Yesterday, we discussed a Zav (a man who experiences a specific type of emission, which is sometimes associated with gonorrhea). The practice was for the Zav to wear a special pouch to catch any further emissions and not ruin his clothes. We wanted to know if this was carrying that would be prohibited on Shabbat if the Zav went from one domain to another or if the pouch was part of his clothing and therefore not carrying. We continue this question in today’s Daf. The Rabbis debate whether the purpose of the actions matter in determining whether something is prohibited or permitted. For some Rabbis, a labor to be biblically prohibited must be dome for a constructive purpose. If the action is done for another reason, for a permitted reason, then it is not biblically prohibited (but rabbinically prohibited). One classic case that we will get to in a few weeks is a corpse in our house on Shabbat. Can we carry the corpse outside? Some rabbis hold that we are merely resolving a problem and are exempt from the biblical prohibition. If however, we take an item out of our house that is needed outside, then that is carrying and biblically prohibited. Whether purpose matters is not resolved in our Daf.
We next turn to the prohibition against carrying something in public just before Shabbat. The Rabbis debate whether this prohibition applies to wearing Tefillin. There is a rabbinic prohibition against wearing Tefillin in public on Shabbat. The prohibition does not extend to just before Shabbat, however, because we are constantly touching our Tefillin and we should be constantly contemplating them. Therefore, we are unlikely to forget to take them off before Shabbat.
The Rabbis next turn to a problem of sentence construction. Remember that the Talmud is written without vowels, without punctuation or paragraphs and in a very abbreviated language. Our Mishnah from yesterday states, “And one may not delouse his garments, and on may not read by the light of the lamp.” We interpret this as one sentence. The Rabbis wonder if “by the light of the lamp” applies to delousing garments and reading or just reading. We are required to inspect our garments just before Shabbat to make sure we are not inadvertently carrying anything. Perhaps we are not to delouse our garments even in the daylight because some rabbis feel killing a louse on Shabbat is prohibited. Ultimately, we will conclude that killing a louse on Shabbat is just fine. So, the more accepted view is that we don’s delouse with a lamp.
Lamps are a special problem. I have not read often by the light of an oil lamp so I will have to just accept what I am reading. We can light a lamp before Shabbat and leave it burning, but we cannot kindle a light. Apparently, when reading by oil lamp, if the light is not bright enough, one solution is to tilt the lamp causing it to burn brighter. We consider this kindling and prohibited. The Rabbis prohibit both delousing and reading by lamplight so that we don’t tilt the lamp to create more light and thus kindle. Kindling plays more of a role later in our Daf. Regardless of the status of delousing, the Rabbis are kind enough to remind us that we don’t delouse or vomit in public because that would be disgusting!
As I said, the Rabbis disagreed on whether we can kill a louse on Shabbat. We learn a whole set of activities that the House of Shammai (a strict group) prohibited on Shabbat that the House of Hillel (a more lenient group) permitted. Included in this list of prohibitions is consoling mourners and the sick. Shammai reasoned that such activities cause us anguish and Shabbat is meant to be joyous. According to the Talmud, these folks would visit their sick friends on Shabbat and say something like, “It is Shabbat now, therefore we are prevented from crying out for your recovery, but recovery will come soon.” We actually learn about half-a-dozen of these -non-consoling phrases we can use with the sick and mourners. Hillel, however, saw no inconsistency with Shabbat as a day of joy and consoling our sick friends. In the vast majority of disputes between Shammai and Hillel in the Talmud, our practice today is to follow Hillel.
We do learn that Rabbi Elazar would console sick people in Hebrew (if they spoke Hebrew) and Aramaic (the vernacular language of Jews in Babylonia that is close to Hebrew). This leads to a debate about whether we should pray in the vernacular. Rabbi Yochanan believed that prayers in Aramaic were ineffectual because the ministering angels would not pay attention to Aramaic. This view is deeply troubling to other Rabbis and to later commentators on this passage. Maimonides listed as one of the 13 fundamental principles of faith of Judaism (which we recite in synagogue) that we do not need an intermediary between us and God. (Maimonidies wrote when Christianity was dominant and believed very heavily in the need to have priests, saints and angels intervene on our behalf with God.) We do not get a good sense from the Rabbis of the Talmud whether they accepted Rabbi Yochanan’s belief about praying in the vernacular. The commentaries appear to fairly emphatically reject this view or go through mental gymnastics to make it conform to our fundamental beliefs.