Shabat — Talmud Yerushalmi

Shabat

Shabat — Talmud Yerushalmi no Beth HaMidrash: o texto hebraico e sua tradução em português, com Rashi e os grandes comentaristas. Grátis, online.

משנה: יְצִיאוֹת הַשַּׁבָּת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע בִּפְנִים וּשְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע בַּחוּץ. בְּאֵי זָה צַד. הֶעָנִי עוֹמֵד בַּחוּץ וּבַעַל הַבַּיִת בִּפְנִים. פָּשַׁט הֶעָנִי אֶת יָדוֹ לִפְנִים וְנָתַן לְתוֹךְ יָדוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אוֹ שֶׁנָּטַל מִתּוֹכָה וְהוֹצִיא הֶעָנִי חַיָיב וּבַעַל הַבַּיִת פָּטוּר. פָּשַׁט בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֶת יָדוֹ לַחוּץ וְנָתַן לְתוֹךְ יָדוֹ שֶׁל עָנִי אוֹ שֶׁנָּטַל מִתּוֹכָהּ וְהִכְנִיס בַּעַל הַבַּיִת חַיָיב וְהֶעָנִי פָּטוּר. פָּשַׁט הֶעָנִי אֶת יָדוֹ לִפְנִים וְנָטַל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מִתּוֹכָהּ אוֹ שֶׁנָּתַן לְתוֹכָהּ וְהוֹצִיא שְׁנֵיהֶן פְּטוּרִין. פָּשַׁט בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֶת יָדוֹ לַחוּץ וְנָטַל הֶעָנִי מִתּוֹכָהּ אוֹ שֶׁנָּתַן לְתוֹכָהּ וְהִכְנִיס שְׁנֵיהֶן פְּטוּרִין:MISHNAH: There are two [kinds] of transport on the Sabbath which are four [kinds] inside, and two [kinds] which are four [kinds] outside (“outside”). In each case, the transport may be effectuated either by the person inside or the person outside (in which case the person is prosecutable but the person standing in the other domain is not involved) or it may be taken up by one person, taken over while moving by another person who then puts it down. In this case both participants have sinned but are not prosecutable. The possible cases are enumerated in Mishnaiot 1–4. “Liable” and “not liable” refer both to the possibility of prosecution for intentional Sabbath desecration and the obligation of a purification sacrifice in the case of unintentional infraction.. How is this? The poor man stands outside and the householder inside. If the poor man stretched out his hand inside and delivered into the householder’s hand or took something from it and brought it outside, the poor man is liable but the householder is not liable.If the householder stretched out his hand outside and delivered into the poor man’s hand or took something from it and brought it inside, the householder is liable but the poor man is not liable.If the poor man stretched out his hand inside and the householder took from it or gave into it and he then took it out, neither is liable.If the householder stretched out his hand outside and the poor man took from it or gave into it and he then took it in, neither is liable.

הלכה: יְצִיאוֹת הַשַּׁבָּת כול׳. מָהוּ שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע. שְׁתַּיִם לְחִייוּב וּשְׁתַּיִם לִפְטוֹר אוֹ אַרְבַּע לְחִיּוּב וְאַרְבַּע לִפְטוֹר. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מְן הָדָא. שְׁבוּעוֹת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. תַמָּן כּוּלְּהוֹן לְחִייּוּב. בְּרַם הָכָא חִייּוּב וּפְטוֹר אֲתִינָן מַתְנֵי. הָדָא אָמְרָה. ד׳ לְחִיּוּב וְד׳ לִפְטוֹר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן. שְׁבוּעוֹת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע. לֹא לְחִיוּב. וְדִכְוָותָהּ. יְצִיאוֹת הַשַּׁבָּת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע לְחִיוּב. וְהָא תַנֵּי. דַּלְתוֹת הַהֵיכַל שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע. אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר. לֹא לְחִיּוּב וְלֹא לִפְטוֹר. נִיתְנֵי. שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר פְּטוֹר. לֹא אֲתִינָן מִיתְנֵי אֶלָּא פְטוֹר שֶׁהוּא כְנֶגֶד חִייוּב. אָמַר רִבִּי חִיָיא בָּר אַבָּא. מָהוּ הָהֵן פְּטוֹר דְּתַנִּינָן הָכָא. מוּתָּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. עָנִי וְעָשִׁיר אֶחָד הֵן וּמָנוּ אוֹתָן חֲכָמִים שְׁנַיִם. הַכְנָסָה וְהוֹצָאָה אֶחָד הֵן וּמָנוּ אוֹתָן חֲכָמִים שְׁנַיִם. יְצִיאוֹת הַשַּׁבָּת אֵין הַכְנָסָה בִכְלָל. הַמּוֹצִיא מֵרְשׁוּת לִרְשׁוּת אֵין הַמַּכְנִיס בִכְלָל. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. דָּמַר רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הִכְנִיס חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת וְהוֹצִיא חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת חַיָיב. מְנַיִין שֶׁהוֹצָאָה קְרוּיָה מְלָאכָה. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן שָׁמַע לָהּ מִן הָדָא. וַיְצַו מֹשֶׁה וַיַּעֲבִירוּ קוֹל בַּמַּחֲנֶה לֵאמֹר אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה אַל יַעֲשׂוּ עוֹד מְלָאכָה לִתְרוּמַת הַקּוֹדֶשׁ וַיִּכָּלֵא הָעָם מֵהָבִיא. נִמְנְעוּ הָעָם מִלְּהוֹצִיא מִבָּתֵּיהֶן וְלִיתֵּן לַגִּיזְבָּרִים. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אִלָא. אֲפִילוּ הַכְנָסָה אַתְּ שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁנִּמְנְעוּ הָעָם מִלְּהוֹצִיא מִבָּתֵּיהֶן וְלִיתֵּן לַגִּיזְבָּרִין כָּךְ נִמְנְעוּ הַגִּזְבָּרִין מִלְּקַבֵּל מִיָּדָן וּלְהַכְנִיס לַלִּישְׁכָּה. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא שָׁמַע כּוּלְּהֹן מִן הָדֵין קִרְיָיא. לֹא תוֹצִיאוּ מַשָּׂא מִבָּתֵּיכֶם בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת וְכָל מְלָאכָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ.HALAKHAH: 1:1, explained there in Notes 5–20. The Notes here are restricted to references and short explanations.“Export on the Sabbath,” etc. What means “two which are four”? Two which are four for liability and two which are four for no liability, or four for liability and four for no liability? Let us hear from the following 1:1.: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds.” Rebbi Abba said, there all are about liability, but here we come to state both liability and no liability and Ševuot in that in the case here at least one person involved always is not liable whereas in Ševuot only one person is mentioned and all cases are of liability. For R. Yose, the parallel is only that of Mishnaiot 1–2, not 3–4. Each Mishnah describes two cases of liability; these are two covering in all four cases of liability as in Ševuot 1:1.. This implies four of liability and four of no liability. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “there are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” not because of liability? And similarly, “there are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds,” because there is liability. But was it not stated 4:1. The Mishnah is purely descriptive of the construction of Herod’s Temple; the notions of liability or no liability are inappropriate., “the doors of the Temple hall were two which are four?” Can you say, liability and no liability? Should we state twelve cases of no liability? We only come to state cases of no liability which correspond to cases of liability. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, what is this “no liability” which we stated here? Permitted! Rebbi Yose said, the poor man and the rich man are one but the Sages counted them as two. Bringing in or taking out are one but the Sages counted them as two 1:1, editio princeps, and a quote in RITBA Ševuot 1:1: “Taking out or bringing in are two but the Sages counted them as one.” As noted later in this paragraph, taking out is called work by Jeremiah (which cannot be used as a legal text but is confirmation of the interpretation of the law) whereas bringing in is only forbidden by the argument that taking out from A to B is bringing in to B from A.. Taking out on the Sabbath does not include bringing in; if one exports from one domain to the other, does this not include the one who imports? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Yasa said in the name if Rebbi Joḥanan: Somebody who brings in half the size of a dried fig and takes out half the size of a dried fig is liable transporting.. And from where that taking out is called work? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan 1:1 and the Babli (6b): R. Joḥanan; quoted without attribution by R. Ḥananel Šabbat 3b; in a number of Medieval sources R. Jonathan. understood it from the following 36:6. Babli 96a.: Moses ordered, they made a public proclamation in the camp as follows, men or women should no longer do work to contribute to the sanctuary. The people refrained from taking objects out from their houses to give them to the collectors. Rebbi Ḥizqiah In G, R, Aḥa in the name or R. Ila; in Sefer Haˋittim (ed. Mekize Nirdamim p. 300) R. Aḥa in the name of R. Ḥiyya. In Sefer Miṣwot Gadol #65, (part 1, fol. 17a in Venice edition) R. Ḥiyya in the name of R. Aḥa. in the name of Rebbi Ila: You even understand bringing in from this. Just as the people refrained from taking objects out of their houses to give to the collectors so the collectors did not accept anything from them to bring into the office. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood everything from the following 17:22.: do not bring out any load from your houses on the Sabbath day, and perform no work.

רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הִכְנִיס חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת וְהוֹצִיא חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת חַיָיב. מַה דָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחְנָן דְּלָא כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֶה. דְּתַנֵּי. הוֹצִיא חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת וְחָזַר וְהוֹצִיא חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת בְּהֶעֱלֵם אֶחָד חַיָיב. בִּשְׁנֵי הֶעֱלֵימוֹת פָּטוּר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. בְּעֶלֵם אֶחָד בִּרְשׁוּת אֶחָד חַיָיב. בְּעֶלֶם אֶחָד בִּשְׁתֵּי רְשׂוּיוֹת אוֹ בִשְׁנֵי הֶעֱלֵימוֹת בִּרְשׁוּת אֶחָד פָּטוּר. וְקַשְׁיָין. אִילּוּ הוֹצָאה וְהוֹצָאָה אֵינָן מִצְטָרְפוֹת כְּרִבִּי יוּסֶה לֹא כָל שֶׁכֵּן הַכְנָסָה וְהוֹצָאָה. הֲוֵי מַה דָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחְנָן דְּלָא כְּרִבִּי יוּסֵי.p. 64. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one brought in half a dried fig and took out half a dried fig he is liable 16:30), a sacrifice is possible only if the perpetrator was oblivious either of the fact that the act was forbidden or, in the case of the Sabbath, that the day was a Sabbath. Sins committed during different periods of oblivion require different sacrifices. In addition, the prohibition of work on the Sabbath is not a single prohibition but, as explained in Chapter 7, a set of 39 different prohibitions, each with different minima of forbidden work which trigger the obligation of a sacrifice. Minimal infractions of different prohibitions do not combine to produce the obligation of a sacrifice. On the other hand, infractions which are subsumed under the same prohibition, even if one is clearly biblically prohibited (אַב מְלָאכָה “a master work” such as transporting from a private to the public domain) and one which is classified by a logical argument as belonging to the same class (תּוֹלְדָה “a derivative”, as transporting to the private domain) do combine to create the obligation of a sacrifice.. What Rebbi Joḥanan said does not follow Rebbi Yose, as it was stated 55b, Keritut17a. The first part is a Tosephta, ed. Liebermann 9:11, ed. princeps 10:7.: “If one took out half a dried fig and again took out half a dried fig during one period of oblivion, he is liable; during different periods of oblivion he is not liable. Rebbi Yose said, during one period of oblivion and one domain he is liable, during one period of oblivion and two domains or during two periods of oblivion and one domain he is not liable.” We find this difficult. If two different transorts do not combine following Rebbi Yose, a fortiori also not bringing in and taking out? Therefore what Rebbi Joḥanan said could not follow Rebbi Yose.

אָמַר רִבִּי אִילָא. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר שָׁנֵי פְתָחִים פְּתוּחִים לִשְׁתֵּי פַּלַטִיּוֹת. אֶלָּא אֲפִילו פְתוּחִין לְפַלָטִיַת אַחַת אוֹף רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מודֶה. דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי מְדַמֵּי רְשׁוּיוֹת לְהֶעֱלֵימוֹת לְחִיּוּב. כְּמַה דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי מְדַמֵּי רְשׁוּיוֹת לְהֶעֱלֵימוֹת לִפָטוֹר כָּךְ מְדַמֶּה רְשׁוּיוֹת לְעֱלֵימוֹת לְחִייוב. שֶׁאִם הוֹצִיא כִגְרוֹגֶרֶת בְּפֶתַח זֶה וְכִגְרוֹגֶרֶת בְּפֶתַח זֶה כְעֶלֵם אֶחָד שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ חַיָיב שְׁתַּיִם.Rebbi Ila said, not only if two doors open to two public roads but even if they open to the same public road will Rebbi Yose agree, for Rebbi Yose compares domains to periods of oblivion in matters of liability. Just as Rebbi Yose compares domains to periods of oblivion in absence of liability so Rebbi Yose compares domains to periods of oblivion in matters of liability. For if he took out the volume of a dried fig through this door and the volume of a dried fig through that door in one period of oblivion is he not liable twice?

אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מְדַמֶּה רְשׁוּיוֹת לַאֲכִילַת פְּרָסִיִים. שֶׁאִם אָכַל חֲצִי זַיִת בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס הַזֶּה וַחֲצִי זַיִת בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס הַזֶּה שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ פָטוּר. אָכַל כַּמָּה זֵיתיִם בְּכַמָּה פְרָסִים בֶּעֶלֵם אֶחָד אֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת.3:3 (Notes 66–72) in a different context. (R. Yose mentioned there is the fifth generation Amora). Rebbi Yudan said, Rebbi Yose compares domains to eating slices 3:7), the only example of such solid food is forbidden fat. A sacrifice for inadvertent consumption of forbidden fat is due if at least the volume of an average olive was eaten in the time needed to eat a slice of bread. The slice is defined (Tosephta Negaˋim 7:10) as half a loaf when three loaves are baked from a kav of flour (about 35 cl). For if one ate the volume of half an olive during the time needed to eat one slice and another volume of half an olive in the time needed to eat another slice, is he not free from liability? If one ate several volumes of olives during several times needed to eat a slice in one period of forgetting, he is liable only once.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat.1.1