Shabbat 116: Saving Torah Scrolls and Casings from Fire on Shabbat,

There is a break in Numbers when the words say, "and the Ark travelled".  The text is separated from other parts of the page, and there are markers or placeholders showing us that this section of the text is different.  The rabbis discuss why this might be the case,  including the idea that this section might be a book in and of itself.  Thus there would be seven books of the Torah, as defined by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers until "And when the Ark travelled", the small section reading "And when the Ark traveled", the remainder of Numbers, and Deuteronomy. 

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that in the future this portion will be uprooted and written in its proper place.  It demarcates between the first and second punishments.  The second is that the people complained wickedly in G-d's ears and G-d in G-d's anger consumed the edge of the camp in fire.  The first punishment is when the people traveled from the mountain of G-d, mehar Hashem, for three days, and they turned from G-d when they fled Mt. Sinai. 

Do we rescue blank folios of a Torah scroll from a fire on Shabbat?  If it is a worn scroll and there are at least 85 letters in it, like And when the Ark travelled, it should be rescued.  Another baraita teaches that we may rescue the scroll due to the blank folios because the erased section is just as significant as the blank section.  The Gemara argues about whether the written word imparts sanctity, or whether the sanctity remains on the scroll.  We also learn from another baraita that we do not rescue the scrolls of heretics but leave them to burn even with the names of G-d written there.  It says that "the scrolls of heretics are like blank folios."  Perhaps we cut out the names of G-d and bury them and burn the remainder of the scroll.  Just like making peace between a husband and wife, the Torah says that G-d's name written in sanctity should be erased in the waters of the sota; all the more so it is proper to erase G-d's name against heretics. 

We are told the story of Imma Shalom, Rabbi Eliezer's wife and Rabban Gamliel's sister.  A Christian philosopher nearby told people that he did not accept bribes.  They wanted to mock him to reveal his true nature.  She game him a golden lamp with her brother for evaluation.  She said she wanted to share in the inheritance of her father's estate.  He said to them to divide it, even when Rabban Gamliel said that in the Torah when there is a son, the daughter does not inherit.  The philosopher said that since you were exiled, the Torah of Moses was taken a way and the avon gilyon was given in its place where it says that a son and a daughter shall inherit alike.  The next day they brought him a Libyan donkey.  he said that he had finished the avon gilayon and it did not take or give from the Torah of Moses, and daughters should not inherit.  Imma said "May your light shine like a lamp" and Rabban Gamliel said, "the donkey came and kicked the lamp".  These were not bribes but things that could be used as bribes.

Why do we not read the Writings on Shabbat?  Because there is no Torah study in the study hall.  Because there may not be hours of study in the study hall on Shabbat.  People may read Writings on Shabbat in other places. 

A new Mishna teaches that one may rescue the casing of a Torah scroll from a fire on Shabbat together with the Torah scroll and the casing of phylacteries along with the phylacteries even if they have money inside of them.  We may rescue them into a closed alley, which is considered to be a private domain by Torah law.  Be Beteira say that an open alley is also permitted.

The Gemara teaches that when the fourteenth of Nissan happens on Shabbat and the Paschal lamb is offered up but not roasted until Shabbat ends, on flays the Paschal lamb up to the breast to help remove other parts of the animal offered up on Shabbat.  The remainder is flayed after Shabbat.  Further skinning helps with eating, and so it does not override Shabbat.  The rabbis continue to argue about which parts of the animal should be prepared in which ways so as to respect the sacrifice, to not leave it unattended or in disgrace.  We should consider puncturing the animal in the side and removing the innards but we should be aware that the hairs do not become entangled in the sacrificial parts, distorting them. 

Thus if we may save the casing of a Torah scroll along with the Torah scroll, why can't we strip the Paschal lamb of its skin?  And why not perform the entire act once part of the action has been permitted?  Are these things comparable?  The act of flaying is prohibited by Torah law.  Moving the hide along with the flesh may be prohibited but should be done so that it doesn't putrify. and moving the Torah scroll along with its casing might not have the same consequences.

Shabbat 115: Saving Sacred Writings from Fire on Shabbat

Rabbi Yochanan said that if Yom Kippur occurs on a weekday we may crack nuts and remove pomegranate  seeds from the late afternoon and onward because there is no actual labour involved.  Instead, we will be anxious if we do not know that there is food enough for the end of the fast.  Rav Yehuda's family would trim cabbage at that time, and Rabba's family would scrub gourds.  

A new Mishna teaches that regarding all sacred writings, one may rescue them from the fire on shabbat.  These are words read in public - Torah or Prophets scrolls, in any language.  We don't read the Writings on Shabbat due to suspension of Torah study in the study hall on Shabbat.  

The Gemara discusses sacred writings that are written in languages other than Hebrew.  Should thees be rescued from the fire on Shabbat?  They are buried when no longer in use.  Rabbi Yosei says that there was an incident where his father went to Rabban Gamliel of Yavne in Tiberias where he was reading a translation of the book of Job.  Rabbi Gamliel asked that the book be buried with mortar under some bricks.  Some questions that follow: where did the mortar come from?  Can we destroy sacred writings that are not read with our hands? Should we leave them in a neglected place where they will decompose quickly?

Some rabbis do not even want us to read books in other languages.  We learn about the blessings written in amulets.  These too would not be rescued from fire even though they contain the name of G-d in them.  The rabbis note that writers of blessings were like burners of Torah scrolls, as they would likely be destroyed in fire.  One who was writing blessings heard that Rabbi Yishmael was ascending a ladder to confront him.  In haste he doused the blessings in water to cover up his actions.  Rabbi Yishmael said to him that the punishment for destroying the blessings is greater than punishment for creating them.  

The Exilarch spoke of resucing certain inks from fire.  Does it matter if the script will endure, regardless of the language that is written?  There is a difference between the books of the Bible and the Megilla of Esther: the Megilla is only valid if it is written in Assyrian script, on a parchment scroll, in ink.  Other sacred books do not need to be written in ink.  We know that the Ark and even a Torah scroll needs every letter to be intact.  

We learn that halacha: a book that holds eighty-five letters in complete words or that has the name of G-d written in it must be rescued from a fire on Shabbat.  Rav Huna stated this, overruling Rav Chisda.  In modern days we recover any version or translation of sacred books.

Shabbat 114: How to be a Good Torah Scholar, Priestly Responsibilities

We are told that Torah scholars should behave in very specific ways, especially in the public domain.  He should not go into the market place in patched shoes, for example. And when it is said that Rabi Acha bar Chanina do this very thing, we are told that the actual prohibition is on wearing shoes with a patch upon a patch.  

Torah scholars can't wear clothing that is stained with fat or blood, nor can they be naked or barefoot.  However, naked is interpreted as wearing tattered clothing, and barefoot refers to patched shoes.  Torah scholars should not use a donkey's saddle that is stained.  Torah scholars are considered to be bonim, builders, who are leaders in the community.  Such a Torah scholar will have lost objects returned to him based on visual identification alone.  A Torah scholar who is appointed as a leader in the community is one who is asked about halacha on any topic and is able to answer, even if about masechet Kalla, and he is able to answer.  Rabbi Yochanan says that if one is an expert in a single masechet, he can be a leader.  But if he is an expert in all of his learning, he may be appointed head of the yeshiva.

What are the garments mentioned in the Mishna, asks Rabbbi Shimon ben Lakish?  One cannot be buried in white garments, for one might be acquitted in judgment and with the wicked like a groom amount mourners.  And not in black, because one might be acquitted in judment and like the righteous like a mourner among grooms.  Instead, one should be married in the clothing of the bath attendants, which is red.  However, they wear white undergarments which might have been Reish Lakish's intention.  

At the end of today's daf, the rabbis turn back to an earlier converstaion about vows and free-will offerings offered on a Festival.  If sacrifices that fulfill vows can be postponed to a weekday but are brought on a Festival, the fats from Shabbat can also be offered on a Festival.  Yom Kippur is still a prohibited day regarding sacrificing the fats from Shabbat on a Festival that follows it.

Shabbat 113: Ruth, Honour; Knots, Folding, Making Beds, Clothing, Running, Thinking on Shabbat

A new Mishna teaches us that we may tie a bucket with a belt  on Shabbat because it will not be a permanent knot.  We may not tie a bucket with a rope though Rabbi Yehuda permits doing this.  Rabbi Yehuda states the principle that we are not liable for tying any knot that is not permanent.

The Gemara discusses type of ropes and belts; different types of bows.  The rabbis wonder whether or not all parts of a weaver's tools should be moved on Shabbat.  The rabbis also the dangers of consider both creating and filling in holes in fields or in the floors of homes.  In all of their considerations, the rabbis wonder about what is done on ordinary weekdays and ensuring that what is done on Shabbat is different  if the action is in question.

A second new Mishna teaches that we may fold garments under specific conditions.  We are also permitted to make our beds on erev Shabbat to prepare for Shabbat, but not from Shabbat to prepare for Yom Rishon. We cannot do anything on Shabbat that is in preparation for the following weekdays.  Rabbi Yishmael says that we may fold garments and make beds on Yom Kippur in preparation for Shabbat if Yom Kippur falls on a Friday.  The fats of offerings sacrificed on Shabbat are offered on Yom Kippur but not vice versa, because the sanctity of Shabbat is above all.  Rabbi Akiva argues that the fats of offerings are not offered on Shabbat nor on Yom Kippur. 

The rabbis argue about folding laundry about about bedding.  Only one person can fold the garment because more that that is similar to repairing garments.  Only a new garment can be folded on Shabbat.  Only white garments can be folded, and we can only fold garments that we are going to wear - if we have something else to wear for Shabbat, we should not be folding any other garments.  One should wear garment that beautify us, or at least are set aside on weekdays, to be used only on Shabbat.  

Our speech, (speaking only of mitzvot or pleasure, not business or pain) and our walking should be different from the rest of the week, it is argued.  Children are permitted to walk or run in any way that gives them pleasure, however.  A bizarre comment is suggested by Rabbi Yishmael: A large step takes away one five-hundredth of a person's eyesight.  The Gemara argues that one's sight is restored during kiddush on Shabbat evening.  We are never permitted to eat dirt.

We begin a conversation in the Gemara about Naomi and Ruth.  The rabbis consider all that Ruth does and they laud her perfectly appropriate and dutiful behavious.  In all of Boaz's words to her, the rabbis use their interpretive skills to refer to her as the source of King David.

We end with a discussion about Rabbi Yochanan, who called his clothing his honour.  Thus in Isaiah (10:16), when "under his honour He will burn a burning like a burning fire", we could learn that the King of Assyria's soldiers were burned but their clothings were not burned somehow.  Rabbi Elazar suggested that "under his honour" mean 'in place of ' his honour.  Thus instead of the honour, the body, there were ashes.  Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachamani said that under his honour refers to beneath his flesh, like the burning of Aaron's sons.  There, the soul burned while the bodies remained intact.  Here, too, the souls of the Assyrian soldiers burned while their bodies remained intact.

Shabbat 111: Medicinal Foods, Dipping, Wringing, Knot-Tying

A new Mishna teaches us more about remedies.  Pain in one's teeth is not cured through sipping vinegar on Shabbat because this would be using the substance for medicinal purposes.  However, one may dip one's food in vinegar in the usual manner and eat it and if it heals one's teeth, that's fine.  Similarly, pain in one's loins should not be treated with wine and vinegar.  Instead one may smear oil on them as long as it it is not rose oil, which is expensive and used specifically as medicine.   Rabbi Shimon argues that a Jewish people are princes, and so it is permitted to rub even rose oil on themselves on Shabbat.

Dipping or immersing one self before Shabbat won't be allowed on Erev Yom Kippur, for bathing is for pleasure.  But anything permitted on Shabbat is permitted on YomKippur.  Rava retracted his statements about prohibiting sipping vinegar.  

The rabbis consider closing a cloth stopper inserted into the top of a barrel.  Rabbi Shimon agrees that stuffing a clothing into a barrel will undoubtedly lead to the forbidden act of wringing.  If one is using rose oil for medicinal purposes, it depends on where one lives.  In Rav's place, roses were common, and thus he permitted smearing with rose oil.  Where rose oil is uncommon, the rabbis must avoid its us on Shabbat.

We learn another Mishna that one is liable for bringing sin offerings if they are tied as a driver's knot or a sailor's knot on Shabbat.  These are both meant to be permanent.  One is also liable for untying them.  Rabbi Meir states a principle: For tying any knot that one can untie with one of his hands, one is not liable to bring a sin offering because a loose sort of knot is not considered permanent even if that was one's intentions.  

A second new Mishna teaches that we have knots for which we are not liable to bring a sin-offering.  A camel driver's knot and sailor's knot are permitted.  A woman may tie the opening of her robe closed and she may tie the strings of her hairnet and the laces of her girdle.  We may also tie the straps of a shoe or sandal, the spouts of wine or oil jugs, a garment over a pot of meat, and a rope across an entrance so that an animal cannot leave. 

Shabbat 110: Snakes, Castration, Medicinal Foods for Zavim and for Treating Jaundice

We learn about how to cure one who has eaten a snake, and then we are told a story of a Jewish official in Pumbedita who was bitten by a snake.  The rabbis explain why this must have been a punishment for violating a rabbinic decree.  There is further discussion about how one might manage a snake encircling them.  Perhaps go into the water with a basket on one's head, and slowly direct the snake into the basket, then running out of the water.  If a snake is angry, one might ride another person for four cubits, or let him jump over a ditch, or let him cross a river, or raise his bed on four barrels and sleep under the stars.  Or tie four cats to the four legs of the bed and then bring in twigs and leaves so that when they hear the sound of the snake, they attack.

There is a section of conversation about aa woman who does not know whether or not a snake is looking for her.  She should remover her garment and throw it by the snake.  If the snake wraps itself in the clothing is in the process of tracking her.  If not, she is safe.  But how can she get the snake to leave her alone?  Perhaps she should have relations with her husband in front of the snake.  But that the snake's desire might become stronger.  She could throw her hair and nails at the snake and say "I am a dishtana, a menstruating woman".  There is actually instruction on what to do if the snake entered the woman: spread her legs and put her on two barrels.  Put fatty meat, a bowl of cress and fragrant wine mixed together on coals.  When the snake smells the fragrance and emerges, she should grab it with tongs and burn it in the fire, for it will return to her if it is not burned.

The obsession with women and snakes is longstanding and simple.  It is also somewhat bizarre and fantastical.  And clearly coming from the minds of men.

We learn that we are permitted to eat medicinally.  A spleen for healing teeth and vetch for healing intestines because they are not commonly eaten foods.  All drinks are allowed on Shabbat, including water with capers and vinegar.  But urine is not considered a drink.  It is only commonly consumed for medical purposes and so it is forbidden on Shabbat.  The rabbis discuss other drinks and how they might help or harm the body. 

Instructions are provided to treat a zav or a zava so who has an emission.  The person suffering should drink different ingredients crushed together and mixed with wine.  In this way they will treat the illness and not lose the ability to procreate.  Similar options are offered to treat jaundice.  Each recipe involves three or four ingredients which are combined with a drink and then consumed.  Then the Gemara says, "and if this is not effective, let him bring..." and a new combination of healing items are proposed.  

We are told that an Arab was sick with jaundice and he asked the gardener to take his cloak and give him a row of leeks  in exchange.The Arab ate the leeks and said, Lend me your cloak and I will sleep in it for a short while.  The Arab slept and became very hot; his sweat caused the cloak to fall apart.  in the end, the gardener was left with nothing.  

At the end of today's daf the rabbis not that the treatments for jaundice have come with the risk of causing sterility.  We know that castration is prohibited from Leviticus (22:24) the testicles cannot be bruised, crushed, torn or cut.  Rabbi Chanina says that this means we sall not do this to ourselves.  Perhaps it refers to intentional castration, which would not be the case in remedying jaundice.  Rabbi Yochanan teaches that if we want to castrate a rooster we should remove its comb and it will become castrated on its own.  

Shabbat 109: Ingesting Medicines and Non-Medicinal Foods and Drinks

The rabbis wonder which waters in Israel might impart ritual impurity; where one might bathe.  Further, bathing on Shabbat is permitted as long as it is for non-medicinal purposes, even if flax was soaked there, as long as one does not stay in the water.

A new Mishna teaches us that we may not eat eizoveyon, which is not eaten as food but for medicinal purposes.  There are other types of foods that may be ingested for medicinal purposes.  The Gemara speaks about different medicinal plants and how they are eaten.  The rabbis also teaches us what causes illness.  For example, liver worms are cured by eating a vegetable known as potnak together with seven white dates.  These worms are caused by eating raw meat with water, or fatty meat, or ox meat, or nuts, or fenugreek shoots on an empty stomach and drinking water afterward.  

Other bizarre treatments for liver worms are suggested.  Wildly imaginative curatives are listed for expelling venom that has been drunk accidentally.  Drinking urine is suggested as a curative for a hornet sing, a scorpion bite, drinking exposed water, and even witchcraft.  Different amounts of urine are required for each remedy.

Shabbat 108: Animal Skins, Rav, Circumcision, Brine ad Healing

The rabbis discuss on what we are permitted to write phylacteries on.  The skin of a kosher bird or fish; any hole over which ink passes and does not penetrate.  The rabbis argue about whether the sin. of a bird is actually skin.  Further, we learn that Elijah describes a fish as having skin; a Mishna teaches that fish bones and skin protect the objects covered with them from becoming impure under a tent with a corpse. 

A story is told about Shmuel, Karna and Rav.  The former two were sitting on the bank of the Malka River.  Noting the murky rising water, Shmuel said that a great man was coming from the West and his intestines were aching and the water was rising to great him.  "Go sniff out his container", check to see if he is a Torah scholar.  Karna found Rav and tested him.  Rav was able to say that we know that we may write phylacteries only on the hide of a kosher animal because of Exodus 13:9, where it shall be a reminder between your eyes "so that G0d's Torah will be in your mouth", ie. kosher animals.  Rav passed other tests, including why we know that circumcision is performed on the foreskin.  Rav said that like fruit bearing trees that are orla, we circumcise a fruit bearing organ.  But what about circumcising the heart, or the ear?  Rav replies that orlato, trees that are orla, not from the incomplete word orlat.

Rav understood that he was being tested.  He asked for Karna's name, which means horn, and said "may it be the will of G-d that a horn will emerge in your eyes". 

Shmuel brought Rav into his home, feeding him barley bread, small fried fish and beer without showing him the bathroom so that he would suffer from diarrhea.  Shmuel wanted to prove his healing mastery as a doctor, but Rav became very angry at him not knowing his intention.  Rav cursed Shnuel, saying "Whoever causes me suffering, let his children not survive." Even though Rav eventually understood Shmuel's intentions, the curse is said to have taken effect.

We are reminded that there is no need for a gezera shava, for Genesis 17:4 teaches that "an uncircumcised man who does not circumcise the flesh of his orlato, foreskin, his soul will be cut off from his nation, he has broken My covenant".  Because it says "an uncircumcised man", we understand that circumcision is in the place that distinguishes between a man and a woman.  Reading this, it is arguable that circumcision could in fact refer to the foreskin of other parts of the body which are understood as gendered or procreative.  But I'm not sure that I fully understand why this place must be gendered. 

A new Mishna teaches that we may not make hilmei, brine, on Shabbat.  We are permitted to make salt water and dip our bread in it and place it in cooked food.  Salt water that is permitted is where one places oil first into the water or into the salt.  Thus the salt water is not prepared in the usual manner.   The Gemara asks: what is strong salt water?  It is that in which an egg can float.  That would be two-thirds salt and one-third water.  The rabbis discuss which foods are difficult to digest and are only digestible because of their outer peels. 

The last conversation in today's daf regards touching our faces, treating wounds, and healing on Shabbat.  First they consider the Sea of Sodom, also known as the Dead Sea.  They consider whether or not one might die - or even wash oneself - in this water.  Putting wine in one's eye on Shabbat is prohibited because it heals.  On top of the eye is permitted.  Bland saliva (from one who has not eaten since waking) is prohibited because it is a common medicine.  Eye salves may be soaked from erev Shabbat and placed on one's eyes on Shabbat.  It is said, "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". 

Rabbi Mona speaks of healing: a hand that touches the eye should be severed because it harms the eye, similarly with a hand that touches the nose, the mouth, one's wound.  A hand that touches one's member should be severed lest one arouse himself, and a hand that touches one's anus should be severed lest one make oneself ill.

Shabbat 107: Proof of Biblical Racism, Trapping Animals or Vermin on Shabbat

We are reminded that one is exempt if doing labour prohibited by rabbinical law on Shabbat if that action is functional.  For example, one may cover a child's feces with a bowl in order to prevent the child from dirtying themselves.  One can trap a snake to avoid being bitten but not to use it for medicinal purposes.  One may cover a lamp with a bowl to stop a fire from taking hold in a ceiling beam.

A new Mishna begins Perek XIV.  It teaches us that we may not trap or wound any of the eight creeping animals mentioned in the Torah.  This includes the weasel, mouse, dab lizard, gecko, land-crocodile, lizard, skink, and the chameleon.  If we trap other crawling things for a specific need, we are liable.  If we trap them for no reason, we are exempt.  When an animal is domesticated and under our control, we are exempt if we trap them and liable if we wound them.

The Gemara notes that these creatures have skin.  When we wound, are we wounding the skin or something deeper?  Must a wound be defined as something irreversible?  And then we come to a very disturbing comment.  "Can a Cushite change his skin, or a leopard its spots?" (Jeremiah 13:23)... wounds are similar to the skin of a Cushite: Just like the skin of a Cushite will not change its colour to white, so too a wound is something that does not reverse.

Before moving on to the next statement in the Gemara, this concept must be addressed.  Cushites were of darker skin, descendants of Noah's oldest son Ham, the criticized ethnicity of Moses's wife.  This statement clearly defines darker skin as 'wounded'; a problem that will not be changed.  Such bigotry is a proof of human intervention in the writing of the Torah.  People's words are bigoted, not G-d's. We are presented with proof of the long legacy of racism in the Jewish tradition, as well.  This is something that must be address both historically and in our current situation.

The Gemara moves on to describe people being liable for killing other abominations like lice.  Rabbi Eliezer says that this is the same as killing a camel.  We learn that he is the rabbi who holds that one is liable for killing any living creature.  The rabbis agree with him regarding crawling things that do not procreate, like lice.  Interesting to imagine how the rabbis thought that lice multiplied if they did not procreate.  

We are told about other things we are prohibited from doing on Shabbat regarding animals.  This includes removing a fish from water and removing a fetus from an animal's womb.  These might fall under the category of slaughtering, reaping or shearing.

Shabbat 106: Trapping Animals on Shabbat

We continue to learn about different prohibited labours on Shabbat.  We had learned that one who performs labour destructively is exempt except for one who inflicts a wound or kindles a fire is exempt if these constructive labours are required for their own sake. Rabbi Yochanan tells Rabbi Abbahu to go and teach that outside, for it is not fit for discussion in the study hall.   and We learn that circumcision is repairing a child like one would repair a vessel.  These are constructive labours.  Actions might be considered both destructive and constructive at the same time.  Actions might be considered both constructive and destructive simultaneously.

A new Mishna teaches Rabbi Yehuda's words about trapping: one who traps a bird in a closet or cage and one who traps a deer into a house is liable.  The rabbis say that only one who traps a bird in a closet and a deer in a garden, courtyard or enclosure is liable.  Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel introduces a principle: If the trapping of the animal is inadequate and one must pursue and apprehend it, one is not liable for trapping.  But if one trapped a deer into an enclosure where the trapping is inadequate, one is liable.  The Gemara discusses what it means to trap an animal.  For example, a bird is trapped if it is closed into a closet, but it is not trapped if it is closed into a house.  The animal that can evade pursuers is not truly trapped.  The Gemara looks at trapping insects as well.

Another new Mishna: if a deer walks into a home on its own and one locks the door to capture it, one is liable.  If two people lock the door, they are not liable for neither did a full labour.  But if one person was incapable locking the door and two people locked it, they are liable because that is the typical was of performing that labour.  Rabbi Simon says that the y are exempt because two people who perform a single labour are never liable by Torah law.

Our daf ends with a final new Mishna, which teaches about a deer and a courtyard entrance.  If one person sits in the entrance and another person comes to fill that entrance and there is a deer at the entrance as well, the second person is liable because he completed the labour of trapping.  If the first person sat in the doorway and filled it and a second person sat beside him, the first person is liable for trapping and the second is exempt even if the first person left the areal.  How could this be?  It is the same as one who locks one's home to secure it and learns that a deer that was trapped before Shabbat is also secured inside it.  Even though one has created better security for the deer, one did not trap the animal and thus one is not liable.

Shabbat 104: The Aleph-Bet Represents Words and Concepts

Some of the points from today's daf:

• the letters mem and samech in the tablets were chiseled all the way through but stood miraculously
• If an open letter is closed, its status goes up
• If a closed letter is open, its status is diminished
• the closed letters are mem, nun, tzadi, peh and kaf and they date back to the Ten Commandments
• Nothing can be changed in the Torah, but the Ten Commandments could be read from both sides of the tablet
• The rabbis consider ways that the shapes of letter represent words and concepts
• Alef beit means elaf bin, learn the wisdom of the Torah
• Gimmel dalet means gemol dalim, give to the poor
• The leg of the gimmel reaches toward the dalet like one who wants to reach out to help
• the dalet faces away from the gimmel to show us that we give discreetly so that we don't embarrass the person who needs help
• Samech ayin means semoch aniyyim, support the poor
• the bent peh and the straight peh remind us that sometimes we need an open mouth and sometimes a closed mouth
• Kuf mean kadosh, holiness, referring to G-d
• Reish means rasha, a wicked person
• The kuf and reish face away from each other in a way that G-d is unable to look at a wicked person as the wicked person does not wish to look toward G-d
• The crown of the letter kuf is turned toward the reish because one will be crowned if one turns back to G-d
• Shin means sheker, falsehood; all of the letters stand on one foot
• Tav means emet, truth; all of the letters stand on wide bases like bricks, eternal

A new Mishna teaches that if we write two letters on Shabbat during one lapse of awareness we are liable.  As long as the substance that we write with leaves a mark, we are liable to bring a sin-offering.  If we write with something that will disappear, we are exempt.  If we write in an unusual way, we are also exempt.

The Gemara explains some of the different substances that are listed as leaving permanent marks and others that are listed as washable.  The rabbis also note that even very small changes to a letter on Shabbat will be liable.

Shabbat 103: Forbidden Partial Labours of Gathering Plants, Writing One Letter on Shabbat

Our daf begins by solving a question asked at the end of yesterday's daf.  One who performs a prohibited labour and one's labour endures on Shabbat is liable.  This it includes cases of even small actions.

A new Mishna teaches that one who plows is liable for plowing any amount of land on Shabbat.  Weeding, removing grass, removing dry branches, or pruning are liable actions.  Gathering wood to enhance a tree or the land is liable for any amount.  If this is done for fuel, one is liable for collecting what is needed to cook an egg.  Gathering plants to enhance the land creates liability at any amount.  If this is done to feed an animal, one is liable for collecting a measure equivalent to a goat's mouthful

A second new Mishna teaches that one who writes two letters on Shabbat, written with the left or right hand, using one or two types of ink, in any language is liable.  Rabbi Yosei says that we are liable for writing two letters due to marking, for they would write symbols on adjacent beams of the Tabernacle.  Rabbi Yehuda says that we found that one is liable for writing even if one write only part of a small name or for writing initials to symbolize a name.  Rav Yehuda uses the phrase from Leviticus (4:2) where we learn about an action from one of (an unintentional sin).  "From one" might mean even a single letter or a single thread.  Because the verse states "one" it implies one complete labour.  

The rabbis discuss writing at all, writing different letters, and the actions involved in writing each letter.  Letters that are similar to each other or letters that are open or closed or similar to other letters are discussed at some length. 

Shabbat 102: Small Acts of Throwing, Carrying and Building on Shabbat

Shabbat 101 is about boats being tied together; smaller boats might be tied between the larger boats.  How are they connected and how can one throw over this private domain without being liable? 

Today's daf begins with a principle taught in a new Mishna: All who are liable to bring sin-offerings are only liable if the beginning of their actions and the conclusions of their actions are unwitting.  If the beginning was accidental and the end was intentional because one became aware of the violation, or if the beginning of the action was intentional but the conclusion is accidental, the the individuals are exempt until both the beginning and the conclusion are unwitting.

The Gemara considers the details of this principal.  These include whether it applies only to actions of carrying but not throwing, as Rava proposes.  The examples used in the Mishna itself are those of throwing (with a dog catching the throw before it lands more than four cubits away).  How can one not know that they are throwing?  The rabbis argue about whether or not there can be "awareness for half a measure".  Other questions around liability for carrying food to one's mouth is also discussed.

We move to Perek XII and a new Mishna.  Building on Shabbat is a primary category of prohibited labour.  How much must be built to be liable to bring a sin offering?  The Rabbis say that one who build in any amount, who chisels, strikes with a hammer or an adze, or drills a hole of any size on Shabbat are liable.  The principle is that anyone who performs a prohibited labour and that labour endures on Shabbat is liable.  Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that even one who strikes an anvil with a sledgehammer during his labour has performed a constructive act and thus is liable.  One who improves the labour being performed is the same as one who is doing the primary labour.

The Gemara describes possible acts that might count as building.  Digging holes to hide coins?  Making legs for a small stove to place a small pot on it?  What about sealing a hole in one's house?  Shmuel uses the example of setting a building stone on Shabbat.  But is that actually building?  There are three levels of building: the first row with secured by dirt, the second with mortar, and the third and top row with mere placement.  Similarly, the rabbis argue about making a hole in a chicken coup for ventilation.  But what if the action that might be called "building" is unusual?  We are promised that tomorrow's daf will solve this problem.  

Shabbat 100: Throwing in Different Contexts on Shabbat

A new Mishna: when one throws an object four cubits into the public domain, if the object hits the wall above ten handbreadths from the ground, an exempt domain, it is as if one threw it in the air, and he is exempt.  If it hits the wall below ten handbreadths from the ground, it is as if one threw it and landed on the ground and one who throws an object four cubits and it lands on the ground is liable.  

This is learned regarding a juicy cake of figs that sticks to the wall.  The rabbis wonder what would happen if a stone was thrown that rested in a hole in a wall less than four cubits tall.  Is a mound the same as a wall?

A second new Mishna teaches that if one threw an object in the public domain meaning that he had no intention of violating the Torah prohibition of carrying, and the object rolled and went beyond four cubits, he is exempt.  But if one threw an object with the intention of it landing beyond four cubits, and the object rolled back within four cubits, he is liable from when he threw the object.  

Another new Mishna tells us that one who throws an object from the sea to dry land for from dry land to the sea, from the seat to a boat or from a boat to the sea, from one boat to another - is exempt, because the sea is like a karmelit.  If boats are tied together, one may carry an object even though they are adjacent, one may not carry from one to the other.

Shabbat 99: Throwing re: a Pit, a Bank, a Boulder and a Column

Beginning with recognition of the skilled and wise work that women did in their spinning of goat's dyed hair for the Tabernacle, the Gemara moves into a discussion of the wagons which carried the beams of the Tabernacle.  The careful and accurate measurements (in cubits) of the width of the wagon and beams.  One of their considerations is the size of the road in the public domain, which is sixteen cubits.   The rabbis make note of the space required for two wagons side by side plus space for a Levite to stand (to right any beams that fell out of place).

A new Mishna teaches us about the bank surrounding a pit.  If the bank and the boulder that are ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, one who take an object from them to the public domain and/or one who places an object on top of them is liable for carrying from one domain to another.  If the height or width of the pit or boulder is smaller, one is exempt because those protrusions are not legally distinct from the surrounding public domain.

First the Gemara asks why we need to learn about the bank of a pit and a boulder; why not just the pit and boulder?  Rabbi Yochanan said that a pit and its bank join together to create ten handbreadths.  From the bottom to the top of the pit might be ten handbreadths - in this case, it is considered a private domain.  If the pit in a public domain is ten handbreadths deep and four wide, we cannot fill water from it on Shabbat because the pit itself is a private domain, and carrying water from the private to the public domain on Shabbat is not allowed.

If they create a partition around it that is ten handbreadths high, everything inside of the partition is considered to be private, and one standing within the partition may take water from the pit.  One may only drink water from the pit on Shabbat if one inserts one's head and most of one's body into the well.

Rabbi Mordechai brings a new dilemma to Rava which is discussed for some time.  What if there is a column in the public domain that is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide and one threw an object that lands on top of the column?  Is lifting from the public domain and placing in the private domain done in prohibited ways and thus one is liable?  Or because the object comes from an exempt domain, is the thrower not liable?  The airspace of the public domain is an exempt domain when it is ten handbreadths from the ground.  The rabbis do not see that this is a problem, noting that the Mishna named it as prohibited.  Rabbi Mordechai wonders if a needle placed on such a pole might be different, or if we are discussing the karmelit.  

The rabbis further debate issues of different measurements and domains regarding the forbidden actions of throwing, carrying, etc. on Shabbat.  Examples are introduced that include digging out a pit.

Shabbat 97: Exact Torah words, Categories and Subcategories in Domains

Our daf first focuses on the importance of the exact words of the Torah.  Interpretation is dangerous, for we might be causing damage through our words.  For example, by saying that Aaron too was afflicted by leprosy when he turned and saw his sister's affliction, we might be suggesting that Aaron is less righteous than he actually is.  

The rabbis remind us that an object that travels at least ten handbreadths from the ground is considered to be in the legal state of "at rest" whether it has been thrown or passed.  The airspace defines an object as "at rest".  How does this affect cases where an object passes above ten handbreadths from the private domain to a public domain?  Has the object been thrown?  We learn that principle of lavud, any object within three handbreadths of another object is considered to be attached to it.  If an object is three handbreadths from the ground, it is at rest with the ground.  Above ten handbreadths, one is liable.  Between three and ten handbreadths, the rabbis argue further about its status.  

If the private domains belonged to one person, is that person exempt?  If one house was elevated and one was low, does that create a situation where an object falls into the public domain, violating a Torah prohibition?  The rabbis wonder whether or not a house with a wall that does not go down to the ground but rests three handbreadths above the ground might not qualify as a sukkah, or might be a walkway for goats.  If there is no covering over such a house, does it even qualify as a house?  Can the owner of that private domain ever be considered liable for passing or throwing from one domain to the next?

Rav Chana asked whether Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi believes that one is liable for a subcategory of a prohibited labour when it is performed with a primary category of prohibited about?  Carrying out is primary and carrying in is one of its subcategories.  A baraita teaches that this depends.  If the object traveled four cubits from the private to the public domain, perhaps the person is liable to bring two sin offerings, one for carrying out from the private to the public domain and one for carrying an object four cubits through the public domain.  But how do we understand this if an object in airspace is at rest?  Does this help us with proving whether or not a primary and subcategory can be charged together?

This is contrasted with throwing an object eight cubits when one has intended to throw it only four cubits.  Similar to writing two letters, shin and mem, to begin the name Shimon, the letters cannot be written.  Rav Ashi said that when an object is thrown, any place that it wants to come to rest, let it come to rest.

Shabbat 96: Carrying Out of or Into the Public/Private Domain on Shabbat

Perek XI begins with a new Mishna: One who throws an object on Shabbat from the private domain to the public domain or from the public domain to the private domain is liable.  If one throws from the private to the public domain and the object passes through the public domain between the two, Rabbi Akiva deems that person liable for carrying into the public domain, but the rabbis deem him exempt. 

How is this possible?  If there are two gezuztra'ot, balconies, that are private domains opposite each other on the either side of the public domain, on who passes or throws an object from the one on tis side to the one on that side is exempt.  But if the balconies were on the same level on the same side of the thoroughfare, and the public domain separated the two, one who passes from one to the other is liable and the one who throws is exempt.  That method, passing, was the service of the Levites who carried out the beams of the Taberancle.

In the Tabernacle, tow wagons along the same level stood behind one another in the public domain, and the Levites passed beneath the beams from one wagon to the other through the public domain on the same

The Gemara brings us back to the main issue, which is throwing - a subcategory of carrying out.  The primary category is found in Exodus (36:6) where Moshe sat in the camp of the Levites in the public domain.  He said to Israel that they were not to carry out and bring object from the private domain to that of the Levites.  The Gemara argues that he was sitting and not standing during this proclamation.   There is another source disallowing carrying out from a private domain into the camps of the Levites.  It is a logical inference: Carrying out and carrying in are both forbidden, but carrying out is a primary category whereas carrying in is a subcategory.  Doing the acts of two categories requires two sin offerings.  Or is what is written in the Torah a category and what is written otherwise a subcategory? 

Needles were thrown back and forth from those who were weaving.  Are we not supposed to perform our friends' work, as well?  The Gemara notes that carrying four cubits into the public domain could be punished with stoning. 

Shabbat 95: Reasons for Prohibitions on Shabbat; Seeds, Vessels and Ritual Puirty

Women can put eye shadow or blush on herself during Shabbat because we cannot do this 'dyeing' well when we do it for ourselves.  When we do this for other women, though, we are liable.  Similarly, braiding a woman's hair is thought to be prohibited because it is 'building', especially when done for ourselves.

A bariata teaches that we cannot milk an animal, set milk to curdle, make cheese in the measure of a dried fig-bulk, sweep the house, sprinkle water on the floor or remove honeycombs.  If we do these things accidentally we are liable to bring sin-offerings.  If we do them intentionally on a Festival we receive forty lashes.  But these are rabbinic decrees and not Torah law, so are we liable to bring sin-offerings or to receive lashes at all?

The rabbis explain why milking, setting milk to curdle and making cheese are prohibited.  One would be breaking the rules regarding extracting, a subcategory of threshing, selecting, and building.  One who sprinkles water on the floor and removes honeycombs is liable to bring a sin-offering if the actions are done unwittingly.  On a Festival, one receives forty lashes for these transgressions.  Taking from a honeycomb is like picking from a tree.  Sprinkling water in the city of Mechoza was permitted there were no holes to smooth out on unpaved floors.  Instead it was a way of managing the dusty stone floors.  One rabbi notes that a large basin of water can do this - we wash our face in one corner, our hands in another and our feet in yet another.  Eventually the entire house is sprinkled.

A new Mishna teaches us that one who severs a leaf or a fruit from a plant growing in a perforated flowerpot on Shabbat is liable because that plant has the status of one that is connected to the ground.  Picking from it is like the forbidden act of reaping.  Picking from a pot without holes is exempt but it is prohibited to do so ab initio.  Rabbi Shimon says that one who does so is exempt in all cases.

The Gemara notes that the only difference between perforated and unperforated pots is that seeds seeds in a perforated pot have the legal status of seeds planted in the ground and thus cannot become ritually impure.  Rabbi Shimon says that the status of a perforated pot is associated with things being detached.  However, ritual impurity is a separate matter, for Leviticus 11:37 teaches that "If anything falls from their carcasses upon any sowing seed that is sown, it is pure". 

An Elder asked Rabbi Zeira about a case where the root of a plant in a perforated pot is opposite the hole - is it considered to be attached to the ground?  Rabbi Zeira was silent.  Later R. Zeira was found saying, "And Rabbbi Shimon agrees that if the hole in the flowerpot is large enough to render it ritually pure (unable to hold olives), it is considered to be attached to the earth regarding Shabbat.

The rabbis end up arguing about the placement of the pot and whether it might be considered to be a vessel.  If it is perforated with a small hole to extract liquid, it is not a vessel and is ritually pure.  The rabbis end by speaking of the size of the holes in an earthenware vessel.  If the mouth of the vessel is surrounded by a sealed cover, i toes not become ritually pure even if the hole was large enough to enable a pomegranate seed to go out.  It protects what is inside the vessel from contracting impurity unless the majority of the vessel is broken.

Shabbat 94: On Carrying Out Animals, Removing Hair, Putting on Makeup on Shabbat

Before beginning discussion on a new Mishna, we learn about carrying out animals on Shabbat.  The rabbis remind us that we don't truly carry out living beings because animals - horses, birds, etc. - carry themselves out.  This brings us to a conversation about selling to Gentiles.  

The rabbis turn back to their conversation about carrying out even an olive bulk of an object that imparts ritual impurity in the first degree atop of a bed.  Must they bring a sin offering if it is brought into the public domain? What if it is only brought to the karmelit, the area between the private and public domains?  We learn that a corpse is to be left in the home if at all possible and the other people should be removed.  If the corpse is decomposing, it is permitted to carry it out for the sake of human dignity: the principle is "Great is human dignity, as it overrides a prohibition in the Torah: 'You shall not deviate from that which they tell you to the right or to the left'" (Deuteronomy 17:11).  Sometimes a loaf of bread or an infant is put on the corpse to facilitate its movement on Shabbat.  Or Gentiles could move the corpse.

The rabbis relate this to the two white hairs that determine whether or not a person has leprosy.  What if someone pulls out some but not all of his white hairs? If his action is ineffective and he still has white hairs, he has not violated the prohibition.  But his might still be impure.  

The new Mishna on today's daf teaches that one who removes his finger-nails with one another on Shabbat with out scissors or with teeth and the same is true to one who removes hair or mustasche or beard or braiding hair  or applying blue eye shadow or applying blush - each of these is liable as they have performed a labour prohibited by Torah law.  The Rabbis prohibited these by Rabbinic decree and said that none of these actions actually constitute prohibited labours on Shabbat.

Clearly one is liable for removing fingernails using a utensil.  It is not shearing for we are not interested in the resulting sheared part of the nail.  If we remove for ourselves we are liable, but we might be exempt if we remove our fingernails for someone else.  And Rabbi Eliezer says that we are liable for cutting another's fingernails, too.  Removing enough hair to fill the opening of the scissors on Shabbat is liable.  Rav Yehuda says that this is two hairs.  But didn't a bariata teaches that cutting hair and making baldness is an expression of mourning?  Two hairs would be the measure for both.

Rabbi Eliazer says that we are liable for removing even one hair.  The Sages agree that one who collects and plucks white hairs from black ones is liable even if he removed a single hair.  This is always prohibited, based on Deuteronomy 22?5): "A woman shall not don man's clothes and a man shall not wear a woman's garment".  Thus beautification is prohibited for men.  Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar notes that if a fingernail has been ripped, one may remove the rest of the nail on Shabbat.  Using a utensil would make one liable for a sin offering.  Removing the remainder of the nail by hand is permitted.  Using a utensil is exempt but is prohibited ab initio.  Other rulings are suggested for nails that are not mostly severed, for nails that are facing different directions, and for nails that cause pain.  

When a woman braids her hair, applies blue eye shadow or blush, Rabbi Eliezer deems that liable by Torah law.  This is weaving, says Rabbi Avin who said that Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Chanina said.  A woman who applies blue eye shadow is acting as if she is writing.  A woman who applies blush is like one who is spinning, for blush was made by a string from a doughy substance that would be passed over their faces.  The rabbis said to Rabbi Abbahu, are these the typical manners of weaving, writing and spinning?  Of course not.  Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yose, son of Rabbi Chanina said that there are other liabilities: applying eyeshadow is like dyeing.  Braiding and applying blush are like building, and it is typical building too - G- built the side that G-d took from Adam into a woman (Gen.2:22).

Shabbat 93: Liability of Two People for Carrying, the Zav, Carrying Out as Secondary Action

The rabbis continue to analyze carrying out done by two people on Shabbat.  Does it matter if one person could have done the lifting alone? Does it matter if the wording is that a person who sins, one who sins, and by performing it he sins?   Whom might this wording exclude?  Does it matter if one person lifts and another places?  The example of a zav sitting on a three-legged bed is shared - the fourth leg is in fact accounted for by four garments.  All of these are considered to be ritually impure for all are required to hold up the zav.  Other example are shared regarding the zav's ability to transmit ritual impurity given specific circumstances.  The rabbis are concerned with the how different measures might lead to liability.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak mentions the story of a deer who enters a house and one locks it in before Shabbat - that person is liable for trapping on Shabbat.  If two people do this they are exempt. If one is incapable of locking alone and so two people did it, they are liable.  Why?  The require a measure of trapping for each person.  Stealing and slaughtering an animal (by two people) leads to paying four or five times its value by Torah law.  One measure of slaughtering is not sufficient for each of them in that case, and so each requires punishment for trapping in this case.  Rav Ashi shares a similar story regarding a weaver's reed.  

We end today's daf with a new Mishna: One who carries out foods less than the measure that determines liability for carrying out food in a vessel on Shabbat is exempt, even for carrying out the vessel, because the vessel is secondary to the food it carries.  One who carries out a living person on a bed is exempt even for carrying out the bed, because the bed is secondary to the person.  One who carries out a corpse on a bed is liable, or even an olive-bulk of a corse, or that much of an animal carcass or a lent9l-bulk of a creeping animal on a bed is liable.  Rabbi Shimon says that one is exempt in these cases.  He says that one is only liable for performing a prohibited labour for its own sake.  Carrying out an object to bring it to its destination is liable.  We carry out corpses or animal carcasses to be rid of them.  

Shabbat 92: Baskets on the Threshold, Carrying Atypically

A new Mishna teaches that an item carried out on Shabbat with the right or left hand, on one's lap or shoulder, the person is liable.  These are typical ways of carrying used by the sons of Kechat when carrying the Tabernacle in the desert.  If one carries with his foot, mouth, elbow, ear, hair or belt, with the opening faced downward, between his belt and cloak, with the hem of his cloak, with his shoe or sandal, he is exempt because he has carried out in an unconventional way.  

The rabbis question how much must be carried out to equal the size of the Tabernacle, which was ten cubits high.  The altar was also ten cubits high.  The rabbis wonder if Moses himself was ten cubits tall as he could cover the tent by himself.  Were all Levites ten cubits?  Or was the Ark's cover just one handbreadth over nine handbreadths of height?  The Master said that the Dive Presence only rests upon a person who is wise might wealthy and tall.  

If one carries out things on one's head like the people of Hotzal, one is liable to bring a sin-offering.  Carrying on one's head was a typical way for these people to carry.  Others believe that one who carries in this way is exempt. 

We hare a new Mishna: One who intends to carry out an object and was walking past the object, he is exempt.  Hi is liable if he comes to stand behind it.  A woman who girded herself in a pants-like sinar, girdle or apron,  worn beneath the outer garments, whether she put an object in front of her or behind her, on one side or the other, she is liable, as it is common for this garment to be reversed.  Rabbi Yehuda says that even those royal couriers who receive notes carry the in their belts and do not notice whether they are in the front or backs of those belts.  

The Gemara explains that when an item is in front of us, we are ready to realize our intention.  When an object is behind us, we manage to protect the item from our carrying it out.  The rabbis try to understand why the Mishna is taught in this way.  

Another new Mishna is introduced.  It teaches that one who carries a large mass into the public domain on Shabbat is liable.  If two carried it out together they are exempt because neither performed a complete prohibited labour.  But if one person is unable to carry it out alone and then calls in another to help, they are both liable.  Rabbi Shimon says that they are exempt even in that case.  The rabbis consider the prooftext for this to come from Leviticus 4:27, where it is taught that if a commoner sins unwittingly by performing one of G-d's negative commandments, they are guilty because of the performance of the sin.  The Gemara interprets this as performing in its entirety and not just in part.  

Shabbat 91: On Fusion, Theft, and Shabbat Prohibitions

In daf 91(b), we learned a new Mishna: one who carries out food from his house on Shabbat and placed it on the threshold of the door, whether it is carried out from that place into the public domain by himself or another, he is exempt because he did not perform his prohibited labour of carrying from one domain to another.  If one placed a basket full of fruit on the outer threshold, which is in the public domain, and part of the basket stayed inside, one is exempt until he carries out the entire basket even though most of the fruit is outside in the public domain.

The rabbis first discuss the nature of a threshold.  Is it part of the public domain at all, or is it part of the karmelit or a colonnade?  was the basket filled with long vegetables like cucumbers and gourds which might be mostly outside of the basket?  It seems that all that is in the basket fuses together for the sake of carrying.  Or does it?  Rav Beivai bar Abaye objects based on the learning about stealing a purse on Shabbat.  One is still liable for theft.  One who drags the purse and exits the private domain is except from paying for a theft because he is not carrying on Shabbat.  It is only when the purse leaves the public domain that one is charged with theft and prohibitions of Shabbat.  The prohibitions of theft precede the prohibitions of Shabbat, and one is not liable until the entire purse enters the public domain.

Shabbat 90: Liability for Carrying Out Small Things on Shabbat

There are three new Mishnayot on today's daf. 

First Mishna: Any amount of pepper makes one liable for carrying out on Shabbat.  Tar, perfumes and some types of metals can be of any amount.  We are liable for any amount of stones of the altar or earth of the alter, sacred scrolls or their coverings, and insects that destroy their covering.  It is explained that people store and bury them, and even small measures of these items are significant.  Similarly, Rabbi Tehuda says that even one who carries out accessories of idolatry on Shabbat is liable for carrying out in any amount.  Even the smallest amount should be burned.

Second Mishna: One who carries out a merchant's basket, even if there are many types of spices and jewelry in it, is obligated to bring only one sin offering because there was only one act of carrying out.  One is liable for less than a fig bulk of garden seeds.  Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says that the measure for liability is five seeds. Only two cucumber, squash, or Egyptian beans seeds are required for liability, however.  Any amount of live kosher locust is liable.  A dead kosher locust is edible, and is must be less than all other foods, which is one fig bulk.  Rabbi Yehuda notes that even one who carries out a live non-kosher locust is liable for carrying out any amount because people store locusts for a child who wants to play with them.  In the Gemara, Rabbi Yehuda is not worried that the child might kill and eat the locust because the child would eulogize it and mourn it instead.

Our final Mishna in today's daf is also the start of Perek X.  It says that one who stores a seed for sowing or as a sample or for medicinal purposes and then carried it out on Shabbat is liable for carrying out any amount.  Storing implies importance.  If one stored a seed, carried it out, and then brought it back in with no further intention to use it as planned, one is only liable if one brought in its measure for liability (Rav Shmuel Strashun).  

Shabbat 89: Satan at Miracle Mountain, Only Twelve & One Half Year of Time to Sin

We begin by noting that G-d gave the Torah to the people and did not keep it above the heavens.  This way we can praise G-d on earth.  All of the angels were said to have given a gift to Moses, even the Angel of Death.  The gift is said to be the remedy for the plague that was stopped by Aaron by placing incense between the dead and the living.  Moses gave him that incense. The Angel of Death must have given Moses that information to give to Aaron.

We are told another story about satan.  When the Torah was revealed, satan stood before G-d and said, "Master of the Universe, where is the Torah?" G-d answered, " I have given it to the earth" He went to the earth looking for the Torah, and the earth, the sea, the depths said it was not with them.  Destruction and death said "We heard a rumour of it with our ears".  Satan returned to G-d and said that he could not find the Torah. G-d said, Go to Moses, son of Amram.  Moses said, "what am I that the Holy One would have given me the Torah?"  G-d heard this and said that Moses had a hidden treasure that provides delight every day (Proverbs 8:30).  Moses said that he could not take credit for being given such a thing.  Thus for his modesty, G-d called it the Torah of Moses (Malachi 3:22).  

The rabbis discuss Moses ascending the mountain and satan suggesting that Moses had died after six hours.  He showed them an image of Moses's death bed and his corpse in a cloud.  The people did not know where he had gone (Exodus 32:1).  Rav Kahana suggests that Mount Sinai is a mountain of nissim, miracles.  Why not call it Mount Nisai?  Rav Kahana answers that it was a siman, a good omen, for the Jewish people.  Other possible word play is offered around the naming of this mountain and about the naming of different deserts.  

The rabbis discuss tying a scarlet strip of wool to the scapegoat.  They consider the use of plural for the adjective "scarlet".  They also consider the usages of the words "go" and "come".  

Our daf winds down with the rabbis discussing our relationship with G-d.  How do we use the words father and son?  What do we mean when we say that children have sinned before G-d?  Perhaps once they have sinned they are G-d's children and not our own?  How long could a person sin if our lives are seventy years long?  Subtract for sins committed before the first twenty years.  Subtract twenty-five years of nights from the fifty remaining years.  Subtract twelve and a half years used for praying and eating and using the bathroom and only twelve and a half years remain.  Perhaps G-d can forgive those sins. And if not, half of the sins are upon us and half upon G-d.  And if all are upon us, won't you have mercy and forgive us?

A new Mishna: One who carries out wood on Shabbat is liable for a measure equal to the amount of wood necessary to cook an easily cooked egg.  For spices, it is the amount to season an easily cooked egg.  Seasons gan join together for liability.  Dyes are equal to a small garment placed on top of a woman's hairnet.  For carrying out urine, natron and borit, kimoleya and potash (all for laundry), the amount is equal to that used to launder a small garment placed on a woman's hairnet.  Rabbi Yehuda says that it is actually the amount used to remove a stain.  

Shabbat 88: While the Torah is Given to the People

The rabbis consider the importance of threes.  Time is needed to prepare for Shabbat.  A Galilean taught to Rav Chisda: Blessed is G-d who gave the three-fold Torah - Torah, Prophets and Writings to the three-fold nation - Priests, Levites, and Israelites, by means of a third-born, Moses, on the third day of the separation of men and women in the third month, Sivan.  This assumes that the Torah was given on the third day of separation rather than the fourth.

We are told that Rabbi Avdimi bar Chama bar Chasa says that the Jewish people stood beneath the mountain and that "(standing at) the lowermost part of the mountain" (Exodus 19:17) means that G0 overturned the mountain above the Jews like a tub, saying to accept the Torah or be buried under this mountain.  This would mean that Jews were coerced into accepting the truth of the Torah.

Reish Lakish discusses what might have been meant my the superfluous "heh" written only regarding creting the evening and the morning, the sixth day (Genesis 1:31).  Could this mean that without accepting Torah we will revert to a state of tohu v'vohu, chaos and disorder?  The Jews said "we will do" and "we will hear", bringing 600,000 ministering angelsto celebrated the Jewish people.  And then the Jews created the golden calf; at that time 120,000 angels of destruction stripped them from their ornaments from Mount Hored onward.

We are told about Rava who sat on his hands while he studied, not noticing that he was bleeding.  A heretic told him that we are an impulsive nation who should be listening before speaking or acting.  If we are capable of fulfilling the commands we should accept them and if not, not.  The rabbis share specific analogies regarding the actions of the Jewish people and the actions of G-d.  Each metaphor suggests that our adherence to Torah law is something beautiful, love-filled, insightful, romantic.  It also suggests that what goes against Torah law is chaotic, smelly, left-handed, etc.

Metaphors abound.  Perhaps, Rabbbi Yhoshua ben Levi points out, every sound that emerged from the mouth of the Holy One had the souls of the Jewish people leave their bodies ("My soul departed wen he spoke (Song of Songs 5:6).  We are introduced to many words that are harsh and denigrating, but the rabbis are ensuring that their positions are logical and easy to understand as possible. 

Shabbat 87: Leading up to Revelation

Rabbi Yosei and the rabbis disagree about when the nation of Israel arrives in Sinai on the New Moon.  Rabbi Yosei believes that the community arrives on Sunday, that Moshe ascends and descends on Monday, that he does the same and commands the mitzva of setting boundaries on Tuesday, that he does the same and commands the men to separate from the women on Wednesday, and that they wait until Shabbat for Revelation.  The rabbis believe that the community arrives on the Monday, and so each other event is moved forward one day of the week, leaving the community to only wait on Friday before Revelation on Shabbat.  

The Gemara discusses the conversations that Moshe has with G-d on behalf on the community to determine the dates leading up to Revelation.  The rabbis look backward: when exactly did the people leave Egypt?  In the month of Nisan.  And on the fourteenth day they slaughtered their Paschal lambs, on the fifteenth they left Egypt, and in the evening the firstborn were killed.  But what time of day were the firstborn stricken?  The rabbis consider when the people were commanded about Shabbat and when they were commanded about Shabbat boundaries.