Lovely Loopholes

Incidental to the mention of halakhot related to a corpse on Shabbat, the Gemara cites an amoraic dispute in which it was stated: A corpse that was laid out in the sun, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One turns it over from bed to bed until it reaches the shade. Rav Hanina bar Shelamiyya said in the name of Rav: One places a loaf of bread or an infant on the corpse and moves it. The corpse becomes a base for an object that one is permitted to move on Shabbat and, consequently, one may move the corpse due to the permitted object. The Gemara adds: In a case where there is a loaf or an infant, everyone agrees that it is permitted to use that method to move the corpse. Where they argue is in a case where he does not have a loaf or an infant. One Sage, Rav, holds: Moving an object in an atypical manner is considered a bona fide act of moving. Therefore, one may not move the corpse by passing it from bed to bed. And the other Sage, Shmuel, holds that moving an object in an atypical manner is not considered moving. Therefore, it is permitted to move a corpse by passing it from bed to bed.

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Abba: And let the Master say it in this way: Both if it is hanging and if it is not hanging, and that is only if it is tied, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Like the dispute here with regard to the window shutter, so too is the dispute with regard to a bolt that was dragged, which refers to a pole that was stuck through a hole in the door and into the ground in order to hold the door in place. As we learned in a mishna: With regard to a bolt that is dragged, which is not a part of the door itself but is attached to it and is dragged on the ground, one locks with it in the Temple on Shabbat, because the rabbinic decrees are not in effect in the Temple, but not in the rest of the country outside the Temple. And a bolt that is placed alongside the door and not attached, here, in the Temple, and there, outside the Temple, it is prohibited to lock with it on Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda says: One that was placed is permitted in the Temple and one that is dragged is permitted even in the rest of the country.

The Gemara relates: Abaye would place a spoon on bundles of produce, so that he would be able to move the bundles because of the spoon. Rava would place a knife on a slaughtered young dove and move it. Rav Yosef said mockingly: How sharp is the halakha of children? Say that the Sages stated this halakha only in a case where one forgets, but did they say that one may do so ab initio? Abaye explained his actions and said: If not for the fact that I am an important person, why would I need to place a spoon on the bundles? Aren’t the bundles themselves suited to lean upon? I could have carried the bundles without the spoon.

They said in response to the question of how Rav Dimi could propose writing down the halakha in a letter: Perhaps with regard to a new matter it is different, i.e., it might be permitted to write down new material so that it not be forgotten. One proof for this suggestion is that Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish would read from a scroll of aggada, containing the words of the Sages, on Shabbat. And they did so because they taught as follows: Since one cannot remember the Oral Law without writing it down, it is permitted to violate the halakha, as derived from the verse: “It is time to work for the Lord; they have made void your Torah” (Psalms 119:126). They said it is better to uproot a single halakha of the Torah, i.e., the prohibition of writing down the Oral Torah, and thereby ensure that the Torah is not forgotten from the Jewish people entirely.

We learned in the mishna that one whose hand was dislocated may not treat it by vigorously moving it about in water. The Gemara relates that Rav Avya was once sitting before Rav Yosef and his hand became dislocated. Rav Avya then displayed a variety of hand positions and he said to him: What is the ruling with regard to this? Am I permitted to place my hand in this way, or is it a violation of the prohibition against healing on Shabbat? Rav Yosef said to him: It is prohibited. Rav Avya again asked: And what is the ruling if I position my hand in this way? Rav Yosef said to him: It is prohibited. In the meantime, his hand was restored to its proper location and was healed.

And Rava bar Rav Ḥanan said to Abaye: Did we not learn in a mishna that one may not clap hands, or clap one’s hand against one’s body, or dance on a Festival? And we see, however, that people do these things, and we do not say anything to stop them. Abaye responded: And according to your reasoning, what about this halakha that Rava said: One may not sit on Shabbat at the entrance of a private alleyway next to the post, which delineates its boundaries, lest an object roll away into the public domain and he come to bring it back? And yet we see that women put down their jugs and sit at the entrance of the alleyway, and we do not say anything to stop them. Rather, in these matters we rely on a different principle: Leave the Jewish people alone, and do not rebuke them. It is better that they be unwitting in their halakhic violations and that they not be intentional sinners, for if they are told about these prohibitions they may not listen anyway.

The Gemara relates: Abaye found Rabba sliding his son on the back of a donkey on Shabbat to entertain him. He said to him: The Master is making use of living creatures on Shabbat, and the Sages prohibited doing so. Rabba said to him: I placed my son on the side of the donkey, and as they are sides, the Sages did not issue a decree prohibiting making use of them. From where do you say that this is so? As we learned in the mishna: One may untie the ropes and the bags fall on their own. What, is it not referring to a case where one attached the bags by means of guvalaki, where the bags are strapped to the animal and the only way to loosen them involves leaning against the sides of animal in order to unstrap them? That is because it is a case of making use of the sides, and the Sages did not issue a decree prohibiting making use of an animal’s sides.

Or perhaps it may be argued that even according to the opinion of the Rabbis, this tree is considered an opening. They may have said that a joining of Shabbat boundaries placed in a tree is not valid only because the eiruv must actually be accessible during twilight, and in that case it is not, due to the rabbinic decree. However, in this case, where it is not necessary to make actual use of the tree, they would agree that a tree that serves as a ladder is a valid entrance, but a lion crouches upon it. Just as a lion crouching at an opening does not thereby nullify its status as an entrance, although in practice no one can pass through it, so too, in the case of the tree, the prohibition against climbing it does not nullify its status as a passageway.

Likewise, a baraita was taught in accordance with Rav Yehuda’s interpretation of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: When we were studying Torah with Rabbi Shimon in Tekoa, we would carry oil for smearing and a towel for drying from roof to roof, and from roof to courtyard, and from courtyard to courtyard, and from courtyard to enclosure, and from enclosure to enclosure, to refrain from carrying in a prohibited place, until we reached the spring in which we would bathe. And similarly, Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident during a time of danger, when decrees were issued that banned religious observance, and we would carry a Torah scroll from courtyard to roof, and from roof to courtyard, and from courtyard to enclosure, to read from it.

With regard to activities that are prohibited because of their similarity to building, the Gemara cites a teaching that Rav Yehuda said: When arranging a pile of wood for a fire on a Festival, if the logs are arranged from the top down, i.e., the upper logs are temporarily suspended in the air while the lower logs are inserted below them, it is permitted. However, if the wood is placed from the bottom up, it is prohibited, as the arrangement of wood in the regular manner is a form of building. And the same applies to eggs that are to be arranged in a pile, and the same applies to a cauldron that is to be set down on a fire by means of supports, and the same applies to a bed that will be placed on its frame, and the same applies to barrels arranged in a cellar. In all these cases, the part that goes on top must be temporarily suspended in the air while the lower section is inserted beneath it.

The Gemara asks: How could Rabbi Eliezer have performed that act of sorcery? But didn’t we learn in the mishna that one who performs an act of sorcery is liable? The Gemara answers: Performing sorcery not in order to use it, but in order to teach oneself the halakhot is different, and it is permitted; as the Master says that it is derived from the verse: “You shall not learn to do like the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you…one who uses divination, a soothsayer, an enchanter, or a sorcerer” (Deuteronomy 18:9–10), so that you shall not learn, i.e., it is prohibited for you to learn, in order to do, but you may learn, i.e., it is permitted for you to learn, in order to understand the matter yourself and teach it to others.

GEMARA: The Gemara analyzes the mishna’s rulings: Granted, one who leaves over part of a ritually pure Paschal lamb is not flogged for having violated Torah law. There is good reason for this, as it was taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And you shall not leave any of it until morning; and that which remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire” (Exodus 12:10). The verse comes to provide a positive mitzva to burn the leftover after the prohibition against leaving it over, to say that one is not flogged because any prohibition that can be rectified by the performance of a positive mitzva does not carry a punishment of lashes. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Ya’akov says: This is not for that reason. Rather, it is because it is a prohibition that does not involve an action. The transgression is simply the failure to consume all the meat during the allotted time rather than the performance of an action. And one is not flogged for any prohibition that does not involve an action. But with regard to one who breaks the bone of a ritually impure Paschal lamb, from where do we derive that he, too, does not receive lashes? The Gemara answers that the source is as the verse states: “In one house shall it be eaten; you shall not remove any of the meat from the house to the outside, and you shall not break a bone in it” (Exodus 12:46). It may be inferred that the prohibition applies “in it,” in a valid Paschal lamb, and not in a disqualified one.

The baraita continues: And on that day the mother of the Sage ben Zaza died, and Rabban Gamliel delivered a great eulogy on her behalf. He did this not because she was worthy of this honor; rather, he eulogized her so that the people would know that the court had not sanctified the month, as eulogies are prohibited on the New Moon.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Ḥisda’s opinion from a baraita: With regard to members of a group who were reclining to drink, and they uprooted themselves from their place to go and greet a groom or greet a bride, when they exit, these foods do not require a blessing to be recited afterward, and when they return these foods do not require an introductory blessing. The baraita continues: In what case is this statement said? When they left there an elderly or a sick person who cannot go with them, and he remains in the place of the meal. In this case, the original meal is considered ongoing. However, if they did not leave there an elderly or sick person, when they exit, the foods that they have already eaten require a blessing; when they return, the foods that they will eat require an introductory blessing.

Rav Ashi said: We too have also learned in a mishna: Straw that is piled on a bed to be used for fuel or mixed with clay is set aside for that purpose and may not be moved. Therefore, one who seeks to lie on the bed may not move the straw with his hand, but he may move it with his body, as this is not the typical way of moving straw. However, if that straw had been designated as animal feed, or if there was a pillow or sheet spread over it on Shabbat eve while it was still day and he lay on it before Shabbat, he may move it with his hand. Apparently, even brief use before Shabbat suffices to permit use on Shabbat as well. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that there is a tannaitic opinion in accordance with which Rav Asi stated his opinion.

The baraita continues: If the shofar was punctured and the puncture was sealed, if it impedes the blowing, the shofar is unfit, but if not, it is fit. If one placed one shofar inside another shofar and blew, if he heard the sound of the inner shofar, he has fulfilled his obligation, because it is considered one shofar, but if he heard the sound of the outer shofar he has not fulfilled it, as the sound issues from two shofarot at once. The Sages taught in a different baraita: If a shofar was scraped down, whether on the inside or on the outside, it is fit. Even if it was scraped out to the point that only its outer layer remains, it is still fit. If one placed one shofar inside another shofar and blew, if he heard the sound of the inner shofar, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if he heard the sound of the outer shofar, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he inverted the shofar and blew it, he has not fulfilled his obligation. Rav Pappa said: Do not say that this means that he softened the shofar and turned it inside out like a tunic. Rather, the meaning is that he widened the narrow end of the shofar and narrowed its wide end. What is the reason that this is unfit? It is according to the opinion of Rav Mattana, as Rav Mattana said that the verse states: “You shall proclaim [veha’avarta] with the shofar” (Leviticus 25:9), where the word veha’avarta literally means carry, thereby teaching that we need the shofar to be sounded the same way that it was carried on the head of the animal, and if a change was made, it is unfit.

§ The mishna taught: After the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that the people should sound the shofar even on Shabbat in every place where there is a court of twenty-three judges. The background to this decree is related in greater detail in a baraita, as the Sages taught: Once Rosh HaShana occurred on Shabbat, and all the cities gathered at the Great Sanhedrin in Yavne for the Festival prayers. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to the sons of Beteira, who were the leading halakhic authorities of the generation: Let us sound the shofar, as in the Temple. They said to him: Let us discuss whether or not this is permitted. He said to them: First let us sound it, and afterward, when there is time, let us discuss the matter. After they sounded the shofar, the sons of Beteira said to Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai: Let us now discuss the issue. He said to them: The horn has already been heard in Yavne, and one does not refute a ruling after action has already been taken. There is no point in discussing the matter, as it would be inappropriate to say that the community acted erroneously after the fact.

The Gemara asks: But are fish capable of performing labor? The Gemara answers: Yes, they are capable, in accordance with the statement of Raḥava; as Raḥava asked the following question: If one drove a wagon to which a goat and a shibbuta fish were harnessed together, what is the halakha? Has he violated the prohibition of diverse kinds, in the same way that one does when plowing with an ox and a donkey together? In any event, Raḥava’s question indicates that there is a way, albeit far-fetched, for a fish to perform labor.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Is partial entry, when one enters a certain place with only part of his body, considered entry or not? Rav Yosef said to him: The thumbs of the leper will prove this point, as the leper reaching his thumbs into the Temple constitutes partial entry, and it was taught in a baraita: A leper immerses and stands at the Gate of Nicanor, indicating that immersion is required before even partial entry. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha; may an impure person craft a very long knife and slaughter an animal in the Temple courtyard while remaining outside the courtyard? Is it the essence of the service that requires immersion, or is it entry into the courtyard that requires immersion?