1 or whether the tefillin were new or old; so R. Meir. R. Judah forbids this in the case of new ones but permits it in that of old ones. It is quite clear, therefore, that one Master is of the opinion that a man does take unnecessary trouble, while the other Master holds that he does not. (Mnemonic: Shizi ‘azbi.) Now, however, that the father of Samuel son of R. Isaac learned: ‘Old ones are all those that have straps which are tied into a knot, while new ones are such as have straps that are not tied into a knot,’ all might be assumed to agree that no man would take unnecessary trouble. But why should not one fasten them with a loop? — R. Hisda replied: This proves that a loop is inadmissible in tefillin. Abaye replied: R. Judah follows his view, expressed elsewhere, that a loop is like a proper knot. The reason then is that a loop is like a proper knot, but if that had not been so one would presumably have been allowed to fasten them with a loop. But, it may be objected, did not R. Judah son of R. Samuel b. Shilath rule in the name of Rab: The shape of the knot of the tefillin is a halachah that was given to Moses at Sinai, and R. Nahman explained: Their ornamentation must be turned outwards? — One could make the loop similar to the prescribed knot. R. Hisda citing Rab ruled: If a man buys a supply of’ tefillin from a non-expert he must examine two tefillin of the hand and one of the head, or two of the head and one of the hand. But, whatever your explanation may be, a difficulty remains: If he bought them from one man, why should he not examine either three of the hand or three of the head, and if he bought them from two or three persons, should not each one require examination? The fact is that he bought them from one man, but it is necessary that his reputation shall be established in respect of those of the hand as well as those of the head. But can this be correct? purely Rabbah b. Samuel learned, ‘In the case of tefillin one examines three of the hand and of the head’, which means, does it not, either three of the hand or three of the head? — No, three, some of which must be of the hand and some of the head. But did not R. Kahana learn: In the case of tefillin one examines two of the hand and of the head? — This represents the view of Rabbi who laid down that if something has happened twice presumption is established. But if this represents the view of Rabbi, read the final clause: ‘The same procedure is followed in the case of the second packet and also in that of the third packet’; but if this represents the view of Rabbi, would he require the examination of a third packet? — Rabbi agrees in the case of packets since one usually buys them from two or three persons. But if so, should not even the fourth and even the fifth also require examination? — The law is so indeed, and the reason why ‘the third’ is mentioned is merely to indicate that no presumption is established. In fact, however, even a fourth or a fifth must also be examined. IF HE FOUND THEM ARRANGED IN PACKETS OR TIED UP IN BUNDLES etc. What is meant by PACKETS and what by BUNDLES? — Rab Judah citing Rab replied: Packets and bundles are practically the same thing but in packets the tefillin are packed In pairs while in bundles they are tied together promiscuously. HE SHALL WAIT BY THEM UNTIl IT IS DARK AND THEN BRING THEM IN. But why? Might he not bring them in, one pair at a time?- R. Isaac the son of R. Judah replied: It was explained to me by my father that if by bringing them in, one pair at a time, the entire stock could be transferred before sunset, he is to take them in, one pair at a time; otherwise HE SHALL WAIT BY THEM UNTIL IT IS DARK AND THEN BRING THEM IN. IN A TIME OF DANGER, HOWEVER, HE SHALL COVER THEM. AND PROCEED ON HIS WAY. But was it not taught: In a time of danger he carries them in small stages each of less than four cubits? — Rab replied: This is no difficulty since the former refers to the danger of heathens while the latter refers to that of highwaymen.50ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿᵃᵒᵃᵖᵃᵠᵃʳᵃˢᵃᵗᵃᵘᵃᵛᵃʷᵃˣ
2 Said Abaye: How did you explain our Mishnah? That it refers to danger from idolaters? Read them the final clause, R. SIMEON RULED: HE SHALL PASS THEM TO HIS FELLOW AND HIS FELLOW SHALL PASS THEM TO HIS FELLOW, would not this cause much greater publicity? A clause is wanting in our Mishnah, the proper reading being as follows: This applies to danger from idolaters but in the case of danger from highwaymen he carries them in small stages each of less than four cubits. R. SIMEON RULED: HE SHALL PASS THEM TO HIS FELLOW etc. On what principle do they differ? — One Master holds that it is preferable to carry them in stages of less than four cubits, for if you should say that he should pass them to his fellow and his fellow to his fellow, the desecration of the sabbath would be given undue publicity; while the other Master holds that it is preferable to pass them to one's fellow, for should you say that he shall carry them in stages of less than four cubits it might sometimes happen that he would be absent-minded and would in consequence carry them four cubits in a public domain. THE SAME PROCEDURE IS TO BE FOLLOWED IN THE CASE OF A SON OF HIS. How does his child come to be there? — The school of Manasseh taught: This is a case where his mother bore him in the field. And what is intended by the expression. EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE AS MANY AS A HUNDRED? — That, though the movement from hand to hand is rather a hardship to him, this procedure is nevertheless to be preferred. R. Judah RULED: A MAN MAY PASS A JAR. But does not R. Judah agree with what we learned: Cattle and objects may move only as far as the feet of their owner? — Resh Lakish citing levi the elder replied: Here we are dealing with a case where he emptied the contents from one jar into another, R. Judah following his view, expressed elsewhere, that water is deemed to have no substance, for we learned: R. Judah exempts water because it has no substance. Then what could be the meaning of THIS MUST NOT MOVE? — That which is within THIS MUST NOT BE MOVED FURTHER THAN THE FEET OF ITS OWNER. Might it not be suggested that R. Judah was heard to hold his view only where it was absorbed in dough; was he, however, heard to hold the same view where it had an independent existence? Surely. if where water is mixed with the contents of a pot R. Judah rules that it does not lose its existence, would it lose it where it had an independent existence? For was it not taught: R. Judah ruled: Water and salt lose their identity in dough but not in a pot on account of its broth? — Rather, explained Raba, we are here dealing with the case of a jar that had acquired a place for the Sabbath and that of water that had not acquired a place. so that the identity of the jar is lost In the water; as we have learnt: If a man carries out a living person in a bed he is exempt even in respect of the bed, since the bed is of secondary importance; if a man carries out in a vessel food-stuffs less than the forbidden quantity he is exempt even in respect of the vessel, since the vessel is only of secondary importance. R. Joseph raised an objection: R. Judah ruled: ‘When in a caravan a man, may pass a jar to his fellow and his fellow to his fellow’, which implies, does it not, that only when in a caravan is this permitted but not otherwise? — The fact rather is, explained R. Joseph, that what we learned in our Mishnah referred also to a caravan. Abaye explained: When in a caravan the device is permitted even when both the jar and the water had acquired a place for the Sabbath, but when one is not in a caravan the device is allowed only where the jar alone had acquired a place for the Sabbath but not the water. R. Ashi explained: Here we are dealing with a jar and water both of which were ownerless, And whose [view is expressed in what] THEY SAID TO HIM? — That of R. Johanan b. Nuri who holds that ownerless objects acquire their place for the Sabbath . And what could be the meaning of THIS MUST NOT BE MOVED FURTHER THAN THE FEET OF ITS OWNER?- they must not be moved further than vessels that have an owner. MISHNAH. IF A MAN WAS READING IN A SCROLL ON A THRESHOLD AND THE SCROLL ROLLED OUT OF HIS HAND, HE MAY ROLL IT BACK TO HIMSELF. IF HE WAS READING IT ON THE TOP OF A ROOF AND THE SCROLL ROLLED OUT OF HIS HAND, HE MAY, BEFORE IT REACHED TEN HANDBREADTHS FROM THE GROUND, ROLL IT BACK TO HIMSELF. BUT AFTER IT HAD REACHED THE TEN HANDBREADTHS HE MUST TURN IT OVER WITH ITS WRITING DOWNWARDS. R. JUDAH RULED: EVEN IF IT WAS REMOVED FROM THE GROUND BY NO MORE THAN A THREAD'S THICKNESS HE MAY ROLL IT BACK TO HIMSELF. R. SIMEON RULED: EVEN IF IT TOUCHED THE ACTUAL GROUND HE MAY ROLL IT BACK TO HIMSELF, SINCE NO PROHIBITION THAT IS DUE TO SHEBUTH RETAINS ITS FORCE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HOLY WRITINGS. GEMARA. What kind of THRESHOLD is one to imagine? If it be suggested that the threshold was a private domain, and that in front of it was a public domain, and that no preventive measure was enacted against the possibility that the entire scroll might fall down and that one might then carry it in,ᵃʸᵃᶻᵇᵃᵇᵇᵇᶜᵇᵈᵇᵉᵇᶠᵇᵍᵇʰᵇⁱᵇʲᵇᵏᵇˡᵇᵐᵇⁿᵇᵒᵇᵖᵇᵠᵇʳᵇˢᵇᵗᵇᵘᵇᵛᵇʷᵇˣᵇʸᵇᶻᶜᵃᶜᵇᶜᶜᶜᵈᶜᵉᶜᶠᶜᵍᶜʰᶜⁱᶜʲᶜᵏᶜˡᶜᵐᶜⁿᶜᵒᶜᵖᶜᵠᶜʳᶜˢᶜᵗᶜᵘᶜᵛᶜʷᶜˣᶜʸᶜᶻᵈᵃᵈᵇᵈᶜᵈᵈᵈᵉᵈᶠᵈᵍᵈʰᵈⁱᵈʲᵈᵏ