Shabbat 12
שֶׁלֹּא יִלְקֶה הַכּוֹתֶל — אֵינוֹ בְּ״כִי יוּתַּן״! מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם לָא קָא בָּעֵי לְהוּ לְהָנֵי מַשְׁקִין כְּלָל, הָכָא קָא בָעֵי לֵיהּ לְהַאי כִּיס לְקַבּוֹלֵי בֵּיהּ זִיבָה.
that the wall will not be damaged, it is not under the rubric of the verse: “If water be placed.” The water does not have the legal status of water poured for that purpose. This tanna does not consider protecting the wall from dirt as a significant usage. Similarly, protecting the zav from being soiled by the emission would not be considered a significant usage and the pouch used for that purpose would not be considered a significant vessel. The Gemara rejects this: Are these cases comparable? There, he does not need those liquids at all, and therefore the vessel is not considered to have been placed to receive them. However, here he needs this pouch to absorb the emission, to ascertain whether or not he experienced an emission. Although on that particular day he does not require the pouch, the zav typically requires his pouch for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not there is another emission.
הָא לָא דָּמְיָא אֶלָּא לְסֵיפָא: עֲרֵיבָה שֶׁיָּרַד דֶּלֶף לְתוֹכָהּ, מַיִם הַנִּיתָּזִין וְהַנִּצָּפִין אֵינָן בְּ״כִי יוּתַּן״, וְשֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ הֲרֵי זֶה בְּ״כִי יוּתַּן״.
Rather, this halakha with regard to the zav is comparable only to the latter clause of the mishna dealing with rainwater, in which we learned: A bowl that the drip of rain from the roof dropped into it, the water that splashes or overflows from the bowl does not have the legal status of water collected for a purpose, and is not under the rubric of the verse: “If water be placed.” And the water that is in the bowl has the legal status of water collected for a purpose and is under the rubric of the verse: “If water be placed.” Although, fundamentally, one has no interest in the drip of water, once the water already dripped, he wants it to remain in the bowl and not dirty the house. That desire is sufficient to accord the water in the bowl the legal status of water placed there willfully. The same is true with regard to the pouch of the zav. In the current situation of the zav, he is interested in keeping the emission in its place, and therefore the original difficulty posed by the contradiction between the two baraitot remains intact.
אֶלָּא אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְהָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
Rather, it is Abaye and Rava, who both said that this is not difficult. There is no contradiction between the baraitot. This baraita, which deems a zav liable by Torah law for going out with his pouch, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. His opinion is that one who performs a prohibited labor that is not needed for its own sake, but rather for a different consequence of that prohibited labor, is liable. And that baraita, which deems him exempt, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. He holds that one who performs a prohibited labor that is not needed for its own sake is exempt. Since the zav is not at all interested in the flow and the pouch, he is exempt by Torah law for carrying the pouch.
תָּנֵי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: יוֹצֵא אָדָם בִּתְפִילִּין בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת עִם חֲשֵׁיכָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? — כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא חַיָּיב אָדָם לְמַשְׁמֵשׁ בַּתְּפִילִּין כׇּל שָׁעָה וְשָׁעָה. קַל וָחֹמֶר מִצִּיץ: מָה צִיץ שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אֶלָּא אַזְכָּרָה אַחַת אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה ״וְהָיָה עַל מִצְחוֹ תָּמִיד״ — שֶׁלֹּא יַסִּיחַ דַּעְתּוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ, תְּפִילִּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן אַזְכָּרוֹת הַרְבֵּה — עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. הִלְכָּךְ מִידְכָּר דָּכֵיר לְהוּ. תַּנְיָא, חֲנַנְיָא אוֹמֵר: חַיָּיב אָדָם לְמַשְׁמֵשׁ בְּבִגְדוֹ עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת עִם חֲשֵׁכָה. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הִלְכְתָא רַבָּתִי לְשַׁבָּת.
The Sage of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught in a baraita: A person may go out ab initio donning phylacteries on Shabbat eve at nightfall. Although one does not don phylacteries on Shabbat and going out donning them involves an element of carrying, there is no concern lest he forget and remove them on Shabbat. What is the reason for this? Because Rabba bar Rav Huna said: A person is obligated to touch his phylacteries at all times that he is donning them. This is derived from an a fortiori inference [kal vaḥomer] from the frontplate [tzitz] of the High Priest. Just as with regard to the frontplate, which has only one mention of God’s name, the Torah said: “And it should be always upon his forehead” (Exodus 28:38), which means that the High Priest must always be aware that the tzitz is placed on his head and that he should not be distracted from it; phylacteries that have numerous mentions of God’s name, all the more so one should always be aware of them. Therefore, he remembers that the phylacteries are on his head and is not likely to come to carry them on Shabbat. On a related note, the Gemara mentions that it was taught in a baraita that Ḥananya says: A person is required to feel his clothing on Shabbat eve at nightfall to ascertain whether he forgot an object in his pockets that he might come to carry on Shabbat. And Rav Yosef commented and said: That is a significant halakha for Shabbat, and it is fitting to do so in order to refrain from violating a prohibition.
לֹא יְפַלֶּה אֶת כֵּלָיו כּוּ׳. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: לֹא יְפַלֶּה אֶת כֵּלָיו בַּיּוֹם שֶׁמָּא יַהֲרוֹג, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: הַהוֹרֵג כִּינָּה בְּשַׁבָּת — כְּאִילּוּ הוֹרֵג גָּמָל. וְלֹא יִקְרָא לְאוֹר הַנֵּר שֶׁמָּא יַטֶּה. אוֹ דִילְמָא תַּרְוַיְיהוּ שֶׁמָּא יַטֶּה?!
We learned in the mishna: One may not shake his clothes on Shabbat to rid them of lice; and one may not read a book by candlelight, so that he will not come to adjust the wick of the lamp. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does this mean that one may not shake his clothes even during the day due to the concern lest he kill the louse that he finds in his clothing, and our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer said: One who kills a louse on Shabbat, even though it is a very small creature, it is as if he killed a camel, and there is no difference in the severity of the prohibition. And what was said in the mishna: And he may not read by candlelight, is due to concern lest he adjust the wick, a totally independent matter. Or, perhaps both of these halakhot are due to the concern lest he adjust the wick, and both halakhot apply exclusively at night. During the day he is permitted to shake his clothes, and there is no concern lest he kill a louse.
תָּא שְׁמַע: אֵין פּוֹלִין וְאֵין קוֹרִין לְאוֹר הַנֵּר. מִי אַלִּימָא מִמַּתְנִיתִין?!
Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which was taught in a baraita: One may not shake clothing and one may not read a book by candlelight on Shabbat. The style of the baraita indicates that both actions are prohibited for the same reason. The Gemara rejects this: Is this proof from the baraita a stronger proof than our mishna? In our mishna, both halakhot are also cited together, and that was insufficient proof that they share a common rationale.
תָּא שְׁמַע: אֵין פּוֹלִין לְאוֹר הַנֵּר וְאֵין קוֹרִין לְאוֹר הַנֵּר, אֵלּוּ מִן הַהֲלָכוֹת שֶׁאָמְרוּ בַּעֲלִיַּית חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן חִזְקִיָּה בֶּן גָּרוֹן. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ שֶׁמָּא יַטֶּה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which was taught in another baraita: One may not shake clothing by the light of the lamp and one may not read by the light of the lamp. These two decrees are among the halakhot that the Sages said in the upper story of Ḥananya ben Ḥizkiya ben Garon. Learn from this that both of the decrees are due to the concern lest he adjust the wick. In both decrees, the prohibition of doing so by the light of the lamp, lest he come to adjust the wick, was mentioned. Indeed, learn from this.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֲפִילּוּ לְהַבְחִין בֵּין בִּגְדּוֹ לְבִגְדֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ. אָמַר רָבָא: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דִּבְנֵי מָחוֹזָא, אֲבָל דִּבְנֵי חַקְלָיָתָא מִידָּע יָדְעִי. וְדִבְנֵי מָחוֹזָא נָמֵי לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דִּזְקֵנוֹת, אֲבָל דִּילָדוֹת מִידָּע יָדְעִי.
Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is prohibited to use candlelight even to distinguish between his garments and the garments of his wife. Because that requires a certain degree of scrutiny, there is concern lest he adjust the wick in order to see better. To qualify this statement, Rava said: We only said this with regard to the garments of the people of the city of Meḥoza, as there the men’s garments are wide and ornamented similar to the women’s garments; however, with regard to farmers and village residents, they know the difference between men’s and women’s garments. There is no concern lest they adjust the wick to distinguish between the garments, as the differences between men’s garments and women’s garments are obvious. Even with regard to the clothing of the people of Meḥoza, we only said that it is prohibited to distinguish between men’s and women’s garments with regard to the garments of old women; however, with regard to the garments of young women, they know the difference and there is no concern lest one adjust the wick to distinguish between them.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין פּוֹלִין בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים מִפְּנֵי הַכָּבוֹד. כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה: אֵין עוֹשִׂין אַפִּיקְטְוִיזִין בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים מִפְּנֵי הַכָּבוֹד. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמְפַלֶּה אֶת כֵּלָיו, מוֹלֵל וְזוֹרֵק, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַהֲרוֹג. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: נוֹטֵל וְזוֹרֵק, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִמְלוֹל. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הֲלָכָה מוֹלֵל וְזוֹרֵק וְזֶהוּ כְּבוֹדוֹ, וַאֲפִילּוּ בַּחוֹל. רַבָּה מְקַטַּע לְהוּ. וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת מְקַטַּע לְהוּ. רָבָא שָׁדֵי לְהוּ לְלָקָנָא דְמַיָּא. אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב נַחְמָן לִבְנָתֵיהּ: קִטְלָן וְאַשְׁמְעִינַן לִי קָלָא דְסָנְווֹתִי.
The Sages taught: One may not shake clothing to rid them of lice in the public domain in deference to human dignity, as passersby would be offended by this. Similarly, Rabbi Yehuda said, and some say that Rabbi Neḥemya said it: One may not make an appiktoizin, a drug to induce vomiting, in the public domain in deference to human dignity. With regard to the matter of shaking clothing to rid them of lice on Shabbat, the Gemara cites that which the Sages taught in the Tosefta: One who shakes his clothing may squeeze the louse and throw it, as long as he does not kill it. Abba Shaul says: He may take the louse and throw it, as long as he does not squeeze it. In his opinion, killing a louse is prohibited by Torah law. Therefore, even squeezing it is prohibited, lest he come to kill it. Rav Huna said: The halakha is that he may squeeze and throw the louse, and that is the dignified way to get rid of a louse, and even during the days of the week, when it is not Shabbat and there is no concern lest he violate the prohibition of killing a louse. Even then, it is preferable not to kill it because it is disgusting and it is sufficient to simply throw it (Me’iri). The Gemara relates that Rabba would kill the lice. And Rav Sheshet would also kill them. Rava would throw them into a cup [lekna] of water and he would not kill them directly with his hands. The Gemara relates that Rav Naḥman would say to his daughters: Kill them, and let me hear the sound of the combs, meaning, you may kill the lice in the usual manner on the comb.
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אֵין הוֹרְגִין אֶת הַמַּאֲכוֹלֶת בְּשַׁבָּת, דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין.
As far as the basic halakha is concerned, it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed with regard to killing a louse on Shabbat: One may not kill a louse on Shabbat, this is the statement of Beit Shammai; and Beit Hillel permit doing so. In their opinion, a louse is unlike the other creatures for which one is liable for killing them on Shabbat.
וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: אֵין מְשַׁדְּכִין אֶת הַתִּינוֹקוֹת לֵאָרֵס, וְלֹא אֶת הַתִּינוֹק לְלַמְּדוֹ סֵפֶר וּלְלַמְּדוֹ אוּמָּנוּת, וְאֵין מְנַחֲמִין אֲבֵלִים, וְאֵין מְבַקְּרִין חוֹלִין בְּשַׁבָּת, דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין.
And Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would also say in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: One may not make matches [meshaddekhin] for the children, to betroth them on Shabbat, and one may not enter into an agreement to take the child and teach him to read a sacred book or to teach him a trade, and one may not comfort mourners on Shabbat, and one may not visit the sick on Shabbat, this is the statement of Beit Shammai, as in their opinion, those are weekday activities and not appropriate on Shabbat. And Beit Hillel permit performing all of these activities on Shabbat, as they each include an aspect of mitzva.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, הַנִּכְנָס לְבַקֵּר אֶת הַחוֹלֶה אוֹמֵר: ״שַׁבָּת הִיא מִלִּזְעוֹק, וּרְפוּאָה קְרוֹבָה לָבֹא״. וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: ״יְכוֹלָה הִיא שֶׁתְּרַחֵם״.
The Sages taught in a baraita: One who enters to visit a sick person on Shabbat does not address him in the manner customary during the week; rather, he says: It is on Shabbat that it is prohibited to cry out and ask for compassion, and healing is soon to come. And Rabbi Meir says that it is appropriate to add: The merit of Shabbat is capable of engendering compassion.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״הַמָּקוֹם יְרַחֵם עָלֶיךָ וְעַל חוֹלֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: ״הַמָּקוֹם יְרַחֵם עָלֶיךָ בְּתוֹךְ חוֹלֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״. שֶׁבְנָא אִישׁ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, בִּכְנִיסָתוֹ אוֹמֵר: ״שָׁלוֹם״, וּבִיצִיאָתוֹ אוֹמֵר: ״שַׁבָּת הִיא מִלִּזְעוֹק וּרְפוּאָה קְרוֹבָה לָבֹא, וְרַחֲמָיו מְרוּבִּין, וְשִׁבְתוּ בְּשָׁלוֹם״. כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ חוֹלֶה בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּעָרְבֶנּוּ בְּתוֹךְ חוֹלֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל? כְּמַאן — כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי.
Rabbi Yehuda says that it is appropriate to say: May the Omnipresent have compassion upon you and upon all the sick people of Israel. Rabbi Yosei says that it is appropriate to say: May the Omnipresent have compassion upon you among the sick people of Israel, thereby including this sick person within the community of Israel. When Shevna of Jerusalem would visit a sick person on Shabbat, upon entering, he would say shalom. And when he exited he would say: It is Shabbat when one is prohibited to cry out, and healing is soon to come, and His compassion is abundant, and rest on Shabbat in peace. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is the halakha that Rabbi Ḥanina said: One who has a sick person in his house must include him among the sick people of Israel in his prayer? In accordance with whose opinion? In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: בְּקוֹשִׁי הִתִּירוּ לְנַחֵם אֲבֵלִים וּלְבַקֵּר חוֹלִים בְּשַׁבָּת. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: כִּי הֲוָה אָזְלִינַן בָּתְרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לְשַׁיּוֹלֵי בִּתְפִיחָה, זִימְנִין אָמַר: ״הַמָּקוֹם יִפְקׇדְךָ לְשָׁלוֹם״. וְזִימְנִין אָמַר לֵיהּ: ״רַחֲמָנָא יִדְכְּרִינָךְ לִשְׁלָם״. הֵיכִי עָבֵיד הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: לְעוֹלָם אַל יִשְׁאַל אָדָם צְרָכָיו בִּלְשׁוֹן אֲרַמִּי. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל הַשּׁוֹאֵל צְרָכָיו בִּלְשׁוֹן אֲרַמִּי — אֵין מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת נִזְקָקִין לוֹ, שֶׁאֵין מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת מַכִּירִין בִּלְשׁוֹן אֲרַמִּי! שָׁאנֵי חוֹלֶה דִּשְׁכִינָה עִמּוֹ.
And Rabbi Ḥanina said: It was only with great difficulty that the Sages permitted to comfort the mourners and visit the sick on Shabbat, as both the visitor and the comforter experience suffering on Shabbat. They permitted it only due to the mitzva involved in these activities. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: When we would follow Rabbi Elazar to inquire about the health of a sick person; sometimes he would say in Hebrew: May the Omnipresent remember you for peace, and sometimes he would say to him in Aramaic: May the all-Merciful remember you for peace. He would say it in Aramaic when the sick person did not understand Hebrew (Rav Elazar Moshe Horovitz). The Gemara asks: How did he do this, pray in Aramaic? Didn’t Rav Yehuda say: A person should never request that his needs be met in the Aramaic language? And, similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Anyone who requests that his needs be met in the Aramaic language, the ministering angels do not attend to him to bring his prayer before God, as the ministering angels are not familiar with the Aramaic language, but only with the sacred tongue, Hebrew, exclusively. The Gemara responds: A sick person is different. He does not need the angels to bring his prayer before God because the Divine Presence is with him.
דְּאָמַר רַב עָנָן אָמַר רַב: מִנַּיִן שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא סוֹעֵד אֶת הַחוֹלֶה? — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״ה׳ יִסְעָדֶנּוּ עַל עֶרֶשׂ דְּוָי״. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: הַנִּכְנָס לְבַקֵּר אֶת הַחוֹלֶה לֹא יֵשֵׁב לֹא עַל גַּבֵּי מִטָּה וְלֹא עַל גַּבֵּי כִּסֵּא, אֶלָּא מִתְעַטֵּף וְיוֹשֵׁב לְפָנָיו, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשְּׁכִינָה לְמַעְלָה מִמְּרַאֲשׁוֹתָיו שֶׁל חוֹלֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״ה׳ יִסְעָדֶנּוּ עַל עֶרֶשׂ דְּוָי״. וְאָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רָבִין: מִנַּיִן שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא זָן אֶת הַחוֹלֶה? — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״ה׳ יִסְעָדֶנּוּ עַל עֶרֶשׂ דְּוָי״.
As Rav Anan said that Rav said: From where is it derived that the Divine Presence cares for and aids the sick person? As it is stated: “God will support him on the bed of illness” (Psalms 41:4). The Gemara comments: That was also taught in a baraita: One who enters to visit the sick person should sit neither on the bed nor on a chair; rather, he should wrap himself in his prayer shawl with trepidation and awe, and sit before the sick person below him, as the Divine Presence is above the head of the sick person, as it is stated: “God will support him on the bed of illness,” and he must treat the Divine Presence with deference. On a similar note, Rava said that Ravin said: From where is it derived that the Holy One, Blessed be He, feeds the sick person during his illness? As it is stated: “God will support him on the bed of illness.”
וְלֹא יִקְרָא לְאוֹר הַנֵּר. אָמַר רַבָּה: אֲפִילּוּ גָּבוֹהַּ שְׁתֵּי קוֹמוֹת, וַאֲפִילּוּ שְׁתֵּי מַרְדָּעוֹת, וַאֲפִילּוּ עֲשָׂרָה בָּתִּים זֶה עַל גַּב זֶה. חַד הוּא דְּלָא לִיקְרֵי, הָא תְּרֵי — שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי. וְהָתַנְיָא לֹא אֶחָד וְלֹא שְׁנַיִם! אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּעִנְיָן אֶחָד, כָּאן בִּשְׁנֵי עִנְיָנִים. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: וּבִמְדוּרָה, אֲפִילּוּ עֲשָׂרָה בְּנֵי אָדָם אָסוּר.
We learned in the mishna that one may not read a book by candlelight on Shabbat. Rabba said: Since a decree was issued, there is no distinction whether or not the lamp was near enough to him to enable him to adjust the wick. The prohibition applies even if the lamp was two statures of a person high, and even as high as two plow handles, and even if it was as high as ten houses one atop the other. We learned in the mishna that one may not read, and the Gemara infers: One may not read, but for two, apparently, he may well do so. They will not violate any prohibition, as two people together will certainly not forget the Shabbat prohibition. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that neither one nor two are permitted to read by the light of the lamp? Rabbi Elazar said: This is not difficult, as there is room to distinguish between them and say that here, where two were permitted to read by candlelight, it is referring to a case where they are both engaged in one matter and will remind each other to refrain from adjusting the wick. There, where two were prohibited to read by candlelight it is referring to a case where they are engaged in two different matters. Since each is preoccupied with a different text, they will not pay attention and remind each other. Rav Huna said: And with regard to a bonfire, where everyone is sitting around it and not adjacent to it, even if they were ten people, it is prohibited to read by its light. When sitting around a bonfire, everyone sits at a distance from the others, and therefore they do not notice each other, and each is liable to adjust the firebrands to provide himself with more light.
אָמַר רָבָא: אִם אָדָם חָשׁוּב הוּא — מוּתָּר. מֵיתִיבִי: לֹא יִקְרָא לְאוֹר הַנֵּר, שֶׁמָּא יַטֶּה. אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן אֱלִישָׁע: אֲנִי אֶקְרָא וְלֹא אַטֶּה. פַּעַם אַחַת קָרָא וּבִקֵּשׁ לְהַטּוֹת. אָמַר: כַּמָּה גְּדוֹלִים דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹמְרִים לֹא יִקְרָא לְאוֹר הַנֵּר. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר, קָרָא וְהִטָּה וְכָתַב עַל פִּנְקָסוֹ: אֲנִי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן אֱלִישָׁע, קָרִיתִי וְהִטֵּיתִי נֵר בְּשַׁבָּת, לִכְשֶׁיִּבָּנֶה בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ אָבִיא חַטָּאת שְׁמֵנָה! אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: שָׁאנֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן אֱלִישָׁע, הוֹאִיל וּמֵשִׂים עַצְמוֹ עַל דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה כְּהֶדְיוֹט.
Rava said: Even though they prohibited reading by candlelight due to a decree lest they adjust the wick, if he is an important person, it is permitted, as even on weekdays he is not accustomed to adjust a lamp that is dirty with oil. The Gemara raises an objection from that which was taught in a Tosefta: One may not read a book on Shabbat by the light of the lamp, lest he adjust it. The Tosefta relates that Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha said: I will read and will not adjust, as I will certainly not forget that it is Shabbat. However, once he read a book by candlelight and he sought to adjust the wick. He said: How great are the words of the Sages, who would say that one may not read by candlelight, as even a person like me sought to adjust the wick. Rabbi Natan says: That was not the way it happened. Rather, he read and actually adjusted the wick, and he wrote afterward in his notebook [pinkas]: I, Yishmael ben Elisha, read and adjusted a lamp on Shabbat. When the Temple will be rebuilt I will bring a fat sin-offering as atonement for this sin. This proves that even an important person like Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha is liable to adjust the wick. Rabbi Abba said: Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha is different, since with regard to the study of Torah, he comports himself like a simple man with no air of importance, but generally, an important person would not dirty his hands and adjust the wick.
תָּנֵי חֲדָא: שַׁמָּשׁ בּוֹדֵק כּוֹסוֹת וּקְעָרוֹת לְאוֹר הַנֵּר. וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: לֹא יִבְדּוֹק! לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּשַׁמָּשׁ קָבוּעַ, כָּאן בְּשַׁמָּשׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָבוּעַ. וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא וְהָא בְּשַׁמָּשׁ קָבוּעַ, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בִּדְמִשְׁחָא, וְהָא בִּדְנַפְטָא.
On this subject, the Gemara cites two apparently contradictory baraitot. It was taught in one baraita that a servant may examine cups and bowls by candlelight to check if they are clean. And it was taught in another baraita that he may not examine them. The Gemara explains: This is not difficult. Rather, here, the baraita that prohibited examining the cups, is referring to a regularly employed servant who fears his master and examines the dishes meticulously. Therefore, there is concern lest he come to adjust the wick. While there, the baraita that permitted examining the cups, is referring to a servant who is not regularly employed, does not fear his master, and therefore will not check meticulously. There is no concern lest he come to adjust the wick. And if you wish, say instead that this baraita and that baraita are both referring to a regularly employed servant. And this is not difficult, as they are not referring to the same kind of lamp. This baraita, which prohibited examining the dishes, is referring to an oil lamp, where there is room for concern lest he adjust it. And that baraita, which permitted examining the dishes, is referring to a naphtha [nafta] lamp. Since the naphtha lamp is dirty, the servant certainly will not touch it while checking the cups and dishes.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: שַׁמָּשׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָבוּעַ בִּדְמִשְׁחָא מַהוּ? אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה וְאֵין מוֹרִין כֵּן. וְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר: הֲלָכָה וּמוֹרִין כֵּן. רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אִיקְּלַע לְבֵי רַב אַסִּי. קָם שַׁמָּעֵיהּ קָא בָּדֵיק לִנְהוֹרָא דִשְׁרָגָא. אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ דְּבֵיתְהוּ: וּמָר לָא עָבֵיד הָכִי? אֲמַר לַהּ: שִׁבְקֵיהּ, כְּרַבֵּיהּ סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the ruling with regard to a servant who is not regularly employed in terms of examining cups and dishes by the light of an oil lamp? Is he permitted to examine the cups by candlelight, or not? From the perspective of his being a servant not regularly employed, it should be permitted. On the other hand, because it is an oil lamp it should be prohibited. Rav said: The halakha is that it is permitted, and, however, ab initio a public ruling is not issued to that effect so that they will not come to sin. However, one who knows the halakha that it is permitted may practice accordingly. Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said: That halakha is that it is permitted and a public ruling is issued to that effect. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba happened to come to the house of Rav Asi on Shabbat. Rabbi Yirmeya’s servant stood and examined the cups by the light of a lamp [sheraga], as he was not a regularly employed servant in the house of Rav Asi. Rav Asi’s wife said to Rav Asi: But the Master, you, does not do so. You prohibit doing so. Why is the servant of Rabbi Yirmeya examining the cups? He said to her: Leave him, he holds in accordance with the opinion of his master.
בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ הַחַזָּן כּוּ׳. וְהָאָמְרַתְּ רֵישָׁא ״רוֹאֶה״. מַאי לָאו, לִקְרוֹת?! לָא, לְסַדֵּר רָאשֵׁי פָּרָשִׁיּוֹתָיו. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֲבָל מְסַדֵּר הוּא רָאשֵׁי פָּרָשִׁיּוֹתָיו, וְכוּלַּהּ פָּרָשָׁה לָא.
We learned in the mishna that in truth they said that the attendant sees where in the book the children under his supervision are reading, but he himself should not read. The Gemara asked: Didn’t you say in the first clause of the mishna that the attendant sees? Doesn’t that mean that he sees in order to read? How can that part of the mishna conclude by saying that he may not read? The Gemara answers: No, it does not mean that the attendant is permitted to actually read; rather, he is only permitted to look and arrange the beginning of his sections of the Torah that he must read the next day. And so too, Rabba bar Shmuel said: However, he may arrange the beginning of his sections that he must read the next day. The Gemara asks: And may he not read the entire section?
