Shabbat 79a

עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לֹוֶה ״פָּרַעְתִּי״ וְ״לֹא פָּרַעְתִּי״.

It means: Until the debtor says: I repaid the debt, or, I did not repay the debt. If the debtor says: I repaid the debt in the promissory note and there are no witnesses to ratify the document in court, the document has no value. That is the opinion of the Rabbis who hold that an unratified document cannot force a debtor to pay. According to Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that a document need not be ratified, the debtor’s claim that he repaid the debt is not accepted and the creditor can collect his debt with the unratified promissory note.

רָבָא אָמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מוֹדֶה בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ — שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְקַיְּימוֹ, וְהָכָא בְּכוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבָר קָמִיפַּלְגִי: תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר כּוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבָר, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבָר. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְהַרְאוֹתוֹ לְבַעַל חוֹב שֵׁנִי, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: חֲזִי, גַּבְרָא דְּפָרַע אֲנָא.

Rava said: Everyone agrees that when a debtor admits that he wrote a promissory note, the creditor must ratify it in court. And here, it is with regard to the question whether or not one writes a receipt that they disagree. The first tanna holds: One writes a receipt for a promissory note that was repaid. Since the debtor has the receipt in his possession, the creditor may keep the note and use it as paper. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: One does not write a receipt. Therefore, the creditor is required to return the note to the debtor immediately upon repayment of the debt. It is in the interest of the debtor to destroy the document, and he has no reason to keep it. Rav Ashi said: The dispute is with regard to a case where the debtor carried out the promissory note into the public domain. Rabbi Yehuda said he is liable because he needs the repaid document to show it to a second creditor, as he says to him: Look, I am a man who repays his debts.

עוֹר כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת כּוּ׳. בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן: הַמּוֹצִיא עוֹר, בְּכַמָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּדִתְנַן: עוֹר כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת קָמֵיעַ. [הַמְעַבְּדוֹ, בְּכַמָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא שְׁנָא.] לְעַבְּדוֹ בְּכַמָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא שְׁנָא.

We learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out animal hide is equivalent to that which is used to make an amulet. Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman: With regard to one who carries out animal hide, how much must he carry out on Shabbat in order to be liable? He said to him, it is as we learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out animal hide is equivalent to that which is used to make an amulet. He raised another dilemma: With regard to one who tans that hide, how much must he tan in order to be liable? He said to him: It is no different, the same measure. He raised another dilemma: With regard to one who carries out animal hide to tan it, how much must he carry out on Shabbat in order to be liable? He said to him: It is no different.

וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא? — כְּדִתְנַן: הַמְלַבֵּן וְהַמְנַפֵּץ וְהַצּוֹבֵעַ וְהַטּוֹוֶה — שִׁיעוּרוֹ כִּמְלֹא רוֹחַב הַסִּיט כָּפוּל. וְהָאוֹרֵג שְׁנֵי חוּטִין — שִׁיעוּרוֹ כִּמְלֹא רוֹחַב הַסִּיט כָּפוּל. אַלְמָא: כֵּיוָן דְּלִטְוִיָּיה קָאֵי — שִׁיעוּרוֹ כְּטָווּי. הָכָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דִּלְעַבְּדוֹ קָאֵי — שִׁיעוּרוֹ כִּמְעוּבָּד. וְשֶׁלֹּא לְעַבְּדוֹ, בְּכַמָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא שְׁנָא.

And from where do you derive and say that there is no difference whether or not the hide one carries out is tanned? As we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who whitens, and one who combs, and one who dyes, and one who spins, the measure of wool for which one is liable in performing those prohibited labors is double the full width of the distance between the forefinger and the middle finger. And the measure that determines liability for one who weaves two threads is double the full width of the distance between the forefinger and the middle finger. Apparently, since the wool is designated for spinning, the measure for which one is liable for whitening, combing, and dyeing is equal to the measure for which one is liable for weaving that spun thread. Here too, since it is designated for tanning, its measure that determines liability for carrying it out into the public domain is equal to the measure that determines liability for carrying out tanned hides. Rava raised another dilemma: With regard to one who carries out animal hide and has no intention to tan it, how much must he carry out on Shabbat in order to be liable? He said to him: It is no different.

וְלָא שָׁנֵי בֵּין מְעוּבָּד לְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעוּבָּד? אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: הַמּוֹצִיא סַמָּנִין שְׁרוּיִן, כְּדֵי לִצְבּוֹעַ בָּהֶן דּוּגְמָא לְאִירָא. וְאִילּוּ בְּסַמָּנִין שֶׁאֵינָן שְׁרוּיִן תְּנַן: קְלִיפֵּי אֱגוֹזִים וּקְלִיפֵּי רִמּוֹנִין, סְטֵיס וּפוּאָה, כְּדֵי לִצְבּוֹעַ בָּהֶן בֶּגֶד קָטָן [לְפִי] סְבָכָה! הָא אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין אָדָם טוֹרֵחַ לִשְׁרוֹת סַמָּנִין לִצְבּוֹעַ בָּהֶן דּוּגְמָא לְאִירָא.

Rava asked: And is there no halakhic difference between carrying out tanned hides and carrying out hides that are not tanned? He raised an objection to him based on a baraita : One who carries out herbs that were soaked in water and ready for use as a dye is liable if he carried out a measure equivalent to that which is used to dye a sample the size of a stopper for the shuttle of a loom. While with regard to herbs that were not soaked, we learned in a mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out nutshells, and pomegranate peels, and for carrying out safflower, and madder, which are herbs used as dyes, is equivalent to that which is used to dye a small cloth to cover the opening of a woman’s hair net. Apparently, the measure for which one is liable for carrying out raw materials is greater than the measure for which one is liable for carrying out prepared dyes. The Gemara answers: But wasn’t it stated with regard to that mishna that Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: Because a person does not go to the trouble to soak herbs just to dye a sample for the shuttle of a loom? As a rule, there is no distinction between finished and unfinished products. The case of dye is different, as people do not typically prepare dyes in amounts that small. Therefore, even though that size is significant in and of itself, he is exempt for carrying them out.

וַהֲרֵי זֵרְעוֹנֵי גִּינָּה, דְּמִקַּמֵּי דְּזַרְעִינְהוּ תְּנַן: זֵרְעוֹנֵי גִּינָה פָּחוֹת מִכִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא אוֹמֵר: חֲמִשָּׁה. וְאִילּוּ בָּתַר דְּזַרְעִינְהוּ תְּנַן: זֶבֶל וְחוֹל הַדַּק כְּדֵי לְזַבֵּל בּוֹ קֶלַח שֶׁל כְּרוּב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כְּדֵי לְזַבֵּל כְּרֵישָׁא! — הָא אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָא דִּזְרִיעַ, הָא דְּלָא זְרִיעַ — לְפִי שֶׁאֵין אָדָם טוֹרֵחַ לְהוֹצִיא נִימָא אַחַת לִזְרִיעָה.

He asked further: And with regard to seeds of garden plants before one sowed them, we learned in a mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out seeds of garden plants is less than a dried fig-bulk. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: He is liable if he carries out five seeds. While with regard to carrying out seeds after he sowed them, we learned in a mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out manure or fine sand is equivalent to that which is used to fertilize one stalk of cabbage with it; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis say: The measure that determines liability for carrying it out is equivalent to that which is used to fertilize a leek. Apparently, after the seed was sown, the measure for liability is one plant. Before it is sown, the measure is at least five. The Gemara answers: As a rule, there is no distinction between an object that was processed and one that was not. However, this case is different. Wasn’t it stated with regard to that halakha that Rav Pappa says that there is a distinction between this, where one is liable for carrying out one plant, and the mishna is referring to a case where it is already sown; and that, where one is only liable for carrying out at least five, and the mishna is referring to a case where it is not yet sown, because a person does not go to the trouble to carry out just one seed for sowing?

וַהֲרֵי טִיט, דְּמִקַּמֵּי דְּלִיגַבְּלֵיהּ תַּנְיָא: מוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּמוֹצִיא שׁוֹפְכִין לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים שֶׁשִּׁיעוּרָן בִּרְבִיעִית, וְהָוֵינַן [בַּהּ] שׁוֹפְכִין לְמַאי חֲזוּ? וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: לְגַבֵּל בָּהֶן אֶת הַטִּיט, וְאִילּוּ בָּתַר דְּגַבְּלֵיהּ תַּנְיָא: טִיט כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת (בָּהֶן) פִּי כוּר! הָתָם נָמֵי כְּדַאֲמַרַן: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין אָדָם טוֹרֵחַ (בָּהֶן) לְגַבֵּל אֶת הַטִּיט לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ פִּי כוּר.

He asked further: And with regard to clay before one kneads it, it was taught in a baraita : And the Rabbis agree with Rabbi Shimon with regard to one who carries out waste water to the public domain, that the measure that determines liability is a quarter of a log . And we discussed this question: For what use is waste water fit? Rabbi Yirmeya said: It is used to knead clay. Apparently, the measure that determines liability for the raw material is the amount kneaded with a quarter of a log of waste water to form clay. While with regard to clay after one kneads it, it was taught in a baraita : With regard to clay, the measure for liability is equivalent to that which is used to make an opening for the bellows to be placed in a crucible, which is a small amount. The Gemara answers: There too, it is as we stated: Because a person does not go to the trouble of kneading clay just to make an opening for the bellows to be placed in a crucible.

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַמֵּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּעוּלָּא: שְׁלֹשָׁה עוֹרוֹת הֵן: מַצָּה, וְחִיפָּה, וְדִיפְתְּרָא. מַצָּה — כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ, דְּלָא מְלִיחַ וּדְלָא קְמִיחַ וּדְלָא עֲפִיץ. וְכַמָּה שִׁיעוּרוֹ? תָּנֵי רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יְהוּדָה: כְּדֵי לָצוּר בּוֹ מִשְׁקוֹלֶת קְטַנָּה. וְכַמָּה? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: רִיבְעָא דְרִיבְעָא דְפוּמְבְּדִיתָא.

In order to resolve the dilemma with regard to the measure that determines liability for carrying out an animal hide on Shabbat, the Gemara states: Come and hear a halakha that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: There are three hides, i.e., three stages in the process of tanning hides, and at each stage it is known by a different name: Matza , and ḥifa , and diftera . Matza , as per its plain meaning, with no additives. It is not salted, and not treated with flour, and not treated with gallnuts. And how much is the measure that determines liability for carrying out that hide on Shabbat? Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda taught: It is equivalent to that which is used to wrap around a small weight. And how big is this small weight? Abaye said: A quarter of a quarter of a litra in the system of weights in use in Pumbedita.

חִיפָּה — דִּמְלִיחַ וְלָא קְמִיחַ וְלָא עֲפִיץ. וְכַמָּה שִׁיעוּרוֹ? כְּדִתְנַן: עוֹר — כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת קָמֵיעַ. דִּיפְתְּרָא — דִּמְלִיחַ וּקְמִיחַ וְלָא עֲפִיץ וְכַמָּה שִׁיעוּרוֹ? — כְּדֵי לִכְתּוֹב עָלָיו אֶת הַגֵּט. קָתָנֵי מִיהַת, כְּדֵי לָצוּר בּוֹ מִשְׁקוֹלֶת קְטַנָּה, וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: רִיבְעָא דְרִיבְעָא דְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא! הָתָם בְּבִישּׁוּלָא.

Ḥifa is hide that is salted, and not treated with flour, and not treated with gallnuts. And how much is the measure that determines liability for carrying out that hide on Shabbat? As we learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out animal hide is equivalent to that which is used to make an amulet. Diftera is hide that is salted, and treated with flour, and not treated with gallnuts. And how much is the measure that determines liability for carrying out that hide on Shabbat? The measure that determines liability for carrying it out is equivalent to the amount which is used to write a bill of divorce on it. In any case, it was taught that before it is tanned the measure for liability is equivalent to that which is used to wrap around a small weight. And Abaye said: A quarter of a quarter of a litra in the system of weights in use in Pumbedita. That is not the same as the measure that determines liability for a tanned hide, which is equivalent to that which is used to make an amulet. The Gemara answers: There, it is referring to wet hide just flayed that was left out to dry in the sun and is suitable only for wrapping around a weight (Rabbeinu Ḥananel). However, for carrying out tanned hide, his measure for liability is equivalent to that which is used to make an amulet.

וְהָתְנַן: הַבֶּגֶד — שְׁלֹשָׁה עַל שְׁלֹשָׁה לַמִּדְרָס, הַשַּׂק — אַרְבָּעָה עַל אַרְבָּעָה, הָעוֹר — חֲמִשָּׁה עַל חֲמִשָּׁה, מַפָּץ — שִׁשָּׁה עַל שִׁשָּׁה, בֵּין לַמִּדְרָס בֵּין לַמֵּת. וְתָאנֵי עֲלַהּ הַבֶּגֶד וְהַשַּׂק וְהָעוֹר — כְּשִׁיעוּר לַטּוּמְאָה כָּךְ שִׁיעוּר לַהוֹצָאָה! הָהוּא בְּקוּרְטוּבְלָא.

The Gemara raises another difficulty: And didn’t we learn in a mishna: The garment must be at least three by three handbreadths to become impure with ritual impurity imparted by treading? And the sack made from goat hair must be at least four by four handbreadths. And the animal hide must be five by five, and a mat must be six by six. Those are the minimum measures for becoming a primary source of ritual impurity by means of both ritual impurity imparted by treading and ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. And it was taught in the Tosefta with regard to that mishna: With regard to the garment and the sack and the hide; like the measure for ritual impurity, so too is the measure for carrying out on Shabbat. That is significantly larger than the measure for liability cited in the mishna for carrying out hide. The Gemara answers: That Tosefta is referring to kortovela , which is hide that was tanned in a manner that rendered it unfit for writing or wrapping. It is used for covering vessels and other similar uses (Rambam).