Shabbat 123

דבר שמלאכתו לאיסור לצורך גופו מותר

Using an object whose primary function is for a prohibited use, for the purpose of utilizing the object itself to perform a permitted action, is permitted.

איתיביה אביי לרבה מדוכה אם יש בה שום מטלטלין אותה ואם לאו אין מטלטלין אותה

Abaye raised an objection to the opinion of Rabba from the Tosefta: A mortar, if it still has garlic in it, one may move it on Shabbat, and if not, one may not move it. Apparently, under no circumstances may a mortar be used, even for an action that is generally permitted on Shabbat, because the mortar’s primary function is prohibited.

אמר ליה הא מני רבי נחמיה היא דאמר אין כלי ניטל אלא לצורך תשמישו

Rabba said to him: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya, who says: A vessel may not be moved on Shabbat except for the purpose of its designated use.

איתיביה (בית שמאי אומרים אין נוטלין את העלי לקצב עליו בשר ובית הלל מתירין) ושוין שאם קצב עליו בשר שאסור לטלטלו

Abaye raised another objection to Rabba’s opinion. We learned in a mishna that Beit Shammai say: One may not take a large pestle from a mortar, which is typically used for a prohibited action, in order to cut meat on it for the purpose of a Festival. And Beit Hillel permit doing so due to the mitzva of rejoicing on the Festival. And everyone agrees that if one cut meat on it for the purpose of the Festival, that it is then prohibited to move it because there is no further need for it on the Festival. Apparently, it is prohibited to use an object whose primary function is for a prohibited use, even to perform a permitted action.

סבר לשנויי ליה כרבי נחמיה כיון דשמעה להא דאמר רב חיננא בר שלמיא משמיה דרב הכל מודים בסיכי זיירי ומזורי דכיון דקפיד עלייהו מייחד להו מקום הא נמי מייחד להו מקום

Initially, Rabba thought to respond to Abaye’s objection by saying that this mishna, too, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya, that a vessel may only be moved on Shabbat for the purpose of its designated use. However, he changed his mind once he heard that which Rav Ḥinana bar Shelemya said in the name of Rav: Everyone agrees in the case of launderers’ pins, presses, and clothing rods (Arukh), that since one is particular about them to ensure that they remain intact, he designates a place for them and does not move them for other purposes. Therefore, everyone agrees that it is prohibited to move them. Here, too, the mortar and pestle are specifically designated for a particular use and one designates a place for them; therefore, it is prohibited to move them.

איתמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן קורנס של זהבים שנינו רב שמן בר אבא אמר קורנס של בשמים שנינו

It was stated that there was another amoraic dispute on this topic. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It was with regard to the hammer of goldsmiths that we learned it may be used to crack nuts. Although the goldsmith is particular about ensuring that the hammer remains smooth and avoids using it for any purpose other than its particular use, nevertheless, it was allowed to be used for other permitted actions. Rav Shemen bar Abba said: It was with regard to the hammer of spice merchants that we learned it may be used to crack nuts.

מאן דאמר דבשמים כל שכן דזהבים מאן דאמר של זהבים אבל דבשמים קפיד עלייהו:

The Gemara explains: The one who said it is permitted to crack nuts on Shabbat using the hammer of spice merchants, all the more so that it is permitted to use a hammer typically used by goldsmiths. However, the one who said that it is only permitted to use a hammer used by goldsmiths, but with regard to the hammer of spice merchants, the merchant is particular about it and would not allow it to be used for cracking nuts. Use for other purposes would cause the hammer to absorb foreign smells, which would ruin the spices.

ואת הכוש ואת הכרכר כו׳: תנו רבנן פגה שטמנה בתבן וחררה שטמנה בגחלים אם מגולה מקצתה מותר לטלטלה ואם לאו אסור לטלטלה

And we learned in the mishna: one may move a reed or a shuttle [karkar] in order to stick it into food. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to an unripe fig that one buried in straw to accelerate its ripening, and likewise with regard to a cake that one buried in coals in order to heat it, if part of it is exposed, it is permitted to move it on Shabbat. And if not, and it was completely covered, it is prohibited to move it lest one come to carry straw or coals, which are set-aside, along with it. It is prohibited for one to move set-aside objects or to cause them to be moved.

רבי אלעזר בן תדאי אומר תוחבין בכוש או בכרכר והן מנערות מאיליהם אמר רב נחמן הלכה כרבי אלעזר בן תדאי

Rabbi Elazar ben Tadai says: One may insert a reed or a shuttle into an unripe fig or a cake that is buried in coals to remove it from its place, and the straw and the coals are shaken off on their own. Rav Naḥman says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Tadai.

למימרא דסבר רב נחמן טלטול מן הצד לא שמיה טלטול והאמר רב נחמן האי פוגלא מלמעלה למטה שרי ממטה למעלה אסיר הדר ביה רב נחמן מההיא:

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Rav Naḥman holds: Moving an object in an atypical manner is not considered to be a bona fide act of moving and is permitted on Shabbat? Didn’t Rav Naḥman say: This radish that was buried in the dirt to protect it, if it was inserted from the top to bottom, i.e., the wider part of the radish is closer to the surface and the narrower part is farther, it is permitted to remove it from the dirt. If it was inserted from bottom to top, and the wider part was farther from the surface, it is prohibited because he thereby moves the dirt. Apparently, Rav Naḥman prohibits moving set-aside items even if one does so in an atypical manner. The Gemara answers: Rav Naḥman reversed his opinion with regard to that halakha of the radish.

מחט של יד ליטול בה כו׳: שלח ליה רבא בריה דרבה לרב יוסף ילמדנו רבינו מחט שניטל חררה או עוקצה מהו

We learned in the mishna: One is permitted to take an ordinary hand needle used for sewing clothes to extract a thorn with it. Rava, son of Rabba, sent the following question to Rav Yosef: Let our teacher teach us: With regard to a needle whose eye or point was removed, what is its legal status, i.e., is moving it on Shabbat permitted?

אמר ליה תניתוה מחט של יד ליטול בה את הקוץ וכי מה איכפת ליה לקוץ בין נקובה לבין שאינה נקובה

Rav Yosef said to him: You already learned the answer to that question in the mishna: One is permitted to take an ordinary hand needle used for sewing clothes to extract a thorn with it. And what does the thorn that is stuck in his flesh care whether the needle has an eye or whether it does not have an eye? Since the needle is suited for that purpose, it is permitted to move it.

איתיביה מחט שניטל חררה או עוקצה טהורה

Rava, son of Rabba, raised an objection to Rav Yosef from that which we learned in a mishna: A ritually impure needle whose eye or point was removed becomes ritually pure, because its status as a vessel is negated. Since it is no longer considered a vessel, why would it be permitted to move it?

אמר אביי טומאה אשבת קרמית טומאה כלי מעשה בעינן לענין שבת מידי דחזי בעינן והא נמי חזיא למשקלא בה קוץ

Abaye said: Are you raising a contradiction from the halakhot of ritual impurity to the halakhot of Shabbat? With regard to ritual impurity, we require a functional utensil for it to become ritually impure or to retain impurity, and anything which is not functional is ritually pure. However, with regard to Shabbat we require something that is fit for use, and this too is fit to extract a thorn with it, and therefore, its legal status is that of a utensil and moving it is permitted.

אמר רבא מאן דקמותיב שפיר קמותיב מדלענין טומאה לאו מנא הוא לענין שבת נמי לאו מנא הוא

Rava said: The one who raises the objection, raises the objection well. From the fact that with regard to ritual impurity it is not considered a utensil, with regard to Shabbat, it is also not considered a utensil, and if it is not a utensil it may not be moved on Shabbat.

מיתיבי מחט בין נקובה בין שאינה נקובה מותר לטלטלה בשבת ולא אמרו נקובה אלא לענין טומאה בלבד

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rava based on what was taught in a baraita: A needle, whether it is perforated or whether it is not perforated, it is permitted to move it on Shabbat. And they said that the status of a perforated needle is different only with regard to ritual impurity alone.

תרגמא אביי אליבא דרבא בגולמי עסקינן זימנין דמימלך עלייהו ומשוי להו מנא אבל היכא דניטל חררה או עוקצה אדם זורקה לבין גרוטאות

Abaye interpreted it according to the opinion of Rava: In this mishna, we are dealing with unfinished needles. Sometimes one decides to render them a utensil for other purposes without perforating them. However, in a case where its eye or its point was removed from the finished needle, its status as a vessel was negated, since a person throws it among the junk [gerutaot].

אסובי ינוקא רב נחמן אסיר ורב ששת שרי אמר רב נחמן מנא אמינא לה דתנן אין עושין

With regard to the matter of aligning the limbs of an infant on Shabbat when it is necessary to do so, Rav Naḥman prohibits doing so on Shabbat, due to concern that it is similar to the prohibited labor of completing the production process of a vessel, and Rav Sheshet permits doing so. Rav Naḥman says: From where do I say that this is the halakha? As we learned in a mishna: One may not make

אפיקטויזין בשבת ורב ששת התם לאו אורחיה הכא אורחיה

afiktoizin, a drug to induce vomiting, on Shabbat. Apparently, actions associated with treating the body on Shabbat are prohibited. And Rav Sheshet explains: There, with regard to a drug to induce vomiting, drinking it for any reason other than medicinal purposes is atypical. Here, aligning the limbs of an infant is typical conduct not undertaken solely for medicinal purposes.

אמר רב ששת מנא אמינא לה דתנן מחט של יד ליטול בה את הקוץ ורב נחמן התם פקיד הכא לא פקיד:

Rav Sheshet said: From where do I say that this is the halakha? As we learned in the mishna: One is permitted to take an ordinary hand needle used for sewing clothes to extract a thorn with it. Apparently, some curative actions are permitted and there is no concern that they are similar to completing the production process of a vessel. And Rav Naḥman objects: That is no proof, as there, the thorn is merely deposited in the skin and it is not an organic part of the body. Removing a foreign object from the body effects no fundamental change in the body. Here, in the case of aligning the limbs, it is not merely tending to a foreign object deposited in the body; rather it involves effecting a fundamental change in the body itself, which is both a curative act and one similar to completing the production process.

מתני׳ קנה של זיתים אם יש קשר בראשו מקבל טומאה ואם לאו אין מקבל טומאה בין כך ובין כך ניטל בשבת:

MISHNA: A reed that is used for turning olives in a bundle, if there is a cork-like knot at the top of it, it can become ritually impure as a vessel, and if not, it cannot become ritually impure, because it is not a vessel. In either case, it may be moved on Shabbat for use in a permitted action.

גמ׳ אמאי פשוטי כלי עץ הוא ופשוטי כלי עץ אינן מקבלין טומאה מאי טעמא דומיא דשק בעינן תנא משמיה דרבי נחמיה בשעה שמהפך בזיתים הופכו ורואה בו:

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why would this reed become impure? It is in the category of flat wooden vessels without a receptacle, and the governing principle in that case is: Flat wooden vessels do not become ritually impure. What is the reason for this? We require an object similar to a sack. The halakhot of ritual impurity are derived from the sack mentioned in the Torah as an example of an item that can become ritually impure. If it lacks a receptacle, it is unlike that sack and it cannot become ritually impure. To explain this halakha, the Gemara cites that which was taught in a baraita in the name of Rabbi Neḥemya: At the time that one turns over the olives with the reed, he turns over the reed and sees inside it. There is a small cavity at the end of the reed near the knot. He looks there to ascertain whether it has filled with oil, which would indicate that the olives are ready to be placed in the olive press. That cavity is a type of small receptacle, which renders the reed fit to become ritually impure.

מתני׳ רבי יוסי אומר כל הכלים ניטלין חוץ מן המסר הגדול ויתד של מחרישה:

MISHNA: Rabbi Yosei says: All utensils may be moved on Shabbat except for a large saw and the blade of a plow. Since they must be sharp and ready for use and there is concern that they might be damaged, one sets them aside from his consciousness and they may not be used for any other purpose.

גמ׳ אמר רב נחמן האי אוכלא דקצרי כיתד של מחרישה דמיא

GEMARA: Rav Naḥman says: A launderer’s sprinkler is considered to be like the blade of a plow. Moving it is prohibited on Shabbat because one sets it aside from use out of concern that it might be damaged.

אמר אביי חרבא דאושכפי וסכינא דאשכבתא וחצינא דנגרי כיתד של מחרישה דמי

Abaye says: A shoemaker’s knife, and a butcher’s knife, and a carpenter’s drawknife are considered to be like the blade of a plow, because their owners set them aside from use out of concern that they might be damaged.

תנו רבנן בראשונה היו אומרים שלשה כלים ניטלין בשבת מקצוע של דבילה וזוהמא ליסטרן של קדרה וסכין קטנה שעל גבי שלחן התירו וחזרו והתירו וחזרו והתירו עד שאמרו כל הכלים ניטלין בשבת חוץ מן מסר הגדול ויתד של מחרישה

The Sages taught in the Tosefta: Initially, they would say that only three utensils may be moved on Shabbat: A knife for cutting a cake of dried figs, and a combined spoon and fork (ge’onim) to clean the filth [zuhama listeran] of a pot, and a small knife that is on the table. Each of these items is required for eating and may be used, and it had been prohibited to move any other utensil. However, over the generations, when the Rabbis saw that Jewish people were vigilant in observing the prohibitions of Shabbat, they permitted, and then they permitted again, and then they permitted again, until they said in the last mishna: All utensils may be moved on Shabbat except for a large saw and the blade of a plow.

מאי התירו וחזרו והתירו וחזרו והתירו

The Gemara asks: What are the stages described in the Tosefta: They permitted, and then they permitted, and then they permitted?

אמר אביי התירו דבר שמלאכתו להיתר לצורך גופו וחזרו והתירו דבר שמלאכתו להיתר לצורך מקומו וחזרו והתירו דבר שמלאכתו לאיסור לצורך גופו אין לצורך מקומו לא ועדיין בידו אחת אין בשתי ידיו לא עד שאמרו כל הכלים ניטלין בשבת ואפילו בשתי ידים

Abaye says: Initially, they permitted moving an object whose primary function is for a permitted use, for the purpose of utilizing the object itself to perform a permitted action. And then they permitted moving an object whose primary function is for a permitted use, for the purpose of sitting in or utilizing its place. And then they permitted moving an object whose primary function is for a prohibited use, for the purpose of utilizing the object itself to perform a permitted action, yes; however, for the purpose of utilizing its place, no. And still, utensils that can be held in one of his hands, yes, they may be moved; however, utensils that can only be held in his two hands, no, they may not be moved, in order to signify that there is a prohibition to move certain items. This prohibition remained intact until they said: All utensils may be moved on Shabbat, and even those that can only be held in both hands.

אמר ליה רבא מכדי התירו קתני מה לי לצורך גופו מה לי לצורך מקומו אלא אמר רבא התירו דבר שמלאכתו להיתר בין לצורך גופו ובין לצורך מקומו וחזרו והתירו מחמה לצל וחזרו והתירו דבר שמלאכתו לאיסור לצורך גופו ולצורך מקומו אין מחמה לצל לא ועדיין באדם אחד אין בשני בני אדם לא עד שאמרו כל הכלים ניטלין בשבת אפילו בשני בני אדם

Rava said to him: After all, it was taught in the Tosefta: They permitted, what difference is there to me if it is for the purpose of utilizing the object itself, and what difference is there to me if it is for the purpose of utilizing its place; why introduce distinctions that are not explicitly stated in the Tosefta? Rather, Rava said that it should be explained as follows: Initially, they permitted moving an object whose primary function is for a permitted use, both for the purpose of utilizing the object itself and for the purpose of sitting in or utilizing its place. And then they permitted moving that object from the sun into the shade. And then they permitted moving an object whose primary function is for a prohibited use, both for the purpose of utilizing the object itself and for the purpose of sitting in or utilizing its place, yes; however, moving that object from the sun into the shade, no, they did not permit it. And still, utensils that can be carried by one person, yes, they may be moved; however, utensils that can only be carried by two people, no, they may not be moved. This prohibition remained intact until they said: All utensils may be moved on Shabbat, and even those that can only be carried by two people.

איתיביה אביי מדוכה אם יש בה שום מטלטלין אותה ואם לאו אין מטלטלין אותה הכא במאי עסקינן מחמה לצל איתיביה ושוין שאם קצב עליו בשר שאסור לטלטלו הכא נמי מחמה לצל

Abaye raised a challenge to Rava’s opinion from that which was taught: With regard to a mortar, if it has garlic in it, one may move it on Shabbat, and if not, one may not move it on Shabbat. According to Rava’s opinion that all utensils may be moved, why is it prohibited to move the mortar? Rava responded: With what we are dealing here? We are dealing with a case of moving the mortar from the sun to the shade. Abaye raised a challenge to Rava’s opinion from that which was taught: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that if one cut meat on it for the purpose of a Festival that it is then prohibited to move it because there is no further need for it on the Festival. According to Rava’s opinion, all utensils may be moved. He answered him: Here, too, we are dealing with a case of moving the mortar from the sun to the shade.

אמר רבי חנינא בימי נחמיה בן חכליה נשנית משנה זו דכתיב בימים ההמה ראיתי ביהודה דורכים גתות בשבת ומביאים הערימות

Rabbi Ḥanina said: This mishna was taught in the days of Nehemiah, son of Hacaliah, a period when many stringent decrees were issued with regard to Shabbat prohibitions, as it is written: “In those days I saw in Judea some treading winepresses on Shabbat and bringing in heaps of grain and lading donkeys with them; as also wine, grapes, figs, and all manner of burdens which are brought into Jerusalem on the Shabbat day. I forewarned them on that day when they sold food” (Nehemiah 13:15). Since the people treated the sanctity of Shabbat with disdain, Nehemiah instituted many stringencies with regard to all the halakhot of Shabbat in order to educate the people to observe Shabbat.

אמר רבי אלעזר קנין ומקלות גלוסטרא ומדוכה כולן קודם התרת כלים נשנו

Rabbi Elazar said: The mishnayot that deal with the topics of rods, poles, the thick end [gelostera] of the bolt in a door lock, and a mortar were all taught before permission to move utensils on Shabbat was adopted. At that time, moving most utensils was still prohibited and only a small number of utensils whose primary function was for a permitted use were permitted to be moved. The Gemara cites the relevant mishnayot.

קנין דתנן לא סידור הקנין ולא נטילתן דוחה את השבת

Rods: Golden rods were placed between the loaves of showbread in the Temple to support the loaves and to aerate them. At that time, moving the rods was prohibited because they were considered to be set-aside, as we learned in a mishna: Neither arranging the rods nor moving them overrides the prohibition of set-aside on Shabbat.

מקלות דתנן מקלות דקין חלקין היו שם ומניחו על כתפו ועל כתף חבירו ותולה ומפשיט (אמר) רבי אלעזר ארבעה עשר שחל להיות בשבת מניח

And the source for the matter of poles is as we learned in a mishna: There were thin, smooth poles in the Temple, and every Passover eve one places the pole on his shoulder and on the shoulder of another, and suspends the Paschal lamb on it and flays its hide. And Rabbi Elazar said: With regard to the fourteenth of Nisan, the day that the Paschal lamb is sacrificed, that occurred on Shabbat, they would not use the poles, as a conspicuous reminder that it was Shabbat. Instead, one places