.” So why, in those cases, doesn’t the Gemara ask this question? The Gemara can accept that a rabbi desecrated Shabbat, that the Rabbis ripped a Sefer Torah, and that a man accidentally killed somebody. But in other cases the Gemara says, no, it’s impossible for a tzaddik to sin. When does the Gemara accept it, and when does it not?
Rabbeinu Tam gives the famous answer: “delo parich beshum makom ela legabei achilat issur shegenai hu latzaddik beyoter.” A major principle: Tosafot says this is asked only when we see a tzaddik eating something that is assur (forbidden). The Gemara cannot accept that. Eating a devar issur (a forbidden item) is a great genai (disgrace); it’s very difficult to say that a tzaddik ate something assur. To say that he did an averah, okay. But something that's not permissible to eat, that's the biggest averah that we cannot accept that a tzaddik—because either the devar issur becomes part of your body. Averah is averah, but this becomes part of the body and causes timtum halev (spiritual dulling of the heart). Since it has a physical and spiritual effect, it is more chashuv? Yes, amazing. That means we were careful—yes, no, no, they were—we cannot accept that God would bring a stumbling block to a tzaddik, causing him to eat something not kasher (kosher). Chillul Shabbat, “chatat heveiti, pasharti,” no problem. But it seems that a devar issur has a very big effect on the neshamah (soul), more than other things.
Take a look at Tosafot. “Ve’idach bePesachim (Tractate Pesachim)”: here’s a question now: “deYirmeyah ishtalei ve’achal kodem havdalah.” He forgot and ate before havdalah. The Gemara tells a story with Yirmeyah once, he ate before havdalah. The Gemara doesn’t ask the question about that; this is eating be’issur. He ate before havdalah, and you’re not allowed to eat before havdalah. Give a simple answer: the food was kasher; it was only the time that was assur. The Gemara could say that. That’s okay.
“Vehahu debeMasechet Rosh Hashanah (Tractate Rosh Hashanah) dekamar basim tavshila devavla’ei betzuma rabba dima’arva.” There the Gemara says that the people in Bavel ate delicious food on Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement). What happened? Because they made the calendar in Eretz Yisrael. They had the wrong date, and therefore on the day of Yom Kippur, which was in Eretz Yisrael, they were eating. The Rabbis in Israel said, “Ah, basim, they’re eating good food, those Rabbis, on Yom Kippur.” The Gemara doesn’t ask how they could do such a thing, because again, the food was kasher; it was only the time that was assur. “Hatam lo havei ma’achal assur, ela hasha’ah asurah.” That is Tosafot’s distinction.
Then Tosafot’s last point: “u-veReishit Rabbah amrinan, Rabbi Yirmeyah shelach le-Rabbi Zeira chad traska de-te’enim.” Amazing story. Rabbi Yirmeyah sent Rabbi Zeira a gift, a basket of figs. “U-massik bein din le-din,” and in the interim, “achil te’enta,” Rabbi Zeira was eating them, “ve-tavla,” and they were tevel (untithed produce). He assumed the rabbi had taken ma’asrot; he wouldn’t send him figs without taking ma’aser. While they were talking, he ate one. But they hadn’t taken ma’aser! So he ended up eating something that was issur. The Gemara doesn’t ask, “uma behemtan shel tzaddikim?” Now that is a real question, because you can’t say it was about the time. It had nothing to do with the time. It was issur be-etzem (intrinsically forbidden).
So the answer is: “ve-ela hachi ka’amar aleih Rabbi Abba bar Zavda be-shem Rabbeinu Ze’ira: im harishonim malachim, anu ke-vnei inash, ve-im hem ke-vnei inash, anu ke-chamorim, ve-lo ke-chamoro shel Rabbi Pinchas ben Ya’ir.” There, the rabbi said about himself: the rishonim (earlier generations) are like malachim (angels). “Rishonim ke-malachim.” We are like ordinary people. “Im harishonim malachim, ve-im hem bnei inash,” and if the earlier generations are like human beings, then we are like chamorim (donkeys). Whatever the previous generation was, we are lower. Then he said, “And if we’re going to call ourselves chamorim, we’re not even like the chamor of Rabbi Pinchas ben Ya’ir.” The Gemara says that Rabbi Pinchas ben Ya’ir’s donkey wouldn’t eat things that hadn’t had ma’aser taken from them.
So what do you see from this Gemara? At a certain period, even the tzaddikim fell to a madregah (level) where the Gemara could accept that they might eat things that were be-issur. Earlier in history, with the earlier generations, never, impossible—the Gemara could not accept it. “Uma behemtan shel tzaddikim?” But at a certain period in history, they were already saying, “anu ke-chamorim,” and we’re not even like the chamor of Rabbi Pinchas anymore. That is why the Gemara can’t ask, “uma behemtan shel tzaddikim?” Today we’re not even like the behemah (animal) of the tzaddikim. Today, the behemah of the—imagine that, the behemah of the tzaddik! So what are we going to say about ourselves? If these great Rabbis were saying, “We’re not even like the chamor of Rabbi Pinchas ben Ya’ir,” “mah na’aneh anan avatrei?” What are we going to answer? That’s what I ask myself.
Now, the last point, and then we’ll conclude today’s daf. The last point is a chiddush said by the Gaon mi-Vilna, the Gaon, Reb Eliyahu from Vilna. It says Rabbi Yishmael kara veheita, right? He read by the light of the ner and tilted it. He said, “Oh, kamah gedolah divrei chachamim,” how great are the Rabbis, “she-amru lo yikra adam le-or ha-ner.” The simple meaning is that the Rabbis know what they’re talking about. They say there’s a concern; you can’t say, “Ah, shtuyot (nonsense), it won’t happen to me.” If they say it, you have to be concerned. He was excited: “kamah gedolah divrei chachamim.”
But the Gaon mi-Vilna says something unbelievable. If you look at the Mishnah, it says, “lo yikra adam le-or haner shema yatteh,” because you might tilt it. When the Rabbis later quote the beraita, the beraita just says, “lo yikra adam le-or haner.” It doesn’t give the reason. So Rabbi Yishmael said, “Look how great the words of the Rabbis of the beraita were. They were so smart; they didn’t give a reason.” Why did I make a mistake? Because I read the Mishnah, and the Mishnah gave a reason. Once you give someone a reason, you give him an excuse to say, “It doesn’t apply to me; it doesn’t affect me.” He says, “kamah gedolah divrei chachamim” of the beraita, which said simply, “lo yikra le-or haner.” If I had had only the beraita’s words, I wouldn’t have committed the issur, because I wouldn’t know the reason. No, maybe it’s kabbalah (received tradition), maybe it’s sod hasodot (the deepest mystery)—who knows why they tell me not to do it? That’s the greatness of the Chachamim: sometimes, when they made their gezerot, they kept the reason kamus. They understood that once you give a person a reason, you give him a chance to say, “It doesn’t apply,” when it does apply. He says, “kamah gedolim divrei chachamim” of the beraita, which simply said, “lo yikra le-or haner,” in order to protect us. But I didn’t follow the words of the beraita. I read the reason in the Mishnah, and that’s why I got into—Baruch Hashem le’olam amen ve’amen (Blessed is Hashem forever, amen and amen), Baruch Hashem le’olam.