Shabbat

it is inferred a minori from goats' hair, which is not defiled by leprosy, yet is defiled by overshadowing the dead; then the skin of an unclean animal, which is defiled by leprosy, is surely defiled by overshadowing the dead. Then when R. Joseph recited, 'For the sacred work none but the skin of a clean animal was considered fit,' for what practical law [did he say it]? — In respect of phylacteries.  Of phylacteries it is explicitly stated, that the law of the Lord may be in thy mouth,  [meaning] of that which is permitted in thy mouth?  Rather in respect of their hide.  But Abaye said, The skin of phylacteries is a law of Moses from Sinai?  — Rather, it is in respect of tying it with hair and sewing it with its tendons.  But that is a law of Moses from Sinai. For it was taught: Rectangular phylacteries  are a law of Moses from Sinal: they must be tied with their hair and sewn with their tendons.  — Rather it is in respect of their straps.  But R. Isaac said, Black straps are a law of Moses from Sinai? Granted that black is traditional, is clean traditional? What is our conclusion with respect to the tahash which existed in Moses' days? — Said R. Elai in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish, R. Meir used to maintain, The tahash of Moses' day was a separate species, and the Sages could not decide whether it belonged to the genus of wild beasts or to the genus of domestic animals; and it bad one horn in its forehead, and it came to Moses' hand [providentially] just for the occasion,  and he made the [covering of the] Tabernacle, and then it was hidden. Now, since he says that it had one horn in its forehead, it follows that it was clean. For R. Judah said, The ox which Adam the first [man] sacrificed had one horn in its forehead, for it is said, and it shall please the Lord better than an ox, or a bullock that hath a horn [sic] and hoofs.  But makrin  implies two? — Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: Mi-keren  is written.  Then let us solve thence that it was a genus of domestic animal?  — Since there is the keresh,  which is a species of beast, and it has only one horn, one can say that it [the tahash] is a kind of wild beast. MISHNAH. A WICK [MADE] OF A CLOTH WHICH WAS TWISTED BUT NOT SINGED, — R. ELIEZER SAID: IT IS UNCLEAN, AND ONE MAY NOT LIGHT [THE SABBATH LAMP] THEREWITH; R. AKIBA MAINTAINED: IT IS CLEAN, AND ONE MAY LIGHT THEREWITH. GEMARA. As for the matter of uncleanness, it is well, [for] they differ in this: R. Eliezer holds that twisting is of no effect, and it remains in its previous condition;  while R. Akiba holds that twisting is effective, and it [its previous condition] is indeed annulled. But with reference to lighting, wherein do they differ? — R. Eleazar said in R. Oshaia's name, and R. Adda b. Ahabah said likewise: The reference here is to [a rag] exactly three [fingerbreadths] square;  and also to a Festival falling on the eve of the Sabbath. Now, all agree with R. Judah, who maintained, One may fire [an oven, etc.,] with [whole] utensils, but not with broken utensils.  Further, all agree with 'Ulla's dictum, viz.: He who lights must light the greater part [of the wick] which protrudes. R. Eliezer holds that twisting is of no avail, and immediately one kindles it slightly it becomes a broken utensil,  and when he goes on kindling it,  he kindles a broken utensil. But R. Akiba holds that twisting is effective, and it does not bear the character of a utensil, and therefore when he kindles, he kindles a mere piece of wood.  R. Joseph observed: This is what I learnt, exactly three [fingerbreadths] square, but did not know in reference to what law. Now, since R. Adda b. Ahabah explains it in accordance with R. Judah,  it follows that he himself holds as R. Judah. Yet did R. Adda b. Ahabah say thus? Surely R. Adda b. Ahabah said: