## Shabbat Daf 12a

###### Shabbat 12a:1
[Shabbat 12a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/12a:1)

שֶׁלֹּא יִלְקֶה הַכּוֹתֶל — אֵינוֹ בְּ״כִי יוּתַּן״! מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם לָא קָא בָּעֵי לְהוּ לְהָנֵי מַשְׁקִין כְּלָל, הָכָא קָא בָעֵי לֵיהּ לְהַאי כִּיס לְקַבּוֹלֵי בֵּיהּ זִיבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**that the wall will not be damaged, it is not under** the rubric of the verse: **“If** water **be placed.”** The water does not have the legal status of water poured for that purpose. This *tanna* does not consider protecting the wall from dirt as a significant usage. Similarly, protecting the *zav* from being soiled by the emission would not be considered a significant usage and the pouch used for that purpose would not be considered a significant vessel. The Gemara rejects this: **Are** these cases **comparable? There, he does not need those liquids at all,** and therefore the vessel is not considered to have been placed to receive them. However, **here he needs this pouch to absorb the emission,** to ascertain whether or not he experienced an emission. Although on that particular day he does not require the pouch, the *zav* typically requires his pouch for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not there is another emission.


###### Shabbat 12a:2
[Shabbat 12a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/12a:2)

הָא לָא דָּמְיָא אֶלָּא לְסֵיפָא: עֲרֵיבָה שֶׁיָּרַד דֶּלֶף לְתוֹכָהּ, מַיִם הַנִּיתָּזִין וְהַנִּצָּפִין אֵינָן בְּ״כִי יוּתַּן״, וְשֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ הֲרֵי זֶה בְּ״כִי יוּתַּן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rather, **this** *halakha* with regard to the *zav* **is comparable only to the latter clause** of the mishna dealing with rainwater, in which we learned: **A bowl that the drip** of rain from the roof **dropped into it,** the **water that splashes** or **overflows** from the bowl does not have the legal status of water collected for a purpose, and **is not under** the rubric of the verse: **“If** water **be placed.” And** the water **that is in** the bowl has the legal status of water collected for a purpose and **is under** the rubric of the verse: **“If** water **be placed.”** Although, fundamentally, one has no interest in the drip of water, once the water already dripped, he wants it to remain in the bowl and not dirty the house. That desire is sufficient to accord the water in the bowl the legal status of water placed there willfully. The same is true with regard to the pouch of the *zav*. In the current situation of the *zav*, he is interested in keeping the emission in its place, and therefore the original difficulty posed by the contradiction between the two *baraitot* remains intact.


###### Shabbat 12a:3
[Shabbat 12a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/12a:3)

אֶלָּא אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְהָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it is **Abaye and Rava, who both said** that this is **not difficult.** There is no contradiction between the *baraitot*. **This** *baraita*, which deems a *zav* liable by Torah law for going out with his pouch, **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda.** His opinion is that one who performs a prohibited labor that is not needed for its own sake, but rather for a different consequence of that prohibited labor, is liable. **And that** *baraita*, which deems him exempt, is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon.** He holds that one who performs a prohibited labor that is not needed for its own sake is exempt. Since the *zav* is not at all interested in the flow and the pouch, he is exempt by Torah law for carrying the pouch.


###### Shabbat 12a:4
[Shabbat 12a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/12a:4)

תָּנֵי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: יוֹצֵא אָדָם בִּתְפִילִּין בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת עִם חֲשֵׁיכָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? — כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא חַיָּיב אָדָם לְמַשְׁמֵשׁ בַּתְּפִילִּין כׇּל שָׁעָה וְשָׁעָה. קַל וָחֹמֶר מִצִּיץ: מָה צִיץ שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אֶלָּא אַזְכָּרָה אַחַת אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה ״וְהָיָה עַל מִצְחוֹ תָּמִיד״ — שֶׁלֹּא יַסִּיחַ דַּעְתּוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ, תְּפִילִּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן אַזְכָּרוֹת הַרְבֵּה — עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. הִלְכָּךְ מִידְכָּר דָּכֵיר לְהוּ. תַּנְיָא, חֲנַנְיָא אוֹמֵר: חַיָּיב אָדָם לְמַשְׁמֵשׁ בְּבִגְדוֹ עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת עִם חֲשֵׁכָה. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הִלְכְתָא רַבָּתִי לְשַׁבָּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The** Sage of the **school** of **Rabbi Yishmael taught** in a *baraita*: **A person may go out** *ab initio* donning **phylacteries on Shabbat eve at nightfall.** Although one does not don phylacteries on Shabbat and going out donning them involves an element of carrying, there is no concern lest he forget and remove them on Shabbat. **What is the reason** for this? **Because Rabba bar Rav Huna said: A person is obligated to touch his phylacteries at all times** that he is donning them. This is derived from an ***a fortiori* inference** [***kal vaḥomer***] from **the frontplate [*tzitz*]** of the High Priest. **Just as** with regard to **the frontplate, which has only one mention** of God’s name, **the Torah said: “And it should be always upon his forehead”** (Exodus 28:38), which means that the High Priest must always be aware that the *tzitz* is placed on his head and **that he should not be distracted from it; phylacteries that have numerous mentions** of God’s name, **all the more so** one should always be aware of them. **Therefore, he remembers** that the phylacteries are on his head and is not likely to come to carry them on Shabbat. On a related note, the Gemara mentions that **it was taught** in a *baraita* that **Ḥananya says: A person is required to feel his clothing on Shabbat eve at nightfall** to ascertain whether he forgot an object in his pockets that he might come to carry on Shabbat. **And Rav Yosef** commented and **said:** That is **a significant *halakha* for Shabbat,** and it is fitting to do so in order to refrain from violating a prohibition.


###### Shabbat 12a:5
[Shabbat 12a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/12a:5)

לֹא יְפַלֶּה אֶת כֵּלָיו כּוּ׳. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: לֹא יְפַלֶּה אֶת כֵּלָיו בַּיּוֹם שֶׁמָּא יַהֲרוֹג, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: הַהוֹרֵג כִּינָּה בְּשַׁבָּת — כְּאִילּוּ הוֹרֵג גָּמָל. וְלֹא יִקְרָא לְאוֹר הַנֵּר שֶׁמָּא יַטֶּה. אוֹ דִילְמָא תַּרְוַיְיהוּ שֶׁמָּא יַטֶּה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna: One **may not shake his clothes** on Shabbat to rid them of lice; and one may not read a book by candlelight, so that he will not come to adjust the wick of the lamp. **A dilemma was raised** before the Sages: Does this mean that **one may not shake his clothes** even **during the day** due to the concern **lest he kill** the louse that he finds in his clothing, and our mishna **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer? As it was taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Eliezer said: One who kills a louse on Shabbat,** even though it is a very small creature, it is **as if he killed a camel,** and there is no difference in the severity of the prohibition. And what was said in the mishna: **And he may not read by candlelight,** is due to concern **lest he adjust** the wick, a totally independent matter. **Or, perhaps both of** these *halakhot* **are** due to the concern **lest he adjust** the wick, and both *halakhot* apply exclusively at night. During the day he is permitted to shake his clothes, and there is no concern lest he kill a louse.


###### Shabbat 12a:6
[Shabbat 12a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/12a:6)

תָּא שְׁמַע: אֵין פּוֹלִין וְאֵין קוֹרִין לְאוֹר הַנֵּר. מִי אַלִּימָא מִמַּתְנִיתִין?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** a resolution to this dilemma from that which was taught in a *baraita*: **One may not shake** clothing **and one may not read** a book **by candlelight** on Shabbat. The style of the *baraita* indicates that both actions are prohibited for the same reason. The Gemara rejects this: **Is** this proof from the *baraita* a **stronger** proof **than our mishna?** In our mishna, both *halakhot* are also cited together, and that was insufficient proof that they share a common rationale.


###### Shabbat 12a:7
[Shabbat 12a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/12a:7)

תָּא שְׁמַע: אֵין פּוֹלִין לְאוֹר הַנֵּר וְאֵין קוֹרִין לְאוֹר הַנֵּר, אֵלּוּ מִן הַהֲלָכוֹת שֶׁאָמְרוּ בַּעֲלִיַּית חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן חִזְקִיָּה בֶּן גָּרוֹן. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ שֶׁמָּא יַטֶּה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** a resolution to this dilemma from that which was taught in another *baraita*: **One may not shake** clothing **by the light of the lamp and one may not read by the light of the lamp. These** two decrees **are among the *halakhot* that** the Sages **said in the upper story of Ḥananya ben Ḥizkiya ben Garon. Learn from this that both of** the decrees are due to the concern **lest he adjust** the wick. In both decrees, the prohibition of doing so by the light of the lamp, lest he come to adjust the wick, was mentioned. Indeed, **learn from this.**


###### Shabbat 12a:8
[Shabbat 12a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/12a:8)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֲפִילּוּ לְהַבְחִין בֵּין בִּגְדּוֹ לְבִגְדֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ. אָמַר רָבָא: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דִּבְנֵי מָחוֹזָא, אֲבָל דִּבְנֵי חַקְלָיָתָא מִידָּע יָדְעִי. וְדִבְנֵי מָחוֹזָא נָמֵי לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דִּזְקֵנוֹת, אֲבָל דִּילָדוֹת מִידָּע יָדְעִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said:** It is prohibited to use candlelight **even to distinguish between his garments and the garments of his wife.** Because that requires a certain degree of scrutiny, there is concern lest he adjust the wick in order to see better. To qualify this statement, **Rava said: We only said** this with regard to the garments **of the people** of the city **of Meḥoza,** as there the men’s garments are wide and ornamented similar to the women’s garments; **however,** with regard to **farmers** and village residents, **they know** the difference between men’s and women’s garments. There is no concern lest they adjust the wick to distinguish between the garments, as the differences between men’s garments and women’s garments are obvious. Even with regard to the clothing of **the people of Meḥoza, we only said** that it is prohibited to distinguish between men’s and women’s garments with regard to the garments of **old women; however,** with regard to the garments of **young women, they know** the difference and there is no concern lest one adjust the wick to distinguish between them.


###### Shabbat 12a:9
[Shabbat 12a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/12a:9)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין פּוֹלִין בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים מִפְּנֵי הַכָּבוֹד. כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה: אֵין עוֹשִׂין אַפִּיקְטְוִיזִין בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים מִפְּנֵי הַכָּבוֹד. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמְפַלֶּה אֶת כֵּלָיו, מוֹלֵל וְזוֹרֵק, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַהֲרוֹג. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: נוֹטֵל וְזוֹרֵק, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִמְלוֹל. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הֲלָכָה מוֹלֵל וְזוֹרֵק וְזֶהוּ כְּבוֹדוֹ, וַאֲפִילּוּ בַּחוֹל. רַבָּה מְקַטַּע לְהוּ. וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת מְקַטַּע לְהוּ. רָבָא שָׁדֵי לְהוּ לְלָקָנָא דְמַיָּא. אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב נַחְמָן לִבְנָתֵיהּ: קִטְלָן וְאַשְׁמְעִינַן לִי קָלָא דְסָנְווֹתִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught: One may not shake** clothing to rid them of lice **in the public domain in deference to** human **dignity,** as passersby would be offended by this. **Similarly, Rabbi Yehuda said, and some say** that **Rabbi Neḥemya** said it: **One may not make an *appiktoizin*,** a drug to induce vomiting, **in the public domain in deference to** human **dignity.** With regard to the matter of shaking clothing to rid them of lice on Shabbat, the Gemara cites that which **the Sages taught** in the *Tosefta*: **One who shakes his clothing may squeeze** the louse **and throw** it, **as long as he does not kill** it. **Abba Shaul says: He may take** the louse **and throw** it, **as long as he does not squeeze** it. In his opinion, killing a louse is prohibited by Torah law. Therefore, even squeezing it is prohibited, lest he come to kill it. **Rav Huna said: The *halakha* is** that **he may squeeze and throw** the louse, **and that is** the **dignified** way to get rid of a louse, **and even during** the days of **the week,** when it is not Shabbat and there is no concern lest he violate the prohibition of killing a louse. Even then, it is preferable not to kill it because it is disgusting and it is sufficient to simply throw it (*Me’iri*). The Gemara relates that **Rabba would kill** the lice. **And Rav Sheshet would** also **kill them. Rava would throw them into a cup [*lekna*] of water** and he would not kill them directly with his hands. The Gemara relates that **Rav Naḥman would say to his daughters: Kill them, and let me hear the sound of the combs,** meaning, you may kill the lice in the usual manner on the comb.


###### Shabbat 12a:10
[Shabbat 12a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/12a:10)

תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אֵין הוֹרְגִין אֶת הַמַּאֲכוֹלֶת בְּשַׁבָּת, דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
As far as the basic *halakha* is concerned, **it was taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says** that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed with regard to killing a louse on Shabbat: **One may not kill a louse on Shabbat,** this is **the statement of Beit Shammai; and Beit Hillel permit** doing so. In their opinion, a louse is unlike the other creatures for which one is liable for killing them on Shabbat.


###### Shabbat 12a:11
[Shabbat 12a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/12a:11)

וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: אֵין מְשַׁדְּכִין אֶת הַתִּינוֹקוֹת לֵאָרֵס, וְלֹא אֶת הַתִּינוֹק לְלַמְּדוֹ סֵפֶר וּלְלַמְּדוֹ אוּמָּנוּת, וְאֵין מְנַחֲמִין אֲבֵלִים, וְאֵין מְבַקְּרִין חוֹלִין בְּשַׁבָּת, דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would also say in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: One may not make matches [*meshaddekhin*] for the children, to betroth** them on Shabbat, **and** one may **not** enter into an agreement to take **the child and teach him** to read **a** sacred **book or to teach him a trade, and** one **may not comfort mourners** on Shabbat, **and** one **may not visit the sick on Shabbat,** this is **the statement of Beit Shammai,** as in their opinion, those are weekday activities and not appropriate on Shabbat. **And Beit Hillel permit** performing all of these activities on Shabbat, as they each include an aspect of mitzva.


###### Shabbat 12a:12
[Shabbat 12a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/12a:12)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, הַנִּכְנָס לְבַקֵּר אֶת הַחוֹלֶה אוֹמֵר: ״שַׁבָּת הִיא מִלִּזְעוֹק, וּרְפוּאָה קְרוֹבָה לָבֹא״. וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: ״יְכוֹלָה הִיא שֶׁתְּרַחֵם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **One who enters to visit a sick person** on Shabbat does not address him in the manner customary during the week; rather, he **says: It is** on **Shabbat** that it is prohibited **to cry out** and ask for compassion, **and healing is soon to come. And Rabbi Meir says** that it is appropriate to add: The merit of Shabbat **is capable** of engendering **compassion.**