Shabbat 113
חֲדָא מִינַּיְיהוּ בַּטּוֹלֵי מְבַטֵּיל, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הֲלָכָה, מִכְּלָל דִּפְלִיגִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי נָפְקָא לָךְ מִינַּהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: גְּמָרָא גְּמוֹר זְמוֹרְתָּא תְּהֵא?!
that one of the knots one voids, because he can enable the animal to go out, albeit with difficulty, after untying one knot, therefore, it teaches us that both are considered temporary knots, and it is permitted to tie them. Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: If you rule the halakha in accordance with his opinion, does that mean, by inference, that the Rabbis disagree, or perhaps is there no dispute and everyone accepts the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov? Rav Yosef said to him: What difference is there to you whether or not the Rabbis disagree? In either case, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. Abaye answered Rav Yosef using a folk expression: Is it simply learn the lesson, let it be like a song? In other words, is it sufficient to simply parrot the halakhic ruling? Rather, it is necessary to examine the issue to understand it, even if it does not yield a practical halakhic difference.
מַתְנִי׳ קוֹשְׁרִין דְּלִי בְּפָסִקְיָא, אֲבָל לֹא בְּחֶבֶל. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַתִּיר. כְּלָל אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: כׇּל קֶשֶׁר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁל קַיָּימָא — אֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו.
MISHNA: One may tie a bucket with a belt on Shabbat, as he will certainly not leave it tied to the bucket, and therefore it is not a permanent knot. But one may not tie a bucket with a rope. Rabbi Yehuda permits doing so. Rabbi Yehuda stated a principle: With regard to any knot that is not permanent, one is not liable for tying it.
גְּמָ׳ חֶבֶל דְּמַאי? אִי לֵימָא חֶבֶל דְּעָלְמָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַתִּיר? קֶשֶׁר שֶׁל קַיָּימָא הוּא! אֶלָּא חֶבֶל דְּגַרְדִּי. לְמֵימְרָא דְּרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי גָּזְרִינַן חֶבֶל דְּגַרְדִּי אַטּוּ חֶבֶל דְּעָלְמָא, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר לָא גָּזְרִינַן?
GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that according to the first tanna, it is prohibited to tie a rope to a bucket on Shabbat, and Rabbi Yehuda permits doing so. The Gemara asks: A rope of what kind? If you say it is referring to a standard rope, does Rabbi Yehuda permit doing so? It is a permanent knot. Rather, it is referring to a weaver’s rope; since the weaver needs it for his work, he will untie it after Shabbat. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the Rabbis hold that we issue a decree prohibiting a weaver’s rope due to a standard rope, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that we do not issue a decree?
וּרְמִינְהוּ: חֶבֶל דְּלִי שֶׁנִּפְסַק לֹא יְהֵא קוֹשְׁרוֹ אֶלָּא עוֹנְבוֹ. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כּוֹרֵךְ עָלָיו פּוּנְדָּא אוֹ פָּסִקְיָא, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַעַנְבֶנּוּ.
The Gemara raises a contradiction from that which was taught in a baraita: With regard to the rope of a bucket that was severed on Shabbat, one may not tie it with a regular knot; rather, he may tie a bow. And Rabbi Yehuda says: One may wrap a hollow belt around it or a sash as long as he does not tie it into a bow.
קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבָּנַן אַדְּרַבָּנַן.
This is difficult, as there is a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and another statement of Rabbi Yehuda, as in the baraita he issued a decree prohibiting tying a bow due to tying a knot, and in the mishna he issued no decree. And this is also difficult, as there is a contradiction between one statement of the Rabbis and another statement of the Rabbis, as in the baraita they do not issue a decree and in the mishna they do issue a decree.
דְּרַבָּנַן אַדְּרַבָּנַן לָא קַשְׁיָא: חֶבֶל בְּחֶבֶל — מִיחַלַּף. עֲנִיבָה בִּקְשִׁירָה — לָא מִיחַלְּפָא. דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָתָם — לָא מִשּׁוּם דְּמִיחַלְּפָא עֲנִיבָה בִּקְשִׁירָה, אֶלָּא עֲנִיבָה גּוּפָהּ קְשִׁירָה הִיא.
The Gemara responds: The contradiction between one statement of the Rabbis and the other statement of the Rabbis is not difficult, as they are of the opinion that a rope may be confused with another rope. Therefore, the Rabbis issued a decree prohibiting a weaver’s rope, because if it were permitted one might mistakenly come to tie a standard rope. However, a bow is not confused with a knot, and therefore they did not issue a decree prohibiting a bow. The contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda is not difficult, as there, where he prohibited tying a bow, it is not because a bow may be confused with a knot, but because, in his opinion, a bow itself is a full-fledged knot and is not prohibited due to a decree.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר רַב: מֵבִיא אָדָם חֶבֶל מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, וְקוֹשְׁרוֹ בַּפָּרָה וּבָאֵיבוּס אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי אַחָא אֲרִיכָא דְּהוּא רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר פָּפָּא לְרַבִּי אַבָּא: חֶבֶל שֶׁבָּאֵיבוּס — קוֹשְׁרוֹ בַּפָּרָה, וְשֶׁבַּפָּרָה — קוֹשְׁרוֹ בָּאֵיבוּס, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יָבִיא חֶבֶל מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וְיִקְשׁוֹר בַּפָּרָה וּבָאֵיבוּס! הָתָם — חֶבֶל דְּעָלְמָא הָכָא חֶבֶל דְּגַרְדִּי.
Rabbi Abba said that Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: A person may bring a rope from inside his house on Shabbat and tie one end of it to a cow and the other end to a trough. That is not considered a permanent knot, because he will certainly untie the rope. Rabbi Aḥa Arikha, who was nicknamed Rabbi Aḥa the Long, due to his height, who is also called Rabbi Aḥa bar Pappa, raised an objection to Rabbi Abba from the baraita: With regard to a rope that is tied to the trough, one may tie it to a cow, and a rope that is tied to the cow one may tie it to a trough, provided that one does not bring a rope from inside his house and tie it to the cow and to the trough. The Gemara answers: There, where they permitted it, it is referring to a weaver’s rope, which will certainly be untied.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כְּלֵי קִיוָּאֵי מוּתָּר לְטַלְטְלָן בְּשַׁבָּת. בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַב יְהוּדָה: כּוֹבֶד הָעֶלְיוֹן וְכוֹבֶד הַתַּחְתּוֹן מַהוּ? אִין וְלָאו וְרַפְיָא בִּידֵיהּ. אִיתְּמַר אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כְּלֵי קִיוָּאֵי מוּתָּר לְטַלְטְלָן בְּשַׁבָּת, אֲפִילּוּ כּוֹבֶד הָעֶלְיוֹן וְכוֹבֶד הַתַּחְתּוֹן, אֲבָל לֹא אֶת הָעַמּוּדִים.
Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: A weaver’s tools may be moved on Shabbat. They raised a dilemma before Rav Yehuda: What is the ruling with regard to the upper beam and the lower beam of the weaver’s loom? Does this leniency apply to them? Rav Yehuda did not provide a clear answer. He said: Yes and no, and the matter was uncertain to him. It was stated: Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: A weaver’s tools may be moved on Shabbat, even the upper beam and the lower beam, but not the posts.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: מַאי שְׁנָא עַמּוּדִים דְּלָא? אִילֵּימָא דְּקָעָבֵיד גּוּמּוֹת, גּוּמּוֹת מִמֵּילָא קָא הָוְיָין, דִּתְנַן: הַטּוֹמֵן לֶפֶת וּצְנוֹנוֹת תַּחַת הַגֶּפֶן, אִם מִקְצָת עָלָיו מְגוּלִּין — אֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ לֹא מִשּׁוּם כִּלְאַיִם, וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבִיעִית, וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם מַעֲשֵׂר, וְנִיטָּלִין בְּשַׁבָּת.
Rava said to Rav Naḥman: What is different about the posts that one may not carry them? If we say it is because one makes holes when removing the post from the ground, holes come into being on their own and that is not prohibited, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who stores a turnip or radish in the ground beneath a vine for safekeeping, if some of its leaves were exposed, making it possible to grab the turnip or the radish and pull it out of the ground, he need not be concerned, neither due to diverse kinds, i.e., that he violated the prohibition of planting food crops in a vineyard, as there was no intent to plant them, nor due to concern that he violated the prohibition against working the land during the Sabbatical Year, nor due to tithes, i.e., that it would be considered as if he picked it from the ground and would be obligated to tithe it, and they may be taken from the ground on Shabbat. Apparently, the Rabbis do not prohibit doing so due to concern that one will thereby create a hole.
בְּשָׂדֶה — לָא אָתֵי לְאַשְׁווֹיֵי גּוּמּוֹת, הָכָא בְּבַיִת — אָתֵי לְאַשְׁווֹיֵי גּוּמּוֹת. בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מֵרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר לֵיוַאי: כְּלֵי קִיוָּאֵי, כְּגוֹן כּוֹבֶד הָעֶלְיוֹן וְכוֹבֶד הַתַּחְתּוֹן, מַהוּ לְטַלְטְלָן בְּשַׁבָּת? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין. מַה טַּעַם? לְפִי שֶׁאֵין נִיטָּלִין.
Rav Naḥman answered him: The cases are not comparable. In a field one will not come to fill holes; however, here, where the holes are created in the house, the concern is that one may come to smooth out the holes. Therefore, the Rabbis prohibited it. Rabbi Yoḥanan raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yehuda bar Liva’ei: With regard to weaver’s tools, such as the upper beam and the lower beam of the loom, what is the ruling in terms of carrying them on Shabbat? Rabbi Yehuda said to him: One may not carry them. Rabbi Yoḥanan asked him: What is the reason for this? Rabbi Yehuda bar Liva’ei answered: Because they are not usually carried even during the week, as they are extremely heavy and are considered fixed in place. Therefore, the Sages prohibited carrying them on Shabbat.
מַתְנִי׳ מְקַפְּלִין אֶת הַכֵּלִים אֲפִילּוּ אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה פְּעָמִים, וּמַצִּיעִין אֶת הַמִּטּוֹת מִלֵּילֵי שַׁבָּת לְשַׁבָּת, אֲבָל לֹא מִשַּׁבָּת לְמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: מְקַפְּלִין אֶת הַכֵּלִים, וּמַצִּיעִין אֶת הַמִּטּוֹת מִיּוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים לְשַׁבָּת. וְחֶלְבֵי שַׁבָּת קְרֵיבִין בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים, אֲבָל לֹא שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים בְּשַׁבָּת. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: לֹא שֶׁל שַׁבָּת קְרֵיבִין בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים, וְלֹא שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים קְרֵיבִין בְּשַׁבָּת.
MISHNA: One may fold the garments after removing them even four or five times, and one may make the beds from Shabbat evening in preparation for Shabbat day, but not from Shabbat in preparation for the conclusion of Shabbat, since one may not perform an action on Shabbat that is preparation for a weekday. Rabbi Yishmael says: One may fold the garments and make the beds from Yom Kippur in preparation for Shabbat if Yom Kippur occurs on Friday. And the fats of the offerings that were sacrificed on Shabbat are offered on Yom Kippur, but not those of Yom Kippur on Shabbat, because the sanctity of Shabbat is greater than the sanctity of Yom Kippur. Rabbi Akiva says: Neither are the fats of the offerings sacrificed on Shabbat offered on Yom Kippur, nor are those of Yom Kippur offered on Shabbat.
גְּמָ׳ אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּאָדָם אֶחָד, אֲבָל בִּשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם — לֹא. וּבְאָדָם אֶחָד נָמֵי לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא בַּחֲדָשִׁים, אֲבָל בִּישָׁנִים — לָא. וָחֳדָשִׁים נָמֵי לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא בִּלְבָנִים, אֲבָל בִּצְבוּעִים — לָא. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין לוֹ לְהַחֲלִיף, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לוֹ לְהַחֲלִיף — לָא.
GEMARA: The Sages in the school of Rabbi Yanai said: They only taught that it is permitted when one person is folding the garments alone on Shabbat; however, when two people are folding the garments together, no, they may not do so, because when two people fold garments it is tantamount to repairing the garment. And with regard to when a single person is folding the garments, we only said it is permitted when he is folding a new garment, which is suitable to be worn even if it were not folded; however, with regard to old garments, no, he may not do so. And with regard to new garments, we only said that one may fold the garments when they are white; however, when they are colored, no, one may not do so. And with regard to white garments, we only said it is permitted to fold them on Shabbat when one does not have garments into which one could change; however, if one has other garments into which he could change, he may not fold them.
תָּנָא: שֶׁל בֵּית רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לֹא הָיוּ מְקַפְּלִים כְּלֵי לָבָן שֶׁלָּהֶן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָיָה לָהֶן לְהַחֲלִיף. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ לְהַחֲלִיף — יַחֲלִיף, וְאִם אֵין לוֹ לְהַחֲלִיף — יְשַׁלְשֵׁל בִּבְגָדָיו. מַתְקִיף לַהּ רַב סָפְרָא: וְהָא מִיתְחֲזֵי כְּרָמוּת רוּחָא. כֵּיוָן דְּכׇל יוֹמָא לָא קָעָבֵיד, וְהָאִידָּנָא הוּא דְּקָא עָבֵיד — לָא מִיתְחֲזֵי כְּרָמוּת רוּחָא.
And it was taught in the Tosefta: The members of Rabban Gamliel’s household did not even fold their white garments because they had others into which they could change. Rav Huna said: If one has new garments into which he could change on Shabbat, he will change into those garments; and if one does not have garments into which he could change, he lets his garments hang down before Shabbat to beautify himself in deference to Shabbat as it used to be the custom of wealthy people to wear their clothes loosely. Rav Safra strongly objects to this: Doesn’t this appear as haughtiness? The Gemara answers: Since every day he does not do so, and now in honor of Shabbat he is doing so, it does not appear as haughtiness. Rather it is apparent that he is acting in deference to Shabbat.
״וְכִבַּדְתּוֹ מֵעֲשׂוֹת דְּרָכֶיךָ״. ״וְכִבַּדְתּוֹ״ — שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא מַלְבּוּשְׁךָ שֶׁל שַׁבָּת כְּמַלְבּוּשְׁךָ שֶׁל חוֹל, וְכִי הָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן קָרֵי לְמָאנֵיהּ ״מְכַבְּדוֹתַי״. ״מֵעֲשׂוֹת דְּרָכֶיךָ״ — שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא הִילּוּכְךָ שֶׁל שַׁבָּת כְּהִילּוּכְךָ שֶׁל חוֹל. ״מִמְּצוֹא חֶפְצְךָ״ — חֲפָצֶיךָ אֲסוּרִין, חֶפְצֵי שָׁמַיִם מוּתָּרִין. ״וְדַבֵּר דָּבָר״ —
On a related note, the Gemara cites what we learned with regard to the following passage: “If you keep your feet from breaking, from pursuing your affairs on My holy day, and you call Shabbat a delight, the Lord’s holy day honorable, and you honor it by not going your own way, from attending to your affairs and speaking idle words” (Isaiah 58:13). The Rabbis derived from the words “and you honor it” that your dress on Shabbat should not be like your dress during the week, as Rabbi Yoḥanan would refer to his clothing as my honor, indicating that appropriate clothing is a form of deference. The words “going your own way” mean that your walking on Shabbat should not be like your walking during the week. “From attending to your affairs” means it is prohibited to deal with your weekday affairs and to speak about them on Shabbat. However, affairs of Heaven, i.e., those pertaining to mitzvot, are permitted. “And speaking idle words”
שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא דִּבּוּרְךָ שֶׁל שַׁבָּת כְּדִבּוּרְךָ שֶׁל חוֹל. דִּבּוּר אָסוּר, הִרְהוּר — מוּתָּר. בִּשְׁלָמָא כּוּלְּהוּ — לְחַיֵּי, אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא הִילּוּכְךָ שֶׁל שַׁבָּת כְּהִילּוּכְךָ שֶׁל חוֹל מַאי הִיא? כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב, וְאָמְרִי לֵיהּ אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ בְּשַׁבָּת וּפָגַע בְּאַמַּת הַמַּיִם, אִם יָכוֹל לְהַנִּיחַ אֶת רַגְלוֹ רִאשׁוֹנָה קוֹדֶם שֶׁתֵּעָקֵר שְׁנִיָּה — מוּתָּר, וְאִם לָאו — אָסוּר.
means that your speech on Shabbat should not be like your speech during the week, i.e., one should not discuss his weekday affairs on Shabbat. However, it is only speech that they said is prohibited, whereas merely contemplating weekday affairs is permitted. The Gemara asks: Granted, all of these directives, fine, they are understood. However, what is the meaning of the following phrase: That your walking on Shabbat should not be like your walking during the week? The Gemara answers: It is in accordance with that which Rav Huna said that Rav said, and some say that Rabbi Abba said that Rav Huna said: If one were walking on Shabbat and came upon a stream of water and had to cross it, if the stream is narrow and one could place his first foot down on the other side before raising the second one, it is permitted to cross it; and if it is not possible and one must jump to cross it, it is prohibited. That is the type of walking that is not permitted on Shabbat.
מַתְקִיף לַהּ רָבָא: הֵיכִי לֶיעְבֵּיד? לַיקֵּיף — קָמַפֵּישׁ בְּהִילּוּכָא. לִיעְבַּר — זִימְנִין דְּמִיתַּוְּוסָן מָאנֵיהּ מַיָּא, וְאָתֵי לִידֵי סְחִיטָה. אֶלָּא בְּהָא כֵּיוָן דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר — שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי. אֶלָּא כְּדִבְעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי מֵרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מַהוּ לִפְסוֹעַ פְּסִיעָה גַּסָּה בְּשַׁבָּת? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְכִי בַּחוֹל מִי הוּתְּרָה? שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: פְּסִיעָה גַּסָּה נוֹטֶלֶת אֶחָד מֵחֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת מִמְּאוֹר עֵינָיו שֶׁל אָדָם. וּמַהְדַּר לֵיהּ בְּקִידּוּשָׁא דְּבֵי שִׁמְשֵׁי.
Rava strongly objects to this: Since we have said that one’s walking on Shabbat should not be like his walking during the week, and jumping constitutes prohibited walking, if one encounters a stream on Shabbat, what should he do to cross to the other side? If he circumvents the stream, he is increasing the distance that he is walking and exerting extra effort on Shabbat. If he walks through the water, sometimes his clothes will absorb water and he will come to wring them out. What then should he do? Rather, in this case, since it is not possible to cross any other way, he may well cross it, i.e., it is permitted for him to jump over the stream. Therefore, rather say that walking that is defined as characteristic of weekday walking involves taking large steps. As Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei: What is the ruling with regard to taking large steps on Shabbat? That is what the Gemara meant when it used the phrase: Your walking during the week. Rabbi Yishmael said to him: And during the week are large steps permitted? As I say: A large step takes away one five-hundredth of a person’s eyesight. The Gemara comments: And his eyesight is restored to him during kiddush on Shabbat evening.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי מֵרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מַהוּ לֶאֱכוֹל אֲדָמָה בְּשַׁבָּת? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְכִי בַּחוֹל מִי הוּתְּרָה? שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: אַף בַּחוֹל אָסוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַלְקֶה. אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: כָּל הָאוֹכֵל מֵעֲפָרָהּ שֶׁל בָּבֶל — כְּאִילּוּ אוֹכֵל מִבְּשַׂר אֲבוֹתָיו. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: כְּאִילּוּ אוֹכֵל שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּמַח אֶת כׇּל הַיְקוּם וְגוֹ׳״.
And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei: What is the ruling with regard to eating earth for medicinal purposes on Shabbat? Rabbi Yishmael said to him: And during the week is it permitted to eat soil? As I say: Even during the week it is prohibited because it is harmful. Rabbi Ami said: Anyone who eats the dust of Babylonia, it is as if he is eating the flesh of his ancestors buried there. And some say: It is as if he eats abominations and creeping creatures, as it is written: “And He wiped out all that existed on the face of the earth, from humans to animals, to creeping creatures to the birds in the sky, and they were wiped off the land” (Genesis 7:23).
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ ״שִׁנְעָר״ — שֶׁכׇּל מֵתֵי מַבּוּל נִנְעֲרוּ לְשָׁם. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ ״מְצוּלָה״ — שֶׁכׇּל מֵתֵי מַבּוּל נִצְטַלְּלוּ לְשָׁם. [וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים כְּאִילּוּ אוֹכֵל] שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים, וְהָא וַדַּאי אִיתְמַחוֹיֵי אִיתְמַחוּ! אָמְרִי כֵּיוָן דְּמַלְקֵי גְּזַרוּ בֵּיהּ רַבָּנַן. דְּהָא הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּאֲכַל גַּרְגִּישְׁתָּא וַאֲכַל תַּחְלֵי, וּקְדַחוּ לֵיהּ תַּחְלֵי בְּלִבֵּיהּ, וּמִית.
Apropos dead residue in the ground, Reish Lakish said: Why is Babylonia called Shinar? It is because all those who died in the Flood were deposited there [ninaru lesham]. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Why is Babylonia called Metzula? It is because all those who died in the Flood sank there [nitztalelu lesham]. The Gemara asks: We said that some say that if one eats dirt from Babylonia, it is as if he eats abominations and creeping creatures. However, certainly their bodies have putrefied and decomposed, and therefore they are no longer prohibited. Rather, since soil is harmful, the Sages issued a decree not to eat it. The decree was not issued due to the prohibition of eating creeping creatures; rather, it was issued because a certain person ate soil for medicinal purposes and also ate cress. The cress took root in the soil that was inside him and began to grow. And the cress punctured his heart and he died.
״וְרָחַצְתְּ וָסַכְתְּ וְשַׂמְתְּ שִׂמְלֹתַיִךְ״ — אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אֵלּוּ בְּגָדִים שֶׁל שַׁבָּת. ״תֵּן לְחָכָם וְיֶחְכַּם עוֹד״ — אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: זוֹ רוּת הַמּוֹאֲבִיָּה וּשְׁמוּאֵל הָרָמָתִי.
The Gemara continues to discuss Shabbat. Naomi advised Ruth: “And you shall bathe, and anoint yourself, and put on your robes, and go down to the threshing floor. Do not make yourself known to the man until he has finished eating and drinking” (Ruth 3:3). Rabbi Elazar said: These robes are Shabbat garments that Naomi told her to wear in honor of the occasion. Apropos the book of Ruth, the Gemara cites additional statements of Rabbi Elazar with regard to Ruth: “Give to the wise one and he will become wiser; let the righteous one know and he will learn more” (Proverbs 9:9). Rabbi Elazar said: This refers to Ruth the Moabite and Samuel of Rama, who received advice and added to it with their wisdom.
רוּת, דְּאִילּוּ נָעֳמִי קָאָמְרָה לַהּ ״וְרָחַצְתְּ וָסַכְתְּ וְשַׂמְתְּ שִׂמְלֹתַיִךְ עָלַיִךְ וְיָרַדְתְּ הַגֹּרֶן״, וְאִילּוּ בְּדִידַהּ כְּתִיב: ״וַתֵּרֶד הַגֹּרֶן״, וַהֲדַר ״וַתַּעַשׂ כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוַּתָּה חֲמוֹתָהּ״. שְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאִילּוּ עֵלִי קָאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״שְׁכָב וְהָיָה אִם יִקְרָא אֵלֶיךָ וְאָמַרְתָּ דַּבֵּר ה׳ כִּי שׁוֹמֵעַ עַבְדֶּךָ״, וְאִילּוּ בְּדִידֵיהּ כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״וַיָּבֹא ה׳ וַיִּתְיַצַּב וַיִּקְרָא כְפַעַם בְּפַעַם שְׁמוּאֵל שְׁמוּאֵל וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁמוּאֵל דַּבֵּר כִּי שֹׁמֵעַ עַבְדֶּךָ״, וְלָא אֲמַר ״דַּבֵּר ה׳״.
The Gemara elaborates. Whereas Naomi said to Ruth: “And you shall bathe, and anoint yourself, and put on your robes, and go down to the threshing floor,” but with regard to Ruth herself it is written, “And she went down to the threshing floor” (Ruth 3:6), and only afterward does it say, “And she did according to all that her mother-in-law commanded her.” Ruth decided to anoint herself at the threshing floor and not on the road so that people would not meet her on the way there and suspect her of immorality. Whereas Eli said to Samuel: “Go and lie down and if He calls you, you say: Speak, Lord, for Your servant is listening” (I Samuel 3:9), but with regard to Samuel himself it is written: “And the Lord came and stood, and He called like He did the other times: Samuel, Samuel. And Samuel said: Speak, for Your servant is listening” (I Samuel 3:10), and he did not say: Speak, Lord, since he would not assume it was God speaking to him until he was sure of it.
״וַתֵּלֶךְ וַתָּבֹא וַתְּלַקֵּט בַּשָּׂדֶה״ — אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שֶׁהָלְכָה וּבָאת, הָלְכָה וּבָאת, עַד שֶׁמָּצְאָה בְּנֵי אָדָם הַמְהוּגָּנִין לְיֵלֵךְ עִמָּהֶם. ״וַיֹּאמֶר בּוֹעַז לְנַעֲרוֹ הַנִּצָּב עַל הַקּוֹצְרִים לְמִי הַנַּעֲרָה הַזֹּאת״ — וְכִי דַרְכּוֹ שֶׁל בּוֹעַז לִשְׁאוֹל בְּנַעֲרָה? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: דְּבַר חָכְמָה רָאָה בָּהּ. שְׁתֵּי שִׁבֳּלִין — לוֹקֶטֶת, שָׁלֹשׁ שִׁבֳּלִין — אֵינָהּ לוֹקֶטֶת.
And the verse in Ruth states: “And she went, and she came, and she collected in the field after the harvesters” (Ruth 2:3). Rabbi Elazar said: This verse teaches that she went and came, went and came, until she found suitable people with whom to walk. It also says: “And Boaz said to his youth who was standing over the harvesters: To whom does this young woman belong?” (Ruth 2:5). This is surprising: And was it Boaz’s habit to inquire about a young woman? Rabbi Elazar said: He saw in her a matter of wisdom and Torah, and that is why he asked about her. What he saw was that she collected two stalks, but she did not collect three stalks. She thereby acted in accordance with the halakha that three stalks lying together are not considered to be gleanings left for the poor; rather, they remain in the possession of the owner of the field.
בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: דְּבַר צְנִיעוּת רָאָה בָּהּ, עוֹמְדוֹת — מְעוּמָּד, נוֹפְלוֹת — מְיוּשָּׁב. ״וְכֹה תִדְבָּקִין עִם נַעֲרוֹתָי״ — וְכִי דַּרְכּוֹ שֶׁל בּוֹעַז לִדָּבֵק עִם הַנָּשִׁים? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזָא ״וַתִּשַּׁק עׇרְפָּה לַחֲמוֹתָהּ וְרוּת דָּבְקָה בָּהּ״, אֲמַר: שְׁרֵי לְאִידַּבּוֹקֵי בָּהּ.
It was taught in a baraita: He saw a matter of modesty in her when she was collecting stalks. She picked stalks that were upright while she was standing, and stalks that had fallen she picked while sitting; due to her modesty she did not bend over to take them. It also says: “And Boaz said to Ruth: Do you hear, my daughter? Do not go to glean in another field and do not leave from here, but cling to my maidens” (Ruth 2:8). This is also surprising. And was it Boaz’s habit to cling to women? Rabbi Elazar said: Since he saw “And Orpah kissed her mother-in-law and Ruth clung to her” (Ruth 1:14), he said: It is permitted to cling to a woman like this.
״וַיֹּאמֶר לָה בֹעַז לְעֵת הָאֹכֶל גֹּשִׁי הֲלֹם״ — אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, רֶמֶז רָמַז לָהּ: עֲתִידָה מַלְכוּת בֵּית דָּוִד לָצֵאת מִמֵּךְ, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ ״הֲלֹם״, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיָּבֹא הַמֶּלֶךְ דָּוִד וַיֵּשֶׁב לִפְנֵי ה׳ וַיֹּאמֶר מִי אָנֹכִי אֲדֹנָי ה׳ וּמִי בֵיתִי כִּי הֲבֵאתַנִי עַד הֲלֹם״. ״וְטָבַלְתְּ פִּתֵּךְ בַּחֹמֶץ״, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִכָּאן שֶׁהַחוֹמֶץ יָפֶה לַשָּׁרָב.
It also says: “And Boaz said to her at mealtime: Come here [halom] and eat from the bread and dip your bread in vinegar. And she sat beside the harvesters and he gave her roasted grain and she ate, and she was satiated, and she left some over” (Ruth 2:14). Rabbi Elazar interpreted this and said that he hinted to her prophetically: In the future the kingdom of David will come from you, as it is written with regard to it, i.e., the kingdom of David: “Here,” as it is stated: “And King David came and sat before God and said: Who am I, Lord, God, and who is my family that You have brought me to here [halom]?” (II Samuel 7:18). With regard to his saying: “And dip your bread in vinegar” (Ruth 2:14), Rabbi Elazar said: From here we see that vinegar is good to have in hot weather.
רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר: רֶמֶז רָמַז לָהּ עָתִיד בֵּן לָצֵאת מִמֵּךְ שֶׁמַּעֲשָׂיו קָשִׁין כַּחֹמֶץ, וּמַנּוּ — מְנַשֶּׁה. ״וַתֵּשֶׁב מִצַּד הַקּוֹצְרִים״ — אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִצַּד הַקּוֹצְרִים וְלֹא בְּתוֹךְ הַקּוֹצְרִים, רֶמֶז רָמַז לָהּ שֶׁעֲתִידָה מַלְכוּת בֵּית דָּוִד שֶׁתִּתְחַלֵּק.
Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that he hinted to her: A son will come from you in the future whose actions will be as sharp as vinegar, and who is he? King Manasseh. “And she sat beside the harvesters.” Rabbi Elazar said with regard to this: Beside the harvesters, and not among the harvesters. He hinted to her that the kingdom of David will be divided in the future and her children will not always be in the center of Israel.
״וַיִּצְבׇּט לָהּ קָלִי וַתֹּאכַל״. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: ״וַתֹּאכַל״ — בִּימֵי דָוִד, ״וַתִּשְׂבַּע״ — בִּימֵי שְׁלֹמֹה, ״וַתֹּתַר״ — בִּימֵי חִזְקִיָּה. וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: ״וַתֹּאכַל״ — בִּימֵי דָּוִד וּבִימֵי שְׁלֹמֹה, ״וַתִּשְׂבַּע״ — בִּימֵי חִזְקִיָּה, ״וַתֹּתַר״ — בִּימֵי רַבִּי. דְּאָמַר מָר: אֲהוּרְיָרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי הֲוָה עַתִּיר מִשַּׁבּוּר מַלְכָּא. בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: ״וַתֹּאכַל״ — בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, ״וַתִּשְׂבַּע״ — לִימוֹת הַמָּשִׁיחַ, ״וַתֹּתַר״ — לְעָתִיד לָבֹא.
It also says in the verse: “And he gave her roasted grain and she ate, and she was satiated, and she left some over.” The Gemara explains: “And he gave her roasted grain and she ate”; this is also interpreted as a prophetic message. Rabbi Elazar said: “And she ate” was fulfilled by her children’s children in the days of David; “And she was satiated” was fulfilled in the days of Solomon; “And she left some over” was fulfilled in the days of Hezekiah. And some say that there is a different interpretation: “And she ate,” was fulfilled in the days of David and Solomon; “And she was satiated,” was fulfilled in the days of Hezekiah; “And she left some over” was fulfilled in the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. As the Master said: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s horsekeeper [ahuriyarei] was richer than the king of Persia. It was taught in a baraita: “And she ate,” in this world; “and she was satiated,” in the days of the Messiah; “and she left some over,” in the future, at the end of days.
״וְתַחַת כְּבוֹדוֹ יֵקַד יְקוֹד כִּיקוֹד אֵשׁ״. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״וְתַחַת כְּבוֹדוֹ״, וְלֹא כְּבוֹדוֹ מַמָּשׁ. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן קָרֵי לְמָאנֵיהּ ״מְכַבְּדוֹתַי״.
It was mentioned earlier that Rabbi Yoḥanan called his clothing his honor. The Gemara cites the interpretation of the verse that speaks about the downfall of the king of Assyria: “Therefore, the Lord, the Lord of hosts, will send leanness to his fat ones and under his honor He will burn a burning like a burning fire” (Isaiah 10:16).
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: “And under his honor,” but not his actual honor. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yoḥanan follows his own reasoning, for he called his clothing my honor, which means that the bodies of the king of Assyria’s soldiers were burned. However, their garments were miraculously not burned.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: ״וְתַחַת כְּבוֹדוֹ״ — תַּחַת כְּבוֹדוֹ מַמָּשׁ. רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר: ״תַּחַת כְּבוֹדוֹ״ — כִּשְׂרֵיפַת בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן. מַה לְּהַלָּן שְׂרֵיפַת נְשָׁמָה וְגוּף קַיָּים, אַף כָּאן שְׂרֵיפַת נְשָׁמָה וְגוּף קַיָּים.
Rabbi Elazar said: “And under his honor” means in place of his actual honor. That is to say, their bodies were burned. Since, in Rabbi Elazar’s opinion, the word under means in the place of, the verse accordingly means that in the place of his honor, i.e., the body, there remain ashes.
Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: Under his honor means beneath his flesh, similar to the burning of the sons of Aaron. Just as there, i.e., the burning of Aaron’s sons, the soul burned while the body remained intact, so too here, i.e., the burning of Assyrian soldiers, the soul burned while the body remained intact.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן:
Rabbi Aḥa bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:
