Translation:Talmud/Seder Moed/Tractate Shabbat/2b

the forms of consciousness of uncleanness are two which are four;^[1] the appearances of leprosy are two, which are four;^[2] the carryings out of the Sabbath are two which are four.^[3] Now, why is it taught here, TWO WHICH ARE FOUR WITHIN, AND TWO WHICH ARE FOUR WITHOUT; whereas there it is [simply] stated, 'two which are four,' and nothing else? — Here, since the Sabbath is the main theme, [both] principal [forms of labour] and derivatives are taught;^[4] but there, since the main theme is not the Sabbath, principal labours only are taught, but not derivatives. What are the principal labours? — carryings out! But the carryings out are only two?^[5] And should you answer, some of these involve liability, and some do not involve liability^[6] — surely it is taught on a par with the appearances of leprosy: just as there all involve liability,^[7] so here too all involve liability? — Rather said R. Papa: here that the Sabbath is the main theme, acts of liability and non-liability are taught; there, since the Sabbath is not the main theme, only acts of liability are taught, but not of exemptions.^[8] Now, what are the cases of liability-carryings out? But the carryings out are [only] two?^[9] — There are two forms of carrying out and two of carrying in. But 'carry ings out' are taught? — Said R. Ashi: The Tanna designates carrying in' too as 'carrying out.'^[10] How do you know it? — Because we learnt: If one carries out [an object] from one domain to another, he is liable. Does this not mean even if he carries [it] in from the public to a private domain, and yet it is called 'carrying out.' And what is the reason? — Every removal of an article from its place the Tanna designates 'carrying out.' Rabina said: Our Mishnah too proves it, because CARRYINGS OUT are taught, yet straightway a definition of carrying in is given; this proves it. Raba said: He [the Tanna] teaches [the number of] domains; the domains of the Sabbath are two.^[11]

R. Mattenah objected to Abaye: Are there eight?^[12] but there are twelve!^[13] — But according to your reasoning, there are sixteen!^[14] Said he to him, That is no difficulty: as for the first clause, it is well:

Notes

1. In Lev. V, 2f, 5-7 a variable sacrifice is also decreed for transgressing through uncleanness. According to the Talmud (Shebu. 7b) this refers to the eating of holy food, e.g., the flesh of sacrifices, and entering the Temple while unclean. Further, liability is contracted only if one was originally aware of his uncleanness, forgot it, and ate sacred food or entered the Temple, and then became conscious of it again. Thus there are two, viz., forgetfulness of uncleanness when eating sacred food, and same when entering the Temple. To these another two are added: forgetfulness of the sacred nature of the food and forgetfulness of the sanctity of the Temple while being aware of one's uncleanness.
2. The two are 'a rising' and 'a bright spot' (Lev. XIII, 2), which, in order to be unclean, must be snowy white and white as wool respectively. To these the Rabbis added, by exegesis, the whiteness of the plaster of the Temple and the whiteness of the white of an egg respectively-in each case a darker shade.
3. BaH, on the basis of the text in Shebu. I, 1, reverses the order of the last two.
4. Labours forbidden on the Sabbath are of two classes: (i) principal labours (aboth, lit., 'fathers') and (ii) derivatives (toledoth, lit., 'offsprings'), which are prohibited as partaking of the nature of the principal labours. Both are regarded as Biblical. Carrying out from private into public ground is a principal labour, while the reverse is a derivative thereof (infra 96b).
5. Viz., that of the poor man who takes an article from the houseowner's hand, and that of the master of the house who puts an article into the poor man's hand. Where then are the 'two which are four?'
6. I.e., two carryings out impose liability, as in preceding note, and another two are forbidden yet do not involve liability. Viz., if the poor man stretches his hand within, receives an article, and withdraws it; likewise, if the master of the house puts forth his hand with an object which the other takes, as explained on p. 1, n. 5 on the Mishnah. — Thus there are 'two which are four,' all referring to carrying out.
7. To the purificatory sacrifices of a leper (Lev. XIV).
8. Two instances of carrying out, and two of carrying in, as explained in the Mishnah.
9. Though there is liability for carrying in, the Mishnah in Shebu. speaks only of 'carryings out.'
10. Employing 'carrying out' in the wider sense of transporting between private and public ground.
11. I.e., in respect of the Sabbath we recognize two domains, public and private, carrying between which is prohibited. On account of these two four acts are forbidden to a person standing within and four to a person standing without, and that is the meaning of 'TWO WHICH ARE FOUR,' both here and in Shebu. (Rashi). Riba explains it differently. — Actually four domains are distinguished (infra 6a), but these are the principal two.
12. 'TWO WHICH ARE FOUR WITHIN, AND TWO WHICH ARE FOUR WITHOUT.'
13. In addition to the four acts which involve liability, there are eight which do not. Viz., two acts of removal by the poor man without depositing, i.e., if he stretches his hand into the house and the master takes an object from him, or the master puts his hand without and the poor man places an object in it. Reversing these, we have two acts of depositing by the poor man without removal. These four, again, are also to be viewed from the standpoint of the master of the house, which gives eight in all.
14. For the two actions which involve liability for the poor man are likewise to be regarded from the standpoint of the master of the house, and vice versa, which yield another four.