Shabbat

— He rules as R. Simeon b. Nannos.  Yet perhaps R. Simeon b. Nannos said [merely], BECAUSE HE SINGES: but did he rule [thus] of indirect extinguishing?  — Yet, since the final clause teaches, R. JOSE FORBIDS IN THE CASE OF NEW EARTHEN VESSELS FILLED WITH WATER, BECAUSE SINCE THEY CANNOT STAND THE HEAT THEY WILL BURST AND EXTINGUISH THE FIRE, it follows that the first Tanna permits it. Our Rabbis taught: If a lamp is on a board, one may shake [tip up] the board and it [the lamp] falls off, and if it is extinguished, it is extinguished. The School of R. Jannai said: They learnt this only if one forgot [it there]; but if he placed [it there], it [the board] became a stand for a forbidden article.  A Tanna taught: If a lamp is behind a door, one may open and close [it] naturally, and if it is extinguished  it is extinguished. Rab cursed this [ruling]. Said Rabina to R. Aha the son of Raba — others state, R. Aha the son of Raba to R. Ashi — why did Rab curse this? Shall we say because Rab holds with R. Judah,  whereas the Tanna teaches as R. Simeon? Because Rab holds with R. Judah, if one teaches as R. Simeon, shall he curse him! — Here, he replied, even R. Simeon agrees, for Abaye and Raba both said: R. Simeon agrees in a case of 'cut off his head and let him not die.' Rab Judah said: One may open a door opposite a fire on the Sabbath.  Abaye cursed this. What are the circumstances? If there is a normal wind [blowing], what is the reason of the one who forbids?  — If there is an abnormal wind, what is the reason of the one who permits?  — In truth, it refers to a normal wind: one Master holds, we prohibit preventively;  whilst the other Master holds, We do not prohibit preventively. ONE MAY MAKE A BARRIER, etc. Shall we say that the Rabbis hold, Indirect extinguishing  is permitted, while R. Jose holds that it is forbidden? But we know them [to maintain] the reverse. For it was taught: One may make a barrier of empty vessels and of full vessels which are not liable to burst; metal vessels. R. Jose said: The vessels of Kefar Shihin and Kefar Hananiah  too are not likely to burst!  And should you answer, Reverse our Mishnah while R. Jose of the Baraitha argues on the view of the Rabbis;  [it may be asked], But can you reverse them? Surely Rabbah b. Tahlifa said in Rab's name: 'Which Tanna holds that indirect extinguishing is forbidden? R. Jose'! Hence in truth you must not reverse it, the whole of the Baraitha being [the view] of R. Jose but there is a lacuna, and it was thus taught: One may make a barrier with empty vessels and with full vessels that are not likely to burst, and these are the vessels which are not likely to burst: metal vessels, and the vessels of Kefar Shihin and Kefar Hananiah too are not likely to burst. For R. Jose maintains: The vessels of Kefar Shihin and Kefar Hananiah too are not likely to burst. Now, the Rabbis are self-contradictory and R. Jose is selfcontradictory. For it was taught: If one has the [Divine] Name written on his skin, he must not bathe nor anoint [himself] nor stand in an unclean place. If he must perform an obligatory tebillah, he must wind a reed  about it and descend and perform tebillah. R. Jose said: He may at all times descend and perform tebillah in the ordinary way, provided that he does not rub [it]?  — There it is different, because Scripture saith, And ye shall destroy their name out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto the Lord your God:  only [direct] action is forbidden, but indirect action is permitted. If so, here too it is written, thou shalt not do any work:  only [direct] action is forbidden, but indirect action is permitted? — Since a man is excited over his property if you permit him [indirect action], he may come to extinguish it. If so, the Rabbis are self-contradictory: if there, though a man is excited over his property, it is permitted, how much more so here? — Now, is that logical:  this reed, how is it meant? If it is wound tightly, it is an interposition;  [while] if it is not wound tightly the water enters. ([You speak of] 'an interposition' that follows from the ink?  — The reference is to wet [ink for it was taught: Blood, ink, honey, and milk, if dry [on the skin] constitute an interposition; if moist, they do not constitute an interposition.) Yet still there is the difficulty?  — Rather said Raba b. Shila, This is the reason of the Rabbis: because they hold one must not stand nude in the presence of the Divine Name. Hence it follows that R. Jose holds that one may stand nude in the presence of the Divine Name?  — He places his hand upon it. Then according to the Rabbis too, let him place his hand upon it? He may chance to forget and remove it. Then according to R. Jose too, he may forget and remove it? — Rather [reply thus]. If a reed is available that is indeed so.  The discussion is about going to seek a reed:  the Rabbis hold,