Some things are forbidden because it is considered removing it from its place of growth, including a fetus of an animal from the womb. Is a fetus considered a live being or not? What is the melacha that one is obligated for? Is the skin of a bird or fish considered skin? Can one write tefillin on parchment made from its skin? A story is told of the welcome that Rav received (not the most positive) when he arrived in Babylonia and was greeted first by Karna and quizzed and then by Shmuel. One can write tefillin on a kosher animal even if it was a treifa (sick) or died on its own. This was a subject of debate between a Baitusi and Rabbi Yehoshua the Garsi regarding the rabbinic traditions. Brine cannot be made on Shabbat as it is a tolada of ibud, processing. But can one prepare salt water for dipping one’s bread? Taking medicine is problematic on Shabbat (in certain circumstances) lest one grind one’s own medicines. However if one uses a medication that could also be used not as a medication and therefore it is not clear whether one is using it for medicinal purposes or not, it is allowed. In the context of salt water, the gemara asks regarding one who washes in the Dead Sea for medicinal purposes for one’s eye. In what case would it be allowed? Other issues related to eye salves on Shabbat are discussed.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Tina Lamm for the refuah shleima for מעין ליאורה בת שלומית פייגא. “Our precious Maya”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Tina Lamm for the refuah shleima for מעין ליאורה בת שלומית פייגא. “Our precious Maya”
Shabbat 108
פִּיטְרָא מֵאוּנָּא דְחַצְבָּא — מִיחַיַּיב מִשּׁוּם עוֹקֵר דָּבָר מִגִּידּוּלוֹ. מֵתִיב רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: הַתּוֹלֵשׁ מֵעָצִיץ נָקוּב — חַיָּיב, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב — פָּטוּר. הָתָם — לָאו הַיְינוּ רְבִיתֵיהּ, הָכָא — הַיְינוּ רְבִיתֵיהּ.
a mushroom from the handle of a pitcher on Shabbat is liable for uprooting an object from its place of growth. Rav Oshaya raised an objection from that which we learned: One who detaches a plant on Shabbat from a perforated flowerpot is liable, and one who detaches a plant from an imperforate pot is exempt. A plant that grows in an imperforate pot is not considered connected to the ground. One who detaches it is not uprooting it from its place of growth. The Gemara answers: There, in the case of an imperforate pot, that is not the way a plant grows. Plants are generally planted in the ground; a plant in an imperforate pot is disconnected from the ground. Whereas here, in the case of a mushroom growing from the handle of a pitcher, that is the way it grows. The plant is considered connected to the ground.
חַיָּה וָעוֹף כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: כּוֹתְבִין תְּפִילִּין עַל גַּבֵּי עוֹר שֶׁל עוֹף טָהוֹר. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מַאי קָמַשְׁמַע לַן? דְּאִית לֵיהּ עוֹר — תְּנֵינָא: הַחוֹבֵל בָּהֶן — חַיָּיב! אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: טוּבָא קָמַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּאִי מִמַּתְנִיתִין, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא כֵּיוָן דְּאִית בֵּיהּ נִיקְבֵי נִיקְבֵי לָא, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן כִּדְאָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא: כׇּל נֶקֶב שֶׁהַדְּיוֹ עוֹבֶרֶת עָלָיו — אֵינוֹ נֶקֶב.
We learned in the mishna: One who wounds an animal or a bird on Shabbat is liable. Rav Huna said: One may write phylacteries on the skin of a kosher bird. Rav Yosef said: What is he teaching us with this statement? If he is teaching us that a bird has skin, we already learned that: One who wounds an animal or a bird is liable. Since there is liability only if a wound forms beneath the skin, apparently a bird has skin. Abaye said to him: He is teaching us many things, for if I had only learned from the mishna, I would have said the following: Since the skin of a bird has many holes from which the feathers grow, one should not be allowed to write sacred matters on it. Therefore, he teaches us as they say in the West, i.e., in Eretz Yisrael: Any hole over which ink passes and does not penetrate it, is not considered a hole that invalidates the writing.
מֵיתִיב רַבִּי זֵירָא: ״בִּכְנָפָיו״, לְהַכְשִׁיר אֶת הָעוֹר. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ עוֹר הוּא, הֵיכִי מְרַבֵּי לֵיהּ קְרָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: עוֹר הוּא וְרַחֲמָנָא רַבְּיֵיהּ.
Rabbi Zeira raised an objection to the conclusion that the skin of a bird is considered skin. Didn’t we learn in a baraita that the verse: “And he shall rend it by its wings without creating a division, and the priest shall burn it upon the altar on the wood that is on the fire” (Leviticus 1:17), teaches that the priest must prepare even the skin to make it acceptable for the altar? That is not the case when animals are offered, as their skin is flayed before they are sacrificed. And if it should enter your mind that the skin of a bird is skin, how does the verse include it among that which the priest prepares for the altar? Abaye said: This is not difficult. Indeed, it is skin, and nevertheless, the Torah includes it as a biblical decree, specifying that the skin of a bird is sacrificed.
אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, ״בִּכְנָפָיו״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָעוֹר. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא עוֹר הוּא — הַיְינוּ דְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְרַבּוֹיֵיהּ. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לָאו עוֹר הוּא — אַמַּאי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְרַבּוֹיֵיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ לָאו עוֹר הוּא, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ: סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא כֵּיוָן דְּאִית בֵּיהּ פִּירְצֵי פִּירְצֵי מְאִיס — קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.
Some say that Rabbi Zeira said: We, too, have also learned support for this halakha: The verse: “By its wings,” comes to include the skin. Granted, if you say that the skin of a bird is skin, that is the reason that the verse needs to explicitly include it. The verse is teaching us that even though the bird’s skin is skin, it must still be sacrificed. However, if you say that the skin of a bird is not skin, why is a verse necessary to include it? Clearly, it is sacrificed. Abaye said to him: That is not proof. Actually, I can say to you that it is not skin and, nevertheless, it must be included in the verse. Had the skin of the bird not been specifically included, it might have entered your mind to say that since there are many holes in it, it is repulsive and unfit for the altar. Therefore, the verse teaches us that it is sacrificed. There is no proof that the skin of a bird is considered skin.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבִינָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מַהוּ לִכְתּוֹב תְּפִילִּין עַל גַּבֵּי עוֹר שֶׁל דָּג טָהוֹר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִם יָבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ וְיֹאמַר. מַאי ״אִם יָבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ וְיֹאמַר״? אִילֵּימָא אִי דְּאִית לֵיהּ עוֹר, אִי דְּלֵית לֵיהּ עוֹר — הָא חָזֵינַן דְּאִית לֵיהּ עוֹר! וְעוֹד, הָתְנַן: עַצְמוֹת הַדָּג וְעוֹרוֹ מַצִּילִין בְּאֹהֶל הַמֵּת! אֶלָּא אִם יָבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ וְיֹאמַר אִי פְּסַקָא זוּהֲמָא מִינֵּיהּ, אִי לָא פְּסַקָא זוּהֲמָא מִינֵּיהּ.
Mar, son of Ravina, raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman bar Yitzhak: What is the halakha with regard to writing phylacteries on the skin of a kosher fish? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzhak said to him: If Elijah comes and says. The Gemara asks: What does the phrase: If Elijah comes and says, mean? What requires clarification? If you say that whether a fish has skin or whether it does not have skin requires clarification, we see that it has skin. And furthermore, we learned in a mishna: Fish bones and skin protect the objects covered with them from becoming impure under a tent with a corpse. Since fish bones and skin do not contract impurity, they constitute a barrier to impurity. Apparently, fish have skin. Rather, if Elijah comes and says whether its foul smell has ceased from it or whether its foul smell has not ceased from it.
שְׁמוּאֵל וְקַרְנָא הֲווֹ יָתְבִי אַגּוּדָּא דִּנְהַר מַלְכָּא. חֲזוֹנְהוּ לְמַיָּא דְּקָא דְּלוּ וַעֲכִירִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְקַרְנָא: גַּבְרָא רַבָּה קָאָתֵי מִמַּעְרְבָא וְחָיֵישׁ בִּמְעֵיהּ, וְקָא דְּלוּ מַיָּא לְאַקְבּוֹלֵי אַפֵּיהּ (קַמֵּיהּ), זִיל תְּהִי לֵיהּ אַקַּנְקַנֵּיהּ. אֲזַל אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַב. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִנַּיִין שֶׁאֵין כּוֹתְבִין תְּפִילִּין אֶלָּא עַל גַּבֵּי עוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּכְתִיב: ״לְמַעַן תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת ה׳ בְּפִיךָ״ — מִן הַמּוּתָּר בְּפִיךְ. מִנַּיִין לַדָּם שֶׁהוּא אָדוֹם? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּרְאוּ מוֹאָב מִנֶּגֶד אֶת הַמַּיִם אֲדֻמִּים כַּדָּם״.
It was reported: Shmuel and Karna were sitting on the bank of the Malka River. They saw that the water was rising and was murky. Shmuel said to Karna: A great man is coming from the West, Eretz Yisrael, and his intestines are aching, and the water is rising to greet him. Go sniff out his container, i.e., see if he is a Torah scholar. Karna went and found Rav, who was the Sage that came from Eretz Yisrael, and he asked him several questions to test him. He said to him: From where is it derived that one may write phylacteries only on the hide of a kosher animal? Rav said to him that this halakha is as it is written: “And it shall be a sign for you on your arm, and a reminder between your eyes, so that God’s Torah will be in your mouth” (Exodus 13:9). Only hide from those animals that are permitted to be placed in your mouth, i.e., may be eaten, may be used for phylacteries. Karna then asked him: From where is it derived that prohibited blood is red? Karna asked Rav this to determine which shades of menstrual blood are impure. Rav said to him that it is as it is stated: “And the Moabites saw the water from afar, red like blood” (II Kings 3:22).
מִנַּיִין לַמִּילָה שֶׁבְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״עׇרְלָתוֹ״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״עׇרְלָתוֹ״, מַה לְּהַלָּן דָּבָר שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה פְּרִי — אַף כָּאן דָּבָר שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה פְּרִי. אֵימָא לִבּוֹ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּמַלְתֶּם אֵת עׇרְלַת לְבַבְכֶם״?! אֵימָא אׇזְנוֹ, דִּכְתִיב: ״הִנֵּה עֲרֵלָה אׇזְנָם״?! דָּנִין ״עׇרְלָתוֹ״ תַּמָּה מֵ״עׇרְלָתוֹ״ תַּמָּה, וְאֵין דָּנִין ״עׇרְלָתוֹ״ תַּמָּה מֵ״עׇרְלָתוֹ״ שֶׁאֵינָהּ תַּמָּה.
Karna also asked: From where is derived that circumcision is performed in that place? Rav answered him: It is stated here, with regard to circumcision: “And on the eighth day he shall circumcise the flesh of his foreskin [orlato]” (Leviticus 12:3), and it is stated there, with regard to recently planted trees: “And when you come to the land and plant all types of fruit trees, and you shall count the fruit thereof as forbidden [orlato]; three years shall it be as forbidden unto you, it shall not be eaten.” (Leviticus 19:23). Just as there the Torah is referring to a tree, which is an item that bears fruit, here, too, in the case of circumcision, orla is referring to an item that bears fruit. He asked him: Say that circumcision should be performed on one’s heart, as it is written: “And you shall circumcise the foreskin of [orlat] your heart” (Deuteronomy 10:16)? Say that circumcision should be performed on one’s ear, as it is written: “Behold, their ear is dull [areila] and they cannot listen” (Jeremiah 6:10)? Rav said to him: One derives the meaning of the complete form orlato from another instance of the complete form orlato; and one does not derive the complete form orlato from the incomplete form orlat, which modifies another word, as is also the case with the word areila.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי שְׁמָךְ? קַרְנָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יְהֵא רַעֲוָא דְּתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ קַרְנָא בְּעֵינֵיהּ.
Since Rav understood that Karna came to test him, he said to him: What is your name? He told him: Karna. He said to him: May it be the will of God that a horn [karna] will emerge in his eyes.
לְסוֹף עַיְּילֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְבֵיתֵיהּ, אוֹכְלֵיהּ נַהֲמָא דִשְׂעָרֵי וְכָסָא דְהַרְסָנָא וְאַשְׁקְיֵיהּ שִׁיכְרָא וְלָא אַחְוִי לֵיהּ בֵּית הַכִּסֵּא כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלִישְׁתַּלְשַׁל. לָט רַב וַאֲמַר: מַאן דִּמְצַעֲרַן — לָא לִיקַיְּימוּ לֵיהּ בְּנֵי, וְכֵן הֲוָה.
Ultimately, Shmuel brought him into his house. He fed him barley bread and small fried fish, and gave him beer to drink, and he did not show him the lavatory so he would suffer from diarrhea. Shmuel was a doctor and he wanted to relieve Rav’s intestinal suffering by feeding him food that would relieve him. Since Rav was unaware of Shmuel’s intention, he became angry at him. Rav cursed Shmuel and said: Whoever causes me suffering, let his children not survive. Although Rav eventually discovered Shmuel’s good intentions, his curse was fulfilled, and so it was that Shmuel’s children did not survive long.
כְּתַנָּאֵי: מִנַּיִין לַמִּילָה שֶׁבְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״עׇרְלָתוֹ״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״עׇרְלָתוֹ״. מַה לְּהַלָּן דָּבָר שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה פְּרִי, אַף כָּאן דָּבָר שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה פְּרִי — דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְעָרֵל זָכָר אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִמּוֹל אֶת בְּשַׂר עׇרְלָתוֹ״ — מְקוֹם שֶׁנִּיכָּר בֵּין זַכְרוּת לְנַקְבוּת.
The Gemara comments: The issue mentioned above is in fact a dispute between tanna’im. It was asked in a baraita: From where is it derived that circumcision is performed in that place? It is stated here, in the case of circumcision, orlato. And it is stated there, with regard to trees, orlato. Just as there the Torah is referring to a tree, which is an item that bears fruit, here too, orla is referring to an item that bears fruit; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Rabbi Natan says: This verbal analogy is not necessary, as it says: “And an uncircumcised man who does not circumcise the flesh of his foreskin [orlato], his soul will be cut off from his nation, he has broken My covenant” (Genesis 17:14). From the fact that it says: An uncircumcised man, it is derived that circumcision is in the place that distinguishes between a male and a female.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כּוֹתְבִין תְּפִילִּין עַל גַּבֵּי עוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה, וְעַל גַּבֵּי עוֹר חַיָּה טְהוֹרָה, וְעַל גַּבֵּי עוֹר נְבֵלוֹת וּטְרֵפוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶן. וְנִכְרָכוֹת בְּשַׂעֲרָן וְנִתְפָּרוֹת בְּגִידָן, וַהֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי שֶׁהַתְּפִילִּין נִכְרָכוֹת בְּשַׂעֲרָן וְנִתְפָּרוֹת בְּגִידָן. אֲבָל אֵין כּוֹתְבִין לֹא עַל גַּבֵּי עוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה, וְלֹא עַל גַּבֵּי עוֹר חַיָּה טְמֵאָה, וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר עַל גַּבֵּי עוֹר נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה שֶׁלָּהֶן. וְאֵין נִכְרָכוֹת בְּשַׂעֲרָן, וְאֵין נִתְפָּרוֹת בְּגִידָן.
The Gemara cites similar proofs. The Sages taught: One may write phylacteries on the hide of a kosher domesticated animal, and on the hide of a kosher non-domesticated animal, and on the hides of their unslaughtered carcasses [neveilot], and on the hides of animals with a condition that will cause them to die within twelve months [tereifot]. And one may wrap the parchment with the hair of these animals and sew them with their sinews; and it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that the parchment of phylacteries may be wrapped with the hair of these animals and sewn with their sinews. But one may not write on the hide of a non-kosher animal, or on the hide of a non-kosher undomesticated animal, and it goes without saying that one may not write on their skins when they are neveilot or tereifot. And one may not wrap the parchment with the hair of non-kosher animals, nor may one sew them with their sinews.
וְזוֹ שְׁאֵילָה שָׁאַל בַּיְתּוֹסִי אֶחָד אֶת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הַגַּרְסִי: מִנַּיִין שֶׁאֵין כּוֹתְבִין תְּפִילִּין עַל עוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה? דִּכְתִיב: ״לְמַעַן תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת ה׳ בְּפִיךָ״ — מִדָּבָר הַמּוּתָּר בְּפִיךְ. אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, עַל גַּבֵּי עוֹר נְבֵלוֹת וּטְרֵפוֹת אַל יִכָּתְבוּ! אָמַר לוֹ: אֶמְשׁוֹל לְךָ מָשָׁל, הָא לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה — לִשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁנִּתְחַיְּיבוּ הֲרִיגָה לַמַּלְכוּת. אֶחָד הֲרָגוֹ מֶלֶךְ וְאֶחָד הֲרָגוֹ אִיסְפַּקְלָטוֹר, אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן מְשׁוּבָּח — הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה שֶׁהֲרָגוֹ מֶלֶךְ. אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה יֵאָכְלוּ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה ״לֹא תֹאכְלוּ כׇל נְבֵלָה״, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ יֵאָכְלוּ?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: קָאלוֹס.
And this question was asked by a Boethusian to Rabbi Yehoshua HaGarsi: From where is it derived that one may not write phylacteries on the hide of a non-kosher animal? He said to him, it is as it is written: “So that God’s Torah will be in your mouth.” The Rabbis derived that one may write the passages only on an item that is permitted to be placed in one’s mouth, i.e., eaten. He said to him: If that is so, on the skin of neveilot and tereifot coming from kosher animals, one should not write phylacteries, as they may not be eaten. He said to him: I will tell you a parable. To what is this similar? To two people who were sentenced to death by the king. One was killed by the king himself, and one was killed by an executioner [ispaklitor]. Which one is more praiseworthy? You must say: The one that the king himself killed. Therefore, an animal that died at the hands of Heaven and not by a human action is superior. He said to him: If so, then the neveilot and tereifot should be eaten, as they were killed by the king. He said to him: The Torah said: “Do not eat any neveila” (Deuteronomy 14:20) and you say they should be eaten? A Torah decree determines that they may not be eaten, but that does not mean they are inferior. The Boethusian said to him: Well put [kalos].
מַתְנִי׳ אֵין עוֹשִׂין הֵילְמֵי בְּשַׁבָּת,
MISHNA: One may not make brine [hilmei] on Shabbat,
אֲבָל עוֹשֶׂה הוּא אֶת מֵי הַמֶּלַח, וְטוֹבֵל בָּהֶן פִּתּוֹ, וְנוֹתֵן לְתוֹךְ הַתַּבְשִׁיל. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: וַהֲלֹא הוּא הֵילְמֵי, בֵּין מְרוּבֶּה וּבֵין מוּעָט! וְאֵלּוּ הֵן מֵי מֶלַח הַמּוּתָּרִין — נוֹתֵן שֶׁמֶן לְכַתְּחִלָּה לְתוֹךְ הַמַּיִם אוֹ לְתוֹךְ הַמֶּלַח.
but one may make salt water and dip one’s bread in it, and place it in cooked food. Rabbi Yosei said: But isn’t it still brine, whether it is a large quantity or whether it is a small quantity? And this is the type of salt water that is permitted: Salt water in which one places oil initially into the water or into the salt. This is salt water prepared not in the usual manner.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי קָאָמַר? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵין עוֹשִׂין מֵי מֶלַח מְרוּבִּין, אֲבָל עוֹשֶׂה הוּא מֵי מֶלַח מוּעָטִין.
GEMARA: With regard to that which was stated in the mishna, the Gemara asks: What is the tanna saying with regard to the distinction between brine and salt water? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This is what he is saying: One may not prepare a large quantity of salt water, brine, on Shabbat, but one may prepare a small quantity of salt water.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: וַהֲלֹא הוּא הֵילְמֵי, בֵּין מְרוּבִּין בֵּין מוּעָטִין. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לֶאֱסוֹר אוֹ לְהַתִּיר? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: לְהַתִּיר. מִדְּלָא קָתָנֵי ״רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹסֵר״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה: הָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא וְאֵלּוּ הֵן מֵי מֶלַח הַמּוּתָּרִין, מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי לֶאֱסוֹר. אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבָּה: לֶאֱסוֹר. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֶאֱסוֹר.
We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yosei said: But isn’t it still brine whether it is a large quantity or a small quantity? A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When Rabbi Yosei said that there is no difference between a large and small quantity of salt water, was his intention to prohibit preparing any salt water on Shabbat or to permit doing so? Rav Yehuda said: His intention is to permit doing so, which is understood from the fact that the mishna is not teaching: Rabbi Yosei prohibits. Rabba said to him: From the fact that it is taught in the latter clause of the mishna: And this is the type of salt water that is permitted, by inference, Rabbi Yosei intended to prohibit preparing salt water. Rather, Rabba said: Rabbi Yosei intended to prohibit preparing any salt water on Shabbat. And similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Yosei’s intention was to prohibit.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: אֵין עוֹשִׂין מֵי מֶלַח מְרוּבִּין לָתֵת לְתוֹךְ הַכְּבָשִׁין שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ גִּיסְטְרָא. אֲבָל עוֹשֶׂה הוּא מֵי מֶלַח מוּעָטִין, וְאוֹכֵל בָּהֶן פִּתּוֹ, וְנוֹתֵן לְתוֹךְ הַתַּבְשִׁיל. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: וְכִי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַלָּלוּ מְרוּבִּין וְהַלָּלוּ מוּעָטִין הַלָּלוּ אֲסוּרִין וְהַלָּלוּ מוּתָּרִין? יֹאמְרוּ: מְלָאכָה מְרוּבָּה — אֲסוּרָה, מְלָאכָה מוּעֶטֶת — מוּתֶּרֶת! אֶלָּא אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין הֵן. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן מֵי מֶלַח הַמּוּתָּרִין — נוֹתֵן שֶׁמֶן וּמֶלַח אוֹ שֶׁמֶן וּמַיִם, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִתֵּן מַיִם וּמֶלַח לְכַתְּחִלָּה.
That was also taught in a baraita: One may not prepare a large quantity of salt water to add to the pickled vegetables that are inside a flat earthenware shard used for pickling [gistera]. However, one may prepare a small quantity of salt water and eat his bread with it and add it to cooked food. Rabbi Yosei said: Is it because this is a large quantity and this is a small quantity that this is prohibited and this is permitted? People will learn from this and say: A large amount of labor is prohibited on Shabbat, but a small amount of labor is permitted. Rather, certainly they are both prohibited. And this is the type of salt water that is permitted: One may place oil and salt together or oil and water and then add salt to the mixture, and this halakha applies provided one does not place water and salt together ab initio.
עַזִּין צְנוֹן וְאֶתְרוֹג סִימָן.
Strong, radish, and citron are a mnemonic for the following halakhot.
תָּנֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר חֲבִיבָא: אֵין עוֹשִׂין מֵי מֶלַח עַזִּין. מַאי מֵי מֶלַח עַזִּין? רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף בַּר אַבָּא דְאָמְרִי תַּרְוַויְיהוּ: כֹּל שֶׁהַבֵּיצָה צָפָה בָּהֶן. וְכַמָּה? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: תְּרֵי תִּילְתֵי מִילְחָא וְתִילְתָּא מַיָּא.
Rabbi Yehuda bar Ḥaviva taught: One may not prepare strong salt water on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is strong salt water? Rabba and Rav Yosef bar Abba both said: Any water in which an egg can float. The Gemara asks: And how much salt is in this salt water? Abaye said: Two-thirds salt and one-third water.
לְמַאי עָבְדִי לַהּ? אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: לְמוּרְיְיסָא. תָּנֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר חֲבִיבָא: אֵין מוֹלְחִין צְנוֹן וּבֵיצָה בְּשַׁבָּת. רַב חִזְקִיָּה מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי אָמַר: צְנוֹן — אָסוּר, וּבֵיצָה — מוּתֶּרֶת. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מֵרֵישׁ הֲוָה מָלַחְנָא פּוּגְלָא, אָמֵינָא: אַפְסוֹדֵי קָא מַפְסֵידְנָא לֵיהּ, דַּאֲמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: פּוּגְלָא חוּרְפֵּיהּ מְעַלֵּי. כֵּיוָן דִּשְׁמַעְנָא לְהָא, דְּכִי אֲתָא עוּלָּא וְאָמַר בְּמַעְרְבָא מָלְחִי כִּישְׁרֵי כִּישְׁרֵי, מִמְלָח לָא מָלַחְנָא, טַבּוֹלֵי וַדַּאי מְטַבֵּילְנָא.
The Gemara asks: For what purpose is this salt water prepared? Rabbi Abbahu said: It is prepared for fish brine [muraisa]. And Rabbi Yehuda bar Ḥaviva taught with regard to salting: One may not salt a radish or an egg on Shabbat because by salting them he performs a labor that improves them. Rav Ḥizkiya said in the name of Abaye: Preparing a radish is prohibited, and preparing an egg is permitted. Rav Naḥman said: Initially, I would salt radishes on Shabbat, as I said: I am ruining it by doing so, as Shmuel said: Sharpness is good for radishes; since salt reduces their sharpness, one who adds salt ruins the radish. However, once I heard this, that when Ulla came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that in the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, they salt many piles of radishes throughout the week, I do not salt them on Shabbat anymore, but I certainly dip them in salt because that is not considered to be an improvement.
תָּנֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר חֲבִיבָא: אֶתְרוֹג צְנוֹן וּבֵיצָה, אִילְמָלֵא קְלִיפָּתָן הַחִיצוֹנָה אֵינָן יוֹצְאִין מִבְּנֵי מֵעַיִים לְעוֹלָם.
The Gemara cites that which Rabbi Yehuda bar Ḥaviva taught with regard to radishes and eggs: With regard to a citron, a radish, and an egg, if it were not for their outer peel, or egg white, they would never emerge from the intestines, because they are extremely hard to digest.
כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אֲמַר: מֵעוֹלָם לָא טְבַע גַּבְרָא בְּיַמָּא דִסְדוֹם. אֲמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הֲפִיכָא סְדוֹם, וַהֲפִיכָאן מִילַּהָא. גַּבְרָא הוּא דְּלָא טָבַע, כְּשׁוּרָא טָבַע?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי, לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר: לָא מִבַּעְיָא כְּשׁוּרָא דַּאֲפִילּוּ בְּכׇל מֵימוֹת שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם לָא טָבַע, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ גַּבְרָא דְּטָבַע בְּכׇל מֵימוֹת שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם, בְּיַמָּא דִסְדוֹם לָא טָבַע. לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? כִּי הָא דְּרָבִין הֲוָה שָׁקֵיל וְאָזֵיל אֲחוֹרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אַגּוּדָּא דְּיַמָּא דִסְדוֹם. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַהוּ לְמִימְשֵׁי מֵהָנֵי מַיָּא בְּשַׁבְּתָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי.
When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: No person has ever drowned in the Sea of Sodom, the Dead Sea. Since there is so much salt, people easily float in it. Rav Yosef said: Sodom is overturned and Rav Dimi’s statement is backward. Is his statement saying that it is a man who does not drown in the Dead Sea, but a plank sinks? Abaye said to him: He is saying his statement utilizing the style of: It is not necessary: It is not necessary to mention a plank because it does not sink in any body of water in the world. But even a man, who drowns in other bodies of water in the world, does not drown in the Sea of Sodom. The Gemara asks: What are the practical consequences of this halakha? The Gemara explains: This halakha is relevant in a case of this kind: Ravin was walking after Rabbi Yirmeya on the shore of the Sea of Sodom. Ravin said to Rabbi Yirmeya: What is the ruling? Is it permitted to wash oneself with this water on Shabbat, or perhaps it is prohibited because it has healing properties? Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: One may well do so.
מַהוּ לְמִימַּץ וּלְמִיפְתַּח? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זוֹ לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי, כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ שָׁמַעְתִּי. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא, זִימְנִין אָמַר לַהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב מַתְנָה וְזִימְנִין אָמַר לַהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּמָר עוּקְבָא, וְתַרְוַויְיהוּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דַּאֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל וְלֵוִי אָמְרִין, חַד אָמַר: יַיִן, בְּתוֹךְ הָעַיִן — אָסוּר, עַל גַּב הָעַיִן — מוּתָּר. וְחַד אָמַר: רוֹק תָּפֵל [אֲפִילּוּ] עַל גַּב הָעַיִן — אָסוּר.
Ravin asked another question: When one washes himself on Shabbat in water from the Dead Sea, what is the halakha? Is it permitted for him to close and open his eyes in the water so that the water gets inside? Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: That case I did not hear; however, with regard to a similar case, placing wine in one’s eye on Shabbat, I did hear. As Rabbi Zeira said, sometimes he said it in the name of Rav Mattana and sometimes he said it in the name of Mar Ukva, and they both said it in the name of Shmuel’s father and in the name of Levi: One of them said: With regard to placing wine inside the eye on Shabbat, it is prohibited because it heals; on the eye, it is permitted. And one of them said: Bland saliva, saliva from one who has not eaten since waking, even placing it on the eye on Shabbat is prohibited because it is commonly used as medicine.
תִּסְתַּיֵּים דַּאֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל הוּא דְּאָמַר יַיִן בְּתוֹךְ הָעַיִן — אָסוּר, עַל גַּב הָעַיִן — מוּתָּר, מִדְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שׁוֹרֶה אָדָם פִּיתּוֹ בְּיַיִן וְנוֹתְנוֹ עַל גַּב הָעַיִן בְּשַׁבָּת. דִּשְׁמִיעָא לֵיהּ מִמַּאן — לָאו דִּשְׁמִיעָא לֵיהּ מֵאֲבוּהּ? וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, הָא דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: רוֹק תָּפֵל אֲפִילּוּ עַל גַּבֵּי הָעַיִן אָסוּר, דִּשְׁמִיעָא לֵיהּ מִמַּאן? אִילֵּימָא דִּשְׁמִיעָא לֵיהּ מֵאֲבוּהּ, אֶלָּא לֵוִי — וְלָא חֲדָא אָמַר?! אֶלָּא: חֲדָא שְׁמִיעָא לֵיהּ מֵאֲבוּהּ וַחֲדָא שְׁמִיעָא לֵיהּ מִלֵּוִי, וְלָא יָדְעִינַן הֵי מֵאֲבוּהּ הֵי מִלֵּוִי.
The Gemara comments: Conclude that Shmuel’s father is the one who said that placing wine inside the eye is prohibited but on the eye is permitted, from the fact that Shmuel said: A person may soak his bread in wine and place it on his eye on Shabbat. He said this after he heard this halakha from whom? Is it not that he heard it from his father? The Gemara rejects this: And according to your reasoning, that halakha which Shmuel said: It is prohibited to place bland saliva even on the eye on Shabbat, he said this after he heard this halakha from whom? If we say that he heard it from his father, then Levi, who was cited together with Shmuel’s father in the list of those who stated the halakhot, did he himself not say even one halakha? Rather, one halakha Shmuel heard from his father, and one halakha he heard one from Levi, and we do not know which he heard from his father and which he heard from Levi.
אָמַר מָר עוּקְבָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שׁוֹרֶה אָדָם קִילוֹרִין מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְנוֹתֵן עַל גַּב עֵינָיו בְּשַׁבָּת, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ. בַּר לֵוַאי הֲוָה קָאֵי קַמֵּיהּ דְּמָר עוּקְבָא. חַזְיֵיהּ דַּהֲוָה עָמֵיץ וּפָתַח. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כּוּלֵּי הַאי וַדַּאי לָא שְׁרָא מָר שְׁמוּאֵל. שְׁלַח לֵיהּ רַבִּי יַנַּאי לְמָר עוּקְבָא: לִישַׁדַּר לַן מָר מֵהָנָךְ קִילוֹרִין דְּמָר שְׁמוּאֵל. שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: שַׁדּוֹרֵי מְשַׁדַּרְנָא לָךְ, דְּלָא תֵּימָא צַר עַיִן אֲנָא, אֶלָּא הָכִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: טוֹבָה טִיפַּת צוֹנֵן שַׁחֲרִית וּרְחִיצַת יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם בְּחַמִּין עַרְבִית מִכׇּל קִילוֹרִין שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, אָמַר רַבִּי מוּנָא מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: טוֹבָה טִיפַּת צוֹנֵן שַׁחֲרִית וּרְחִיצַת יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם עַרְבִית מִכׇּל קִילוֹרִין שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם.
Mar Ukva said that Shmuel said: One may soak eye salves from Shabbat eve and place them on his eyes on Shabbat, and he need not be concerned that he is violating the prohibition against healing on Shabbat. The Gemara relates: Bar Liva’ei was standing before Mar Ukva on Shabbat. He saw Mar Ukva, who was opening and closing his eyes while applying a salve to them. Bar Liva’ei said to him: Master Shmuel certainly did not permit doing all of this. Rabbi Yannai sent a message to Mar Ukva: Can the master send us some of Master Shmuel’s eye salves? Mar Ukva sent him in response: I will send it to you so that you do not say I am miserly, but be aware that this is what Shmuel said: For healing the eyes, better a drop of cold water in the morning and washing the hands and feet with hot water in the evening than all the eye salves in the world. Follow these instructions and you will need nor other cures. That was also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Mona said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: Better a drop of cold water in the morning and washing the hands and feet in the evening than all the eye salves in the world.
הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר: יָד לָעַיִן — תִּיקָּצֵץ. יָד לַחוֹטֶם — תִּיקָּצֵץ. יָד לַפֶּה — תִּיקָּצֵץ. יָד לָאוֹזֶן — תִּיקָּצֵץ. יָד לַחֲסוּדָה — תִּיקָּצֵץ. יָד לָאַמָּה — תִּיקָּצֵץ. יָד לְפִי טַבַּעַת — תִּיקָּצֵץ. יָד
Apropos Rabbi Mona’s statement with regard to healing, the text cites what he would say about other matters that require special attention: A hand that touches the eye should be severed because it harms the eye. A hand that touches the nose should be severed. A hand that touches the mouth should be severed. A hand that touches the ear should be severed. A hand that touches one’s wound should be severed. A hand that touches one’s member should be severed, lest one arouse himself. A hand that touches one’s anus should be severed, lest one make himself ill. A hand
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
Minneapolis, MN, United States
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Richmond, CA, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
Oceanside NY, United States
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, United States
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
Blacksburg, United States
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Karmiel, Israel
I started learning the daf during Covid. I’d always wanted to learn Talmud but that wasn’t an option for girls in the small town I grew up in and I struggled to help my younger kids with Hebrew homework let alone read a Hebrew text. I decided to start small by listening to the daf podcast on the way to work each morning. Then I joined the Long Island WhatsApp group. Now I go to the siyyums.
Long Island, United States
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Riverdale, NY, United States
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
Oceanside NY, United States
Shabbat 108
פִּיטְרָא מֵאוּנָּא דְחַצְבָּא — מִיחַיַּיב מִשּׁוּם עוֹקֵר דָּבָר מִגִּידּוּלוֹ. מֵתִיב רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: הַתּוֹלֵשׁ מֵעָצִיץ נָקוּב — חַיָּיב, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב — פָּטוּר. הָתָם — לָאו הַיְינוּ רְבִיתֵיהּ, הָכָא — הַיְינוּ רְבִיתֵיהּ.
a mushroom from the handle of a pitcher on Shabbat is liable for uprooting an object from its place of growth. Rav Oshaya raised an objection from that which we learned: One who detaches a plant on Shabbat from a perforated flowerpot is liable, and one who detaches a plant from an imperforate pot is exempt. A plant that grows in an imperforate pot is not considered connected to the ground. One who detaches it is not uprooting it from its place of growth. The Gemara answers: There, in the case of an imperforate pot, that is not the way a plant grows. Plants are generally planted in the ground; a plant in an imperforate pot is disconnected from the ground. Whereas here, in the case of a mushroom growing from the handle of a pitcher, that is the way it grows. The plant is considered connected to the ground.
חַיָּה וָעוֹף כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: כּוֹתְבִין תְּפִילִּין עַל גַּבֵּי עוֹר שֶׁל עוֹף טָהוֹר. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מַאי קָמַשְׁמַע לַן? דְּאִית לֵיהּ עוֹר — תְּנֵינָא: הַחוֹבֵל בָּהֶן — חַיָּיב! אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: טוּבָא קָמַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּאִי מִמַּתְנִיתִין, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא כֵּיוָן דְּאִית בֵּיהּ נִיקְבֵי נִיקְבֵי לָא, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן כִּדְאָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא: כׇּל נֶקֶב שֶׁהַדְּיוֹ עוֹבֶרֶת עָלָיו — אֵינוֹ נֶקֶב.
We learned in the mishna: One who wounds an animal or a bird on Shabbat is liable. Rav Huna said: One may write phylacteries on the skin of a kosher bird. Rav Yosef said: What is he teaching us with this statement? If he is teaching us that a bird has skin, we already learned that: One who wounds an animal or a bird is liable. Since there is liability only if a wound forms beneath the skin, apparently a bird has skin. Abaye said to him: He is teaching us many things, for if I had only learned from the mishna, I would have said the following: Since the skin of a bird has many holes from which the feathers grow, one should not be allowed to write sacred matters on it. Therefore, he teaches us as they say in the West, i.e., in Eretz Yisrael: Any hole over which ink passes and does not penetrate it, is not considered a hole that invalidates the writing.
מֵיתִיב רַבִּי זֵירָא: ״בִּכְנָפָיו״, לְהַכְשִׁיר אֶת הָעוֹר. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ עוֹר הוּא, הֵיכִי מְרַבֵּי לֵיהּ קְרָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: עוֹר הוּא וְרַחֲמָנָא רַבְּיֵיהּ.
Rabbi Zeira raised an objection to the conclusion that the skin of a bird is considered skin. Didn’t we learn in a baraita that the verse: “And he shall rend it by its wings without creating a division, and the priest shall burn it upon the altar on the wood that is on the fire” (Leviticus 1:17), teaches that the priest must prepare even the skin to make it acceptable for the altar? That is not the case when animals are offered, as their skin is flayed before they are sacrificed. And if it should enter your mind that the skin of a bird is skin, how does the verse include it among that which the priest prepares for the altar? Abaye said: This is not difficult. Indeed, it is skin, and nevertheless, the Torah includes it as a biblical decree, specifying that the skin of a bird is sacrificed.
אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, ״בִּכְנָפָיו״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָעוֹר. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא עוֹר הוּא — הַיְינוּ דְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְרַבּוֹיֵיהּ. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לָאו עוֹר הוּא — אַמַּאי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְרַבּוֹיֵיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ לָאו עוֹר הוּא, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ: סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא כֵּיוָן דְּאִית בֵּיהּ פִּירְצֵי פִּירְצֵי מְאִיס — קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.
Some say that Rabbi Zeira said: We, too, have also learned support for this halakha: The verse: “By its wings,” comes to include the skin. Granted, if you say that the skin of a bird is skin, that is the reason that the verse needs to explicitly include it. The verse is teaching us that even though the bird’s skin is skin, it must still be sacrificed. However, if you say that the skin of a bird is not skin, why is a verse necessary to include it? Clearly, it is sacrificed. Abaye said to him: That is not proof. Actually, I can say to you that it is not skin and, nevertheless, it must be included in the verse. Had the skin of the bird not been specifically included, it might have entered your mind to say that since there are many holes in it, it is repulsive and unfit for the altar. Therefore, the verse teaches us that it is sacrificed. There is no proof that the skin of a bird is considered skin.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבִינָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מַהוּ לִכְתּוֹב תְּפִילִּין עַל גַּבֵּי עוֹר שֶׁל דָּג טָהוֹר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִם יָבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ וְיֹאמַר. מַאי ״אִם יָבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ וְיֹאמַר״? אִילֵּימָא אִי דְּאִית לֵיהּ עוֹר, אִי דְּלֵית לֵיהּ עוֹר — הָא חָזֵינַן דְּאִית לֵיהּ עוֹר! וְעוֹד, הָתְנַן: עַצְמוֹת הַדָּג וְעוֹרוֹ מַצִּילִין בְּאֹהֶל הַמֵּת! אֶלָּא אִם יָבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ וְיֹאמַר אִי פְּסַקָא זוּהֲמָא מִינֵּיהּ, אִי לָא פְּסַקָא זוּהֲמָא מִינֵּיהּ.
Mar, son of Ravina, raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman bar Yitzhak: What is the halakha with regard to writing phylacteries on the skin of a kosher fish? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzhak said to him: If Elijah comes and says. The Gemara asks: What does the phrase: If Elijah comes and says, mean? What requires clarification? If you say that whether a fish has skin or whether it does not have skin requires clarification, we see that it has skin. And furthermore, we learned in a mishna: Fish bones and skin protect the objects covered with them from becoming impure under a tent with a corpse. Since fish bones and skin do not contract impurity, they constitute a barrier to impurity. Apparently, fish have skin. Rather, if Elijah comes and says whether its foul smell has ceased from it or whether its foul smell has not ceased from it.
שְׁמוּאֵל וְקַרְנָא הֲווֹ יָתְבִי אַגּוּדָּא דִּנְהַר מַלְכָּא. חֲזוֹנְהוּ לְמַיָּא דְּקָא דְּלוּ וַעֲכִירִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְקַרְנָא: גַּבְרָא רַבָּה קָאָתֵי מִמַּעְרְבָא וְחָיֵישׁ בִּמְעֵיהּ, וְקָא דְּלוּ מַיָּא לְאַקְבּוֹלֵי אַפֵּיהּ (קַמֵּיהּ), זִיל תְּהִי לֵיהּ אַקַּנְקַנֵּיהּ. אֲזַל אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַב. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִנַּיִין שֶׁאֵין כּוֹתְבִין תְּפִילִּין אֶלָּא עַל גַּבֵּי עוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּכְתִיב: ״לְמַעַן תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת ה׳ בְּפִיךָ״ — מִן הַמּוּתָּר בְּפִיךְ. מִנַּיִין לַדָּם שֶׁהוּא אָדוֹם? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּרְאוּ מוֹאָב מִנֶּגֶד אֶת הַמַּיִם אֲדֻמִּים כַּדָּם״.
It was reported: Shmuel and Karna were sitting on the bank of the Malka River. They saw that the water was rising and was murky. Shmuel said to Karna: A great man is coming from the West, Eretz Yisrael, and his intestines are aching, and the water is rising to greet him. Go sniff out his container, i.e., see if he is a Torah scholar. Karna went and found Rav, who was the Sage that came from Eretz Yisrael, and he asked him several questions to test him. He said to him: From where is it derived that one may write phylacteries only on the hide of a kosher animal? Rav said to him that this halakha is as it is written: “And it shall be a sign for you on your arm, and a reminder between your eyes, so that God’s Torah will be in your mouth” (Exodus 13:9). Only hide from those animals that are permitted to be placed in your mouth, i.e., may be eaten, may be used for phylacteries. Karna then asked him: From where is it derived that prohibited blood is red? Karna asked Rav this to determine which shades of menstrual blood are impure. Rav said to him that it is as it is stated: “And the Moabites saw the water from afar, red like blood” (II Kings 3:22).
מִנַּיִין לַמִּילָה שֶׁבְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״עׇרְלָתוֹ״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״עׇרְלָתוֹ״, מַה לְּהַלָּן דָּבָר שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה פְּרִי — אַף כָּאן דָּבָר שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה פְּרִי. אֵימָא לִבּוֹ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּמַלְתֶּם אֵת עׇרְלַת לְבַבְכֶם״?! אֵימָא אׇזְנוֹ, דִּכְתִיב: ״הִנֵּה עֲרֵלָה אׇזְנָם״?! דָּנִין ״עׇרְלָתוֹ״ תַּמָּה מֵ״עׇרְלָתוֹ״ תַּמָּה, וְאֵין דָּנִין ״עׇרְלָתוֹ״ תַּמָּה מֵ״עׇרְלָתוֹ״ שֶׁאֵינָהּ תַּמָּה.
Karna also asked: From where is derived that circumcision is performed in that place? Rav answered him: It is stated here, with regard to circumcision: “And on the eighth day he shall circumcise the flesh of his foreskin [orlato]” (Leviticus 12:3), and it is stated there, with regard to recently planted trees: “And when you come to the land and plant all types of fruit trees, and you shall count the fruit thereof as forbidden [orlato]; three years shall it be as forbidden unto you, it shall not be eaten.” (Leviticus 19:23). Just as there the Torah is referring to a tree, which is an item that bears fruit, here, too, in the case of circumcision, orla is referring to an item that bears fruit. He asked him: Say that circumcision should be performed on one’s heart, as it is written: “And you shall circumcise the foreskin of [orlat] your heart” (Deuteronomy 10:16)? Say that circumcision should be performed on one’s ear, as it is written: “Behold, their ear is dull [areila] and they cannot listen” (Jeremiah 6:10)? Rav said to him: One derives the meaning of the complete form orlato from another instance of the complete form orlato; and one does not derive the complete form orlato from the incomplete form orlat, which modifies another word, as is also the case with the word areila.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי שְׁמָךְ? קַרְנָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יְהֵא רַעֲוָא דְּתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ קַרְנָא בְּעֵינֵיהּ.
Since Rav understood that Karna came to test him, he said to him: What is your name? He told him: Karna. He said to him: May it be the will of God that a horn [karna] will emerge in his eyes.
לְסוֹף עַיְּילֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְבֵיתֵיהּ, אוֹכְלֵיהּ נַהֲמָא דִשְׂעָרֵי וְכָסָא דְהַרְסָנָא וְאַשְׁקְיֵיהּ שִׁיכְרָא וְלָא אַחְוִי לֵיהּ בֵּית הַכִּסֵּא כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלִישְׁתַּלְשַׁל. לָט רַב וַאֲמַר: מַאן דִּמְצַעֲרַן — לָא לִיקַיְּימוּ לֵיהּ בְּנֵי, וְכֵן הֲוָה.
Ultimately, Shmuel brought him into his house. He fed him barley bread and small fried fish, and gave him beer to drink, and he did not show him the lavatory so he would suffer from diarrhea. Shmuel was a doctor and he wanted to relieve Rav’s intestinal suffering by feeding him food that would relieve him. Since Rav was unaware of Shmuel’s intention, he became angry at him. Rav cursed Shmuel and said: Whoever causes me suffering, let his children not survive. Although Rav eventually discovered Shmuel’s good intentions, his curse was fulfilled, and so it was that Shmuel’s children did not survive long.
כְּתַנָּאֵי: מִנַּיִין לַמִּילָה שֶׁבְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״עׇרְלָתוֹ״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״עׇרְלָתוֹ״. מַה לְּהַלָּן דָּבָר שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה פְּרִי, אַף כָּאן דָּבָר שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה פְּרִי — דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְעָרֵל זָכָר אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִמּוֹל אֶת בְּשַׂר עׇרְלָתוֹ״ — מְקוֹם שֶׁנִּיכָּר בֵּין זַכְרוּת לְנַקְבוּת.
The Gemara comments: The issue mentioned above is in fact a dispute between tanna’im. It was asked in a baraita: From where is it derived that circumcision is performed in that place? It is stated here, in the case of circumcision, orlato. And it is stated there, with regard to trees, orlato. Just as there the Torah is referring to a tree, which is an item that bears fruit, here too, orla is referring to an item that bears fruit; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Rabbi Natan says: This verbal analogy is not necessary, as it says: “And an uncircumcised man who does not circumcise the flesh of his foreskin [orlato], his soul will be cut off from his nation, he has broken My covenant” (Genesis 17:14). From the fact that it says: An uncircumcised man, it is derived that circumcision is in the place that distinguishes between a male and a female.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כּוֹתְבִין תְּפִילִּין עַל גַּבֵּי עוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה, וְעַל גַּבֵּי עוֹר חַיָּה טְהוֹרָה, וְעַל גַּבֵּי עוֹר נְבֵלוֹת וּטְרֵפוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶן. וְנִכְרָכוֹת בְּשַׂעֲרָן וְנִתְפָּרוֹת בְּגִידָן, וַהֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי שֶׁהַתְּפִילִּין נִכְרָכוֹת בְּשַׂעֲרָן וְנִתְפָּרוֹת בְּגִידָן. אֲבָל אֵין כּוֹתְבִין לֹא עַל גַּבֵּי עוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה, וְלֹא עַל גַּבֵּי עוֹר חַיָּה טְמֵאָה, וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר עַל גַּבֵּי עוֹר נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה שֶׁלָּהֶן. וְאֵין נִכְרָכוֹת בְּשַׂעֲרָן, וְאֵין נִתְפָּרוֹת בְּגִידָן.
The Gemara cites similar proofs. The Sages taught: One may write phylacteries on the hide of a kosher domesticated animal, and on the hide of a kosher non-domesticated animal, and on the hides of their unslaughtered carcasses [neveilot], and on the hides of animals with a condition that will cause them to die within twelve months [tereifot]. And one may wrap the parchment with the hair of these animals and sew them with their sinews; and it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that the parchment of phylacteries may be wrapped with the hair of these animals and sewn with their sinews. But one may not write on the hide of a non-kosher animal, or on the hide of a non-kosher undomesticated animal, and it goes without saying that one may not write on their skins when they are neveilot or tereifot. And one may not wrap the parchment with the hair of non-kosher animals, nor may one sew them with their sinews.
וְזוֹ שְׁאֵילָה שָׁאַל בַּיְתּוֹסִי אֶחָד אֶת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הַגַּרְסִי: מִנַּיִין שֶׁאֵין כּוֹתְבִין תְּפִילִּין עַל עוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה? דִּכְתִיב: ״לְמַעַן תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת ה׳ בְּפִיךָ״ — מִדָּבָר הַמּוּתָּר בְּפִיךְ. אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, עַל גַּבֵּי עוֹר נְבֵלוֹת וּטְרֵפוֹת אַל יִכָּתְבוּ! אָמַר לוֹ: אֶמְשׁוֹל לְךָ מָשָׁל, הָא לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה — לִשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁנִּתְחַיְּיבוּ הֲרִיגָה לַמַּלְכוּת. אֶחָד הֲרָגוֹ מֶלֶךְ וְאֶחָד הֲרָגוֹ אִיסְפַּקְלָטוֹר, אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן מְשׁוּבָּח — הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה שֶׁהֲרָגוֹ מֶלֶךְ. אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה יֵאָכְלוּ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה ״לֹא תֹאכְלוּ כׇל נְבֵלָה״, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ יֵאָכְלוּ?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: קָאלוֹס.
And this question was asked by a Boethusian to Rabbi Yehoshua HaGarsi: From where is it derived that one may not write phylacteries on the hide of a non-kosher animal? He said to him, it is as it is written: “So that God’s Torah will be in your mouth.” The Rabbis derived that one may write the passages only on an item that is permitted to be placed in one’s mouth, i.e., eaten. He said to him: If that is so, on the skin of neveilot and tereifot coming from kosher animals, one should not write phylacteries, as they may not be eaten. He said to him: I will tell you a parable. To what is this similar? To two people who were sentenced to death by the king. One was killed by the king himself, and one was killed by an executioner [ispaklitor]. Which one is more praiseworthy? You must say: The one that the king himself killed. Therefore, an animal that died at the hands of Heaven and not by a human action is superior. He said to him: If so, then the neveilot and tereifot should be eaten, as they were killed by the king. He said to him: The Torah said: “Do not eat any neveila” (Deuteronomy 14:20) and you say they should be eaten? A Torah decree determines that they may not be eaten, but that does not mean they are inferior. The Boethusian said to him: Well put [kalos].
מַתְנִי׳ אֵין עוֹשִׂין הֵילְמֵי בְּשַׁבָּת,
MISHNA: One may not make brine [hilmei] on Shabbat,
אֲבָל עוֹשֶׂה הוּא אֶת מֵי הַמֶּלַח, וְטוֹבֵל בָּהֶן פִּתּוֹ, וְנוֹתֵן לְתוֹךְ הַתַּבְשִׁיל. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: וַהֲלֹא הוּא הֵילְמֵי, בֵּין מְרוּבֶּה וּבֵין מוּעָט! וְאֵלּוּ הֵן מֵי מֶלַח הַמּוּתָּרִין — נוֹתֵן שֶׁמֶן לְכַתְּחִלָּה לְתוֹךְ הַמַּיִם אוֹ לְתוֹךְ הַמֶּלַח.
but one may make salt water and dip one’s bread in it, and place it in cooked food. Rabbi Yosei said: But isn’t it still brine, whether it is a large quantity or whether it is a small quantity? And this is the type of salt water that is permitted: Salt water in which one places oil initially into the water or into the salt. This is salt water prepared not in the usual manner.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי קָאָמַר? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵין עוֹשִׂין מֵי מֶלַח מְרוּבִּין, אֲבָל עוֹשֶׂה הוּא מֵי מֶלַח מוּעָטִין.
GEMARA: With regard to that which was stated in the mishna, the Gemara asks: What is the tanna saying with regard to the distinction between brine and salt water? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This is what he is saying: One may not prepare a large quantity of salt water, brine, on Shabbat, but one may prepare a small quantity of salt water.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: וַהֲלֹא הוּא הֵילְמֵי, בֵּין מְרוּבִּין בֵּין מוּעָטִין. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לֶאֱסוֹר אוֹ לְהַתִּיר? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: לְהַתִּיר. מִדְּלָא קָתָנֵי ״רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹסֵר״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה: הָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא וְאֵלּוּ הֵן מֵי מֶלַח הַמּוּתָּרִין, מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי לֶאֱסוֹר. אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבָּה: לֶאֱסוֹר. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֶאֱסוֹר.
We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yosei said: But isn’t it still brine whether it is a large quantity or a small quantity? A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When Rabbi Yosei said that there is no difference between a large and small quantity of salt water, was his intention to prohibit preparing any salt water on Shabbat or to permit doing so? Rav Yehuda said: His intention is to permit doing so, which is understood from the fact that the mishna is not teaching: Rabbi Yosei prohibits. Rabba said to him: From the fact that it is taught in the latter clause of the mishna: And this is the type of salt water that is permitted, by inference, Rabbi Yosei intended to prohibit preparing salt water. Rather, Rabba said: Rabbi Yosei intended to prohibit preparing any salt water on Shabbat. And similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Yosei’s intention was to prohibit.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: אֵין עוֹשִׂין מֵי מֶלַח מְרוּבִּין לָתֵת לְתוֹךְ הַכְּבָשִׁין שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ גִּיסְטְרָא. אֲבָל עוֹשֶׂה הוּא מֵי מֶלַח מוּעָטִין, וְאוֹכֵל בָּהֶן פִּתּוֹ, וְנוֹתֵן לְתוֹךְ הַתַּבְשִׁיל. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: וְכִי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַלָּלוּ מְרוּבִּין וְהַלָּלוּ מוּעָטִין הַלָּלוּ אֲסוּרִין וְהַלָּלוּ מוּתָּרִין? יֹאמְרוּ: מְלָאכָה מְרוּבָּה — אֲסוּרָה, מְלָאכָה מוּעֶטֶת — מוּתֶּרֶת! אֶלָּא אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין הֵן. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן מֵי מֶלַח הַמּוּתָּרִין — נוֹתֵן שֶׁמֶן וּמֶלַח אוֹ שֶׁמֶן וּמַיִם, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִתֵּן מַיִם וּמֶלַח לְכַתְּחִלָּה.
That was also taught in a baraita: One may not prepare a large quantity of salt water to add to the pickled vegetables that are inside a flat earthenware shard used for pickling [gistera]. However, one may prepare a small quantity of salt water and eat his bread with it and add it to cooked food. Rabbi Yosei said: Is it because this is a large quantity and this is a small quantity that this is prohibited and this is permitted? People will learn from this and say: A large amount of labor is prohibited on Shabbat, but a small amount of labor is permitted. Rather, certainly they are both prohibited. And this is the type of salt water that is permitted: One may place oil and salt together or oil and water and then add salt to the mixture, and this halakha applies provided one does not place water and salt together ab initio.
עַזִּין צְנוֹן וְאֶתְרוֹג סִימָן.
Strong, radish, and citron are a mnemonic for the following halakhot.
תָּנֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר חֲבִיבָא: אֵין עוֹשִׂין מֵי מֶלַח עַזִּין. מַאי מֵי מֶלַח עַזִּין? רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף בַּר אַבָּא דְאָמְרִי תַּרְוַויְיהוּ: כֹּל שֶׁהַבֵּיצָה צָפָה בָּהֶן. וְכַמָּה? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: תְּרֵי תִּילְתֵי מִילְחָא וְתִילְתָּא מַיָּא.
Rabbi Yehuda bar Ḥaviva taught: One may not prepare strong salt water on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is strong salt water? Rabba and Rav Yosef bar Abba both said: Any water in which an egg can float. The Gemara asks: And how much salt is in this salt water? Abaye said: Two-thirds salt and one-third water.
לְמַאי עָבְדִי לַהּ? אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: לְמוּרְיְיסָא. תָּנֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר חֲבִיבָא: אֵין מוֹלְחִין צְנוֹן וּבֵיצָה בְּשַׁבָּת. רַב חִזְקִיָּה מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי אָמַר: צְנוֹן — אָסוּר, וּבֵיצָה — מוּתֶּרֶת. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מֵרֵישׁ הֲוָה מָלַחְנָא פּוּגְלָא, אָמֵינָא: אַפְסוֹדֵי קָא מַפְסֵידְנָא לֵיהּ, דַּאֲמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: פּוּגְלָא חוּרְפֵּיהּ מְעַלֵּי. כֵּיוָן דִּשְׁמַעְנָא לְהָא, דְּכִי אֲתָא עוּלָּא וְאָמַר בְּמַעְרְבָא מָלְחִי כִּישְׁרֵי כִּישְׁרֵי, מִמְלָח לָא מָלַחְנָא, טַבּוֹלֵי וַדַּאי מְטַבֵּילְנָא.
The Gemara asks: For what purpose is this salt water prepared? Rabbi Abbahu said: It is prepared for fish brine [muraisa]. And Rabbi Yehuda bar Ḥaviva taught with regard to salting: One may not salt a radish or an egg on Shabbat because by salting them he performs a labor that improves them. Rav Ḥizkiya said in the name of Abaye: Preparing a radish is prohibited, and preparing an egg is permitted. Rav Naḥman said: Initially, I would salt radishes on Shabbat, as I said: I am ruining it by doing so, as Shmuel said: Sharpness is good for radishes; since salt reduces their sharpness, one who adds salt ruins the radish. However, once I heard this, that when Ulla came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that in the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, they salt many piles of radishes throughout the week, I do not salt them on Shabbat anymore, but I certainly dip them in salt because that is not considered to be an improvement.
תָּנֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר חֲבִיבָא: אֶתְרוֹג צְנוֹן וּבֵיצָה, אִילְמָלֵא קְלִיפָּתָן הַחִיצוֹנָה אֵינָן יוֹצְאִין מִבְּנֵי מֵעַיִים לְעוֹלָם.
The Gemara cites that which Rabbi Yehuda bar Ḥaviva taught with regard to radishes and eggs: With regard to a citron, a radish, and an egg, if it were not for their outer peel, or egg white, they would never emerge from the intestines, because they are extremely hard to digest.
כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אֲמַר: מֵעוֹלָם לָא טְבַע גַּבְרָא בְּיַמָּא דִסְדוֹם. אֲמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הֲפִיכָא סְדוֹם, וַהֲפִיכָאן מִילַּהָא. גַּבְרָא הוּא דְּלָא טָבַע, כְּשׁוּרָא טָבַע?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי, לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר: לָא מִבַּעְיָא כְּשׁוּרָא דַּאֲפִילּוּ בְּכׇל מֵימוֹת שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם לָא טָבַע, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ גַּבְרָא דְּטָבַע בְּכׇל מֵימוֹת שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם, בְּיַמָּא דִסְדוֹם לָא טָבַע. לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? כִּי הָא דְּרָבִין הֲוָה שָׁקֵיל וְאָזֵיל אֲחוֹרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אַגּוּדָּא דְּיַמָּא דִסְדוֹם. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַהוּ לְמִימְשֵׁי מֵהָנֵי מַיָּא בְּשַׁבְּתָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי.
When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: No person has ever drowned in the Sea of Sodom, the Dead Sea. Since there is so much salt, people easily float in it. Rav Yosef said: Sodom is overturned and Rav Dimi’s statement is backward. Is his statement saying that it is a man who does not drown in the Dead Sea, but a plank sinks? Abaye said to him: He is saying his statement utilizing the style of: It is not necessary: It is not necessary to mention a plank because it does not sink in any body of water in the world. But even a man, who drowns in other bodies of water in the world, does not drown in the Sea of Sodom. The Gemara asks: What are the practical consequences of this halakha? The Gemara explains: This halakha is relevant in a case of this kind: Ravin was walking after Rabbi Yirmeya on the shore of the Sea of Sodom. Ravin said to Rabbi Yirmeya: What is the ruling? Is it permitted to wash oneself with this water on Shabbat, or perhaps it is prohibited because it has healing properties? Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: One may well do so.
מַהוּ לְמִימַּץ וּלְמִיפְתַּח? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זוֹ לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי, כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ שָׁמַעְתִּי. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא, זִימְנִין אָמַר לַהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב מַתְנָה וְזִימְנִין אָמַר לַהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּמָר עוּקְבָא, וְתַרְוַויְיהוּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דַּאֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל וְלֵוִי אָמְרִין, חַד אָמַר: יַיִן, בְּתוֹךְ הָעַיִן — אָסוּר, עַל גַּב הָעַיִן — מוּתָּר. וְחַד אָמַר: רוֹק תָּפֵל [אֲפִילּוּ] עַל גַּב הָעַיִן — אָסוּר.
Ravin asked another question: When one washes himself on Shabbat in water from the Dead Sea, what is the halakha? Is it permitted for him to close and open his eyes in the water so that the water gets inside? Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: That case I did not hear; however, with regard to a similar case, placing wine in one’s eye on Shabbat, I did hear. As Rabbi Zeira said, sometimes he said it in the name of Rav Mattana and sometimes he said it in the name of Mar Ukva, and they both said it in the name of Shmuel’s father and in the name of Levi: One of them said: With regard to placing wine inside the eye on Shabbat, it is prohibited because it heals; on the eye, it is permitted. And one of them said: Bland saliva, saliva from one who has not eaten since waking, even placing it on the eye on Shabbat is prohibited because it is commonly used as medicine.
תִּסְתַּיֵּים דַּאֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל הוּא דְּאָמַר יַיִן בְּתוֹךְ הָעַיִן — אָסוּר, עַל גַּב הָעַיִן — מוּתָּר, מִדְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שׁוֹרֶה אָדָם פִּיתּוֹ בְּיַיִן וְנוֹתְנוֹ עַל גַּב הָעַיִן בְּשַׁבָּת. דִּשְׁמִיעָא לֵיהּ מִמַּאן — לָאו דִּשְׁמִיעָא לֵיהּ מֵאֲבוּהּ? וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, הָא דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: רוֹק תָּפֵל אֲפִילּוּ עַל גַּבֵּי הָעַיִן אָסוּר, דִּשְׁמִיעָא לֵיהּ מִמַּאן? אִילֵּימָא דִּשְׁמִיעָא לֵיהּ מֵאֲבוּהּ, אֶלָּא לֵוִי — וְלָא חֲדָא אָמַר?! אֶלָּא: חֲדָא שְׁמִיעָא לֵיהּ מֵאֲבוּהּ וַחֲדָא שְׁמִיעָא לֵיהּ מִלֵּוִי, וְלָא יָדְעִינַן הֵי מֵאֲבוּהּ הֵי מִלֵּוִי.
The Gemara comments: Conclude that Shmuel’s father is the one who said that placing wine inside the eye is prohibited but on the eye is permitted, from the fact that Shmuel said: A person may soak his bread in wine and place it on his eye on Shabbat. He said this after he heard this halakha from whom? Is it not that he heard it from his father? The Gemara rejects this: And according to your reasoning, that halakha which Shmuel said: It is prohibited to place bland saliva even on the eye on Shabbat, he said this after he heard this halakha from whom? If we say that he heard it from his father, then Levi, who was cited together with Shmuel’s father in the list of those who stated the halakhot, did he himself not say even one halakha? Rather, one halakha Shmuel heard from his father, and one halakha he heard one from Levi, and we do not know which he heard from his father and which he heard from Levi.
אָמַר מָר עוּקְבָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שׁוֹרֶה אָדָם קִילוֹרִין מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְנוֹתֵן עַל גַּב עֵינָיו בְּשַׁבָּת, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ. בַּר לֵוַאי הֲוָה קָאֵי קַמֵּיהּ דְּמָר עוּקְבָא. חַזְיֵיהּ דַּהֲוָה עָמֵיץ וּפָתַח. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כּוּלֵּי הַאי וַדַּאי לָא שְׁרָא מָר שְׁמוּאֵל. שְׁלַח לֵיהּ רַבִּי יַנַּאי לְמָר עוּקְבָא: לִישַׁדַּר לַן מָר מֵהָנָךְ קִילוֹרִין דְּמָר שְׁמוּאֵל. שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: שַׁדּוֹרֵי מְשַׁדַּרְנָא לָךְ, דְּלָא תֵּימָא צַר עַיִן אֲנָא, אֶלָּא הָכִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: טוֹבָה טִיפַּת צוֹנֵן שַׁחֲרִית וּרְחִיצַת יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם בְּחַמִּין עַרְבִית מִכׇּל קִילוֹרִין שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, אָמַר רַבִּי מוּנָא מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: טוֹבָה טִיפַּת צוֹנֵן שַׁחֲרִית וּרְחִיצַת יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם עַרְבִית מִכׇּל קִילוֹרִין שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם.
Mar Ukva said that Shmuel said: One may soak eye salves from Shabbat eve and place them on his eyes on Shabbat, and he need not be concerned that he is violating the prohibition against healing on Shabbat. The Gemara relates: Bar Liva’ei was standing before Mar Ukva on Shabbat. He saw Mar Ukva, who was opening and closing his eyes while applying a salve to them. Bar Liva’ei said to him: Master Shmuel certainly did not permit doing all of this. Rabbi Yannai sent a message to Mar Ukva: Can the master send us some of Master Shmuel’s eye salves? Mar Ukva sent him in response: I will send it to you so that you do not say I am miserly, but be aware that this is what Shmuel said: For healing the eyes, better a drop of cold water in the morning and washing the hands and feet with hot water in the evening than all the eye salves in the world. Follow these instructions and you will need nor other cures. That was also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Mona said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: Better a drop of cold water in the morning and washing the hands and feet in the evening than all the eye salves in the world.
הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר: יָד לָעַיִן — תִּיקָּצֵץ. יָד לַחוֹטֶם — תִּיקָּצֵץ. יָד לַפֶּה — תִּיקָּצֵץ. יָד לָאוֹזֶן — תִּיקָּצֵץ. יָד לַחֲסוּדָה — תִּיקָּצֵץ. יָד לָאַמָּה — תִּיקָּצֵץ. יָד לְפִי טַבַּעַת — תִּיקָּצֵץ. יָד
Apropos Rabbi Mona’s statement with regard to healing, the text cites what he would say about other matters that require special attention: A hand that touches the eye should be severed because it harms the eye. A hand that touches the nose should be severed. A hand that touches the mouth should be severed. A hand that touches the ear should be severed. A hand that touches one’s wound should be severed. A hand that touches one’s member should be severed, lest one arouse himself. A hand that touches one’s anus should be severed, lest one make himself ill. A hand
