Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

July 25, 2020 | 讚壮 讘讗讘 转砖状驻

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

Shabbat 141

In what cases can one move things that are muktze indirectly? When one comes out of a river on Shabbat, one needs to worry about carrying water that is on one’s body and therefore should dry off before walking. How can one clean off dirt off one’s foot on Shabbat? How can one clean dirt off one’s clothing? Can one scrape dirt off a shoe? Can one remove a shoe from the shoe frame? Why can’t a child go out with shoes that are too big or a woman wearing shoes she has never worn before? Can one carry a child if the child is carrying a rock in its hand? The mishna discusses cases where an item can be considered secondary to another and therefore will be able to be carried together with it and is not considered muktze. The gemara brings up cases regarding carrying from a public to private domain a child with a purse around its neck. The conclusion there is different from the mishna as there we obligate one for carrying the purse. Why the difference?

讚讗讬转 诇讛 专讬专讬


which has spittle.


讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 谞讜讟诇讬谉 诪诇驻谞讬 讘讛诪讛 砖驻讬讛 专注 讘讞诪讜专 讚诇讗 讚讬讬拽 讜讗讻讬诇 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讘讛诪讛 砖驻讬讛 讬驻讛 讘驻专讛 讚讚讬讬拽讗 讜讗讻诇讛:


And that which was taught in the other baraita: One may take hay from before an animal whose mouth is foul, is referring to a donkey. Its mouth is foul because it does not discern between different foods and it eats everything. And the statement: One may place it before an animal whose mouth is fine, is referring to a cow, which discerns between different foods and only then it eats.


诪转谞讬壮 讛拽砖 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讟讛 诇讗 讬谞注谞注谞讜 讘讬讚讜 讗诇讗 诪谞注谞注讜 讘讙讜驻讜 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 诪讗讻诇 讘讛诪讛 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 注诇讬讜 讻专 讗讜 住讚讬谉 诪谞注谞注讜 讘讬讚讜


MISHNA: With regard to straw that is on top of a bed, if a person wishes to lie on it, he may not move it with his hand to smooth it, as the straw is set aside for kindling; rather, he may move it with his body. Since moving straw with one鈥檚 body is not the usual manner, it is permitted. And if the straw was designated as animal food, or a pillow or sheet was on it, which would clearly indicate that the straw was placed on the bed so one could sleep on it, the straw is not considered set-aside, and one may move it even with his hand.


诪讻讘砖 砖诇 讘注诇讬 讘转讬诐 诪转讬专讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讻讜讘砖讬谉 讜砖诇 讻讜讘住讬谉 诇讗 讬讙注 讘讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 诪讜转专 诪注专讘 砖讘转 诪转讬专 讗转 讻讜诇讜 讜砖讜诪讟讜:


A press which belongs to a homeowner, one may loosen it on Shabbat. This press is used to dry and press clothing after laundering. One loosens it to remove clothing from it. However, one may not press clothing with it on Shabbat. And in the case of a press that belongs to a launderer, which is made specifically for pressing and requires professional expertise for its operation, one may not touch it. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the launderer鈥檚 press was loosened somewhat on Shabbat eve, he may loosen it completely on Shabbat and remove the garment.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗讬 驻讜讙诇讗 诪诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 砖专讬 诪诇诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 讗住讬专


GEMARA: With regard to moving items that are set aside, the Gemara cites that which Rav Na岣an said: This radish, which was buried in the earth, if it was buried from top to bottom, with its wide end at the top and its narrow end at the bottom, it is permitted to remove it on Shabbat. When the radish is buried in that manner, one does not move the earth when he removes the radish. However, if the radish was buried in the earth from bottom to top, with the wide end at the bottom, it is prohibited.


讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专讬 讘讬 专讘 转谞讬谞讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛拽砖 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讟讛 诇讗 讬谞注谞注讜 讘讬讚讜 讗讘诇 诪谞注谞注讜 讘讙讜驻讜 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 诪讗讻诇 讘讛诪讛 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 注诇讬讜 讻专 讗讜 住讚讬谉 诪谞注谞注讜 讘讬讚讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讟诇讟讜诇 诪谉 讛爪讚 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讟诇讟讜诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


Rav Adda bar Abba said: They say in the school of Rav: We already learned in the mishna that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an: With regard to straw on top of a bed, one may not move it with his hand, but he may move it with his body. And if it is animal food, or a pillow or sheet is on it, he may move it even with his hand. Conclude from here that moving an item in an atypical manner is not considered moving. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from here that this is indeed the case.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞讬 驻诇驻诇讬 诪讬讚拽 讞讚讗 讞讚讗 讘拽转讗 讚住讻讬谞讗 砖专讬 转专转讬 讗住讬专 专讘讗 讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚诪砖谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讟讜讘讗 谞诪讬


The Gemara cites a somewhat similar case. Rav Yehuda said: In the case of these peppers, crushing them one by one with the handle of a knife is permitted. However, crushing two at a time is prohibited, because it appears to be a prohibited labor. Rava said: Since he alters the manner in which he performs this activity, even crushing many at a time is also permitted.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗谉 讚住讞讬 讘诪讬讗 诇讬谞讙讬讘 谞驻砖讬讛 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讚专 诇讬住诇讬拽 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘讻专诪诇讬转


Rav Yehuda also said: One who bathes in water should first dry himself immediately upon exiting, and then ascend to the coast, lest he come to carry the remaining drops of water on his body four cubits in a karmelit.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讻讬 拽讗 谞讞讬转 谞诪讬 拽讗 讚讞讬 讻讞讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜讗住讬专 讻讞讜 讘讻专诪诇讬转 诇讗 讙讝专讜


The Gemara asks: If so, if there is a concern about carrying water, there should be concern when one descends into the water as well. In that case, his force propels water four cubits into the river, and it should be prohibited. The Gemara answers: With regard to movement that results from his force in a karmelit, the Sages did not issue a decree. Since one does not directly propel the water, but the water moves only as an extension of his motion, and since the river is a karmelit, and the prohibition to carry there is only a rabbinic law, the Sages did not issue a decree for one who descends into the water.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讟讬讟 砖注诇 讙讘讬 专讙诇讜 诪拽谞讞讜 讘拽专拽注 讜讗讬谉 诪拽谞讞讜 讘讻讜转诇


In a similar decree, Abaye said, and some say that it was stated by Rav Yehuda: If one has mud on his foot, he may wipe it on the ground on Shabbat, but he may not wipe it on a wall.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘讻讜转诇 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬讞讝讬 讻讘讜谞讛 讛讗 讘谞讬谉 讞拽诇讗讛 讛讜讗


Rava said: What is the reason that he may not wipe it off on a wall? Is it because it appears like building, as he is adding plaster to the wall? That is the building of a field laborer, which is not an actual building. There is no concern in that case because in adding plaster to that building, one does not perform the prohibited labor of building.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪拽谞讞讜 讘讻讜转诇 讜讗讬谉 诪拽谞讞讜 讘拽专拽注 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗砖讜讜讬讬 讙讜诪讜转


Rather, Rava said: On the contrary, He may wipe it on a wall, but he may not wipe it on the ground. This is due to the concern lest one come to level holes in the ground while wiping his foot.


讗讬转诪专 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 讗住讜专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 诪讜转专


It is stated that other amora鈥檌m disputed this issue. Mar, son of Ravina, said: Both this, wiping the mud on a wall, and that, wiping the mud on the ground, are prohibited. Rav Pappa said: Both this and that are permitted.


诇诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 讘诪讗讬 诪拽谞讞讬 诇讬讛 诪拽谞讞讬 诇讬讛 讘拽讜专讛


The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Mar, son of Ravina, with what may he wipe his foot? The Gemara answers: Even according to his opinion, there is a permitted manner to clean his foot; he wipes it on a beam on the ground.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 诇讬转讬讘 讗讬谞讬砖 讗驻讜诪讬讛 讚诇讬讞讬讬讗 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讬讙谞讚专讗 诇讬讛 讞驻抓 讜讗转讬 诇讗转讜讬讬


Rava said: A person should not sit on Shabbat right at the entrance to a closed alleyway where a side post is placed as a symbolic partition enabling one to carry inside the alleyway. The reason for this is that perhaps an object will roll into the public domain and one will come to get it, as there is no conspicuous demarcation between inside and outside the alleyway.


讜讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 诇讬爪讚讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讻讜讘讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗砖讜讜讬讬 讙讜诪讜转


And Rava also said a similar decree: A person may not position a barrel on a dirt floor, lest he come to level holes in the ground while smoothing the surface upon which he is positioning the barrel.


讜讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 诇讬讛讚讜拽 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讜讚专讗 讘驻讜诪讗 讚砖讬砖讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讬讚讬 住讞讬讟讛


And furthermore, Rava said: A person may not stuff a rag into the mouth of a jug [shisha] on Shabbat, lest he come to violate the prohibition of squeezing liquid from the cloth.


讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讟讬讟 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讘讙讚讜 诪讻住讻住讜 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪讻住讻住讜 诪讘讞讜抓


Rav Kahana said: With regard to mortar that is on one鈥檚 garment on Shabbat, one may rub it off from the inside, but one may not rub it off from the outside, because that is comparable to the prohibited labor of laundering.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讟讬讟 砖注诇 讙讘讬 诪谞注诇讜 诪讙专专讜 讘讙讘 住讻讬谉 讜砖注诇 讘讙讚讜 诪讙专专讜 讘爪驻讜专谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讻住讻住 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 砖诇讗 讬讻住讻住 讻诇诇 诇讗 砖诇讗 讬讻住讻住 诪讘讞讜抓 讗诇讗 诪讘驻谞讬诐


The Gemara raises an objection from that which we learned: With regard to mortar that is on one鈥檚 shoe, he may scrape it off with the back of a knife as a departure from the typical manner of scraping. And mortar which is on one鈥檚 clothes, he may scrape off with his fingernail, as long as he does not rub it. The Gemara asks: What, is it not saying that he may not rub it at all? The Gemara rejects that premise: No, it is saying that he may not rub it from the outside, rather from the inside.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诪讙专专讬谉 诪谞注诇 讞讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 讬砖谉


Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Yannai said: One may scrape mud off of a new shoe on Shabbat, but not off of an old shoe, because a layer of the shoe will be removed, which constitutes the prohibited labor of smoothing.


讘诪讛 诪讙专专讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讘讙讘 住讻讬谉


With what does one scrape it off? Rabbi Abahu said: With the back of a knife, which is a departure from the typical manner of doing so.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 住诪讬 讚讬讚讱 诪拽诪讬 讛讗 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讙专专讬谉 诇讗 诪谞注诇 讞讚砖 讜诇讗 诪谞注诇 讬砖谉 讜诇讗 讬住讜讱 讗转 专讙诇讜 砖诪谉 讜讛讜讗 讘转讜讱 讛诪谞注诇 讗讜 讘转讜讱 讛住谞讚诇 讗讘诇 住讱 讗转 专讙诇讜 砖诪谉 讜诪谞讬讞 讘转讜讱 讛诪谞注诇 讗讜 讘转讜讱 讛住谞讚诇 讜住讱 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 砖诪谉 讜诪转注讙诇 注诇 讙讘讬 拽讟讘诇讬讗 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖


A certain Elder said to Rabbi Abbahu: Delete your teaching before this statement taught by Rabbi 岣yya: One may not scrape at all; neither a new shoe nor an old shoe, and one may not smear oil on one鈥檚 foot while it is inside the shoe or inside the sandal, as the oil is absorbed by the leather of the shoe and strengthens it, which constitutes performance of the prohibited labor of tanning. However, one may smear oil on his foot in the typical manner and place it afterward in a shoe or in a sandal, and he need not be concerned that this oil will enhance the shoe leather. And he may likewise smear oil on his entire body with oil and roll on a leather carpet, and he need not be concerned.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇爪讞爪讞讜 讗讘诇 诇注讘讚讜 讗住讜专


Rav 岣sda said: They only taught this in a case where he does so in order to polish the carpet. But if he does so to tan the carpet, it is prohibited.


诇注讘讚讜 驻砖讬讟讗 讜转讜 诇爪讞爪讞讜 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讗谉 讚砖专讬


The Gemara raises a difficulty: If he does so to tan the leather, it is obvious that it is prohibited, as tanning is a labor prohibited by Torah law. And furthermore: If he does so in order to polish it, is there an opinion that permits one to perform this act intentionally on Shabbat ab initio?


讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讬注讜专 诇爪讞爪讞讜 讗讘诇 砖讬注讜专 诇注讘讚讜 讗住讜专


Rather, if it was stated, it was stated as follows: Rav 岣sda said: They only taught that it is permitted to do so on Shabbat in a case where one smears a measure sufficient only to polish it; however, if one smears a measure sufficient to tan it, it is prohibited, even if he did not intend to tan the leather.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 讬爪讗 拽讟谉 讘诪谞注诇 讙讚讜诇 讗讘诇 讬讜爪讗 讛讜讗 讘讞诇讜拽 讙讚讜诇


The Sages taught in a baraita: A small person may not go out in a too large shoe, due to concern lest the shoe fall off and he will come to carry it in the public domain; but he may go out in a too large cloak. Even if it does not fit him properly, it will certainly not fall off.


讜诇讗 转爪讗 讗砖讛 讘诪谞注诇 诪专讜驻讟 讜诇讗 转讞诇讜抓 讘讜 讜讗诐 讞诇爪讛 讞诇讬爪转讛 讻砖专讛


And a woman may not go out on Shabbat in a shoe that is torn on top, lest she be mocked, remove it, and carry it on Shabbat. And a shoe of that kind may not be used to perform 岣litza, as it is not a suitable shoe. 岣litza is performed by a widow bound in a levirate bond with her brother-in-law. However, if she performed 岣litza with it, her 岣litza is valid, since ultimately it is a shoe.


讜讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘诪谞注诇 讞讚砖 讘讗讬讝讛 诪谞注诇 讗诪专讜 讘诪谞注诇 砖诇 讗砖讛


And one may not go out on Shabbat wearing a new shoe, due to the concern that it will not fit properly, and then one will remove it and carry it. The Gemara comments: In what case did they say that one may not wear a new shoe? They said this with regard to a woman鈥檚 shoe, as women are very particular about having their shoes fit properly.


转谞讬 讘专 拽驻专讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 讬爪讗讛 讘讜 砖注讛 讗讞转 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讗讘诇 讬爪讗讛 讘讜 诪注专讘 砖讘转 诪讜转专


Bar Kappara taught: They only taught that she may not go out wearing a new shoe on Shabbat if she did not yet go out wearing it for any length of time while it was still day. However, if she went out wearing it on Shabbat eve, at which point she would have ascertained if it fits her, she is permitted to go out wearing it on Shabbat.


转谞讬 讞讚讗 砖讜诪讟讬谉 诪谞注诇 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讗讬诪讜住 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗讬谉 砖讜诪讟讬谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 专讘谞谉


One baraita taught: One may remove a shoe from the shoemaker鈥檚 last, the frame on which a shoe is shaped, on Shabbat. And another baraita taught the opposite: One may not remove it. The Gemara explains that this is not difficult: This baraita, which prohibits doing so, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and that baraita, which permits doing so, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis dispute the applicability of the halakhot of ritual purity and impurity in a similar case.


讚转谞谉 诪谞注诇 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讗讬诪讜住 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讟讛专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬诐


As we learned in a mishna: A shoe that remains on a last, Rabbi Eliezer deems it pure, i.e., unable to become impure, as in his opinion the shoe is not yet complete, and therefore it is not yet a vessel and cannot become impure. And the Rabbis deem it capable of becoming impure, as in their opinion, the shoe is completed, and any vessel whose work is complete can become ritually impure. Correspondingly, the Rabbis, who hold that a shoe on a last is a completed vessel, hold that it may be moved on Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that it is an incomplete vessel, holds that it may not be moved.


讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讗讬住讜专 讘讬谉 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 讘讬谉 诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 诪讜转专 砖驻讬专


The Gemara poses a question: It works out well according to the opinion of Rava, who said: Moving an object whose primary function is for a prohibited use, whether for the purpose of utilizing the object itself to perform a permitted action or for the purpose of utilizing its place, is permitted. It is well understood that one may move the last slightly while removing the shoe, since removing the shoe is considered utilizing the last鈥檚 place.


讗诇讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 诪讜转专 诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 讗住讜专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专


However, according to Abaye, who said that for the purpose of utilizing the object itself to perform a permitted action, it is permitted; however, for the purpose of utilizing its place, it is prohibited, what can be said? It is prohibited to move the last, which is clearly a utensil whose primary function is for a prohibited use. How is it possible to remove the shoe without moving the last?


讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘专驻讜讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 专驻讜讬 诪讜转专


The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? It is with a shoe placed loosely on the last, so the shoe can be removed without moving the last. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: If it was loose, it is permitted.


讟注诪讗 讚专驻讜讬 讛讗 诇讗 专驻讜讬 诇讗 讛谞讬讞讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讗讬住讜专 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 诪讜转专 诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 讗住讜专 砖驻讬专


The Gemara infers: The reason it is permitted is only because it is loose; however, if it is not loose, no, it is prohibited. It works out well according to the opinion of Abaye, who said that moving an object whose primary function is for a prohibited use for the purpose of utilizing the object itself to perform a permitted action it is permitted; however, for the purpose of utilizing its place, it is prohibited to move it. It is well understood that it is prohibited to move the last if the shoe is tightly attached to it.


讗诇讗 诇专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讘讬谉 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 讘讬谉 诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 诪讜转专 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 专驻讜讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 专驻讜讬 谞诪讬


However, according to Rava, who said that moving an object whose primary function is for a prohibited use, whether for the purpose of utilizing the object itself to perform a permitted action or for the purpose of utilizing its place, is permitted, why discuss specifically a case where it is loose? Even if it were not loose, it should also be permitted to move it.


讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诐 讛讬讛 专驻讜讬 诪讜转专:


The Gemara answers: That baraita is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, and it is not a clarification of the opinion of the Rabbis. Although Rabbi Eliezer holds that the shoe is not yet completed, nevertheless, Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer that it is permitted to carry it. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: If it was already loose and no longer requires a last, it is permitted to move it, since it is a completed vessel and no longer needs the last to shape it.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 转讜诇讬谉



诪转谞讬壮 谞讜讟诇 讗讚诐 讗转 讘谞讜 讜讛讗讘谉 讘讬讚讜 讜讻诇讻诇讛 讜讛讗讘谉 讘转讜讻讛 讜诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 注诐 讛讟讛讜专讛 讜注诐 讛讞讜诇讬谉


MISHNA: A person may take his son in his hands on Shabbat, and even though there is a stone, which is a set-aside item, in the child鈥檚 hand, it is not prohibited to pick up the child. And it is permissible to take a basket with a stone inside it on Shabbat. And one may move ritually impure teruma, which may not be eaten and is set-aside, with ritually pure teruma, as well as with non-sacred produce.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诪注诇讬谉 讗转 讛诪讚讜诪注 讘讗讞讚 讜诪讗讛:


Rabbi Yehuda says: One may even lift a measure of teruma that was nullified from a mixture of one hundred measures of non-sacred produce and one measure of teruma. When a measure of teruma is mixed with non-sacred produce, if the non-sacred produce is one hundred times the measure of teruma, the teruma is nullified. However, the Sages instituted that one must remove an amount equivalent to that measure of teruma and give it to a priest. The remainder is considered non-sacred produce. Rabbi Yehuda permits removing that measure on Shabbat to render the mixture permitted to eat.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讜爪讬讗 转讬谞讜拽 讞讬 讜讻讬住 转诇讜讬 讘爪讜讗专讜 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讻讬住 转讬谞讜拽 诪转 讜讻讬住 转诇讜讬 诇讜 讘爪讜讗专讜 驻讟讜专


GEMARA: Rava said: If one carried out a living baby to the public domain on Shabbat, and the baby had a purse that was hanging around his neck, he is liable for carrying out the purse. However, one who carried out a dead baby, with a purse hanging around his neck, is exempt.


转讬谞讜拽 讞讬 讜讻讬住 转诇讜讬 诇讜 讘爪讜讗专讜 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讻讬住 讜诇讬讞讬讬讘 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 转讬谞讜拽


Rava said: If one carried out a living baby to the public domain on Shabbat, and a purse was hanging around the baby鈥檚 neck, he is liable for carrying out the purse. The Gemara asks: And let him be liable for carrying out the baby as well.


专讘讗 讻专讘讬 谞转谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讞讬 谞讜砖讗 讗转 注爪诪讜


The Gemara responds: Rava holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, who said: A living being carries itself. Therefore, one who carries a living being from one domain to another is not liable.


讜诇讬讘讟诇 讻讬住 诇讙讘讬 转讬谞讜拽 诪讬 诇讗 转谞谉 讗转 讛讞讬 讘诪讟讛 驻讟讜专 讗祝 注诇 讛诪讟讛 砖讛诪讟讛 讟驻讬诇讛 诇讜


The Gemara asks: And let the purse be negated relative to the baby; and he should be exempt for carrying out the purse as well. Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: One who carries out a living person on a bed is exempt even for carrying out the bed, because the bed is secondary to the person? The same should be said with regard to the purse, relative to the baby.


诪讟讛 诇讙讘讬 讞讬 诪讘讟诇讬 诇讬讛 讻讬住 诇讙讘讬 转讬谞讜拽 诇讗 诪讘讟诇讬 诇讬讛


The Gemara answers: In a case where a bed is relative to a living being, the living being negates it, as the bed is needed to carry the person and is secondary to him. However, in a case where a purse is relative to a baby, the baby does not negate it, since it is independently significant.


转讬谞讜拽 诪转 讜讻讬住 转诇讜讬 诇讜 讘爪讜讗专讜 驻讟讜专 讜诇讬讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 转讬谞讜拽 专讘讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讙讜驻讛 驻讟讜专 注诇讬讛


And Rava said: One who carried out a dead baby with a purse hanging around the baby鈥檚 neck is exempt. The Gemara asks: And let him be liable for carrying out the baby. The Gemara answers: Rava holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: With regard to any labor that is not needed for its own sake, one is exempt for performing it on Shabbat. One who carries out a corpse does not do so because he needs it; rather, he does so for the sake of the corpse, i.e., to bury it or to move it from a degrading place. Therefore, he has not performed a labor prohibited by Torah law. Similarly, he is also exempt for carrying out the purse because due to his distress and mourning he negates the purse, as it is insignificant relative to the baby.


转谞谉 谞讜讟诇 讗讚诐 讗转 讘谞讜 讜讛讗讘谉 讘讬讚讜 讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讘转讬谞讜拽 砖讬砖 诇讜 讙讬注讙讜注讬谉 注诇 讗讘讬讜


We learned in the mishna: A person may take his son in his hands on Shabbat; and this is permitted even though there is a stone in the child鈥檚 hand. As it can be inferred from this mishna that the stone is negated relative to the child, why, then, is he liable in the case of a purse hanging around a live baby鈥檚 neck? Let the purse be negated relative to the baby. The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai say: You cannot infer from this mishna that the stone is negated and therefore it is permitted to move it. Rather, the mishna is referring to a baby who has longings for his father. It is permitted for the father to move the stone because if the father does not lift him, the baby might take ill.


讗讬 讛讻讬


The Gemara asks: If so,


Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Shabbat 141

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 141

讚讗讬转 诇讛 专讬专讬


which has spittle.


讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 谞讜讟诇讬谉 诪诇驻谞讬 讘讛诪讛 砖驻讬讛 专注 讘讞诪讜专 讚诇讗 讚讬讬拽 讜讗讻讬诇 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讘讛诪讛 砖驻讬讛 讬驻讛 讘驻专讛 讚讚讬讬拽讗 讜讗讻诇讛:


And that which was taught in the other baraita: One may take hay from before an animal whose mouth is foul, is referring to a donkey. Its mouth is foul because it does not discern between different foods and it eats everything. And the statement: One may place it before an animal whose mouth is fine, is referring to a cow, which discerns between different foods and only then it eats.


诪转谞讬壮 讛拽砖 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讟讛 诇讗 讬谞注谞注谞讜 讘讬讚讜 讗诇讗 诪谞注谞注讜 讘讙讜驻讜 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 诪讗讻诇 讘讛诪讛 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 注诇讬讜 讻专 讗讜 住讚讬谉 诪谞注谞注讜 讘讬讚讜


MISHNA: With regard to straw that is on top of a bed, if a person wishes to lie on it, he may not move it with his hand to smooth it, as the straw is set aside for kindling; rather, he may move it with his body. Since moving straw with one鈥檚 body is not the usual manner, it is permitted. And if the straw was designated as animal food, or a pillow or sheet was on it, which would clearly indicate that the straw was placed on the bed so one could sleep on it, the straw is not considered set-aside, and one may move it even with his hand.


诪讻讘砖 砖诇 讘注诇讬 讘转讬诐 诪转讬专讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讻讜讘砖讬谉 讜砖诇 讻讜讘住讬谉 诇讗 讬讙注 讘讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 诪讜转专 诪注专讘 砖讘转 诪转讬专 讗转 讻讜诇讜 讜砖讜诪讟讜:


A press which belongs to a homeowner, one may loosen it on Shabbat. This press is used to dry and press clothing after laundering. One loosens it to remove clothing from it. However, one may not press clothing with it on Shabbat. And in the case of a press that belongs to a launderer, which is made specifically for pressing and requires professional expertise for its operation, one may not touch it. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the launderer鈥檚 press was loosened somewhat on Shabbat eve, he may loosen it completely on Shabbat and remove the garment.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗讬 驻讜讙诇讗 诪诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 砖专讬 诪诇诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 讗住讬专


GEMARA: With regard to moving items that are set aside, the Gemara cites that which Rav Na岣an said: This radish, which was buried in the earth, if it was buried from top to bottom, with its wide end at the top and its narrow end at the bottom, it is permitted to remove it on Shabbat. When the radish is buried in that manner, one does not move the earth when he removes the radish. However, if the radish was buried in the earth from bottom to top, with the wide end at the bottom, it is prohibited.


讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专讬 讘讬 专讘 转谞讬谞讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛拽砖 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讟讛 诇讗 讬谞注谞注讜 讘讬讚讜 讗讘诇 诪谞注谞注讜 讘讙讜驻讜 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 诪讗讻诇 讘讛诪讛 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 注诇讬讜 讻专 讗讜 住讚讬谉 诪谞注谞注讜 讘讬讚讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讟诇讟讜诇 诪谉 讛爪讚 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讟诇讟讜诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


Rav Adda bar Abba said: They say in the school of Rav: We already learned in the mishna that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an: With regard to straw on top of a bed, one may not move it with his hand, but he may move it with his body. And if it is animal food, or a pillow or sheet is on it, he may move it even with his hand. Conclude from here that moving an item in an atypical manner is not considered moving. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from here that this is indeed the case.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞讬 驻诇驻诇讬 诪讬讚拽 讞讚讗 讞讚讗 讘拽转讗 讚住讻讬谞讗 砖专讬 转专转讬 讗住讬专 专讘讗 讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚诪砖谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讟讜讘讗 谞诪讬


The Gemara cites a somewhat similar case. Rav Yehuda said: In the case of these peppers, crushing them one by one with the handle of a knife is permitted. However, crushing two at a time is prohibited, because it appears to be a prohibited labor. Rava said: Since he alters the manner in which he performs this activity, even crushing many at a time is also permitted.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗谉 讚住讞讬 讘诪讬讗 诇讬谞讙讬讘 谞驻砖讬讛 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讚专 诇讬住诇讬拽 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘讻专诪诇讬转


Rav Yehuda also said: One who bathes in water should first dry himself immediately upon exiting, and then ascend to the coast, lest he come to carry the remaining drops of water on his body four cubits in a karmelit.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讻讬 拽讗 谞讞讬转 谞诪讬 拽讗 讚讞讬 讻讞讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜讗住讬专 讻讞讜 讘讻专诪诇讬转 诇讗 讙讝专讜


The Gemara asks: If so, if there is a concern about carrying water, there should be concern when one descends into the water as well. In that case, his force propels water four cubits into the river, and it should be prohibited. The Gemara answers: With regard to movement that results from his force in a karmelit, the Sages did not issue a decree. Since one does not directly propel the water, but the water moves only as an extension of his motion, and since the river is a karmelit, and the prohibition to carry there is only a rabbinic law, the Sages did not issue a decree for one who descends into the water.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讟讬讟 砖注诇 讙讘讬 专讙诇讜 诪拽谞讞讜 讘拽专拽注 讜讗讬谉 诪拽谞讞讜 讘讻讜转诇


In a similar decree, Abaye said, and some say that it was stated by Rav Yehuda: If one has mud on his foot, he may wipe it on the ground on Shabbat, but he may not wipe it on a wall.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘讻讜转诇 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬讞讝讬 讻讘讜谞讛 讛讗 讘谞讬谉 讞拽诇讗讛 讛讜讗


Rava said: What is the reason that he may not wipe it off on a wall? Is it because it appears like building, as he is adding plaster to the wall? That is the building of a field laborer, which is not an actual building. There is no concern in that case because in adding plaster to that building, one does not perform the prohibited labor of building.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪拽谞讞讜 讘讻讜转诇 讜讗讬谉 诪拽谞讞讜 讘拽专拽注 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗砖讜讜讬讬 讙讜诪讜转


Rather, Rava said: On the contrary, He may wipe it on a wall, but he may not wipe it on the ground. This is due to the concern lest one come to level holes in the ground while wiping his foot.


讗讬转诪专 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 讗住讜专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 诪讜转专


It is stated that other amora鈥檌m disputed this issue. Mar, son of Ravina, said: Both this, wiping the mud on a wall, and that, wiping the mud on the ground, are prohibited. Rav Pappa said: Both this and that are permitted.


诇诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 讘诪讗讬 诪拽谞讞讬 诇讬讛 诪拽谞讞讬 诇讬讛 讘拽讜专讛


The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Mar, son of Ravina, with what may he wipe his foot? The Gemara answers: Even according to his opinion, there is a permitted manner to clean his foot; he wipes it on a beam on the ground.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 诇讬转讬讘 讗讬谞讬砖 讗驻讜诪讬讛 讚诇讬讞讬讬讗 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讬讙谞讚专讗 诇讬讛 讞驻抓 讜讗转讬 诇讗转讜讬讬


Rava said: A person should not sit on Shabbat right at the entrance to a closed alleyway where a side post is placed as a symbolic partition enabling one to carry inside the alleyway. The reason for this is that perhaps an object will roll into the public domain and one will come to get it, as there is no conspicuous demarcation between inside and outside the alleyway.


讜讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 诇讬爪讚讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讻讜讘讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗砖讜讜讬讬 讙讜诪讜转


And Rava also said a similar decree: A person may not position a barrel on a dirt floor, lest he come to level holes in the ground while smoothing the surface upon which he is positioning the barrel.


讜讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 诇讬讛讚讜拽 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讜讚专讗 讘驻讜诪讗 讚砖讬砖讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讬讚讬 住讞讬讟讛


And furthermore, Rava said: A person may not stuff a rag into the mouth of a jug [shisha] on Shabbat, lest he come to violate the prohibition of squeezing liquid from the cloth.


讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讟讬讟 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讘讙讚讜 诪讻住讻住讜 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪讻住讻住讜 诪讘讞讜抓


Rav Kahana said: With regard to mortar that is on one鈥檚 garment on Shabbat, one may rub it off from the inside, but one may not rub it off from the outside, because that is comparable to the prohibited labor of laundering.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讟讬讟 砖注诇 讙讘讬 诪谞注诇讜 诪讙专专讜 讘讙讘 住讻讬谉 讜砖注诇 讘讙讚讜 诪讙专专讜 讘爪驻讜专谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讻住讻住 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 砖诇讗 讬讻住讻住 讻诇诇 诇讗 砖诇讗 讬讻住讻住 诪讘讞讜抓 讗诇讗 诪讘驻谞讬诐


The Gemara raises an objection from that which we learned: With regard to mortar that is on one鈥檚 shoe, he may scrape it off with the back of a knife as a departure from the typical manner of scraping. And mortar which is on one鈥檚 clothes, he may scrape off with his fingernail, as long as he does not rub it. The Gemara asks: What, is it not saying that he may not rub it at all? The Gemara rejects that premise: No, it is saying that he may not rub it from the outside, rather from the inside.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诪讙专专讬谉 诪谞注诇 讞讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 讬砖谉


Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Yannai said: One may scrape mud off of a new shoe on Shabbat, but not off of an old shoe, because a layer of the shoe will be removed, which constitutes the prohibited labor of smoothing.


讘诪讛 诪讙专专讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讘讙讘 住讻讬谉


With what does one scrape it off? Rabbi Abahu said: With the back of a knife, which is a departure from the typical manner of doing so.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 住诪讬 讚讬讚讱 诪拽诪讬 讛讗 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讙专专讬谉 诇讗 诪谞注诇 讞讚砖 讜诇讗 诪谞注诇 讬砖谉 讜诇讗 讬住讜讱 讗转 专讙诇讜 砖诪谉 讜讛讜讗 讘转讜讱 讛诪谞注诇 讗讜 讘转讜讱 讛住谞讚诇 讗讘诇 住讱 讗转 专讙诇讜 砖诪谉 讜诪谞讬讞 讘转讜讱 讛诪谞注诇 讗讜 讘转讜讱 讛住谞讚诇 讜住讱 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 砖诪谉 讜诪转注讙诇 注诇 讙讘讬 拽讟讘诇讬讗 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖


A certain Elder said to Rabbi Abbahu: Delete your teaching before this statement taught by Rabbi 岣yya: One may not scrape at all; neither a new shoe nor an old shoe, and one may not smear oil on one鈥檚 foot while it is inside the shoe or inside the sandal, as the oil is absorbed by the leather of the shoe and strengthens it, which constitutes performance of the prohibited labor of tanning. However, one may smear oil on his foot in the typical manner and place it afterward in a shoe or in a sandal, and he need not be concerned that this oil will enhance the shoe leather. And he may likewise smear oil on his entire body with oil and roll on a leather carpet, and he need not be concerned.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇爪讞爪讞讜 讗讘诇 诇注讘讚讜 讗住讜专


Rav 岣sda said: They only taught this in a case where he does so in order to polish the carpet. But if he does so to tan the carpet, it is prohibited.


诇注讘讚讜 驻砖讬讟讗 讜转讜 诇爪讞爪讞讜 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讗谉 讚砖专讬


The Gemara raises a difficulty: If he does so to tan the leather, it is obvious that it is prohibited, as tanning is a labor prohibited by Torah law. And furthermore: If he does so in order to polish it, is there an opinion that permits one to perform this act intentionally on Shabbat ab initio?


讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讬注讜专 诇爪讞爪讞讜 讗讘诇 砖讬注讜专 诇注讘讚讜 讗住讜专


Rather, if it was stated, it was stated as follows: Rav 岣sda said: They only taught that it is permitted to do so on Shabbat in a case where one smears a measure sufficient only to polish it; however, if one smears a measure sufficient to tan it, it is prohibited, even if he did not intend to tan the leather.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 讬爪讗 拽讟谉 讘诪谞注诇 讙讚讜诇 讗讘诇 讬讜爪讗 讛讜讗 讘讞诇讜拽 讙讚讜诇


The Sages taught in a baraita: A small person may not go out in a too large shoe, due to concern lest the shoe fall off and he will come to carry it in the public domain; but he may go out in a too large cloak. Even if it does not fit him properly, it will certainly not fall off.


讜诇讗 转爪讗 讗砖讛 讘诪谞注诇 诪专讜驻讟 讜诇讗 转讞诇讜抓 讘讜 讜讗诐 讞诇爪讛 讞诇讬爪转讛 讻砖专讛


And a woman may not go out on Shabbat in a shoe that is torn on top, lest she be mocked, remove it, and carry it on Shabbat. And a shoe of that kind may not be used to perform 岣litza, as it is not a suitable shoe. 岣litza is performed by a widow bound in a levirate bond with her brother-in-law. However, if she performed 岣litza with it, her 岣litza is valid, since ultimately it is a shoe.


讜讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘诪谞注诇 讞讚砖 讘讗讬讝讛 诪谞注诇 讗诪专讜 讘诪谞注诇 砖诇 讗砖讛


And one may not go out on Shabbat wearing a new shoe, due to the concern that it will not fit properly, and then one will remove it and carry it. The Gemara comments: In what case did they say that one may not wear a new shoe? They said this with regard to a woman鈥檚 shoe, as women are very particular about having their shoes fit properly.


转谞讬 讘专 拽驻专讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 讬爪讗讛 讘讜 砖注讛 讗讞转 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讗讘诇 讬爪讗讛 讘讜 诪注专讘 砖讘转 诪讜转专


Bar Kappara taught: They only taught that she may not go out wearing a new shoe on Shabbat if she did not yet go out wearing it for any length of time while it was still day. However, if she went out wearing it on Shabbat eve, at which point she would have ascertained if it fits her, she is permitted to go out wearing it on Shabbat.


转谞讬 讞讚讗 砖讜诪讟讬谉 诪谞注诇 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讗讬诪讜住 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗讬谉 砖讜诪讟讬谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 专讘谞谉


One baraita taught: One may remove a shoe from the shoemaker鈥檚 last, the frame on which a shoe is shaped, on Shabbat. And another baraita taught the opposite: One may not remove it. The Gemara explains that this is not difficult: This baraita, which prohibits doing so, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and that baraita, which permits doing so, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis dispute the applicability of the halakhot of ritual purity and impurity in a similar case.


讚转谞谉 诪谞注诇 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讗讬诪讜住 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讟讛专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬诐


As we learned in a mishna: A shoe that remains on a last, Rabbi Eliezer deems it pure, i.e., unable to become impure, as in his opinion the shoe is not yet complete, and therefore it is not yet a vessel and cannot become impure. And the Rabbis deem it capable of becoming impure, as in their opinion, the shoe is completed, and any vessel whose work is complete can become ritually impure. Correspondingly, the Rabbis, who hold that a shoe on a last is a completed vessel, hold that it may be moved on Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that it is an incomplete vessel, holds that it may not be moved.


讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讗讬住讜专 讘讬谉 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 讘讬谉 诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 诪讜转专 砖驻讬专


The Gemara poses a question: It works out well according to the opinion of Rava, who said: Moving an object whose primary function is for a prohibited use, whether for the purpose of utilizing the object itself to perform a permitted action or for the purpose of utilizing its place, is permitted. It is well understood that one may move the last slightly while removing the shoe, since removing the shoe is considered utilizing the last鈥檚 place.


讗诇讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 诪讜转专 诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 讗住讜专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专


However, according to Abaye, who said that for the purpose of utilizing the object itself to perform a permitted action, it is permitted; however, for the purpose of utilizing its place, it is prohibited, what can be said? It is prohibited to move the last, which is clearly a utensil whose primary function is for a prohibited use. How is it possible to remove the shoe without moving the last?


讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘专驻讜讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 专驻讜讬 诪讜转专


The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? It is with a shoe placed loosely on the last, so the shoe can be removed without moving the last. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: If it was loose, it is permitted.


讟注诪讗 讚专驻讜讬 讛讗 诇讗 专驻讜讬 诇讗 讛谞讬讞讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讗讬住讜专 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 诪讜转专 诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 讗住讜专 砖驻讬专


The Gemara infers: The reason it is permitted is only because it is loose; however, if it is not loose, no, it is prohibited. It works out well according to the opinion of Abaye, who said that moving an object whose primary function is for a prohibited use for the purpose of utilizing the object itself to perform a permitted action it is permitted; however, for the purpose of utilizing its place, it is prohibited to move it. It is well understood that it is prohibited to move the last if the shoe is tightly attached to it.


讗诇讗 诇专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讘讬谉 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 讘讬谉 诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 诪讜转专 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 专驻讜讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 专驻讜讬 谞诪讬


However, according to Rava, who said that moving an object whose primary function is for a prohibited use, whether for the purpose of utilizing the object itself to perform a permitted action or for the purpose of utilizing its place, is permitted, why discuss specifically a case where it is loose? Even if it were not loose, it should also be permitted to move it.


讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诐 讛讬讛 专驻讜讬 诪讜转专:


The Gemara answers: That baraita is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, and it is not a clarification of the opinion of the Rabbis. Although Rabbi Eliezer holds that the shoe is not yet completed, nevertheless, Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer that it is permitted to carry it. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: If it was already loose and no longer requires a last, it is permitted to move it, since it is a completed vessel and no longer needs the last to shape it.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 转讜诇讬谉



诪转谞讬壮 谞讜讟诇 讗讚诐 讗转 讘谞讜 讜讛讗讘谉 讘讬讚讜 讜讻诇讻诇讛 讜讛讗讘谉 讘转讜讻讛 讜诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 注诐 讛讟讛讜专讛 讜注诐 讛讞讜诇讬谉


MISHNA: A person may take his son in his hands on Shabbat, and even though there is a stone, which is a set-aside item, in the child鈥檚 hand, it is not prohibited to pick up the child. And it is permissible to take a basket with a stone inside it on Shabbat. And one may move ritually impure teruma, which may not be eaten and is set-aside, with ritually pure teruma, as well as with non-sacred produce.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诪注诇讬谉 讗转 讛诪讚讜诪注 讘讗讞讚 讜诪讗讛:


Rabbi Yehuda says: One may even lift a measure of teruma that was nullified from a mixture of one hundred measures of non-sacred produce and one measure of teruma. When a measure of teruma is mixed with non-sacred produce, if the non-sacred produce is one hundred times the measure of teruma, the teruma is nullified. However, the Sages instituted that one must remove an amount equivalent to that measure of teruma and give it to a priest. The remainder is considered non-sacred produce. Rabbi Yehuda permits removing that measure on Shabbat to render the mixture permitted to eat.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讜爪讬讗 转讬谞讜拽 讞讬 讜讻讬住 转诇讜讬 讘爪讜讗专讜 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讻讬住 转讬谞讜拽 诪转 讜讻讬住 转诇讜讬 诇讜 讘爪讜讗专讜 驻讟讜专


GEMARA: Rava said: If one carried out a living baby to the public domain on Shabbat, and the baby had a purse that was hanging around his neck, he is liable for carrying out the purse. However, one who carried out a dead baby, with a purse hanging around his neck, is exempt.


转讬谞讜拽 讞讬 讜讻讬住 转诇讜讬 诇讜 讘爪讜讗专讜 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讻讬住 讜诇讬讞讬讬讘 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 转讬谞讜拽


Rava said: If one carried out a living baby to the public domain on Shabbat, and a purse was hanging around the baby鈥檚 neck, he is liable for carrying out the purse. The Gemara asks: And let him be liable for carrying out the baby as well.


专讘讗 讻专讘讬 谞转谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讞讬 谞讜砖讗 讗转 注爪诪讜


The Gemara responds: Rava holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, who said: A living being carries itself. Therefore, one who carries a living being from one domain to another is not liable.


讜诇讬讘讟诇 讻讬住 诇讙讘讬 转讬谞讜拽 诪讬 诇讗 转谞谉 讗转 讛讞讬 讘诪讟讛 驻讟讜专 讗祝 注诇 讛诪讟讛 砖讛诪讟讛 讟驻讬诇讛 诇讜


The Gemara asks: And let the purse be negated relative to the baby; and he should be exempt for carrying out the purse as well. Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: One who carries out a living person on a bed is exempt even for carrying out the bed, because the bed is secondary to the person? The same should be said with regard to the purse, relative to the baby.


诪讟讛 诇讙讘讬 讞讬 诪讘讟诇讬 诇讬讛 讻讬住 诇讙讘讬 转讬谞讜拽 诇讗 诪讘讟诇讬 诇讬讛


The Gemara answers: In a case where a bed is relative to a living being, the living being negates it, as the bed is needed to carry the person and is secondary to him. However, in a case where a purse is relative to a baby, the baby does not negate it, since it is independently significant.


转讬谞讜拽 诪转 讜讻讬住 转诇讜讬 诇讜 讘爪讜讗专讜 驻讟讜专 讜诇讬讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 转讬谞讜拽 专讘讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讙讜驻讛 驻讟讜专 注诇讬讛


And Rava said: One who carried out a dead baby with a purse hanging around the baby鈥檚 neck is exempt. The Gemara asks: And let him be liable for carrying out the baby. The Gemara answers: Rava holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: With regard to any labor that is not needed for its own sake, one is exempt for performing it on Shabbat. One who carries out a corpse does not do so because he needs it; rather, he does so for the sake of the corpse, i.e., to bury it or to move it from a degrading place. Therefore, he has not performed a labor prohibited by Torah law. Similarly, he is also exempt for carrying out the purse because due to his distress and mourning he negates the purse, as it is insignificant relative to the baby.


转谞谉 谞讜讟诇 讗讚诐 讗转 讘谞讜 讜讛讗讘谉 讘讬讚讜 讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讘转讬谞讜拽 砖讬砖 诇讜 讙讬注讙讜注讬谉 注诇 讗讘讬讜


We learned in the mishna: A person may take his son in his hands on Shabbat; and this is permitted even though there is a stone in the child鈥檚 hand. As it can be inferred from this mishna that the stone is negated relative to the child, why, then, is he liable in the case of a purse hanging around a live baby鈥檚 neck? Let the purse be negated relative to the baby. The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai say: You cannot infer from this mishna that the stone is negated and therefore it is permitted to move it. Rather, the mishna is referring to a baby who has longings for his father. It is permitted for the father to move the stone because if the father does not lift him, the baby might take ill.


讗讬 讛讻讬


The Gemara asks: If so,


Scroll To Top