The study of Shabbat, page 17, is being conducted in memory of Shimon ben Julia. May his soul rest in the Garden of Eden. Amen. The tractate Shabbat has been dedicated by Benjamin Stavrash for a complete recovery for all the sick among the people of Israel. Amen.
We begin today on page 17, first side. Abaye says—and the statement of Rabbi Natan appears several lines below—let us review the discussion together.
We are discussing how much wine one must carry on Shabbat to become liable. We said that the amount is a quarter of a quarter-measure, one-sixteenth of a quarter-measure. Rabbah explained this based on our Mishnah: wine is diluted three parts water to one part wine. Therefore, for every one part of wine, one adds three parts of water, resulting in a full quarter-measure.
When I say “a quarter-measure,” I mean a quarter-measure of the log. Keep in mind that one is not liable for carrying a full quarter-measure of wine. One is liable for carrying a quarter of a quarter-measure, because that is the significant amount before dilution. It is the amount of wine that one would actually dilute for a cup of blessing.
Rabbah learned this from the Mishnah. How did he learn it? The Mishnah says that for all other liquids, the significant amount is a full quarter-measure. Rabbah understood that the full quarter-measure is the significant amount, and that the novelty regarding wine is that the amount that will become a full quarter-measure after dilution is itself significant. Thus, the amount of wine that will eventually become a full quarter-measure is a quarter of a quarter-measure. That is how Rabbah understood the Mishnah.
Abaye now raises several questions about this explanation. He asks: How can you learn from our Mishnah that the amount of wine is determined by the amount required for dilution?
There is a Mishnah in tractate Niddah that discusses a woman’s blood. If the blood is a certain shade of red, it is menstrual blood. One of the shades is described as resembling diluted wine. The Mishnah explains that diluted wine means two parts water and one part wine, specifically wine from the Sharon region.
The point is that this is not a dilution of three parts water to one part wine. According to this Mishnah, it is two parts water to one part wine. If so, the wine would not become a full quarter-measure according to Rabbah’s explanation. That is Abaye’s first question: You are saying that wine is diluted three parts water to one part wine, but here we see that, at least regarding the color being examined for menstrual blood, the dilution is two parts water to one part wine.
Furthermore, Abaye asks: What does the water in the jug have to do with the wine in the cup? In other words, Rabbah says that the amount is a quarter of a quarter-measure because it will later be diluted with three parts water. But why should the water that has not yet been added affect the amount one must carry? The amount should be determined by the wine itself, not by what one intends to add to it. The water is still in the jug; it has not yet been used to dilute the wine. How can that water be factored into the amount that creates liability for carrying?
The Gemara responds that there is no difficulty with Abaye’s questions. Regarding the first question—that the dilution mentioned in tractate Niddah is two parts water to one part wine—the answer is that wine from the Sharon region is a special, lighter wine. It requires only a two-to-one dilution. Ordinary wine, however, the type Rabbah is discussing, requires a three-to-one dilution. That is why the Mishnah specifically says “wine from the Sharon region”: it is a lighter wine. This does not contradict the statement that ordinary wine is diluted three parts water to one part wine.
Alternatively, the Gemara offers another answer. Do not bring a proof from the discussion of menstrual blood. There, they were looking for a particular color. They were trying to produce a shade that would match menstrual blood, and for that purpose the dilution is two parts water to one part wine. Here, however, we are discussing wine that one drinks for its taste. Wine drunk for taste is diluted three parts water to one part wine. The matter of color in the laws of menstrual blood has nothing to do with the amount of wine required for drinking. Abaye is bringing a question from menstrual blood, where they were seeking a color, while our discussion concerns taste.
As for the second question—how the water still in the jug can be taken into account—the answer is that the wine itself is considered significant because it is intended to be diluted in that manner. The minimum amount placed in the cup is a quarter of a quarter-measure, and it is then diluted with three parts water. Therefore, the amount of wine in the cup before dilution is significant, and one is indeed liable for carrying it.
The Gemara then introduces a discussion about dried wine. Suppose wine congeals or dries. How much dried wine must one carry on Shabbat to become liable? Rabbi Natan teaches that one is liable for carrying an olive-sized amount of dried wine.
What is the reasoning? Rashi explains that an olive-sized amount of dried wine must have originated from a full quarter-measure of ordinary wine. A full quarter-measure of wine, when it dries, becomes an olive-sized amount.
Rashi points out that when discussing liquid wine, we did not say that one needs a full quarter-measure; we said that one needs a quarter of a quarter-measure. Here, however, when the wine is dry, the amount must have originated from a full quarter-measure, because once the wine is dry, it is no longer diluted. It must have the significant amount that applies to the dried substance. For dried wine, that significant amount is an olive-sized portion. Rabbi Natan is therefore saying that when a full quarter-measure of wine dries, it becomes an olive-sized amount, and consequently the measure for dried wine is an olive-sized portion.
There is another teaching that appears to say something similar. We are told that there were six cases in which Bet Shammai was lenient and Bet Hillel was stringent, even though Bet Shammai is generally the more stringent school and Bet Hillel the more lenient one. The teaching says that on the day when they studied tractate Eduyot, they testified to six cases in which Bet Shammai was lenient. Rabbi Yehuda says that there were more than six, but on that day they testified to six cases.
One of those cases concerns the blood of an improperly slaughtered animal. An animal that died without proper slaughter is called an animal carcass, and its flesh conveys impurity. If a person touches the flesh, the person becomes impure. The question is what happens to parts of the carcass that are not edible, such as its bones or skin. The novelty is that inedible parts are not subject to the impurity of an animal carcass; only the flesh is.
What about its blood? Bet Shammai says that the blood is also not subject to the impurity of an animal carcass. Bet Hillel, however, says that the impurity of the blood of an animal carcass is like the impurity of its flesh, and therefore the blood is impure as well.
Bet Hillel says that only a quarter-measure or more of blood conveys impurity. Why is that the measure? Because a quarter-measure of blood, when it dries, becomes an olive-sized amount. The significant number for impurity is an olive-sized amount. Therefore, in the case of blood, one needs the same measure: how much liquid blood would congeal into an olive-sized portion? A quarter-measure.
We therefore have two examples of liquids that dry into an olive-sized amount. The first is dried wine: Rabbi Natan says that an olive-sized amount of dried wine must have originated from a full quarter-measure. The second is the blood of an animal carcass: it must also have originated from a full quarter-measure, because a quarter-measure of blood dries into an olive-sized amount. We seem to have two similar laws and two rabbis expressing the same principle.
The Gemara rejects this conclusion. It is not necessarily true that the two rabbis are saying the same thing. Perhaps Rabbi Natan stated his law regarding wine but would not state the same law regarding blood. Conversely, perhaps Rabbi Yehuda stated his law regarding blood but would not state the same law regarding wine.
Rabbi Yehuda says that perhaps this is not so. Perhaps Rabbi Natan said that one needs an olive-sized amount of dried wine because wine is light in consistency. Since wine is light compared with blood, an olive-sized amount of dried wine can come from a full quarter-measure of liquid wine. Blood, however, is thick. Perhaps even less than an olive-sized amount of dried blood could have come from a full quarter-measure of liquid blood. Since blood is thicker, perhaps one does not need an olive-sized amount once it has dried. Therefore, the fact that Rabbi Natan requires an olive-sized amount for dried wine does not prove that he would require an olive-sized amount for dried blood.
The Gemara then considers the reverse possibility. Perhaps Rabbi Yehuda stated his law only regarding blood. An olive-sized amount of dried blood can equal a full quarter-measure because blood is thick. Since it is thick, it does not contract as much when it dries. But wine is light and thin. Perhaps an olive-sized amount of dried wine is actually more than a full quarter-measure of liquid wine. If so, one might become liable for carrying even less than an olive-sized amount of dried wine, because less than an olive-sized amount could already have originated from a full quarter-measure of liquid wine.
Thus, there is no proof that the two rabbis are expressing the same principle. Perhaps each one stated his law only in the specific case that he mentioned. The matter remains unresolved.
We now turn to several terms and the way they are pronounced. We said that for milk, the amount that creates liability is the amount required for one swallow. The question is how to pronounce the word for “swallow,” and whether it is written with an aleph or an ayin. The word appears in the account of Eliezer, and there it is written with an aleph.
The Gemara also said that when one carries food on Shabbat, the amount is combined, but the pit is not counted. How did the language of the Mishnah describe the exclusion of the pit? It used a word meaning “to diminish,” written with an ayin. A verse teaches that the word for a pit comes from the idea of diminishing. Why would a pit be called by that term? Because it diminishes the value of the fruit: the pit is not eaten, so it diminishes the edible portion. It therefore makes sense that the word is written with an ayin, since the pit is discarded.
Another term concerns coals that are dying out. They are described as coals that are becoming dim or dark. The Gemara asks how the word should be pronounced and whether it is written with an aleph or an ayin. A verse says that the cedar trees did not become darkened; they remained beautiful in the Garden of God. This indicates that the word meaning “to become dark” is written with an ayin.
The discussion then returns to a law concerning Shabbat: if someone dies on Shabbat, one may not close the person’s eyes. The Gemara asks how the relevant word is spelled. The same root can describe a person who closes his eyes rather than looking at something bad. The issue is again whether the word is written with an aleph or an ayin.
The Gemara then discusses the amount of milk from a kosher animal that one must carry on Shabbat. The measure is the amount that one can swallow. However, for a mother’s milk or the white of an egg, the measure is the amount used in an eye ointment called a collyrium. This was an ointment placed in the eyes, and these ingredients were mixed into it.
How much of the eye ointment must one carry to become liable? The answer is the amount that one would mix with water in order to apply it to both eyes. The measure is therefore enough to mix with water so that it can be placed on both eyes.
The Gemara raises one final question in this discussion. When one applies the ointment to the eyes, some of it remains on the finger. Is that remainder included in the significant measure, or does one count only the amount that is actually smeared on the eyes? In other words, is the measure only the material applied to the eyes, or does it include the additional amount that remains on the finger?
The Gemara answers that we must wait for Elijah the Prophet to resolve the question.
The discussion then turns to honey. We said that the amount of honey that creates liability is the amount placed on a boil on the back of a horse or camel. A patch of honey is placed on the boil as a remedy. A teaching, however, does not refer to the boil itself but to the mouth of the boil.
The Gemara asks: When the measure of honey is described as the amount significant enough to place on the boil, does that mean only the opening of the boil? A boil has an opening, so perhaps the measure refers only to the small amount placed on the top or opening. Or does it also include the surrounding area? If the surrounding area is included, the amount of honey is greater. The entire discussion concerns how much honey is considered significant enough to create liability for carrying on Shabbat.
The Gemara asks whether the measure is the amount placed directly on the mouth of the boil or whether it is enough to place honey around it as well. The question remains unresolved.
Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rav that everything the Holy One, blessed be He, created in His world was created for a purpose. He did not create a single thing in vain.
The Gemara gives examples. What is the purpose of a slug? One crushes the slug and places it on a boil of the type found on an animal, and it provides a cure.
What is the purpose of the hornet, a dangerous creature? One crushes it and places it on the site of a bite, and it eases the pain.
What is the purpose of another type of insect? It is used as a remedy for someone who has been bitten by a snake.
What is the purpose of another creature that resembles a small insect? It is used to treat someone who has boils or some other skin condition.
What is the purpose of the spider? If someone has been bitten by a scorpion, the spider is crushed and placed on the place of the bite, providing a remedy.
The Gemara then explains how to cure a boil using a snake. Bring one black snake and one white snake, cook them, and place the resulting paste on the boils. This provides a cure.
The Gemara also speaks about five types of fear that the Holy One, blessed be He, created in the world. Sometimes the strong are afraid of the weak. There is a certain small animal with a very loud voice. Sometimes even a lion is afraid of it, because the lion does not know how small it is. It hears the loud voice and assumes that the creature may be powerful enough to kill it, and so it becomes frightened.
A fly can frighten an elephant because it enters the elephant’s trunk, and the elephant cannot get rid of it. A spider can frighten a scorpion because it enters its ear and cannot be removed. A certain bird can intimidate an eagle because it goes beneath the eagle’s wings and prevents them from opening. A small creature in the water can even frighten the Leviathan, the great whale, because it enters its ear and the Leviathan cannot remove it.
We therefore see that a small creature can sometimes intimidate and frighten a large one. The Gemara finds this idea in a verse that teaches that the weak can sometimes overpower the strong.
Rabbi Zeira once found Rabbi Yehuda standing near the gate or doorway of his father’s house. Rabbi Yehuda was in a good mood, and Rabbi Zeira said to himself that this was a fortunate day. He could ask Rabbi Yehuda questions about every subject in the world, and Rabbi Yehuda would answer him. He therefore began asking a series of questions.
His first question was: Why is it that when shepherds lead their animals, the goats go first, followed by the sheep?
Rabbi Yehuda answered that this follows the order of the creation of the world. When God created the world, there was darkness first and then light. Goats are generally black, while sheep are white. Therefore, the black animals go first and the white animals follow, corresponding to the order of creation.
This was not merely a pointless question. It contains a lesson. Before something great happens to a person, the person often has to pass through a dark period. Before the white sheep appear, the black goats come first. Before something good or positive happens, a person may have to pass through a trial.
Rabbi Zeira then asked: Sheep have a tail at the back that covers them, while goats do not. Why do goats not have a tail to cover their backs?
The answer is that the wool of sheep is used to cover us, so God gave the sheep a covering at the back. We do not use the hair of goats in the same way to cover ourselves, and therefore the goats do not have that covering. The one that provides a covering receives a covering, while the one that does not provide one does not receive one.
Why does a camel have a short tail? Because it eats thorns. If it had a long tail, the tail would become caught in the thorn bushes. God therefore gave it a short tail so that it would not become entangled in the thorns.
Why does an ox, like a cow, have a long tail? Because it generally stays near marshes or water. It needs to brush away the flies that are found near the marsh. God therefore gave it a large tail.
Why are the antennae of grasshoppers soft? Because grasshoppers live near willow trees, which are very hard. If their antennae were hard as well, they would strike against the willows, causing the grasshoppers to fall and become blind. The eyes of grasshoppers are located on these antennae.
If anyone is interested in blinding a grasshopper, the Gemara says that one need only pull off its antenna, and it will become blind. Now you know.
Rabbi Yehuda also explained that when chickens close their eyes, the eyelid moves from the bottom upward. This is unlike a human being, whose eyelid closes from the top downward.
Why does a chicken’s eyelid close from the bottom up? Chickens sleep at night beside large poles and beams, where smoke rises. By closing the eye from the bottom, the smoke cannot enter. If the eye closed from the top downward, the smoke could enter from underneath and damage the eyes, causing blindness. The eyelid therefore seals the eye against the smoke rising from the lower areas where the chickens sleep.
The Gemara then asks about the roots of various words. We know that a door is called a door in Aramaic. Why is it given that name? The word is understood as an abbreviation of “the way is there,” because that is the route through which one enters. The term for a door therefore derives from the way one goes in.
A step is called by a word understood as “the way to the roof,” because steps are the way by which one reaches the roof.
Another word refers to a dip or condiment into which food is dipped. Why is it called by that name? One explanation is that people say, “When will this end?” The dip is eaten very slowly because one merely dips the food into it, and therefore a large amount can last a long time. People ask when it will finally be finished.
Rashi offers another explanation. The food can be eaten only with the dip because it does not taste good without it. People therefore ask, “When will the food end?” Once there is no more dip, they will no longer be able to eat the food. This is another meaning of the expression: when the dip ends, what will we eat?
Why is a house called by a word meaning “come and sit in it”? It is understood as an abbreviation of “Come and sit in it,” and “live in it.”
A small, narrow house is called by a word indicating narrowness. It is a very constricted structure, and its name reflects that narrowness.
A piece of wood is called by a term understood as “turn it over and sit on it.” One turns over a plank or stump of wood and sits on it.
Why are bricks called by a word associated with sons and grandchildren? Because bricks remain for a long time, until one’s grandchildren can still see them.
Why is a fence made from palm branches called by a term meaning “to separate”? Because that is what it does: it creates a partition and separates one area from another.
A vessel used to draw water is called by a word associated with drawing. It draws water from the river. Normally, that root is used for hewing stones in a quarry, but here one is metaphorically hewing or drawing water from the river, and so the vessel receives that name.
A small vessel made of earthenware is called by a name meaning “like this,” because it is a small vessel of this type.
The myrtle is called by a term associated with foolishness. People used to carry myrtle branches and dance in a wild or foolish manner before the groom. Because they performed foolish dances with the myrtle branches, the plant received a name related to a foolish person.
The Gemara then discusses a large vessel filled with water that was used for washing the hands and feet. Its name is associated with washing everything.
A smaller vessel used for washing is given a diminutive form of the same word. It was used for a bride or for other important women. The larger vessel was significant, while the smaller washing vessel was used for a bride or other distinguished women.
A grinder used to grind spices is called by a term meaning that something is missing. It is made from a piece of wood from which part has been hollowed out. The wood is missing where it was chiseled away, and that hollow is where the spices are placed and crushed. Its name therefore reflects the portion that is missing.
The pestle, the instrument used to pound the spices, is called by a term understood as “come and strike it.” That is what one does with it: one brings it down and pounds the spices.
An outer garment, such as a jacket, is called by a word understood as “no shame.” Even if the shirt beneath it is torn, the outer garment protects the wearer from embarrassment because no one can see what is underneath. That is why the outer garment is given this name: it saves a person from shame.
Another outer garment is a coat or cape with no particular shape or sleeves. It is simply placed over the person. Because it has no defined form, it resembles something without a form or shape; one cannot see the shape of the body or of the garment.
There was also a long outer coat. When a person wearing it sat down, he would lift it so that it would not drag on the ground and become dirty or torn. Its name is understood as “reveal it when he sits,” because he would raise the coat when sitting.
A bed is called by a term connected with having children, because it is the place where one fulfills the commandment to be fruitful and multiply.
A well that has dried up is called by a name meaning “a clean pit.” It is clean in the sense that it contains no more water.
A special hat worn by Torah scholars is associated with the secret of God being revealed to those who fear Him. It is therefore associated with the secrets of God, which are the Torah, and with the scholars who study it.
A palace where kings reside is called by a term connected with people coming to its entrance. Everyone who needs judgment or who comes to serve the king goes there, and therefore the palace or chamber is given that name.
The Sages taught that there are three creatures that become stronger as they grow older: a fish, a snake, and a pig.
We now return to the main discussion. Regarding oil, we said that the amount that creates liability is enough to anoint a small limb.
The scholars of the house of Rabbi Yannai explained that this means the smallest limb of the smallest child on the day of his birth. More specifically, it refers to one joint of the child’s finger, such as the portion of the little finger from its tip to the first knuckle. That is considered a small limb, and enough oil to anoint it is the amount that creates liability for carrying on Shabbat.
An objection is raised. A teaching states that the measure of oil is enough to anoint a small limb of a small child on the day of his birth. It sounds as though two measures are being mentioned: the smallest limb of an adult, or the largest limb of a child. Perhaps the teaching means either a small limb of an adult or a large limb of a child, which would be approximately the same measure. This appears to conflict with the explanation that the measure is the smallest limb of the smallest child.
The Gemara answers that the wording should be read as one case, not two. When the teaching says “enough to anoint a small limb of a small child on the day of his birth,” the entire phrase describes the measure. It does not mean either the small limb of an adult or the large limb of a child. It means specifically the smallest limb of a newborn child, the tiny portion of the finger described previously. There is therefore no contradiction.
The Gemara then asks whether this is a dispute among the Tannaim. One teaching says that the measure of oil is enough to anoint a small limb, while another adds the words “of a small child on the day of his birth.” Perhaps the addition of those words indicates that the measure is specifically the smallest limb of the smallest child. According to the first teaching, however, the measure might be the smallest limb of an adult or the largest limb of a child.
In other words, perhaps the dispute concerns the amount of oil that is considered significant. One opinion gives a very small amount, enough to anoint the tiny portion of a newborn’s little finger. The other opinion says that such a small amount is not considered a significant measure. According to that view, the measure is the smallest limb of an adult, or alternatively the largest limb of a child.
The Gemara explains that the first opinion understands the wording of the teaching as equating the smallest limb of an adult with the largest limb of a child. The thigh, which is the largest limb of a child, is considered equivalent to the smallest limb of an adult. The teaching is therefore describing one measure, not two separate measures.
The second opinion agrees that the measure is the smallest limb of an adult, but does not agree that the largest limb of a child is equivalent to it. According to that opinion, the measure is the smallest limb of an adult, and the wording referring to the largest limb of a child does not establish the same amount.
That is the dispute. The first opinion says that there is no difference between the smallest limb of an adult and the largest limb of a child; they are equivalent. The second opinion says that they are not equivalent, and that the measure is the smallest limb of an adult.
What is the practical halachic ruling? The conclusion follows the explanation of Rabbi Yannai: the measure is the smallest amount, enough oil to anoint the tiny portion of a newborn child’s little finger. That is the amount of oil for which one becomes liable when carrying on Shabbat.
May the Master of the universe be blessed forever. Amen.