Rif Shabbat 12b

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
12b

{Shabbat 27b continues}
CANNOT BE DEFILED WITH THE UNCLEANNESS OF TENTS, EXCEPT LINEN.

{Shabbat 28b}
A WICK [MADE] OF A CLOTH WHICH WAS TWISTED BUT NOT SINGED, — R. ELIEZER SAID: IT IS UNCLEAN, AND ONE MAY NOT LIGHT [THE SABBATH LAMP] THEREWITH;

R. AKIBA MAINTAINED: IT IS CLEAN, AND ONE MAY LIGHT THEREWITH.

Gemara:
{Note: in the following discussion, there are two types of 3x3. One is 3x3 handbreadths, and one is 3x3 finger widths. The way to distinguish between the two is the gender of the number in Hebrew, and occasionally a gloss will emend the text in this regard. Note I aso use clean/pure interchangeably}

"A WICK [MADE] OF A CLOTH {garment}," the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva in the gemara is as follows:
All is well in terms of ritual impurity that in this they argue, that Rabbi Eliezer holds that twisting does not work {to remove it from the status of a garment, and thus susceptibility to contracting ritual impurity}, and Rabbi Akiva holds that twisting does work.
But in terms of lighting, in what do they argue?
Rabbi Eleazar cited Rabbi Oshaya, and so said Rav Adda bar Ahava: In 3x3 {fingers} exactly are we dealing {in the Mishna} and on Yom Tov that falls out on Friday {erev Shabbat, when you would be lighting Shabbat candles}, and all hold by the statement of Rav Yehuda citing Rav Rabbi Yehuda that "One may fire [an oven, etc.,] with [whole] utensils, but not with broken utensils" {for newly broken vessels are considered nolad, something created anew on Yom Tov, and would be forbidden} and all hold of the statement of Ulla that "He who lights must light the greater part [of the wick] which protrudes."
Rabbi Eliezer holds that twisting does not work, and thus it {the wick} stands in its former status, and when he lights a bit of it, it is {becomes} a broken utensil, and thus when he is lighting, he is lighting with a broken utensil.
And Rabbi Akiva holds that twisting suffices, and thus when he lights, he does so permissibly.

Rabbi Yosa said: This that the brayta said that it referred to 3x3 {fingers} exactly, I did not know for what halacha it was coming.

And from the fact that Rav Adda bar Ahava answered according to Rabbi Yehuda, we may deduce from this that he holds like Rabbi Yehuda.
And does Rav Adda bar Ahava indeed say {hold} this?

{Shabbat 29a}
But Rav Adda bar Ahava said: If a gentile hollows out a kav in a log, an Israelite may heat [the oven] therewith on a Yom Tov, and not worry. And if he held like Rav Yehuda, it is nolad {something created anew on Yom Tov}, and is forbidden.
And they answer in the gemara that he was answering within the opinions of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva, but he himself does not hold like Rabbi Yehuda.

(And why? When he lights a bit of it he makes it into a broken utensil, and when he turns it, he turns it with a broken utensil. He said to him: the reason of the Mishna he is explaining, but he himself does not hold like Rabbi Yehuda.)

Rava said: This is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer: That we do not light with a wick which is not singed, nor with an unsinged rag.

But then this that Rav Yosef taught {tnei}, "The three {handbreads} [fingerbreadths] that they spoke about were exact," in terms of what halacha was this taught?
In terms of impurity, and as we learned in a brayta: "The three {handbreads} [fingerbreadths] that they spoke about were excluding the hem. These are the words of Rabbi Shimon. And the Sages say: 3 (x3) {handbreads} [fingerbreadths] exact."

Rav Hamnuna said: Here, in regard to less than 3x3 {handbreadths} we are dealing. And Rabbi Eliezer goes according to his reasoning, and Rabbi Akiva according to his reasoning. For we learnt {tnan}: If {material} less than three {handbreadths} square is set aside for stopping a bath, pouring from a pot, or cleaning a mill therewith, whether it is of prepared {material} or not,
[it is unclean: that is Rabbi Eliezer's view; Rabbi Yehoshua maintained: Whether it is of prepared {material} or not,]
it is clean; Rabbi Akiva ruled: If of prepared {material}, it is unclean; if of unprepared, it is clean.

And Ulla said, and some say Rabba bar bar Chana cited Rabbi Yochanan: All admit that if it was thrown away on the refuse heap, it is universally agreed that it is clean.

{Shabbat 29b}
if one placed it in a chest, all agree that it is unclean. They differ only where he hung it on a frame or placed it behind the door.
Rabbi Eliezer holds: Whether he hung it on a frame or placed it behind a door, it is 'prepared' and thus unclean.
And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: Whether he hung it on a frame or placed it behind a door, it is not 'prepared' and it is therefore clean.

And when Rabbi Eliezer said that it was [not] prepared (and {yet} unclean) this is because relatively to {placing it in} a chest it is not prepared. And it is unclean because Rabbi Eliezer holds that since he did not throw it into the refuse heap, whether he hung it on a frame or placed it behind a door, he considers it important, and it is as if he placed it in a chest, and it is {therefore} unclean.

And Rabbi Yehoshua, who said that it is {=can be} 'prepared' and {yet} clean, does not intend 'prepared' as describing the situation of being placed in a chest, for as we said earlier, "if it was placed in a chest, all would agree that it is unclean." If so, how could Rabbi Yehoshua have said "it is 'prepared' and {yet} pure?" Rather this that he said 'prepared' does not mean that it stands {'prepared'} for the chest but rather it stands {'prepared'} for the refuse heap.

(And this is what it means to say: Whether he hung it on a frame or placed it behind a door, since he did not place it in a chest, it is 'prepared' for the refuse heap, and it is clean {pure}, for his mind was not on it, and he did not consider it important at all. And 'preparation' for the refuse heap is not called 'preparation' in terms of ritual impurity.)

And Rabbi Akiva, in the case where he hung it on a frame, holds like Rabbi Eliezer, and that it is 'prepared' in terms of ritual impurity. And where he placed it behind a door, he holds like Rabbi Yehoshua that says that it is pure, and that it is like casting it into the refuse heap, for we say that the 'preparation' for the refuse heap is not the same as 'preparation' in terms of ritual impurity.

And this that Rav Hamnuna said, that here, in less than 3x3 {handbreadths} we are dealing, etc., we find that a few of the {post-Talmudic} Rabbis explain this in a way not to be relied upon, and not like the {final} halacha.

And therefore we needed to record it, and to explain the questions, and to explain the saying {that it, the section of gemara} with an excellent explanation according to halacha.

{Here the Rif cites an explanation:}
And so we find one who establishes Rav Hamnuna's statement as going on less than 3 [fingers] x 3, and says afterwards that the one who sees that Rav Hamnuna brought a proof from 3x3, and establishes the wick mentioned in our Mishna as a wick that has less than 3 [handbreadths] - this is rather forced, for how can {in our Mishna} Rabbi Akiva say that it is pure? For do we not learn a complete Mishna that they said that 3x3 {fingers} which became smaller is pure, but 3x3 {handbreadths} that became smaller, even though it is pure from medras {tum'a from a zav sitting}, it is impure from all {other manners of} impurities. Rather, it is less than 3x3 {fingers}. And once we establish Rav Ada {bar Ahava} as referring to a case of 3x3 {fingers} we will establish Rav Hamnuna with regard to less than 3 {presumably fingers}. And this that is says explicitly regarding 3 {handbreadths} of 'preparing' cloths, it teaches it about less than 3 {handbreadths}, but the same is the law with regard to less than 3 {fingers}.

This is the explanation that we have found, and we ask upon it: Just as it was a question to him if it were 3x3 {fingers} how we learn that Rabbi Akiva said it was pure - say, on the other side, how do we learn that Rabbi Eliezer says that it is impure in a case of less than 3x3 {fingers}, for did we not learn a complete Mishna that they said that 3x3 which became smaller is pure?

And furthermore, how could you say that with the example of less 3x3 {handbreadths} the Mishna taught it, but the same is the law as regards less than 3x3 {fingers}? In which law is less than 3x3 {fingers} akin to less than 3x3 handbreadths? Is not less than 3x3 {handbreadths} impure {or rather susceptible to ritual impurity} from all the ritual impurities except for the impurity of medras, and less than 3x3 {fingers} is pure from all of them? And it is not possible to derive pure from impure. Behold it have been made clear to you that these words have no substance, and are not to be relied upon.

And therefore, we saw fit to explain this saying {the gemara} with an excellent explanation which can be relied upon according to halacha.

The main point of this gemara is that less than 3x3 {handbreadths} until 3x3 fingers does not become impure unless he put it away {concealed it}, and if he did not put it away it does not become impure, for we have learnt in a brayta in the Tosefta as regards 3x3 {and not less} that it is not impure until you put it away for a garment, {and} Rabbi Shimon says: for something the is susceptible to impurity it is impure, for something not susceptible to impurity it is pure. And it is known that less than 3x3 {handbreadths}, and {not less than} 3x3 {fingers}, their law is equivalent. And it is in this putting away that Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yehoshua, and Rabbi Akiva argue.

For we learnt {in a Mishna in Kelim}: Less than 3x3 {handbreadths} that is set aside for stopping a bath, pouring from a pot, or cleaning a mill therewith, Rabbi Eliezer says: whether it is of prepared {material} or not, it is unclean; Rabbi Yehoshua says: Whether it is of prepared {material} or not, it is clean; Rabbi Akiva says: If of prepared {material}, it is unclean; if of unprepared, it is clean.

And Ulla said, and some say Rabba bar bar Chana cited Rabbi Yochanan: All admit that if it was thrown away on the refuse heap, it is universally agreed that it is clean. If one placed it in a chest, all agree that it is unclean. They differ only where he hung it on a frame or placed it behind the door.

By way of explanation:

If he placed it in a chest, he has prepared it and concealed it, and even though he returns and sets it aside for stopping a bath, pouring from a pot, or cleaning a mill therewith, which are acts done with an ordinary rag, which would be something that is not susceptible to ritual impurity, it is not nullified from the status of "garment," and this setting aside {for stirring the pot, etc} does not take it out from its status of "garment" and it is impure {or susceptible to impurity} according to everyone.

And if he threw it to the refuse heap, all would agree that it is pure, for he nullified it, and so whether he set it aside for stirring a pot, or whether he did not so set it aside, it is pure, for it was already nullified {from its previous status of garment} and we do not require setting aside for these purposes {to take it from its status of garment.}

When do they argue? Where he hung it on a frame or placed it behind the door. Rabbi Eliezer holds that it is 'prepared' and therefore impure, for this is like placing it in a chest. And even though he returns and sets it aside for stirring the pot and similar activities, this does not remove it from its status of "garment" with this type of setting aside.
And Rabbi Yehoshua holds that since he did not place it in a chest, it is not 'prepared,' and it therefore pure, even if he did not set it aside for stirring the pot, for it was already nullified. And this that he calls it 'prepared' is because in terms of the refuse heap it is prepared {for it}.
And Rabbi Akiva

Rif Shabbat 12a

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
12a

{Shabbat 25 continues}
And his disciples hid the corners of their garments from him {since they did not have tzitzit on them}.
He said to them: My sons! Have I not thus taught you: A linen robe, in respect to tzitzit-Bet Shammai exempt it, while Bet Hillel hold it liable, and the halachah is as Bet Hillel?
But they held, It is forbidden on account of a night garment.
{Since a night garment is exempt, if one wore wool tzitzit fringes, it would be shaatnez. They held Bet Hillel's opinion was as regards Scriptural law, but Rabbinically, it would be forbidden lest one make a mistake with regard to a night garment.}

They learnt {in a brayta}: Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar said: One may not light [the Sabbath lamp] with balsam.

What is the reason?
Rabbah said: Since its smell is fragrant, there is [the need of] a preventive measure, lest one draw supplies from it.

{Shabbat 26a}
Abaye said to him: Let the Master say, because it is volatile {=explosive and dangerous}?
He said to him: One thing and yet another. One thing, because it is volatile; and yet another, as a preventive measure, lest he draw supplies from it.

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: One must not feed a lamp with unclean tevel {untithed food} on weekdays, and all the more so on Shabbat. Similarly, one must not light [a lamp] with white naphtha on weekdays, and all the more so on Shabbat.

As for white naphtha, that is well, [the reason being] because it is volatile.
But what is the reason of unclean tevel?
Scriptures state {Bemidbar 18:8}:

ח וַיְדַבֵּר ה, אֶל-אַהֲרֹן, וַאֲנִי הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לְךָ, אֶת-מִשְׁמֶרֶת תְּרוּמֹתָי: לְכָל-קָדְשֵׁי בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל לְךָ נְתַתִּים לְמָשְׁחָה, וּלְבָנֶיךָ--לְחָק-עוֹלָם.

8 And the LORD spoke unto Aaron: 'And I, behold, I have given thee the charge of My heave-offerings; even of all the hallowed things of the children of Israel unto thee have I given them for a consecrated portion, and to thy sons, as a due for ever.

{so the pasuk talks of teruma in the plural}
In two terumot the pasuk speaks. One, pure teruma and the other, impure teruma.
Just as pure teruma you may not have of it except after its separation and on, so too impure teruma you may not have of it except after its separation and on.

{Shabbat 27b}

MISHNA:
WHATEVER COMES FORTH FROM A TREE ['ETZ] YOU MAY NOT LIGHT [THE SABBATH LAMP] THEREWITH, SAVE FLAX; AND WHATEVER COMES FORTH FROM A TREE

Rif Shabbat 11b

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
11b

{Shabbat 24 continues}
Rava said: A Yom Tov which falls out on Shabbat, the agent of the congregation {shliach tzibbur} who descends before the chest {teva} need not mention Yom Tov, for if not for Shabbat, the shliach tzibbur would not descend {for chazarat haSha"tz} during Maariv on Yom Tov - and so is the halacha.

And if it poses a difficulty for you this that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, that it is the day which causes an obligation of five prayers, {the answer is that} here by Friday night by all rights the shliach tzibbur need not descend before the teva, and it is the Sages who instituted it because of danger, but there {in Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi's case} by Yom Kippur, it is the day {itself} which carries an obligation of five prayers.

And these eight days of Chanukka we require that one finish Hallel on every single day, for {Erchin 10a} Rabbi Yochanan cited Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: 18 days in the year an individual completes during them the Hallel, and these are they: The 8 days of Chanukka, and the first day of Yom Tov of Pesach, and the Yom Tov of Atzeret {=Shavuot}, and the 8 days of the Festival {Succot},
and in the Diaspora, 21 days: 9 days of the Festival {Succot} and 8 days of Chanukka, and the 2 {days of} Yom Tov {at the beginning} of Pesach, and the 2 days of Yom Tov of Atzeret {=Shavuot}
but the Hallel of Rosh Chodesh is not Biblical, but is rather a custom, and because of this, we do not {entirely} complete the Hallel, but rather we skip certain parts, for we say {Taanit 28b}: Rav visited Bavel. He saw that they read Hallel on Rosh Chodesh. He thought to stop them. Once he heard that they skipped parts as they progressed, we may deduce that it is the custom of their fathers in their hands.
They learnt {tna}: An individual should not begin, and if he began, he should complete.
Therefore, if an individual wishes to read Hallel on Rosh Chodesh, he should read it without a blessing, and skip.

MISHNAH.
ONE MAY NOT KINDLE [THE SABBATH LAMP] WITH OIL OF BURNING ON FESTIVALS. R. ISHMAEL SAID: ONE MAY NOT LIGHT [IT] WITH 'ITRAN, FOR THE HONOUR OF THE SABBATH;
BUT THE SAGES PERMIT IT WITH ALL OILS; WITH SESAME OIL, NUT OIL, RADISH OIL, FISH OIL, GOURD OIL, ITRAN AND NAPHTHA.
R. TARFON SAID: ONE MAY LIGHT [IT] WITH OLIVE OIL, ONLY.

{Shabbat 25b}
Gemara:
"ONE MAY NOT LIGHT [IT] WITH 'ITRAN":
What is the reason?
Rava {our gemara: Rabba} said: Because its odor is bad, as a decree lest he leave it and go out.
Abaye said: And let him go out!
{The answer:} That I say that lighting the lamp for Shabbat is an obligation {chovah}, for Rav Chisda said, and some say Rava bar Rav Chanin cited Rav: Lighting the lamp for Shabbat is an obligation {chovah}, washing hands and feet with hot water at night {of Shabbat} is voluntary {reshut}, and I say, a mitzvah {command}.
Why a mitzvah?
For Rav Yehuda said {our gemara: cited Rav}: Such was the custom of Rabbi Yehuda beRabbi Illai: on Friday nights they brought a tub filled with hot water, and he washed with it his face, hands, and feet, and he wrapped himself and sat in a fringed {with tzitzit} linen cloak, and was like an angel of the Lord of Hosts.

Rif Shabbat 11a

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
11a

{Shabbat 24 continues}
Should you say that it is unnecessary in the case of Chanukkah, which is only Rabbinical, then on New Moon, which is Biblical, it is necessary; or perhaps since the performance of work is not forbidden, it is not mentioned?

Rav said: he mentions {Rosh Chodesh in Birkat HaMazon}
And Rabbi Chanina said: he does not mention.

Rabbi Zera said: Seize this statement of Rav in your hand, for Rabbi Oshaya taught {in his brayta} like him. For Rabbi Oshaya taught {in a brayta}:

1) On those days when there is an additional {=Mussaf} offering, viz., Rosh Chodesh and Chol HaMoed:

during Maariv, Shacharit, and Mincha the Eighteen [Benedictions] are recited, and the nature of the occasion is inserted in the Avodah {that is, Yaaleh VeYavo is inserted in Retzei}, and if one does not insert it, he is turned back {to repeat the passage};

and there is no Sanctification over wine, and mention thereof is made in Birkat HaMazon.

2) On those days when there is no additional offering, such as Chanukka and Purim {the Bach correctly crosses this out - it is evidently so from the Rif's later discussion of Tosefta}, Fast days, Maamadot {'posts': 'a division of popular representatives deputed to accompany the daily services in the Temple with prayers}, Mondays and Thursdays.

What business have Mondays and Thursdays [here]?
Rather [say thus:] on the Mondays, Thursdays and the [following] Mondays of Fasts {that they fasted in times of drought."

and on Maamadot:

during Maariv, Shacharit, and Mincha the Eighteen [Benedictions] are recited, and the nature of the occasion is inserted in Shomea' Tefillah. And if he did not insert it, we do not cause him to go back,

and they do not have sanctification over a cup, and no reference is made on these [days] in Birkat HaMazon.

From this we may deduce that one who errs and does not say Anenu in the prayer {Shemoneh Esrei} of a fast day, that we do not cause him to return. And further we may deduce that one who errs and does not mention Al HaNisim in Shemoneh Esrei on Chanukka and Purim, that we do not cause him to go back, for we only cause him to go back on days that have in them a Mussaf offering, such as Rosh Chodesh and Chol HaMoed, but a day which does not have a Mussaf offering, such as fast days and maamadot, and Chanukka and Purim, we do not cause him to return.

And we learn [also] in the Tosefta explicitly, that

Any day that does not have the Mussaf offering, such as fast days, maamadot, Chanukka, and Purim - during Maariv, Shacharit, and Mincha he prays 18 blessings, and mentions the nature of the occasion, and if he does not mention it, we do not cause him to go back.

And any day that does have the Mussaf offering, such as Rosh Chodesh and Chol HaMoed, during Maariv, Shacharit and Mincha he prays 18 blessings and says the sanctification of the day in the Avodah {Retzei}. And if he did say it we cause him to go back.

It was a question to them:
Should one refer to Chanukka in Mussaf {on those days that have Mussaf}?
Perhaps since it {Chanukka} does not have a Mussaf we should not mention it, or perhaps it is the day that requires four prayers {and thus, in each prayer, we mention Chanukka}.
Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda say: he does not mention it.
Rav Nachman and Rabbi Yochanan say: he mentions it.

{Shabbat 24b}
And the halacha is like that which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: When Yom Kippur falls out on Shabbat, he who prays the Ne'ila prayer needs to mention Shabbat - it is the day that requires five prayers. So too here it is the day that requires four prayers, and therefore he mentions it {Chanukka}.

And this that Rav Gidel cited Rav: Rosh Chodesh which falls out on Shabbat, the one who reads the haftarah from Navi need not mention Rosh Chodesh, for if not for Shabbat, there would be no {haftarah from} Navi on Rosh Chodesh -- the halacha is not like him, {as we know} from the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.

Rif Shabbat 10b

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
10b

{Shabbat 23b continues}
Rav Huna said: He who habitually practises {the lighting of} the lamp of Chanukka [and of Shabbat] will possess sons who are Torah scholars. (He who habitually practises {the lighting of} the lamp of Shabbat will sons who are Torah scholars.) He who is observant of [the precept of] mezuzah will merit a beautiful dwelling; he who is observant of tzitzit will merit a beautiful garment; he who is observant of the Sanctification of the Day will be privileged to fill barrels of wine.

Rav Huna was accustomed to pass by the door of Avin the carpenter. Seeing that he habitually lit many lights, he remarked, Two great men will issue from here. Rav Iddi bar Avin and Rav Chiyya bar Abin issued from there.

Rav Chisda was accustomed to pass by the door of the father of Rav Shizbi. Seeing that he habitually lit many lights, he remarked, A great man will issue hence. Rav Shizbi issued from there.

Rav Yoseph's wife used to kindle [the Sabbath lights] late {that is, right before nightfall}. Rav Yosef said to her: we learnt {in a brayta}:

Shemot 13:22:

כב לֹא-יָמִישׁ עַמּוּד הֶעָנָן, יוֹמָם, וְעַמּוּד הָאֵשׁ, לָיְלָה--לִפְנֵי, הָעָם.

22 the pillar of cloud by day, and the pillar of fire by night, departed not from before the people. {P}

teaches that the pillar of cloud overlapped {timewise} the pillar of fire, and the pillar of fire overlapped the pillar of cloud.

She thought to do it {much} earlier {in the day}. A certain elderly person told her: We learn {in a brayta}: so long as it is not {lit} too early or too late.

Rava said: One who loves the Rabbis, will have sons who are Rabbis; he who honours the Rabbis will have Rabbis for sons-in-law; he who stands in awe of the Rabbis will himself be a Rabbinical scholar. But if he is not fit for this, his words will be heeded like those of a Rabbinical scholar.

{The Mishna had said:} "NOR WITH OIL OF BURNING":
What is OIL OF BURNING?
Oil of teruma which was defiled.
And why do they call it OIL OF BURNING?
Because it stands to be burnt.

And the case with we are dealing {with the words "nor with oil of burning"} is on a Yom Tov which falls out on a Friday, for we may not burn sacred food {kodoshim, including teruma} on Yom Tov.

{Shabbat 24a}
And a brayta also says so: All those [materials] concerning which the Rabbis ruled, One must not light therewith on Sabbath, may be used for lighting on Festivals, except oil of burning, because sacred food must not be burnt on Festivals.

It was a question to them: Is Chanukka to be mentioned in Birkat HaMazon? Since it is a Rabbinical [institution], we do not mention it; or perhaps it is mentioned to give publicity to the miracle?

Rava cited Rav Sechora who cited Rav: He does not {need} to mention it, but if he comes to mention it, he should mention it in 'Thanks' {that is, Nodeh}.

Rav Huna bar Yehuda visited the house {=academy} of Rava. He thought to mention it {Chanukka} in the building of Yerushalayim {that is Rachem...Bonei Yerushalayim}. Rava said to him: Like in prayer {=Shemoneh Esrei}. Just as in prayer {one mentions Chanukka via Al HaNissim} in 'Thanks' {Modim}, so too in Birkat HaMazon in 'Thanks' {Nodeh}.

It was a question to them: Does one mention the beginning of the month {Rosh Chodesh} in Birkat HaMazon?

Rif Shabbat 10a

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
10a

{Shabbat 22b continues}
What is the reason?
Here too, the one who sees him will say that for his own purposes he took it.

{Shabbat 23a}
A Chanukka lamp which a deaf-mute, idiot, or minor lit, he did not accomplish anything.
What is the reason?
For lighting effects the mitzvah, and placing does not effect the mitzvah.
And these are not members of the class of those who fulfill the mitzvah.
But a woman may certainly light, for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: women are obligated in {lighting} the Chanukka lamp, for they too were concerned with that miracle.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: With regard to a lantern which was burning the whole day [of the Sabbath], at the conclusion of the Sabbath it is extinguished and then [re-]lit {to fulfill lighting for Chanukka}.

Rav Sheshet said: A guest is obligated in {lighting} the Chanukka lamp.

Rabbi Zera said: Initially, when I was at the academy, I partnered by sharing the the cost with my host {in the cost of the Chanukka lamp, so that he would fulfil his obligation}. After I got married, I said "now I certainly do not need {to share in the cost} for they are lighting for me in my house."

And these words, that one may partner via sharing the cost, is in such a situation where he does not open a gate for himself {have his own entrance}, but if he does open a gate for himself, he is obligated to light {by himself} because of suspicion {others will have that he is not fulfilling the mitzvah}.

Rav Chiyya bar Ashi cited Rav: One who lights the Chanukka lamp needs to bless.
And Rav Yirmiya bar Abba said: One who sees the Chanukka lamp needs to bless.

What should he bless?
Rav Yehuda said: The first day, one who lights blesses three and one who sees blesses two. From then on, one who lights blesses two and one who sees blesses one.

What should he bless?
"...Who sanctified us with His commandments, and commanded us to light the lamp of Chanukka {lehadlik ner shel Chanukka}," and "Who has performed miracles... {sheAsa Nisim...}," and "Who has sustained... {shehechiyanu...}"

Rav Huna said: A courtyard which has two entrances needs two {Chanukka} lamps {one for each entrance}.
Rabba said: They only said this where they {the two entrances} are from two different directions, but facing the same direction, he need not.

{Shabbat 23b}
Rav Yitzchak {our gemara: bar Redifa} cited Rav Huna: a lamp with two spouts may be credited to two people.
Rava said: If one filled a plate with oil and surrounds it with wicks, if he places a vessel over it {such that just the wicks are sticking out}, it may be credited to many different people {that is, each person may light one wick}. If he does not place a vessel over it, he thus makes it into a blazing fire, and it may not be credited even to a single person.

Rava said: It is obvious to me that {in a choice where he can only afford one} between the Chanukka lamp and the lamp of his house {Rashi: on Shabbat}, the lamp of his house is preferable, because of the peace of his house. The lamp of his house and the sanctification of the day {over wine}, the lamp of his house is preferable. Rava inquired, the Chanukka lamp and the sanctification of the day, which of them is preferable? Is the sanctification of the day preferable because it happens more frequently? or perhaps the Chanukka lamp is perferable because of publicizing the miracle? After he asked, he returned and solved it: the Chanukka lamp is preferable because of publicizing the miracle.

Rif Shabbat 9b

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
9b

{Shabbat 21b continued}

about a half an hour until they reached their houses.

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}:

The precept of Chanukkah [demands] one light for a man and his household.

The better {mehadrin poss. "those who beautify the mitzvah"- see Rashi on the Rif. Rashi on gemara: those who return after the mitzvah. et/achar} [kindle] a light for each member [of the household].

The best of the best: Bet Shammai say: On the first day eight lights are lit and thereafter they are gradually reduced. And Bet Hillel say: On the first day one is lit and thereafter they are progressively increased.

The reason of Bet Shammai is that it shall correspond to the bullocks of the Festival {Succot}. Alternatively is that it shall correspond to the days still to come.

And the reason of Bet Hillel is that it shall correspond to the days that are gone. Alternatively because we promote in [matters of] sanctity but do not reduce.

Rabbar bar bar Channa cited Rabbi Yochanan: There were two elders in Tzidon. One did like the words of Bet Shammai and one did like Bet Hillel. This one gave a reason for his words {that is, actions} - that it shall correspond to the bullocks of the Festival. And this one gave a reason for his words - because we promote in [matters of] sanctity but do not reduce.

(A shopkeeper who placed a Chanukka lamp outside, and someone else is damaged by it, he is exempt from having to pay, for it is a lamp of a mitzvah, and this that he placed it outside, it is because it is a mitzvah to publicize the miracle.)

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: The lamp for Chanukka: the mitzvah is to place it by the entrance to his house outside; and if one dwells in an upper chamber, he places it at the window nearest the street; and in times of danger it is sufficient to place it on the table.

Rava said: and he needs another lamp to be used for its light, yet if there is a blazing fire it is unnecessary. But if he is an important person, even if there is a blazing fire another lamp is required.

What is [the reason of] Chanukkah, concerning which our Sages learnt {in a brayta - a citatation from megillat taanit}: On the twenty-fifth of Kislev [commence] the days of Chanukkah, which are eight on which a lamentation for the dead and fasting are forbidden?
For when the Greeks entered the Temple, they defiled all the oils therein, and when the Hasmonean dynasty prevailed against and defeated them, they made search and found only one cruse of oil which lay with the seal of the High Priest, but which contained sufficient for one day's lighting only; yet a miracle was wrought therein and they lit [the lamp] therewith for eight days. The following year these [days] were appointed a Festival with [the recital of] Hallel and thanksgiving.

And therefore we bless on the miracle every single day of the 8 days of Chanukka, since every day the miracle was renewed with that flask of oil.

{Shabbat 22a}
Rav Kahana said: Rabbi Natan bar Manyumi darshened in the name of Rav Nachman {we have R Tanchum}: If a Chanukkah lamp is placed above twenty cubits [from the ground] it is unfit, like sukkah and a cross-beam over [the entrance of] an alley.

Rava {our girsa: Rabba} said: The Chanukka lamp, the mitzvah is to place it in the handsbreadth nearest the door.

Where should he place it?
Rav Acha the son of Rava said: On the right side.
Rav Yirmiyah of Difti said: On the left side.

And the halacha is: on the left hand side, such that the mezuza is on the right and the Chanukka lamp is on the left.

(And when he wishes to light the Chanukka lamp and the Shabbat lamp, he should first light that of Chanukka and return to {and light} that of Shabbat, for if he lights that of Shabbat first, it will become prohibited for him to light that of Chanukka, for he would have accepted Shabbat upon himself.)

Rav Yehuda {our gemara: Rav Assi} cited Rav: It is forbidden to count money opposite the Chanukka lamp.
Abaye said: In all matters the Master [Rabbah] acted in accordance with Rab, except in these three, where he did as Shmuel, [viz.,] one may light from lamp to lamp; one can detach [the fringes] from one garment for [insertion in] another; and the halachah is as Rabbi Shimon in respect to dragging.
For it was learnt {in a brayta}: Rabbi Shimon said: One may drag a bed, seat, or bench, provided that he does not intend to make a rut.

{Shabbat 22b}
Rava said: If he was holding the Chanukka lamp and standing in place {while holding it}, he has accomplished nothing.
What is the reason?
For the one who sees him will say that he is holding it for his own purposes.

And Rava said: If he lit it within and then brought it outside, he did not accomplish anything.

Rif Shabbat 9a

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
9a

{Shabbat 21a}
one must not light with it.
In terms of what were these words stated?
To light.
But to encompass it is permitted.

By way of explanation: "to encompass" - to thicken the head of the wick so as to increase the light.

Rav Brona cited Rav: The melted tallow and the dissolved inwards of fish, one may pour a little oil and light with it.

{Shabbat 21b}

THE LAWS OF CHANUKKA:
Rabbi Zera (cited Rav Matna who) cited Rav: Regarding the wicks and oils which the Sages said, One must not light therewith on the Sabbath, one may light therewith on Hanukkah, either on weekdays or on the Sabbath.

From the fact that we state that one may light with them on Chanukka {even} on Shabbat, we may deduce from this that it is forbidden to make use of its {the Chanukka lamp's} light. For since it is forbidden to make use of its light, he will not come to tilt.

And further, from the fact that one may light with them on Chanukka {even} on Shabbat, it is so that if they are extinguished, he need not pay it attention, and so we deduce that if it goes out, it does not require attention.

And this that we learnt {in a brayta} "Its observance {mitzvah} is from sunset until there is no wayfarer in the market" does not mean that if it is extinguished he must {re-}light it, but rather that if he did not light it until now, he should light. Alternatively, for its measure (that is to say, that he needs to put into it sufficient oil such that it would continue burning for this length of time).

If it had been burning continuously for this length of time, and he wishes to extinguish it, or to make use of its light, he permission is in his hand.

"Until there is no wayfarer {lit. foot = footsteps} in the market":
Until when {is this}?
Rabbi Yochanan said: Until the footsteps of the Tarmodeans cease.
To explain: There was a known type of wood by them, and they called it tarmoda, and the people who brought them were called Tarmodeans, and they waited until after sunset

Rif Shabbat 8b

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
8b

{Shabbat 20a continues}
"BUT IN THE COUNTRY, THERE MUST BE TIME FOR THE FIRE TO TAKE HOLD OF ITS GREATER PART":
What is the meaning of "OF ITS GREATER PART?"
Rav said: the greater part of each one {log}.
And Shmuel said: Such that they do not say "Let us bring wood {chips} to place under them {to help them ignite}.

Rabbi Chiyya {our gemara: Rav Chiyya} taught a brayta which supports Shmuel: Shemot 27:20:

כ וְאַתָּה תְּצַוֶּה אֶת-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ שֶׁמֶן זַיִת זָךְ כָּתִית--לַמָּאוֹר: לְהַעֲלֹת נֵר, תָּמִיד.

20 And thou shalt command the children of Israel, that they bring unto thee pure olive oil beaten for the light, to cause a lamp to burn continually.

such that the flame rises of its own accord, and not that it rises via help of something else.

A single log, Rav said: the greater part of its thickness, and Shmuel said: The greater part of its circumference.

Rav Pappa said: Therefore we require the greater part of both its thickness and its circumference.

Rav Yehuda {our gemara: Rav Huna} said: Canes require the greater part, [but] if they are tied together, they do NOT require the greater part. {As one gloss notes, the girsa in our gemara is the reverse.} Kernels [of dates] do require the greater part; but if they are put in bales they do NOT require the greater part. {once again, our girsa is the reverse}

Rav Chisda asked: Just the opposite! The reverse is logical.

{Shabbat 20b}
I was also stated {by Amoraim}:
Rav Kahana cited Rav {our girsa: just Rav Kahana}: Canes tied together require the greater part.

Rav Yosef learnt {tnei}: Four fires do not require the greater part: pitch, sulphur, grease, and wax {our gemara: cheese}.

In a brayta is was taught: even straw and rakings {small stubble collected in the field}.

SLIKU LEHU YETZI`OT HASHABBAT
END PEREK ONE

BEGIN PEREK TWO

MISHNAH.
WHEREWITH MAY WE KINDLE [THE SABBATH LIGHTS], AND WHEREWITH MAY WE NOT KINDLE THEM]?

WE MAY NOT KINDLE [THEM] WITH LEKESH, HOSEN [TOW], KALLAK, A BAST WICK, A DESERT WICK, SEAWEED, ZEFETH [PITCH], SHA'AWAH [WAX], KIK OIL, OIL OF BURNING, TAIL FAT, OR TALLOW.
NAHUM THE MEDE SAID: WE MAY KINDLE [THEM] WITH BOILED HELEB;
BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: WHETHER BOILED OR NOT, YOU MAY NOT KINDLE THEREWITH

Gemara:
Lechesh is cedar bark.
But cedar bark is simply wood! {and would certainly be unfit for a wick!}
It means the woolly substance [bast] within it.

"NOR WITH CHOSHEN":
Abaye said: It is crushed but uncombed flax.

"NOR WITH KALLACH":
Shmuel said: I asked all seafarers about it, and they told me that it is called kulcha.
{Jastrow: Jast.: cissaros-blossom, 'a woolly substance growing on stones at the Dead Sea, looking like gold, and being very soft; ... and it resembles sheep wool'}

Yitzchak bar Ze'eri said: Its name is gushkera. {a cotton-like plant}

"NOR WITH A BAST WICK {petilat haIdan}":
Willow-bast - the wool-like substance within.

"NOR WITH A DESERT WICK":
Mullein. {a tall, woolly weed}

"NOR WITH SEAWEED":
What is this?
Rav Papa said: it is the black fungus of ships.
A Tanna taught: To these [enumerated in the Mishnah] were added [wicks] of wool and hair.

"ZEFETH": zifta {=pitch}

"SHA'AVAH": kiruta {=wax}

A Tanna taught: Thus far the unfitness of wicks {is taught in the Mishna}; from here onwards it is the unfitness of oils.

This is obvious!
It was required for wax.
I would have said that we decree the unfitness of wicks {in the case of wax} because of its unfitness for oil. This teaches us that no. {That is, the decree for using wax for a wick stands on its own, and it is fit to be used for oil.}

{Shabbat 21a}
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}:

All those of which they ruled that you must not light [the Sabbath lamp] therewith on the Sabbath, yet a fire {medura} may be made of them, both for warming oneself and for using the light thereof, whether on the earth or on the lamp {=menora - our gemara's girsa: stove}; and they merely prohibited the making of a wick of them for a [Sabbath] lamp {ner}.

"NOR WITH KIK OIL":
What is kik oil?
Shmuel said: There is a certain bird in the sea towns called kik. {Jastrow: pelican}
Rav Acha the son of Rav Yitzchak the son of Rav Yehuda said {our gemara's attribution is simply to Rav Yitzchak the son of Rav Yehuda}: It is cotton-seed oil.
And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Oil from Yonah's kikayon. {Jastrow: ricinus tree, or the sprout bearing the castor-berry}

{See Yonah 4:6:

ו וַיְמַן יְהוָה-אֱלֹהִים קִיקָיוֹן וַיַּעַל מֵעַל לְיוֹנָה, לִהְיוֹת צֵל עַל-רֹאשׁוֹ, לְהַצִּיל לוֹ, מֵרָעָתוֹ; וַיִּשְׂמַח יוֹנָה עַל-הַקִּיקָיוֹן, שִׂמְחָה גְדוֹלָה.

6 And the LORD God prepared a gourd, and made it to come up over Jonah, that it might be a shadow over his head, to deliver him from his evil. So Jonah was exceeding glad because of the gourd.

}

Rabbah said: The wicks of which the Sages said that you must not kindle with, what is the reason? Because their flame burns unevenly. The oils which the Sages said you must not kindle with is because they do not flow [freely] to the wick.

Abaye inquired of Rabbah: As to the oils which the Sages said you must not kindle with for Shabbat, is it permissible to pour a little [good] oil into them and light [with]? Do we decree {and forbid them} lest he come to light with it {even in its unmixed state}, or no?
He {Rabbah} said to him: You may not light.
He {Abaye} said: What is the reason?
He {Rabbah} said: {As a decree} because we do not light with them {in their unmixed state}.

And if one wraps a material which may be used [as a wick] for lighting around a material which may not be lit,

Rif Shabbat 8a

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
8a

{Shabbat 19a continues}
Rabbi Yossi beRabbi Chanina said: It is Rabbi Yishmael.
For they learnt {tnan}:

[In the case of] garlic, half-ripe grapes, and parched ears [of grain] were crushed before sunset,

Rabbi Yishmael says: One may finish them at night.

Rabbi Akiva says: One may not finish them [at night].

{Shabbat 19b}
And they {Amoraim} said upon this:
Rabba bar bar Chana {our gemara: Rava bar Chanina} cited Rabbi Yochanan: When they still require crushing, all agree that it is forbidden. When do they argue? When they require pounding {a later stage in the process}. [And here too they are considered lacking crushing {see inside}.]
Rabbi Yossi beRabbi Chanina rules in accordance with Rabbi Yishmael.

As to the oil belonging to the pressers, and the mats of the pressers, Rav forbade it and Shmuel permitted it.

By way of explanation, "oil of the pressers" refers to the oil which goes out from under the beam of the olive press on Shabbat, and "mats of the pressers" refers to the mats {they use to cover the olives} which are muktza in the olive presses.
{Rashi: Rav holds like Rabbi Yehuda regarding muktza and thus it is forbidden, and Shmuel holds like Rabbi Shimon who does not have this particular din of muktza.}

As to coupled mattings, Rav forbade it and Shmuel permitted it.

By way of explanation, "coupled mattings" are rolled up and resting {for protection} over the merchandise, and are tied into pairs of two each, and are called zugei {pairs}.

And the halacha is like Shmuel who permits, for he holds like Rabbi Shimon who does not have muktza.

Rav Nachman said: As to a goat [kept] for its milk, a ewe for its shearings, a fowl for its eggs, dates for trading, and oxen for plowing, it is a dispute between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda.

For Rabbi Yehuda has {the law of} muktza and Rabbi Shimon does not have muktza, and we establish like Rabbi Shimon in regard to Shabbat, for we explicitly rule in accordance with him at the end of perek Mi SheHechshich, and furthermore, we say {on this daf, on Shabbat 19b} that the certain student who ruled in Charta in Argiz {this is in Southern Bavel on the right arm of the Euphrates} like Rabbi Shimon, and Rav Huna {our gemara: Rav Hamnuna} excommunicated him, and we do in fact hold like Rabbi Shimon, but this was the place of Rav, and in the place of Rav he should not have done this, and we deduce from here that the halacha is like Rabbi Shimon.

MISHNAH.
MEAT, ONION[S], AND EGG[S] MAY NOT BE ROASTED UNLESS THEY CAN BE ROASTED WHILE IT IS YET DAY.

BREAD MAY NOT BE PUT INTO AN OVEN JUST BEFORE NIGHTFALL, NOR A CAKE UPON COALS, UNLESS ITS SURFACE CAN FORM A CRUST WHILE IT IS YET DAY;

R. ELEAZAR SAID: THERE MUST BE TIME FOR THE BOTTOM [SURFACE] THEREOF TO FORM A CRUST.

{Shabbat 20a}
Gemara:
And how much is that "THEY CAN BE ROASTED"?
R Zerika cited Rabbi Ilai who cited Rav {we have R Eleazar citing Rav in our gemara}: like the food of Ben Drusai.
{Rashi: he was a robber who cooked his food 1/3.}

It was also stated {by Amoraim}:
Rav Assi cited Rabbi Yochanan: Whatever is as the food of the son of Derusai's not subject to [the interdict of] the cooking of Gentiles.

MISHNA:
THE PASSOVER SACRIFICE MAY BE LOWERED INTO THE OVEN JUST BEFORE NIGHTFALL {and left to roast on Shabbat}; AND THE FIRE MAY BE LIGHTED WITH CHIPS IN THE PILE IN THE CHAMBER OF THE HEARTH {a room in the Bet HaMikdash where the Kohanim warmed themselves}; BUT IN THE COUNTRY {that is, not in the Bet Hamikdash} THERE MUST BE TIME FOR THE FIRE TO TAKE HOLD OF ITS {the logs'} GREATER PART.
R. JUDAH SAID: IN THE CASE OF CHARCOAL, JUST A LITTLE [SUFFICES] {that is, just a little of it began to burn}

Gemara:
"MAY BE LOWERED":
What is the reason?
Because the members of the company are extremely careful, and they will not come to stir the coals.

"AND THE FIRE MAY BE LIGHTED WITH CHIPS IN THE PILE IN THE CHAMBER OF THE HEARTH":
What is the reason?
For Kohanim are extremely careful.

Rif Shabbat 7b

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
7b

{Shabbat 19a continues}

With respect to what were these words stated?
For a voluntary purpose, but [if] for a mitzvah, they may set out. And he stipulates {a fee} with him {the gentile owner of the ship} that it is on condition that he will rest [on the Sabbath], yet he does not {need to} rest. These are the words of Rabbi.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He does not need {to so stipulate}.

And from Tyre to Tzidon {both on the Phoenician coast, about thirty miles apart}, even on erev Shabbat he may set out.

There is one who says that this that the brayta states that one may not set out in a ship less than three days before Shabbat is when the ship sails near to the seabed, and there is not in the water {a height of} ten handbreadths, and because of a decree of techumin {Shabbat boundaries} they decreed, but higher than ten handbreadths, they did not decree, and therefore the nation is accustomed to set out in the Great Sea {the Mediterranean Sea}.

And this reason should be rejected, for if it is for this reason that one does not set out, they should have taught {in the brayta} that one should not set out in a small ship. Why did they simply write a ship, plain, which implies whether it is small or large?

And further, why should it be specifically three days? Even more, also {should be forbidden, for one will travel past the techum on Shabbat}!

And further, for the sake of a mitzvah, why is it permitted? We know that they {the Sages} maintain their words even in the face of a positive commandment?! As we learn in a Mishna in Pesachim 91b: An onen {a mourner before the burial of the dead} immerses and eats his Paschal offering come eve, but not by kodoshim {other sacrifices}. And they say upon this that by the Paschal offering, they do not maintain their words {and thus they allow an onen to eat it} in the place of karet {"cutting off," the punishment in certain instances for not bringing the Pesach}; by kodoshim {other sacrifices} they maintained there words in the place of {in the face of} a positive commandment.

But rather, this is the reason that one may not set out in a ship three days before Shabbat - because of nullification of the mitzvah of enjoying the Shabbat. For the first three days there is a changing of the pattern, because of the rocking of the ship, as is written regarding it {in Tehillim 107:27}

כז יָחוֹגּוּ וְיָנוּעוּ, כַּשִּׁכּוֹר; וְכָל-חָכְמָתָם, תִּתְבַּלָּע.

27 They reeled to and fro, and staggered like a drunken man, and all their wisdom was swallowed up--

and they would not be able to enjoy the Shabbat. And after three days they would have quiet, and they would want to eat, and thus fulfill the mitzvah of enjoying the Shabbat.

And this is the reason that for the sake of a mitzvah it is permitted, for they are exempt from the mitzvah of enjoying {the Shabbat} for the master said {Succah 25a}: One who is involved with a mitzvah is exempt from a mitzvah, and we also learn in a Mishna {Succah 25a} that messengers for a mitzvah are exempt from Succah. And therefore we also say {ibid, 44b} that it is forbidden to travel on erev Shabbat {Friday} more than 4 parasangs, which are equal to 12 mil, for he thus nullifies the commandment of enjoying the Shabbat, as they explain explicitly, and the law is the same that one does not beseige cities of gentiles less than three days before Shabbat, for they will not take benefit {enjoyment} from food and drink within the first three days because of bother and fear of the heart, and after three days their fear flies away, and they can have their enjoyment of Shabbat.

We learn in perek lulav veArava {Succah 4th perek, daf 44b}: Aivu cited Rabbi Eleazar beRabbi Tzadok: a man should not travel on erev Shabbat more than the parasangs.
Rav Kahana said: They only said this in terms of his going to his house {such that he will come to his house and food will not be ready}, but going to an inn, on what they give he relies {that is, they will have provisions at the inn}.
There are those that say {a different version}: Rav Kahana said: This is only needed to say even to his house {and certainly to an inn}.
And Rav Kahana said: there was an incident with me, and even a pie of fish-hash and flour I did not find.

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: They should not beseige cities of gentiles less than three days before Shabbat, and if they began, they do not break off, and so did Shammai darshen {from Devarim 20:20:}

כ רַק עֵץ אֲשֶׁר-תֵּדַע, כִּי-לֹא-עֵץ מַאֲכָל הוּא--אֹתוֹ תַשְׁחִית, וְכָרָתָּ; וּבָנִיתָ מָצוֹר, עַל-הָעִיר אֲשֶׁר-הִוא עֹשָׂה עִמְּךָ מִלְחָמָה--עַד רִדְתָּהּ.

20 Only the trees of which thou knowest that they are not trees for food, them thou mayest destroy and cut down, that thou mayest build bulwarks against the city that maketh war with thee, until it fall.

We learn in Eruvin {daf 45a}: Rav Yehuda cited Rav: Gentiles who beseige Jewish cities, they do not go out against them with weapons and they do not desecrate for them the Shabbat.

A brayta also says so: Jewish cities which are beseiged by gentiles, they do not go out against them with weapons and they do not desecrate for them the Shabbat. When are these words said? When they come regarding matters of money. But when they come regarding matters of life {that is, to attack and kill}, they go out to them with weapons and they do desecrate for them the Shabbat. And in a city close to the border, even if they come over matters of stubble {the bottom parts of the stalks} and straw, they go out to them with weapons and desecrate for them the Shabbat.

{Shabbat 18a}
MISHNA:
RABBAN SHIMON BEN GAMLIEL, SAID: IT WAS THE PRACTICE IN MY FATHER'S HOUSE TO GIVE WHITE GARMENTS TO A GENTILE FULLER THREE DAYS BEFORE THE SABBATH.

AND BOTH [SCHOOLS] AGREE THAT THE BEAM OF THE [OIL] PRESS AND THE CIRCULAR WINE PRESS MAY BE LADEN {by day, though the fluid goes on oozing during the Sabbath}

{Shabbat 19a}
Gemara:
(What is the difference in that all the other cases they {Bet Shammai - Bach} argue, and in these cases {the oil press and wine press} that Bet Shammai do not argue?
All of them {the aforementioned cases} since if they are done on Shabbat he is obligated to bring a sin offering, on erev Shabbat as night falls the Sages decreed. These {the oil and wine press}, whch if he does them on Shabbat he is not obligated to bring a sin-offering, the Sages did not decree upon.)

Who is the Tanna who maintains that anything that happens of its own accord, it is fine?

Rif Shabbat 7a

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
7a

UNLESS HE CAN REACH A NEAR PLACE; BUT BETH HILLEL PERMIT IT.

BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN: HIDES MUST NOT BE GIVEN TO A TANNER, NOR GARMENTS TO A GENTILE FULLER, UNLESS THEY CAN BE DONE WHILE IT IS YET DAY; BUT IN ALL THESE [CASES] BETH HILLEL, PERMIT [THEM]

{Shabbat 18b continues}
Gemara:
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}:

Bet Shammai say: A man must not sell an article to a Gentile, nor lend [it] to him nor loan him [money] nor make him a gift [on the eve of Sabbath], unless he can reach his house [before sunset];

And Bet Hillel say: [unless] he can reach the house nearest the [city] wall.

Rabbi Akiva say: [Unless] he can depart from the door of his [the Jew's] house [before the Sabbath].

Rabbi Yossi beRabbi Chanina says: The words of Rabbi Akiva are identical with the words of Bet Hillel, and Rabbi Akiva only comes to explain the words of Bet Hillel.

They learnt {in a brayta}:

Bet Shammai say: A man must not sell his leaven to a Gentile, unless he knows that it will be consumed before Passover.

And Bet Hillel say: As long as he [the Jew] may eat it, he may sell it.

{Shabbat 19a}
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}:

Food may be placed before a dog in a courtyard, [and] if it takes it and goes out, one has no duty toward it. Similarly, food may be placed before a Gentile in a courtyard, [and] if he takes it and goes out, one has no duty toward him.

(The Sages learnt {in a brayta}:
A man must not hire his utensils to a Gentile on the eve of Sabbath {that is erev Shabbat} close to nightfall; [but] on Wednesday or Thursday it is permitted.
) {The Bach believes this segment enclosed in parentheses is a gloss. I would add that the reason "close to nightfall" seems like it should be removed is that it is being contrasted with Wdnesday and Thursday, implying that even earlier than that on a Friday it should be forbidden.}

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}:

Letters may not be sent via gentiles on the eve of Sabbath {erev Shabbat} close to nightfall unless a fee is stipulated {since now the gentile works for himself, to earn the fee, rather than on behalf of the Jew.}

Bet Shammai say: There must be time to reach his [the addressee's] house [before the Sabbath];

and Bet Hillel say: There must be time to reach the house nearest the [city] wall.

But has he not stipulated {a fee}?

Rav Ashi {our gemara: Rav Sheshet} said: This is what it means to say. If he did not stipulate, Bet Shammai say: There must be time to reach his [the addressee's] house [before the Sabbath]; and Bet Hillel say: There must be time to reach the house nearest the [city] wall.

But you said in the resha {the first clause of this brayta that if he did not stipulate} he should not send at all?!

There is no difficulty.
Here there is a do`ar {post office} permanently located in the town; here where there is no do`ar permanently located in the town.

We now deduce that when he stipulates a fee, we send them, whether or not they will reach. And when he did not stipulate a fee, if there is a do`ar established in the town, we do not send him, {see the Bach's emendation} unless he can reach the house nearest the [city] wall, and if there is no do`ar established in the town, we do not send him at all, unless he stipulated {a fee}.

The explanation of do`ar is a known man to whom all letters come, and he hires and sends out {distributes} all the letters to the people to whom the letters were sent {addressed}.

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}:

One may not set out in a ship less than three days before the Sabbath.

Rif Shabbat 6b

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
6b

{Shabbat 18a continues}

unless it can be ground when it is still day.

And we establish {that this brayta} is according to Bet Shammai, who holds as a precept the resting of vessels, but according to Bet Hillel, they do not hold as a precept the resting of vessels, and it is permitted.

And there is one who says that it is forbidden, and even according to Bet Hillel, for it makes a noise.

{Shabbat 18b}
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: A woman must not fill a pot with pounded wheat{alternatively, peas} and lupines and place it in the oven on the eve of the Sabbath shortly before nightfall; and if she does put them [there], they are forbidden at the conclusion of the Sabbath for as long as they take to prepare. Similarly, a baker must not fill a barrel of water and place it in the oven on the eve of the Sabbath shortly before nightfall; and if he does, it [the water] is forbidden at the conclusion of the Sabbath for as long as it takes to prepare [boil].

What is the reason?
It is a decree lest he stir the coals.
And if you say, a perfume brazier and sulphur, why did they not decree, lest he stir the coals?
There he will not stir the coals, for if he stirs them, the smoke will enter and harm them {the garments or vessels}.
And wet bundles of flax, too, we do not decree, for since a draft is injurious to them, he will not uncover it {the oven}.
Wool in the dye kettle which is removed from [the fire] and sealed down, we also do not decree upon, for we have no cause to fear he will stir {the coals} or stir {the pot}.

And now that master said "a decree lest he stir the coals," this pot with raw food, or food which is [quite] boiled, it is fine. If it is boiled and not boiled {thus, partly boiled}, it is forbidden, and if a raw bone is thrown in it, it is fine. What is the reason? For he has removed his thoughts from it, for he says "now it will certainly not be boiled {in time for the night meal} and he will not come to stir {the coals so as to hasten the cooking}."

And now that master said "Whatever may be harmed by the draft, one will not uncover it," with flesh of a kid {young goat - goat flesh is tender and damaged by a draft - not so by a buck}, where it [the oven] is daubed round {to seal it down}, it is fine. With [flesh] of a buck, where it [the oven] is not daubed round, is forbidden. But as to [flesh] of a kid, where it is not daubed round, or of a buck, where it is daubed round: Rav Ashi permits it, and Rav Yirmiya of Difti forbids it.

There are those that say {a different version of this dispute}: a kid, whether it [the oven] is daubed round or not daubed round, it is fine; of a buck, when it is daubed round, it is also fine. When do they argue? When it is a buck and it is not daubed round. Rav Ashi permits and Rav Yirmiya from Difti forbids.

And the {post-Talmudic} Sages rule like this second version and according to Rav Ashi, and there is one who rules like Rav Yirmiya of Difta who forbids. And we too hold like Rav Yirmiya of Difti, for we see a sugya with a report {/ruling} like him {a few lines later in the gemara}, for we say: "Ravina said: As for a raw gourd, it is fine; since a draft is injurious to it, it is like flesh of a kid, and it is permitted." This implies that if it was like buck, it would be forbidden, and we deduce from here that buck is forbidden.

MISHNA:
BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN: SNARES FOR WILD BEASTS, FOWLS, AND FISH, MAY NOT BE SPREAD UNLESS THEY CAN BE CAUGHT WHILE IT IS YET DAY;
BUT BETH HILLEL PERMIT IT.

BETH SHAMMAI RULE: ONE MUST NOT SELL TO A GENTILE, OR HELP HIM TO LOAD [AN ASS], OR LIFT UP [AN ARTICLE] UPON HIM

Rif Shabbat 6a

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE

{Shabbat 13a continues}

[It was taught in the] Tanna DeBei Eliyahu {a Midrash taught to the third century Babylonian Amora Rav Anan by Eliyahu}: It once happened that a certain scholar who had studied much Bible and Mishnah and had served scholars much, yet died in half his years. His wife took his tefillin and carried them about in the synagogues and schoolhouses and complained to them: it is written in the Torah {Devarim 30:20}:

כ לְאַהֲבָה אֶת-ה אֱלֹקֶיךָ, לִשְׁמֹעַ בְּקֹלוֹ וּלְדָבְקָה-בוֹ: כִּי הוּא חַיֶּיךָ, וְאֹרֶךְ יָמֶיךָ--לָשֶׁבֶת עַל-הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע ה לַאֲבֹתֶיךָ לְאַבְרָהָם לְיִצְחָק וּלְיַעֲקֹב, לָתֵת לָהֶם.

20 to love the LORD thy God, to hearken to His voice, and to cleave unto Him; for that is thy life, and the length of thy days; that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD swore unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.

My husband, who read [Bible], learned [Mishnah], and served scholars much, why did he die in half his years?
And no man {could} answer her.
On one occasion I {Eliyahu} was a guest at her house, and she related the whole story to me.
I said to her: 'My daughter! how was he to thee in thy days of menstruation?'
She said to him: 'God forbid! He did not touch me even with his little finger.'
'And how was he to thee in thy days of white [garments] {during the seven clean days following menstruation}?
She said to me: 'He ate with me, drank with me and slept with me in bodily contact, but chas veShalom it did not occur to him to do other.'
I said to her: 'Blessed be the Omnipresent for slaying him, that He did not condone on account of the Torah! {alternatively, because he, the husband, did not show respect for Torah}
For the Torah says {Vayikra 18:19}:

יט וְאֶל-אִשָּׁה, בְּנִדַּת טֻמְאָתָהּ--לֹא תִקְרַב, לְגַלּוֹת עֶרְוָתָהּ.

19 And thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is impure by her uncleanness.

When Rav Dimi came, he said: It was a single broad bed.
In the West {in Israel} they said: Rabbi Yitzchak bar Yosef said: An apron {or knickers} interposed between them.

{The Rif skips several pages involving discussion about tum'ah, ritual impurity.}

MISHNAH.
AND THESE ARE OF THE HALACHOTH WHICH THEY STATED IN THE UPPER CHAMBER OF HANANIAH B. HEZEKIAH B. GARON, WHEN THEY WENT UP TO VISIT HIM. THEY TOOK A COUNT, AND BETH SHAMMAI OUTNUMBERED BETH HILLEL.; AND ON THAT DAY THEY ENACTED EIGHTEEN MEASURES.

{Shabbat 17b}
BETH SHAMMAI RULE: INK, DYES AND ALKALINE PLANTS {so Jastrow; but Rashi: horse beans, used for cattle} MAY NOT BE STEEPED UNLESS THEY CAN BE DISSOLVED WHILE IT IS YET DAY; BUT BETH HILLEL, PERMIT IT.

BETH SHAMMAI RULE: BUNDLES OF WET FLAX MAY NOT BE PLACED IN AN OVEN UNLESS THEY CAN BEGIN TO STEAM WHILE IT IS YET DAY, NOR WOOL. IN THE DYER'S KETTLE UNLESS IT CAN ASSUME THE COLOUR [OF THE DYE]; BUT BETH HILLEL PERMIT IT.

{Shabbat 18a}
Gemara:
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: Water may be conducted into a garden on the eve of the Sabbath just before dark, and it may go on being filled the whole day; and a perfume brazier may be placed under garments which continue to absorb the perfume the whole day; and sulphur may be placed under [silver] vessels and they undergo the process of sulphuring the whole day; and an eye salve may be placed on the eye and a plaster on a wound and the process of healing continues all day. But wheat may not be placed in a water-mill

Rif Shabbat 5b

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
5b

{Shabbat 12a continues}

They learnt {in a brayta}: Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar says: Vermin must not be killed on the Sabbath: this is the view of Beth Shammai; while Beth Hillel permit it.
And so did Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar say, citing Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel: We do not decide apportionment of charity from the community even for an orphan boy or orphan girl, nor do we negotiate for the betrothal of young girls, nor for a boy, to teach him the book {to read}, nor to teach him a trade, nor do we comfort mourners, nor visit the sick, on Shabbat. These are the words of Bet Shammai. And Bet Hillel permit.

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}:

If one enters [a house] to visit a sick person [on the Sabbath], he should say, 'It is the Sabbath, when one must not cry out, and recovery will soon come.'

Rabbi Meir says: 'Shabbat has the ability that in its merit He will have compassion.' {words marked in red not in our girsa in the gemara}

{Shabbat 12b}

Rabbi Yehuda says: 'May the Omnipresent have compassion upon you and upon the sick of Israel.'

Rabbi Yossi says: 'May the Omnipresent have compassion upon you in the midst of the sick of Israel.'

Shevna, a citizen of Jerusalem, on entering would say 'Peace'; and on leaving, 'It is the Sabbath, when one must not cry out and healing will soon come, His compassion is abundant and enjoy the Sabbath rest in peace.'

According to which opinion is this they they learnt in a brayta {in our gemara: that which Rabbi Chanina said}: One who has a sick person in his house should combine him with other Jewish sick?
Like who? Like Rabbi Yossi.

Rabbi Yochanan said {in our gemara, this statement is once again attributed to Rabbi Chanina - my guess, because of the similarity in letters, especially when abbreviating, or else, similarity of sound, of ר' יוחנן/ר' חנינא}: It was [only] with difficulty that comforting mourners and visiting the sick was permitted on Shabbat.

{The Rif says:} By way of explanation, lest he come to cry out on Shabbat.

Rabba bar bar Chana said: When we followed R. Eleazar to inquire after a sick person. sometimes he would say to him, [in Hebrew], 'The Omnipresent visit thee in peace'; at others, be said, [in Aramaic], 'The Omnipresent remember thee in peace.'

And even though Rav Yehuda cited Rav {our gemara just has Rav Yehuda speaking} that "One should never petition for his needs in Aramaic," and Rabbi Yochanan said that "When one petitions for his needs in Aramaic, the Ministering Angels do not heed him, for they do not understand Aramaic," a sick person is different, because the Divine Presence is with him, for Abaye {in our Gemara, Rava citing Rabin, based on the use of HaKadosh Baruch Hu rather than Shechina in this statement. Otherwise, I would say it is Rav Anan citing Rav} said: How do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, sustains the sick? Because it is said, {in Tehillim 41:4:}

ד ה--יִסְעָדֶנּוּ, עַל-עֶרֶשׂ דְּוָי; כָּל-מִשְׁכָּבוֹ, הָפַכְתָּ בְחָלְיוֹ.

4 The LORD support him upon the bed of illness; mayest Thou turn all his lying down in his sickness.

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: One who enters [a house] to visit the sick may sit neither upon the bed nor on a seat, but must wrap himself about and sit in front of him, for the Divine Presence is above the head {/pillow} of a sick person, for it is stated {in Tehillim 41:4}:

ד ה--יִסְעָדֶנּוּ, עַל-עֶרֶשׂ דְּוָי; כָּל-מִשְׁכָּבוֹ, הָפַכְתָּ בְחָלְיוֹ.

4 The LORD support him upon the bed of illness; mayest Thou turn all his lying down in his sickness.

{The Mishna had stated:} "NOR MAY HE READ BY THE LIGHT OF A LAMP":
Rabba said: Even if it is as high as twice a man's stature, or as two ox-goads [height], or even as ten houses on top of each other.

It is one person who may not read, but two may read.
And these words were said {if they are reading} in one subject, but in two subjects, even two may not read.

Rav Huna said: But by [the light] of an open fire even ten people are forbidden.

Rava said {speaking about the din in the Mishna}: If he is an important man, whose would not be accustomed to tilt the lamp, it is permitted. {red words not in our gemara}

One brayta said: An attendant may examine glasses and plates by the light of a lamp. And another brayta said: He must not examine [them].

This is not a difficulty.
One refers to a permanent attendant, the other to one who is not permanent.
And if you want I will say: both refer to a non-permanent attendant {our gemara: permanant} yet there is no difficulty: one refers to [a lamp fed with] oil, the other to naphtha {which emits an unpleasant odor, and produces a lot of light, and so he won't come to tilt it}.

It was a question to them: What of a permanent attendant {our gemara: non-permanent} and a [lamp fed with] oil?
Rav Huna {our gemara: Rav} said: It is the halacha and we do not teach so {to others}.
Rabbi Yirmiya bar Abba said: It is the halacha and we do teach so.

We learn now that whether with a permanent or a non-permanent attendant, he may inspect dishes and cups by the light of the lamp, and specifically using naphta, which is disgusting, and produces a lot of light, and he won't need to tilt it. But with oil, a non-permanent attendant for certain is forbidden, and regarding a permanent attendant they argue, and the halacha is that he may inspect, and we do not teach so.

{The Mishna had said:} "IN TRUTH IT WAS SAID, THE HAZZAN ...":
Rabba bar Shmuel said: But he may arrange the beginnings of the sections; But not the whole section.

{Shabbat 13a}
And school children, even the entire portion they may read, besides just arranging - since they are in awe of their teacher, they will not come to tilt it, without the permission of their teacher.

{The Mishna had stated:} "SIMILARLY … A ZAB MUST NOT DINE TOGETHER WITH A ZABAH ...":
It was a question to them: May a niddah sleep together with her husband, she in her garment and he in his?
Come and hear {a proof}:
{Yechezkel 18:6:}

ו אֶל-הֶהָרִים, לֹא אָכָל, וְעֵינָיו לֹא נָשָׂא, אֶל-גִּלּוּלֵי בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְאֶת-אֵשֶׁת רֵעֵהוּ לֹא טִמֵּא, וְאֶל-אִשָּׁה נִדָּה לֹא יִקְרָב.

6 and hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour's wife, neither hath come near to a woman in her impurity;

his wife as a niddah was associated {hekesh} with his neighbor's wife. Just as his neighbor's wife, he in his garment and she in her garment is forbidden, so too with regard to his wife who is a niddah, he in his garment and she in her garment is forbidden.

Rif Shabbat 5a

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
5a

{digression to Brachot 31a}
for neglecting to make Shabbat a delight. What is his fix? He should sit a fast for his fast.

And the Sages have explained this as referring to only the fast for a dream, but for another fast, is it forbidden to fast on Shabbat.

---

In Taaniyot, in Yerushalmi:

Rabbi Acha and Rabbi Abahu, citing Rabbi Yossi bar Chanina, said: It is forbidden to fast until 6 hours on Shabbat.

Rabbi Yossi bar Avin said: It is a Mishna: "if {it rains} before noon, they need not complete {the rest of the day fasting}; if after noon, they need to complete" - before noon, they need not complete, for it is still morning. after noon, they need to complete, for the majority of the day has already passed in sanctity.

"YET IF THEY BEGAN, THEY NEED NOT BREAK OFF":
{emend to "AND THEY DO NOT BREAK OFF FOR PRAYER":}
But the beginning of the Mishna already said "THEY NEED NOT BREAK OFF!"
It is coming to teach regarding the study of Torah.
For they learnt {in a brayta}: If companions [scholars] are engaged in studying, they must break off for the reading of the shema', but not for prayer.

Rabbi Yochanan said: This was only taught about those such as Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and his companions, for Torah is their profession, but for those such as us, we break off, whether for reading the Shema or for prayer.

MISHNA:
A TAILOR MUST NOT GO OUT WITH HIS NEEDLE NEAR NIGHTFALL, LEST HE FORGET AND GO OUT, NOR A SCRIBE WITH HIS QUILL; A

ND ONE MAY NOT SEARCH HIS GARMENTS [FOR VERMIN], NOR READ {,} BY THE LIGHT OF A LAMP.

IN TRUTH IT WAS SAID, THE HAZZAN MAY SEE WHERE THE CHILDREN READ, BUT HE HIMSELF MUST NOT READ.

SIMILARLY IT WAS SAID, A ZAB MUST NOT DINE TOGETHER WITH A ZABAH, AS IT MAY LEAD TO SIN.

{Shabbat 12a}
Gemara:
The School of Shmuel {our gemara: Rabbi Yishmael} taught {tna}: A man may go out with his tefillin on the eve of Sabbath {erev Shabbat} near nightfall.

What is the reason?
Because Rabbah bar Rav Huna said: One must feel his tefillin every now and then {every single hour} as a kal vaChomer { inferring a minori} from the tzitz {Kohen Gadol's headplate}. Just as the tzitz, which has only a single mention of Hashem's name, the Torah states {Shemot 28:38}:

לח וְהָיָה, עַל-מֵצַח אַהֲרֹן, וְנָשָׂא אַהֲרֹן אֶת-עֲו‍ֹן הַקֳּדָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר יַקְדִּישׁוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְכָל-מַתְּנֹת קָדְשֵׁיהֶם; וְהָיָה עַל-מִצְחוֹ תָּמִיד, לְרָצוֹן לָהֶם לִפְנֵי ה.

38 And it shall be upon Aaron's forehead, and Aaron shall bear the iniquity committed in the holy things, which the children of Israel shall hallow, even in all their holy gifts; and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the LORD.

that he should not divert his attention from it, tefillin, which has many mentions, he certainly {mustn't}. Therefore he will remember them {and may go out erev Shabbat with them}.

They learnt {in a brayta}: Chanania says: One must examine {feel} his garments on erev Shabbat before nightfall.

Rav Yosef said: That is a vital law for Shabbat.

---

{The Mishna had stated:}
"AND ONE MAY NOT SEARCH HIS GARMENTS [FOR VERMIN]":
The explanation {of the Mishna}: One may not search his garments [for vermin] by the light of a lamp lest he come to tilt it.

Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: Even to distinguish between his garments and the garments of his wife by the light of a lamp, no.

Rava said: They only said this with regard to the townspeople (who wear white), but the people in the country one knows easily. And for the townpeople they only said it in regard to the elerly women {whose clothing is similar to that of men}, but that of younger women, no.

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: One must not search [his garments] in the public domain out of decency. Similarly Rabbi Yehuda, and some say Rabbi Nechemia, said: One must not cause himself to vomit in the public domain, out of decency.

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: If one searches his garments [on the Sabbath] he may press [the vermin] and throw it away, providing that he does not kill it. Abba Shaul said: He must take and throw it away, providing that he does not press it.

Rav Huna said: The halacha is that he may press and throw it away, and that is seemly, even on weekdays.

Rif Shabbat 4b

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
4b

{Shabbat 10a continued}

and he {Rabbi Yirmiyah} made haste {to finish learning so as to pray}.
Rabbi Zera called upon him {the verse in Mishlei 28:9:}

ט מֵסִיר אָזְנוֹ, מִשְּׁמֹעַ תּוֹרָה-- גַּם תְּפִלָּתוֹ, תּוֹעֵבָה.

9 He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination.

{The Rif clarifies:} And specifically for someone for whom Torah is his profession, as we will want to say later on.

---

When is the beginning of a lawsuit? Rabbi Yona and Rabbi Yirmiyah {our gemara reverses the order} - one says: When the judges wrap themselves round {with a tallit}; and the other says: When the litigants commence [their pleas].

And they do not argue.
This when they are already engaged in judging {so they are already wrapped}; this, when they are not already engaged in judging.

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Assi were sitting and learning between the pillars, and every hour {or, every now and then} they knocked at the side of the door and announced: If anyone has a lawsuit, let him enter and come.

Rav Chisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna were sitting all day engaged in judgements, and their hearts grew faint. {Rashi: since they were not able to learn Torah. Alternatively, they grew faint because they had not opportunity to eat all day.} Rav Chiyya bar Rav, of Difti, taught {tnei} (Shmot 18:13:)

יג וַיְהִי, מִמָּחֳרָת, וַיֵּשֶׁב מֹשֶׁה, לִשְׁפֹּט אֶת-הָעָם; וַיַּעֲמֹד הָעָם עַל-מֹשֶׁה, מִן-הַבֹּקֶר עַד-הָעָרֶב.

13 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people; and the people stood about Moses from the morning unto the evening.

And does it enter your mind that Moshe sat and judged the entire day? And the {teaching/learning of} Torah, when was it done? Rather, to tell you that every judge who judges a true judgment {that is, a fair judgement}, even for one hour, the Scriptures considers him a partner in Creation. It is written here מִן-הַבֹּקֶר עַד-הָעָרֶב - from the morning unto the evening, and it is written there, by the Creation {Bereishit 1}, וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר - "and there was evening and there was morning."

Until when must they {the judges} sit at judgment?
Rav Sheshet said: Until the time of the [main] meal [of the day].

And this is the sixth hour, which is the time of eating for a {Torah} scholar.

Rav Ada bar Ahava said: One may recite his prayers [the Eighteen Benedictions] at the baths.

And specifically in a new bathhouse, in which people have not bathed. But in an old bathhouse, in which people have already bathed, it is forbidden, for they learnt {in a brayta}:

If one enters the baths, in the place where people stand dressed, both reading [the shema'] and prayer [the Eighteen Benedictions] are permissible, and a greeting of 'Peace' may certainly be said, and one may don the phylacteries there, and it goes without saying that he need not remove them [if already wearing them];

in the place where people stand undressed, a greeting of 'Peace' is not permissible there and reading {Shema} and praying goes without saying {that one may not}; the phylacteries must be removed, and it goes without saying that they must not be donned.

{Shabbat 10b}
This supports Rav Hamnuna, for Rav Hamnuna cited Ulla: It is forbidden for a man to extend a greeting of 'Peace' to his neighbour in the baths, because it is said {in Shoftim 6:23}:

כג וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ ה שָׁלוֹם לְךָ, אַל-תִּירָא: לֹא, תָּמוּת.

23 And the LORD said unto him: 'Peace be unto thee; fear not; thou shalt not die.'

{which is being interpreted as Shalom, peace, being Hashem's name}

Rabba bar Mechasia cited Rav Chama bar Guria who cited Rav: A man is permitted to say "By faith!" in a privy, even though it is written

ט וְיָדַעְתָּ, כִּי-ה אֱלֹקֶיךָ הוּא הָאֱלֹקִים: הָאֵל, הַנֶּאֱמָן--שֹׁמֵר הַבְּרִית וְהַחֶסֶד לְאֹהֲבָיו וּלְשֹׁמְרֵי מִצְו‍ֹתָו, לְאֶלֶף דּוֹר.

9 Know therefore that the LORD thy God, He is God; the faithful God, who keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love Him and keep His commandments to a thousand generations;

This instance of נֶאֱמָן {is an adjective rather than a proper noun} just as they say "faithful God" {in Aramaic translation of the verse} but as a Name itself He is not called נֶאֱמָן.

And one who gives a present to his friend need not inform him.

And these words are when it is going to eventually be revealed, for it is written {Shemot 34:29}:

כט וַיְהִי, בְּרֶדֶת מֹשֶׁה מֵהַר סִינַי, וּשְׁנֵי לֻחֹת הָעֵדֻת בְּיַד-מֹשֶׁה, בְּרִדְתּוֹ מִן-הָהָר; וּמֹשֶׁה לֹא-יָדַע, כִּי קָרַן עוֹר פָּנָיו--בְּדַבְּרוֹ אִתּוֹ.

29 And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of the testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses knew not that the skin of his face sent forth beams while He talked with him.

But for a present which will not eventually be revealed, he needs to inform him, for it is written {Shemot 31:13}:

יג וְאַתָּה דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, לֵאמֹר, אַךְ אֶת-שַׁבְּתֹתַי, תִּשְׁמֹרוּ: כִּי אוֹת הִוא בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם, לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם--לָדַעַת, כִּי אֲנִי ה מְקַדִּשְׁכֶם.	13 'Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying: Verily ye shall keep My sabbaths, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that ye may know that I am the LORD who sanctify you.

Hashem said to Moshe: I have a precious gift in My treasure house, called the Sabbath, and desire to give it to Israel; go and inform them.

From here, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: If one gives a loaf to a child, he must inform his mother.

What shall he do to him?

Rav Pappa said: He must rub him with the self-same kind {of food}.

And although Shabbat was a gift that was eventually going to be revealed, its reward was not something that was eventually going to be revealed.

And these words {that one must inform him} is with respect to a gift to a wealthy person, but a gift to a poor person, {Mishlei 21:14}:

יד מַתָּן בַּסֵּתֶר, יִכְפֶּה-אָף; וְשֹׁחַד בַּחֵק, חֵמָה עַזָּה.

14 A gift in secret pacifieth anger, and a present in the bosom strong wrath.

And Rabba bar Mechasia cited Rav Chama bar Guria who cited Rav: A man should never single out one son among his other sons, for on account of the two sela's weight of silk, which Yaakov gave Yoseph in excess of his other sons, his brothers became jealous of him and the matter resulted in our forefathers' descent into Egypt.

{Shabbat 11a}
And Rabba bar Mechasia cited Rav Chama bar Guria who cited Rav: Every city whose roofs are higher than the synagogue will ultimately be destroyed, as it is said {in Ezra 9:9}

ט כִּי-עֲבָדִים אֲנַחְנוּ--וּבְעַבְדֻתֵנוּ, לֹא עֲזָבָנוּ אֱלֹקֵינוּ; וַיַּט-עָלֵינוּ חֶסֶד לִפְנֵי מַלְכֵי פָרַס לָתֶת-לָנוּ מִחְיָה, לְרוֹמֵם אֶת-בֵּית אֱלֹקֵינוּ וּלְהַעֲמִיד אֶת-חָרְבֹתָיו, וְלָתֶת-לָנוּ גָדֵר, בִּיהוּדָה וּבִירוּשָׁלִָם.

9 For we are bondmen; yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up {lit. to raise up} the house of our God, and to repair the ruins thereof, and to give us a fence in Judah and in Jerusalem.

By way of explanation, just as one who raises up the house of our God causes the establishment {building up} of its ruins, so too one who does not raise up the house of our God causes that which is standing to become ruins.

And they only said this regarding his own house, but as for towers and turrets, we have no objection.

And Rabba bar Mechasia cited Rav Chama bar Guria who cited Rav: Fasting is as potent against a dream as fire against flax.
And Rav Chisda said: and {assuming one fasted} on that very day.
And Rav Yosef said: and even on Shabbat.

Rav Oshaya the son of Rav Idi visited the house of Rav Ashi. A third grown calf was prepared for him and he was invited, 'Master, partake somewhat.'
He said: I am engaged in a fast.
They said to him: Let master borrow it and repay. And do you not accept Rav Yehuda's ruling in Rav's name: One may borrow his fast and repay it?
He said to them: I am sitting {engaged} in a fast for a dream, and Rabba bar Mechasia cited Rav Chama bar Guria who cited Rav: Fasting is as potent against a dream as fire against flax. And Rav Chisda said: and {assuming one fasted} on that very day. And Rav Yosef said: and even on Shabbat.

And specifically a fast for a dream is permitted on Shabbat, but another type of fast, no, just as we learnt in perek Ain Omedin LeHitpallel {Brachot 5th perek, daf 31b}: Rabbi Eleazar cited Rabbi Yossi ben Zimra: Anyone who engages in a fast on Shabbat, they tear up for him the {evil} decree of 70 years. Rav Nachman {our gemara, bar Yitzchak, and attributes to him only the portion of making up the fast} said: And yet he is punished