📖 SATURDAY PRAYER: MALCHUT-YESHIVAT HAVERIM יְשִׁיבָה חברים – BABYLONIAN TALMUD p148

READING: BETWEEN MIDNIGHT AND DAWN OF SATURDAY

“For vellum is as much as suffices to make a cover for an amulet.” Rabha questioned R.
Na’hman: “Of what size?” and the latter answered: “As we were taught in the Mishna, as much
as will suffice to make a cover for an amulet.” And what is the size in regard to tanning? The
same quantity. And where do you take this from? From the Mishna farther on, that gives the
same quantity for wool preparing to be woven and for already woven. The same is here as it is
for tanning; the quantity is the same as if already tanned. (The further discussion is repeated in
many places, and each is translated in its proper place.)
“Parchment as much as suffices to write thereon the smallest portion,” etc. Is this not a
contradiction to the Boraitha which teaches that the prescribed quantity for parchment and
double parchment (do-x•stoV) is as much as suffices to write a Mezuzah (inscription on the
door-posts) on? The Mezuzah mentioned in the Boraitha refers to the Mezuzah contained in the
phylacteries. Does the Boraitha call phylacteries Mezuzah? Yea, it does elsewhere. But since the
latter part of the Boraitha teaches explicitly that the prescribed quantity for parchment is as
much as is required for writing the smallest portion of the phylacteries, which is “Hear, O
Israel,” is it not to be assumed that in the former part of the Boraitha a Mezuzah proper is
meant? Read: What is the prescribed quantity for parchment and double parchment? For the
latter as much as is required for the writing of a Mezuzah; and the former, for the writing of the
smallest portion of the phylacteries, which is “Hear, O Israel.”
Rabh said: “Double parchment is the same as parchment. The same as we may write the portions
of the phylacteries on parchment, so may we also write them on double parchment.” Were we
not taught “parchment sufficient,” etc., which certainly does not mean double parchment? Nay,
it is only a better observance to write on parchment than on double parchment.
“For ink,” etc. A Boraitha adds: The prescribed quantity for dry ink is as much as will suffice
for the writing of two letters; for prepared ink as much as a quill or stub will require to write the
two letters with. Said Rabha: For carrying out sufficient
ink for two letters and writing the two letters while carrying the ink, one is culpable; for the
writing is equivalent to depositing a thing in a place. But for carrying out sufficient ink for one
letter only, and writing that letter while carrying the ink, afterward carrying out another quantity
of ink sufficient for one letter and writing the other letter while carrying the ink, one is not
culpable; for by the time the second letter was written (the ink of the first letter dried out and)
the prescribed quantity of ink was not visible. Again Rabha said: For carrying out food to the
size of one-half of a dried fig, laying it down, and then carrying out another quantity of like size
(one is not culpable), for it is considered as if the first quantity had been consumed by fire. But
why should it be thus considered? Is it not lying there yet? He means to say: If one picked up the
first before he laid down the second, the first is to be considered as if consumed by fire, and
hence one is not culpable.