Coly Mackerel!

On Shabbos 39a:

וכל שלא בא בחמין מלפני השבת מדיחין אותו בחמין בשבת חוץ מן המליח ישן וקולייס האיספנין שהדחתן זו היא גמר מלאכתן ש"מ

but whatever did not come into hot water before the Sabbath, may be rinsed with hot water on the Sabbath,³  except old salted [pickled] fish and the colias of the Spaniards,⁴  because their rinsing completes their preparation.⁵  This proves it.

As R' Shteinsaltz writes, this kulyas is the coly mackerel.

I've never heard of the coly mackerel. But I've heard of the expression holy mackerel! According to   Wiktionary:

Etymology

Recorded from 1803 with uncertain origin, but possibly a euphemism for Holy Mary, with Mackerel being a nickname for Catholics because they ate the fish on Fridays. Another suggested explanation is the practice of selling mackerel on Sundays in the seventeenth century (because its quality deteriorates rapidly), so it was known as a holy fish.

But presumably, it also started because people knew of this thing called coly mackerel, and made the pun.

Shabbat 31b: Rava's diyuk

On daf 29b, I discussed the variant in the Mishna from Ktav Yad Kaufmann:

With the word מפני written in the margins, Rabbi Yossi's position in the Mishna becomes somewhat ambiguous.

1. It could be that the word מפני is implicitly there, in which case Rabbi Yossi only exempts when he wishes to spare the lamp or oil, but not if he wishes to spare the wick.
2. It could be that Rabbi Yossi exempts in all three cases, including where he wishes to spare the wick. The only place he holds one liable is for the wick which he is making into a pecham, charcoal. That is, it is his intention to light and then blow out the wick, to as to make it more fit for subsequent lighting.

Now on 31b, we see both possibilities put forth by different Amoraim.

Ulla holds like position #1, maybe.

ר' יוסי כמאן ס"ל אי כר' יהודה ס"ל אפילו בהנך נמי ליחייב ואי כר"ש ס"ל פתילה נמי ליפטר אמר עולא לעולם כר' יהודה ס"ל וקסבר ר' יוסי סותר על מנת לבנות במקומו הוי סותר על מנת לבנות שלא במקומו לא הוי סותר א"ל רבה מכדי כל מלאכות ילפינן להו ממשכן והתם סותר ע"מ לבנות שלא במקומו הוא א"ל שאני התם כיון דכתיב (במדבר ט, יח) על פי ה' יחנו כסותר ע"מ לבנות במקומו דמי 

Ulla maintains that Rabbi Yossi really holds like Rabbi Yehuda. He holds that only where one does a destructive action in order to make a constructive action in its place. Try to figure out Ulla, and see Tosafot.

But Rabbi Yochanan and Rava clearly hold like position #2:

ור' יוחנן אמר לעולם כר"ש ס"ל ומאי שנא פתילה כדאמר רב המנונא ואיתימא רב אדא בר אהבה הכא בפתילה שצריך להבהבה עסקינן דבההיא אפילו ר"ש מודי דקא מתקן מנא אמר רבא דיקא נמי דקתני שהוא עושה פחם ולא קתני מפני שנעשית פחם ש"מ:

That is, Rabbi Yochanan is asserting that in the general case of wick, Rabbi Yossi would indeed hold him exempt. It is only in the פתילה שצריך להבהבה that we are dealing. 

Then, Rava makes the diyuk in our Mishna. דקתני שהוא עושה פחם ולא קתני מפני שנעשית פחם ש"מ:

Note that when Rava quotes the Mishna, he does not include the word מפני. When he says what the Mishna does not say, he uses the word מפני. Some later hand corrupted Rava's statement. But at its core, it should read דקתני שהוא עושה פחם ולא קתני מפני. And stop there. You do not need to alternate between active and passive voice to make Rava's diyuk. Nor would the passive voice of שנעשית פחם necessarily be a convincing argument against the idea that it is a פתילה שצריך להבהבה, where he is מתקן מנא.

Shabbat 30a: Gates, lift up your heads

On Shabbat 30a:

For when Solomon built the Temple, he desired to take the Ark into the Holy of Holies, whereupon the gates clave to each other. Solomon uttered twenty-four prayers,¹⁴  yet he was not answered. He opened [his mouth] and exclaimed, 'Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lifted up, ye everlasting doors: And the King of glory shall come in.¹⁵  They rushed upon him to swallow him up, crying, 'Who is the king of glory'? 'The Lord, strong and mighty,'¹⁶  answered he. Then he repeated, 'Lift up your heads, O ye gates; Yea, lift them up, ye everlasting doors: and the King of glory shall come in. Who is this King of glory? The Lord of hosts, He is the King of glory. Selah';¹⁷  yet he was not answered. But as soon as he prayed, 'O Lord God, turn not away the face of thine anointed remember the good deeds of David thy servant,'¹⁸  he was immediately answered. 

If I recall the parallel Midrash Rabba correctly, it was a sizing issue. Shlomo Hamelech wished to take in the Aron, but the height of all of it combined they calculate to be precisely the height of the entrance. If the heights are precisely the same, then obviously one cannot enter the other. So Shlomo said "Lift up your heads, O ye gates."

This calls to mind this video which proves that Moshe Rabbenu was Satmar, and wore a Satmar hat:

Shabbat 29b: Rabbi Yossi exempts in all of them except...

The Mishna at the bottom of Shabbat 29b:

מתני' המכבה את הנר מפני שהוא מתירא מפני נכרים ומפני ליסטי' מפני רוח רעה מפני החולה שיישן פטור כחס על הנר כחס על השמן כחס על הפתילה חייב רבי יוסי פוטר בכולן חוץ מן הפתילה מפני שהוא עושה פחם:

MISHNAH. IF ONE EXTINGUISHES THE LAMP BECAUSE HE IS AFRAID OF GENTILES, ROBBERS, OR AN EVIL SPIRIT,³⁴  OR FOR THE SAKE OF AN INVALID, THAT HE SHOULD SLEEP, HE IS NOT CULPABLE.³⁵  IF [BECAUSE] HE WOULD SPARE THE LAMP, THE OIL, OR THE WICK, HE IS CULPABLE. R. JOSE EXEMPTS HIM IN ALL CASES, EXCEPT IN RESPECT OF THE WICK, BECAUSE HE MAKES CHARCOAL.³⁶

The Mishna, as it stands, is difficult to understand, within Rabbi Yossi's position. Perhaps to be discussed when we encounter the gemara on this.

When I was in Dr. Tzvi Hirsch Shteinfeld's class, he pointed out that in Ktav Yad Kaufmann (here for full color), the girsa in the Mishna is slightly different, with a very different implication.

משנה

Budapest, Akademia , Kaufmann A 50

שבת ב ד - שבת ג ו

According to this manuscript, the word מפני is a later insertion. See how it was written into the margins. If so, Rabbi Yossi's position is that he is exempt in all of them, meaning that he exempts in כחס על הנר כחס על השמן כחס על הפתילה. To stress, he even exempts in כחס על הפתילה. He only holds one liable in the case of הפתילה שהוא עושה פחם. That is, the wick that he is trying to light and extinguish, specifically in order to make it into charcoal.

Dr. Shteinfeld then proves that this is indeed the girsa of the Mishna that  the Amoraim had, even if the setama degemara did not have it -- from the diyuk that Rava makes. See the section of the gemara on 31b, starting with "With whom does R. Jose agree? If with R. Judah...".

Shabbat 28a: Tachash and Sasgevana

The gemara discusses the tachash:

[To revert to] the main text: 'R. Eleazar propounded: Can the skin²³  of an unclean animal be defiled with the defilement of tents?'²⁴  What is his problem?²⁵ — Said R. Adda b. Ahabah: His question relates to the tahash which was in the days of Moses,²⁶ — was it unclean or clean? R. Joseph observed, What question is this to him? We learnt it! For the sacred work none but the skin of a clean animal was declared fit.

I discuss the identity of the tachash here. In this parshablog post, I discuss how Onkelos understood tachash, as sasgona. This might be an animal or a color. In a follow-up post, I discuss how Rav Yosef understood tachash as sasgona.

Perhaps the most important quote from those posts:

Turning back to Onkelos and sasgona, I would would note that sas is worm in Aramaic and thatgevan is color, such that it may simply refer to a color of the sas worm. I could also point to the word argaman, which is Aramaic is ar-gevan, perhaps of similar construction. So, Onkelos might not be intending to highlight a particular animal with this, or endorsing this Rabbi Nechemiah beast of multiple colors theory, despite how Rav Yosef interprets sasgevana in the gemara.

This is what Jastrow (page 1009) has to say about the word:

Shabbat 26a: Murex trunculus, Cappadocia, and the authenticity of the Zohar

On Shabbat 26a:

ירמיהו נב, טז) ומדלת הארץ השאיר נבוזראדן רב טבחים לכורמים וליוגבים כורמים תני רב יוסף אלו מלקטי אפרסמון מעין גדי ועד רמתא יוגבים אלו ציידי חלזון מסולמות של צור ועד חיפה:

But Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard left of the poorest of the land to be vinedressers [kormim] and husbandmen [yogbim].³  'Kornim:' R. Joseph learnt: This means balsamum gatherers from the En Gedi to Ramah. Yogbim: These are those which catch hilazon⁴  from the promontory of Tyre as far as Haifa.⁵

We see from here, ציידי חלזון, that the chilazon is something which has to be caught. Indeed, the gemara elsewhere (Shabbat 75a) discusses tzeida of the chilazon. And on 74b, that the issur of tying derived from the Mishkan is that they would tie nets to catch the chilazon.

Some have tried to use this to demonstrate that the murex trunculus snail could not possibly be the chilazon. They are wrong. Here is the proper response to this assertion:

A bit later on the same amud, we find Cappadocia:

גופא ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר אין מדליקין בצרי וכן היה רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר צרי אינו אלא שרף מעצי הקטף ר' ישמעאל אומר כל היוצא מן העץ אין מדליקין בו ר' ישמעאל בן ברוקה אומר אין מדליקין אלא ביוצא מן הפרי ר' טרפון אומר אין מדליקין אלא בשמן זית בלבד עמד רבי יוחנן בן נורי על רגליו ואמר מה יעשו אנשי בבל שאין להם אלא שמן שומשמין ומה יעשו אנשי מדי שאין להם אלא שמן אגוזים ומה יעשו אנשי אלכסנדריא שאין להם אלא שמן צנונות ומה יעשו אנשי קפוטקיא שאין להם לא כך ולא כך אלא נפט אלא אין לך אלא מה שאמרו חכמים אין מדליקין

[To turn to] the main text: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: One may not kindle [the Sabbath lamp] with balsam. And thus did R. Simeon b. Eleazar say: Balsam [zari] is merely the sap of resinous trees. R. Ishmael said: All that proceeds from trees, one may not light. R. Ishmael b. Berokah said: One may light only with the produce of fruit.¹¹  R. Tarfon said: One may light [the Sabbath lamp] with nought but olive oil. Thereupon R. Johanan b. Nuri rose to his feet and exclaimed, What shall the Babylonians do, who have only sesame oil? And what shall the Medeans do, who have only nut oil? And what shall the Alexandrians do, who have only radish oil? And what shall the people of Cappadocia¹²  do, who have neither the one nor the other, save naphtha? But you have nought else but that concerning which the Sages said, One may not kindle [therewith].¹³

As Soncino notes, this is a district of Asia Minor. From the context here and in other places Cappadocia is mentioned, it is clear that Cappadocia is outside of Eretz Yisrael. It appears here alongside those of Bavel, Maday, and Alexadria.

See what I write on parshablog about Cappadocia and the authenticity of the Zohar. The Zohar seems to assume that Cappadocia is a place inside Eretz Yisrael. And in defense of the Zohar, a modern writer points to this very gemara!

So, where are you on Shabbat?

Via Yeranen Yaakov:



While she is on 26b, I've fallen a bit behind. I only caught up to 26a this morning, thanks to Hurricane Sandy.

Barzilai takes note of it, it modified form,



(note the changed font in the last panel and form of the textbox) and relates it to the Schenirer/Scherman Effect.