Page 261

Page 261

261 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Talmud, The

in the afternoon, for one meal. R. Jose says one may always save food for three meals.

Gemara: Since (a man) is troubled about what is permitted, why should not he save more? Said Rabba, because a man is anxious for his possessions, and were he allowed he would go so far as to ex tinguish (the fire). Ahaye said to him: We have previously learned that a man upon whose roof a barrel becomes broken may bring a vessel to put un derneath; but may not tiring a vessel to intercept (the flowing), nor put a vessel alongside (the roof). What precautionary measure can be (devised) in that case (to prohibit it)? Here there is also the precaution against his bringing a vessel through public ground. The text reads: A man upon whose roof a barrel becomes broken, may bring a vessel and put it underneath; but he may not bring a vessel to intercept (the flowing), nor put a vessel alongside (the roof). Should he happen to have guests he may bring a vessel to intercept or put a vessel alongside. He should not, however, inter cept first and then invite guests, but should invite guests first and then intercept: no artifice should be used in order to circumvent the law. It is re ported in the name of Jose ben Judah that an arti fice may be used. Is the clash of opinions not the same as that of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua in the fol lowing teaching: An animal and its offspring that have fallen into a pit (on a holy day)? R. Eliezer says that one may bring up one to b8 killed, while the other is to be left where it is, but provided with food that it may not starve. R. Joshua says that one may (supposedly) bring up one with then intention of killing it, but on some pretext may not kill it, and may bring up the other and then kill either one. No, it is possible that R. Eliezer says so only in the case when it (the remaining animal) can be fed, but not here in our case; on the other hand, it is pos sible that R. Joshua says so only when the suffering of a living being is involved, but not in our case where there is no suffering of a living being.

The rabbis taught: If one has saved fine bread, one is not allowed to save afterward coarse bread, but if one has saved first coarse bread, he may save afterward fine bread. One may save on the Day of Atonement (food) for Sabbath, but. not on Sabbath for the Day of Atonement, and still less on Sabbath for holy days, or for the next Sabbath. The rabbis taught: If a man has forgotten bread in the oven and the sanctity of the day (i.e., the sacred day) begins, he may save of it for three meals, and tell to others that they may come and save for themselves. He should not, however,.take it with a baker's shovel, but with a knife. Why, did not R. Ishmael teach " In it thou shalt not do any work " (Ex. xx. 10), except blowing of the horn and taking out bread because these belong to science and not labor? So far as it is possible to do it (i.e., such a piece of work) in another way (than as it is performed in the week-days) we are under obligations to do it (in that other way). R. Hisda said: A man should always make his preparations for the Sabbath early, for it is said: and it shall come to pass, that on the sixth day they shall prepare that which they bring in (Ex. xvi. 5), at once. One must break on Saturday two, loaves, because it is

said: " Twice as much bread " (verse 22). R. Ashi said: I have seen R. K'ahana keeping in his hands two loaves and break only one, stating that it is said, they gathered (twice, but did not break). R. Zera used to break a large piece that sufficed for the whole meal. Said Rabina to R. Ashi, did it not look like gluttony? The latter answered him: Since he did not do it every day it did not look like gluttony? R. Ami and R. Assi, when they happened to have the bread that was used for making an Erub, would begin the meal with it, for they said that because one religious duty had been fulfilled with that bread, it should be used to fulfil another religious duty.

How so? If a conflagration happen, etc.* The rabbis taught: How many meals is one obliged to eat in Sabbath? Three. R. Hidka says four. Both opinions are deduced from the same verse " And Moses said, eat that to-day; for to-day is a Sabbath unto the Lord: to-day ye shall not find it in the field" (Ex. xvi. 25). R. Hidka holds that the thrice repeated " to-day " means three (meals) besides that of the evening, while the rabbis hold that therein is included the evening meal. We have learned: If a conflagration happen on Friday night . . . . . .

Rashi (on the left): R. Ashi, however, said, etc.f Both the sages and Ben Bethera are of the opinion of R. Eliezer that generally three partitions and two stakes are required, but the sages say that in the case of a scroll of the Law even R. Eliezer admits that one stake is sufficient, while Ben Bethera says that in this case R. Eliezer admits that no stake is needed. One stake is sufficient: this refers to the opinion of the sages.

Mishna: A Conflagration happen on Friday might: before the meal. In the Morning: before breakfast. One may always save: it being such a day (i.e., when fasting is prohibited) and he is troubling himself about what is permitted, for food is an article that by itself is allowed to be moved and it (is carried) to a court provided with an Erub,$ he would have been allowed to save more, were it not for the precautionary measure, as explained in the Gemara.

Gemara: Since he is troubling himself about what is permitted: things which are allowed by themselves to be carried and (removed) to a court provided with an Erub. If he were allowed: In busying himself with so much saving, he might forget the Sabbath in his state of anxiety and might proteed so far as to extinguish the fire. Intercept: the flow that is falling through the air. Put alongside: near the roof as a receptacle, though it can not draw because the roof is flat and the wine is not in a hole. He, therefore, places a vessel near the

* The abbreviated form used here and elsewhere arises from the fact that only the initial words of well-known formulas were used instating a case or beginning a discussion.

t This is cited from the first paragraph above. It will be noted that the commentary takes up successive portions of the text, first citing in abbreviated form (printed in italics) the part on which comment is to be offered.

$ The technical term for " a symbolical act by which the legal fiction of community or continuity is established.

M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Tarpumim, . . , p. 1075, London 4nd New York, 1903.