📖 SATURDAY PRAYER: HESED-YESHIVAT HAVERIM יְשִׁיבָה חברים – BABYLONIAN TALMUD p176

READING: BETWEEN MIDNIGHT AND DAWN OF SATURDAY

The master said: If one of the two was able to perform the work alone and the other unable, all
agree that he is culpable. Which of them was culpable? R. Hisda said, the one who was able. As
to the one who was unable, why should he be so? What did he? Said R. Hamnuna to R. Hisda:
“Why not? Did he not assist the one who was able? Answered R. Hisda: Assisting is not of
consequence (because if he alone is not able to perform the work himself, his assistance is of no
value). Said R. Zbid in the name of Rabha: “We have also learned in a Boraitha in support of
this argument: If one suffering from a venereal disease rides an animal, the feet of which are
encased in four pieces of cloth, the pieces of cloth are not subject to defilement, for the reason
that the animal is able to stand on three feet.” Why are they not subject to defilement? Was not
one foot a help to the other three? Hence we must assume that one of the feet must be regarded
as a help to the other three; a mere help, however, not having any legal consequence cannot
become defiled, and as it is impossible to determine which one of the three feet is to be regarded
as a help, all four pieces of cloth encasing them are not subject to defilement.
Again the master said: If either of the two were able, R.
[paragraph continues] Meir holds them both to be culpable. The schoolmen propounded a question:
“Must the object carried out by them be of double the prescribed size, i.e., a prescribed size for
each of them, in order to make them culpable, or does the prescribed size for one man suffice to
make them both culpable? R. Hisda and R. Hamnuna (both answered): One of them held that
one prescribed size suffices, and the other that it must be double in order to make them culpable,
(and it is known which of them held to the former opinion and which to the latter). Said R. Ashi:
“We have also learned in a Boraitha: ‘Two men who carried out a reed used by a weaver (into
the street) are both culpable.’ Why so? Was not double the prescribed quantity necessary in
order to make both culpable? Hence we must assume that the Boraitha holds one prescribed
quantity to be sufficient.” Said R. Aha, the son of Rabba, to R. Ashi: “What proof do you derive
from this Boraitha? Perhaps it refers to a reed that was of sufficient size to cook an egg for one
and another for the other?” R. Ashi answered: If such were the case, the Boraitha would say
merely a “reed” and not a “reed used by a weaver.” Said R. Aha again: “Perhaps the Boraitha
refers to a reed of sufficient size to weave a napkin each for both of them? Therefore it were
better to say that from this Boraitha we can derive no support either for one opinion or the other.”