Shabbat 121aשבת קכ״א א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Shabbat 121a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
121aקכ״א א

טבילה בזמנה לאו מצוה ומהדרינן ורבי יוסי סבר טבילה בזמנה מצוה ולא מהדרינן

that performing immersion at its designated time is not a mitzva, and we seek a reed to wrap around God’s name even if it means postponing immersion to the next day, and Rabbi Yosei holds that immersion at its designated time is a mitzva, and therefore we do not seek a reed, since immersion cannot be postponed.

וסבר רבי יוסי טבילה בזמנה מצוה והתניא הזב והזבה המצורע והמצורעת בועל נדה וטמא מת טבילתן ביום נדה ויולדת טבילתן בלילה בעל קרי טובל והולך כל היום כולו רבי יוסי אומר מן המנחה ולמעלה אינו צריך לטבול ההיא רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה היא דאמר דייה טבילה באחרונה:

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei hold that immersion at its designated time is a mitzva? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to a zav and a zava, a male and female leper, one who has relations with a menstruating woman, and a person impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, their immersion is during the day. They immerse at the designated time even on Yom Kippur, when bathing is prohibited. A menstruating woman and a woman after childbirth immerse at night. A man who has had a seminal emission immerses at any point during the entire day after the emission. Rabbi Yosei says: From the time that he recited the afternoon prayer and on he does not immerse. Since he already recited the afternoon prayer, he waits until after Yom Kippur to immerse, and then recites the evening prayer in a state of purity. Apparently, Rabbi Yosei holds that immersion at the designated time is not a mitzva. The Gemara rejects this: In that baraita the reference is not to the Rabbi Yosei most commonly cited in tannaitic literature without a patronymic, Rabbi Yosei ben Ḥalafta, but it is to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: Her latest immersion is sufficient. A woman who is uncertain with regard to the correct time for her immersion need not immerse multiple times. She may postpone her immersion until a time when she will be certain to fulfill her obligation, even though it might not be immersion at the designated time.

מתני׳ גוי שבא לכבות אין אומרים לו כבה ואל תכבה מפני שאין שביתתו עליהן אבל קטן שבא לכבות אין שומעין לו מפני ששביתתו עליהן:

MISHNA: If a gentile comes to extinguish a Jew’s fire on Shabbat, one may not say to him: Extinguish, and: Do not extinguish, because responsibility for his rest is not incumbent upon the Jew. However, if a Jewish child comes to extinguish a fire on Shabbat, they do not listen to him and allow him to extinguish it, even though he is not yet obligated in mitzva observance, because responsibility for his rest is incumbent upon the Jew.

גמ׳ אמר רבי אמי בדליקה התירו לומר כל המכבה אינו מפסיד נימא מסייע ליה גוי שבא לכבות אין אומרים לו כבה ואל תכבה מפני שאין שביתתו עליהן כבה הוא דלא אמרינן ליה הא כל המכבה אינו מפסיד אמרינן ליה אימא סיפא אל תכבה לא אמרינן ליה וכל המכבה אינו מפסיד נמי לא אמרינן ליה אלא מהא ליכא למשמע מינה

GEMARA: Rabbi Ami said: During a fire, the Sages permitted to say in the presence of gentiles: Anyone who extinguishes the fire will not lose, so that the gentiles will come and extinguish the fire; it is only prohibited to tell gentiles to do so explicitly. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna supports his statement: If a gentile comes to extinguish a Jew’s fire on Shabbat, one may not say to him: Extinguish, and: Do not extinguish, because responsibility for his rest is not incumbent upon the Jew. It can be inferred from the language of the mishna: It is a direct command, e.g., extinguish, that we may not say to him; however, anyone who extinguishes will not lose, we may tell him, which supports Rabbi Ami’s statement. The Gemara rejects this. Say the latter clause of the mishna: Do not extinguish, we do not tell him. It can be inferred that neither do we say to him: Anyone who extinguishes will not lose. Rather, nothing can be inferred from this mishna.

תנו רבנן מעשה ונפלה דליקה בחצירו של יוסף בן סימאי בשיחין ובאו אנשי גיסטרא של ציפורי לכבות מפני שאפטרופוס של מלך היה ולא הניחן מפני כבוד השבת ונעשה לו נס וירדו גשמים וכיבו לערב שיגר לכל אחד מהן שתי סלעין ולאפרכוס שבהן חמשים וכששמעו חכמים בדבר אמרו לא היה צריך לכך שהרי שנינו גוי שבא לכבות אין אומרים לו כבה ואל תכבה:

The Sages taught in a baraita: There was an incident that a fire ignited on Shabbat in the courtyard of Yosef ben Simai in a place called Shiḥin. And men came from the fortress [gistera] of Tzippori to extinguish the fire, because he was a steward [apotropos] of the king and they wanted to help him. However, Yosef ben Simai would not allow them to extinguish the fire in deference to Shabbat; and a miracle transpired for him and rain fell and extinguished the fire. That evening after Shabbat he sent two sela to each one of the soldiers who came to his aid, and fifty to their commander [iparkhos]. And when the Sages heard about this, they said: He need not have prevented them from extinguishing the fire, as we learned in the mishna: If a gentile comes to extinguish a Jew’s fire on Shabbat, one may not say to him: Extinguish, and: Do not extinguish, because responsibility for his rest is not incumbent upon the Jew; rather, the gentile may do as he pleases.

אבל קטן שבא לכבות אין שומעין לו מפני ששביתתו עליהן: שמעת מינה קטן אוכל נבלות בית דין מצווין עליו להפרישו אמר רבי יוחנן בקטן העושה לדעת אביו דכוותה גבי גוי דקא עביד לדעתיה דישראל מי שרי גוי לדעתיה דנפשיה עביד:

We learned in the mishna: However, if a Jewish child comes to extinguish a fire on Shabbat, they do not listen to him and allow him to extinguish it, even though he is not yet obligated in mitzva observance, because responsibility for his rest is incumbent upon the Jew. The Gemara seeks to conclude: Learn from this that a child who eats meat from unslaughtered animals or violates other prohibitions, the court is commanded to prevent him from eating it. This mishna would resolve a dilemma that arose regarding that issue. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This mishna is referring to a child who is acting with the intention of fulfilling his father’s will, and therefore one is obligated to prevent him from doing so. However, if a child sins of his own volition, one is not obligated to prevent him from doing so. The Gemara asks: If so, the case with regard to a gentile in the mishna must be interpreted in a similar manner as referring to a case where he is acting with the intention to fulfill the will of a Jew. Is that permitted? It is prohibited to derive benefit from an action performed by a gentile for a Jew on Shabbat. The Gemara responds: This is not the case; the gentile is acting of his own volition. Because he is paid for extinguishing the fire he is not doing so in order to help the Jew.

מתני׳ כופין קערה על גבי הנר בשביל שלא תאחוז בקורה ועל צואה של קטן ועל עקרב שלא תישך אמר רבי יהודה מעשה בא לפני רבן יוחנן בן זכאי בערב ואמר חוששני לו מחטאת:

MISHNA: One may overturn a bowl on top of a lamp so that fire will not take hold in the ceiling beam on Shabbat. And similarly, one may overturn a bowl on top of a child’s feces inside the house so he will not touch it and dirty himself, and on top of a scorpion so that it will not bite. Rabbi Yehuda said: An incident came before Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai in his village of Arav, where a person covered a scorpion on Shabbat, and Rabban Yoḥanan said: I am concerned that he is liable to bring a sin-offering because he might have violated a Torah prohibition.

גמ׳ רב יהודה ורב ירמיה בר אבא ורב חנן בר רבא איקלעו לבי אבין דמן נשיקיא לרב יהודה ורב ירמיה בר אבא

GEMARA: The Gemara relates: Rav Yehuda and Rav Yirmeya bar Abba and Rav Ḥanan bar Rava happened to come to the house of Avin from a place called Nashikiya. For Rav Yehuda and Rav Yirmeya bar Abba,