Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 26, 2020 | ה׳ באב תש״פ

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 142

This week’s shiurim are dedicated for a refuah shleima for our dear Ellie, Chana Esther Bat Ayala Hadar – with all our love, Elana and Danny Storch and family. And by Cliff Felig in honor of Minna Ferziger Felig on the occasion of her birthday. Mazel tov!

Why is one allowed to carry a child with a rock in his/her hand but not money? In the case of the basket with money, it must be there are fruits in the basket also as the basket is serving as a base for both muktze and non muktze items and that is why it can be carried. Why don’t we dump the fruits and the rock out and then put the fruits back in? One can carry pure and impure truma if they are together. Rav Chisda says this is only if the impure is at the top and one cannot access the pure that is underneath. However a braita is brought that says either way it is allowed. How can Rav Chisda explain himself in light of the braita? How does Rabbi Yehuda allow on Shabbat one to fix a mixture of 100 measures regular produce and one of truma by removing one that will now be considered the truma – isn’t this like fixing something which should be forbidden on Shabbat? Three possible explanations are brought – the first two are rejected. Is there is a stone on top of a barrel, how can one get it off to get to the wine in the barrel? Or money on a pillow? The gemara explains the exact details of the cases and how and why it can be done in that way? Can one carry an item that is muktze in order to protect it by bringing something that is permitted to be carried and carrying them both? Or is that solution only permitted for a dead body out of respect for the body?

מאי איריא אבן אפילו דינר נמי אלמה אמר רבא לא שנו אלא אבן אבל דינר אסור אבן אי נפלה לה לא אתי אבוה לאיתויי דינר אי נפיל אתי אבוה לאתויי

why does the mishna refer specifically to moving a stone? The same should hold true even for a dinar, as well. Why, then, did Rava say: They only taught this in a case where the child has a stone in his hand; however, if the child has a dinar in his hand, it is prohibited to lift the child? The Gemara answers: Actually, lifting the child with a dinar should also be permitted. However, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting lifting the child with a dinar because with regard to a stone, if it falls, his father will not come to bring it. However, with regard to a dinar, if it falls, his father will come to bring it.

תניא כוותיה דרבא המוציא כליו מקופלים ומונחים על כתפו וסנדליו וטבעותיו בידו חייב ואם היה מלובש בהן פטור

It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: On Shabbat, one who carries out his clothes to the public domain while they are folded and placed on his shoulder, and his sandals on his feet and his rings in his hand, not on his fingers, is liable. And if he was wearing them, he is exempt for all of them, as they are negated relative to him.

המוציא אדם וכליו עליו וסנדליו ברגליו וטבעותיו בידיו פטור ואילו הוציאן כמות שהן חייב:

One who carries out a person with his garments on him, and his sandals on his feet, and his rings on the fingers of his hands, i.e., wearing all of his clothes and jewelry in the typical manner, is exempt, whereas if he carried them out as they are, i.e., the person was holding his clothes in his hands, he is liable for carrying out the clothes, just as Rava said.

כלכלה והאבן בתוכה: ואמאי תיהוי כלכלה בסיס לדבר האסור אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן הכא בכלכלה מלאה פירות עסקינן ולישדינהו לפירי ונישדי לאבן ונינקטינהו בידים כדרבי אלעי אמר רב בפירות המיטנפין הכא נמי בפירות המיטנפין

We learned in the mishna: And it is permissible to take a basket with a stone inside it on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: And why may he do so? The basket should be a base for a prohibited object, and a base for a prohibited object is set-aside and may not be moved on Shabbat. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Here, we are dealing with a basket full of fruit. The basket is a base for permitted items as well, not only a base for the stone. The Gemara asks: Why may he move the basket and the stone? There is an alternative. And let him throw the fruit and throw the stone out of the basket, and take the fruit in his hands, and there will be no need to move the stone. The Gemara answers: As Rabbi Elai said that Rav said in a different context: It is referring to fruits that become soiled and ruined. Here, too, it is referring to fruits that become soiled and ruined if he throws them down.

ולינערינהו נעורי אמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר רבא הכא בכלכלה פחותה עסקינן דאבן גופה נעשית דופן לכלכלה:

The Gemara asks a question: And let him shake them until the stone is on one side of the basket, enabling him to throw the stone out of the basket. Rav Hiyya bar Ashi said that Rava said: Here, we are dealing with a broken basket with a hole, in which the stone serves as a side of the basket by sealing the hole. Therefore, he cannot throw it out of the basket.

מטלטלין תרומה וכו׳: אמר רב חסדא לא שנו אלא שטהורה למטה וטמאה למעלה אבל טהורה למעלה וטמאה למטה שקיל ליה לטהורה ושביק ליה לטמאה

We learned in the mishna: And one may move ritually impure teruma with ritually pure teruma. Rav Ḥisda said: They only taught this in a case where the pure teruma is on the bottom and the impure teruma is on the top. In that case, if one wants to reach the pure teruma, there is no alternative to taking the impure teruma as well. However, if the pure teruma is on the top and the impure teruma is on the bottom, he takes the pure teruma and leaves the impure teruma.

וכי טהורה למטה נמי לישדינהו ולינקטינהו אמר רבי אלעי אמר רב בפירות המיטנפין עסקינן

The Gemara asks a question: And when the pure teruma is on the bottom too, let him throw the impure fruit, and take the pure fruit. Rabbi Elai said that Rav said: It is referring to fruits that become soiled and ruined, which cannot be thrown from the basket.

מיתיבי מטלטלין תרומה טמאה עם הטהורה ועם החולין בין שטהורה למעלה וטמאה למטה בין שטמאה למעלה וטהורה למטה תיובתא דרב חסדא

The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rav Ḥisda: One may move impure teruma with the pure teruma and with the non-sacred produce, whether the pure is on the top and the impure is on the bottom, or whether the impure is on the top and the pure is on the bottom. This is a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rav Hisda.

אמר לך רב חסדא מתניתין לצורך גופו ברייתא לצורך מקומו

The Gemara answers that Rav Ḥisda could have said to you: The mishna, which, according to Rav Ḥisda, permits moving the impure teruma with the pure teruma only when the pure teruma is on top, is referring to a case where he needs the basket for the purpose of utilizing the object itself, i.e., he wants to eat the fruit. The baraita is referring to a case where he needs the basket for the purpose of utilizing its place, i.e., he wants to move the basket in order to vacate its place, in which case he may move it even if it contains impure teruma exclusively.

מאי דוחקיה דרב חסדא לאוקמי מתניתין לצורך גופו

The Gemara asks: What impelled Rav Ḥisda to establish the mishna as referring specifically to a case where he needs the basket for the purpose of utilizing the object itself? Why can’t he explain the mishna as referring to any case?

אמר רבא מתניתין כוותיה דייקא דקתני סיפא מעות שעל הכר מנער את הכר והן נופלות ואמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן לא שנו אלא לצורך גופו אבל לצורך מקומו מטלטלו ועודן עליו ומדסיפא לצורך גופו רישא נמי לצורך גופו:

Rava said: The mishna is precise in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, as it is taught in the latter clause, the next mishna: With regard to coins that are on a cushion, he shakes the cushion and the coins fall. And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They only taught that he may shake the cushion in a case where it is for the purpose of utilizing the cushion itself. However, if he needs it for the purpose of utilizing its place, he may move it, even though the coins are still on it. And from the fact that the latter clause of the mishna is referring to a case where he needs the cushion for the purpose of utilizing the cushion itself, the first clause, too, is referring to a case where he needs the basket for the purpose of utilizing the basket itself.

רבי יהודה אומר אף מעלין וכו׳: ואמאי הא קא מתקן

We learned in the mishna that 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. The Gemara asks: And why is it permitted? Isn’t he rendering the produce fit for consumption? The Sages issued a decree prohibiting the performance of any action that renders an item fit for use on Shabbat.

רבי יהודה כרבי אליעזר סבירא ליה דאמר תרומה בעינא מחתא

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said: Teruma is considered as if it is placed in its pure unadulterated state. By lifting the measure of teruma, one does not render the rest of the mixture fit for consumption. It is considered as if the measure of teruma never intermingled with the rest of the produce and the measure that he lifted from the produce is the measure that fell into the produce.

דתנן סאה תרומה שנפלה לפחות ממאה נדמעו ונפל מן המדומע למקום אחר רבי אליעזר אומר מדמעת כתרומת ודאי

As we learned in a mishna: A se’a of teruma that fell into less than one hundred se’a of non-sacred produce causes it to become a prohibited mixture. The teruma is not nullified by the non-sacred produce. And then, if a se’a from the mixture fell into a different place with non-sacred produce, Rabbi Eliezer says: The se’a from the original mixture renders it a prohibited mixture in the same way that definite teruma would. This is due to the concern that the same se’a of teruma that fell into the first mixture never intermingled with the produce and subsequently fell into the second mixture. Therefore, it requires nullification like unadulterated teruma.

וחכמים אומרים אין המדומע מדמע אלא לפי חשבון

And the Rabbis say: The se’a from the original prohibited mixture only renders the second one a prohibited mixture according to the proportion of teruma in the entire mixture. In other words, the percentage of teruma in each se’a of the original mixture is representative of the percentage of teruma in the entire mixture. Only that measure of teruma need be nullified. Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion that the teruma in the mixture is not considered mixed, and it is considered as if it was placed in its pure unadulterated state, corresponds to Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion that by lifting the measure of teruma, one does not render the rest of the mixture fit for consumption.

אימר דשמעת ליה לחומרא לקולא מי שמעת ליה

The Gemara rejects this: Say that you heard that Rabbi Eliezer expresses his opinion in this matter to rule stringently. Did you hear him express his opinion to rule leniently? He expressed concern lest the fallen teruma might not have intermingled with the non-sacred produce in the first mixture, and therefore, the second mixture is prohibited. However, he does not consider this a certainty.

אלא הוא דאמר כרבי שמעון כדתנן סאה תרומה שנפלה למאה ולא הספיק להגביה עד שנפלה אחרת הרי זו אסורה ורבי שמעון מתיר

Rather, Rabbi Yehuda stated his halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as we learned in a mishna: If a se’a of teruma fell into one hundred se’a of non-sacred produce, and he did not manage to lift that se’a from the mixture until another se’a of teruma fell into the mixture, this entire mixture is prohibited. This is because two se’a of teruma are mixed with one hundred se’a of non-sacred produce. And Rabbi Shimon permits the mixture. Rabbi Shimon holds that the first se’a that fell into the produce is not mixed with it; it is placed in its unadulterated state. When the second se’a falls, it is also placed in its unadulterated state, and the two se’a do not join together.

וממאי דילמא התם בהא קמיפלגי דתנא קמא סבר אף על גב דנפלו בזה אחר זה כמאן דנפל בבת אחת דמי והא לחמשין נפלה והא לחמשין נפלה ורבי שמעון סבר קמייתא בטיל במאה והא תיבטיל במאה וחד

The Gemara rejects this comparison: And from what does that conclusion ensue? Perhaps there, they are disagreeing with regard to this: That the first tanna holds: Even though two se’a of teruma fell one after another, it is as though they fell at once, and this se’a of teruma fell into fifty se’a of non-sacred produce, and this se’a of teruma fell into fifty se’a of non-sacred produce, which are insufficient to nullify teruma. And Rabbi Shimon holds: The first se’a was nullified immediately when it fell into one hundred se’a, and this se’a will be nullified in one hundred and one se’a. There is no connection between this dispute and the opinion that by lifting the measure of teruma, one does not render the rest of the mixture fit for consumption.

אלא הוא דאמר כרבי שמעון בן אלעזר דתניא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר נותן עיניו בצד זה ואוכל מצד אחר

Rather, Rabbi Yehuda stated his halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One need not lift a se’a from the mixture in order to render it permitted to eat. It is sufficient if he casts his eyes on this side of the mixture and decides to separate a se’a from the produce on that side, and he eats from a different side of the mixture and physically separates the se’a later. Lifting a se’a from the mixture does not render the mixture fit for consumption, as it is permitted to partake from the mixture even without removing a se’a. That is the rationale for Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion.

ומי סבר ליה כוותיה

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar?

והא מיפליג פליג עילויה דתניא רבי יהודה אומר מעלין את המדומע באחד ומאה רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר נותן עיניו בצד זה ואוכל מצד אחר

Doesn’t he disagree with him? As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: One may lift a measure of teruma that was nullified from a mixture of one hundred measures of non-sacred produce and one measure of teruma. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One casts his eyes on this side of the mixture and decides to separate a se’a from the produce on that side, and he eats from a different side of the mixture.

דרבי יהודה עדיפא מדרבי שמעון בן אלעזר:

The Gemara rejects this: Fundamentally, the two tanna’im agree, but the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda is more far-reaching than the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. Rabbi Yehuda says that since thought is sufficient, lifting the se’a does not render the produce fit for consumption, and it is preferable if he lifts the se’a even on Shabbat.

מתני׳ האבן שעל פי החבית מטה על צדה והיא נופלת היתה בין החביות מגביה ומטה על צדה והיא נופלת

MISHNA: With regard to a stone, which is set-aside on Shabbat and may not be moved, that was placed on the mouth of a barrel, one tilts the barrel on its side, and the stone falls. If the barrel was among other barrels, and the other barrels might break if the stone falls on them, he lifts the barrel to distance it from the other barrels, and then tilts it on its side, and the stone falls.

מעות שעל הכר מנער את הכר והן נופלות היתה עליו לשלשת מקנחה בסמרטוט היתה של עור נותנין עליה מים עד שתכלה:

With regard to coins that are on a cushion, he shakes the cushion and the coins fall. If there was bird dung (Arukh) on the cushion, he wipes it with a rag, but he may not wash it with water because of the prohibition against laundering. If the cushion was made of leather, and laundering is not a concern, he places water on it until the bird dung ceases.

גמ׳ אמר רב הונא אמר רב לא שנו אלא בשוכח אבל במניח נעשה בסיס לדבר האסור:

GEMARA: Rav Huna said that Rav said: They only taught this halakha with regard to a stone in a case where one forgets the stone on the barrel. However, if he places the stone on the barrel, the barrel becomes a base for a prohibited object, which itself may not be moved throughout Shabbat.

[היתה בין החביות כו׳]: מאן תנא דכל היכא דאיכא איסורא והיתרא בהיתרא טרחינן באיסורא לא טרחינן

We learned in the mishna: If the barrel was among other barrels, he lifts the barrel and then tilts it on its side, and the stone falls. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who holds that any place that there is a prohibited item and a permitted item, we may exert ourselves for the permitted item, but we may not exert ourselves for the prohibited item? One must exert himself to lift the barrel, and he may not remove the stone, although doing so would minimize his exertion.

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן רבן שמעון בן גמליאל היא דתנן הבורר קטנית ביום טוב בית שמאי אומרים בורר אוכל ואוכל ובית הלל אומרים בורר כדרכו בחיקו ובתמחוי

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. As we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who selects legumes on a Festival, separating edible and inedible, Beit Shammai say: He selects food and eats it immediately and leaves the waste. And Beit Hillel say: He selects in his usual manner, and may even remove the waste and leave the food, in his lap or in a large vessel.

ותניא אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל במה דברים אמורים שהאוכל מרובה על הפסולת אבל פסולת מרובה על האוכל דברי הכל בורר אוכל

And it was taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case are these matters, the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, stated: In a case where the quantity of the food is greater than the quantity of the waste. However, if the quantity of the waste is greater than the quantity of the food, everyone agrees that one selects the food to avoid the exertion involved in removing the waste, which itself may not be moved. The same is true here. He moves the barrel and not the stone, which is like waste.

והא הכא דכי אוכל מרובה על הפסולת דמי

The Gemara asks: And here, in the case of the barrel, isn’t it comparable to a case where the food is greater than the waste, as the barrel, which is food, is bigger and heavier than the stone. In addition, it is easier to move the stone. Nevertheless, he is not permitted to do so, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

הכא נמי כיון דאי בעי למישקל לא משתקיל ליה יין עד דשקיל לה לאבן כפסולת מרובה על האוכל דמי:

The Gemara answers: Here, too, since if he wants to take the wine, the wine cannot be taken until he removes the stone, the legal status of the stone is like that of waste which is greater in quantity than the food, and it cannot be likened to the case of selecting. In this case, he is unable to move the barrel without moving the stone.

היתה בין החביות מגביה: תניא רבי יוסי אומר היתה החבית מונחת באוצר או שהיו כלי זכוכית מונחין תחתיה מגביה למקום אחר ומטה על צדה והיא נופלת ונוטל הימנה מה שצריך לו ומחזירה למקומה:

We learned in the mishna: If the barrel was among other barrels, he lifts the barrel. It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: If the barrel was placed in a storeroom amongst other barrels, or if glass vessels were placed beneath it, preventing him from tilting the barrel and letting the stone fall, he lifts the barrel and moves it to a different place, and he tilts it on its side, and the stone falls. And then he takes from the barrel what he needs, and restores the barrel to its place.

מעות שעל הכר: אמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר רב לא שנו אלא בשוכח אבל במניח נעשה בסיס לדבר האסור

We learned in the mishna: With regard to coins that are on a cushion, he shakes the cushion and the coins fall. Rav Hiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: They only taught this halakha with regard to a case where one forgets the coins on the cushion; however, if he places the coins on the cushion, the cushion becomes a base for a prohibited object and may not be moved at all.

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן לא שנו אלא לצורך גופו אבל לצורך מקומו מטלטלו ועודן עליו וכן תני חייא בר רב מדיפתי לא שנו אלא לצורך גופו אבל לצורך מקומו מטלטלו ועודן עליו:

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They only taught the halakha that one shakes the cushion and the coins fall, when he needs the cushion for the purpose of utilizing the cushion itself; but if he needs it for the purpose of utilizing its place, he moves the cushion with the coins still on it. And likewise, Hiyya bar Rav from Difti taught in a baraita: They only taught the halakha that one shakes the cushion and the coins fall, when he needs the cushion for the purpose of utilizing the cushion itself, but if he needs it for the purpose of utilizing its place, he moves the cushion with the coins still on it.

מעות שעל הכר מנער וכו׳: אמר רבי אושעיא שכח ארנקי בחצר מניח עליה ככר או תינוק ומטלטלה אמר רב יצחק שכח לבינה בחצר מניח עליה ככר או תינוק ומטלטלה אמר רבי יהודה בר שילא אמר רבי אסי פעם אחת שכחו דסקיא מלאה מעות בסרטיא ובאו ושאלו את רבי יוחנן ואמר להן הניחו עליה ככר או תינוק וטלטלוה

We learned in the mishna: With regard to coins that are on a cushion, he shakes the cushion and the coins fall.
Rabbi Oshaya said: If one forgot a purse of money in the courtyard on Shabbat eve, and he remembers it on Shabbat and wants to bring it into the house, he places a loaf of bread or a baby on it and moves it. The purse becomes a base for a permitted object and may be moved.
Rav Yitzhak said: If one forgot a brick in the courtyard, he places a loaf of bread or a baby on it and moves it.
Rabbi Yehuda bar Sheila said that Rabbi Asi said: Once, they forgot a saddlebag [diskaya] full of coins in a main street, and they came and asked Rabbi Yoḥanan, and he said to them: Place a loaf or a baby on it, and move it.

אמר מר זוטרא הלכתא ככל הני שמעתתא בשוכח רב אשי אמר אפילו שכח נמי [לא] ולא אמרו ככר או תינוק אלא למת בלבד

Mar Zutra said: The halakha is in accordance with all these statements in the case of one who forgets. However, if one intentionally left an object, even a valuable object, on Shabbat eve, he may not employ artifice and move it the following day. Rav Ashi said: If one forgot, he may also not employ artifice, and they only stated that movement by means of a loaf or a baby for the purposes of moving a corpse alone.

אביי מנח כפא אכיפי רבא מנח סכינא אבר יונה ומטלטלה אמר רב יוסף כמה חריפא שמעתתא דדרדקי אימר דאמור רבנן בשוכח לכתחילה מי אמור

The Gemara relates: Abaye would place a spoon on bundles of produce, so that he would be able to move the bundles because of the spoon. Rava would place a knife on a slaughtered young dove and move it. Rav Yosef said mockingly: How sharp is the halakha of children? Say that the Sages stated this halakha only in a case where one forgets, but did they say that one may do so ab initio?

אמר אביי אי לאו דאדם חשוב אנא כפא אכיפי למה לי הא חזו למיזגא עלייהו

Abaye explained his actions and said: If not for the fact that I am an important person, why would I need to place a spoon on the bundles? Aren’t the bundles themselves suited to lean upon? I could have carried the bundles without the spoon.

אמר רבא אנא אי לאו דאדם חשוב אנא סכינא אבר יונה למה לי הא חזי לי לאומצא

Similarly, Rava said: If not for the fact that I am an important person, why would I need to place a knife on a young dove? Isn’t the young dove itself suited to be eaten as raw meat?

טעמא דחזי לאומצא הא לא חזי לאומצא לא למימרא דרבא כרבי יהודה סבירא ליה

The Gemara asks: The reason that it is permitted to move the slaughtered dove is because it is suited to be eaten by a person as raw meat; but if it is not suited to be eaten by a person as raw meat, no, it may not be moved. Is that to say that Rava holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that on Shabbat it is prohibited to move food that was originally designated for human consumption and is now only suited for animal consumption?

והאמר רבא לשמעיה טווי לי בר אווזא ושדי מיעיה לשונרא

Didn’t Rava say to his attendant on a Festival: Roast a duck for me, and throw its intestines to the cat. Moving the duck’s intestines was permitted in order to feed the cat. Similarly, moving the dove should have been permitted not because it is raw meat fit for consumption by a person, but because it is suited for consumption by a dog.

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 142

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 142

מאי איריא אבן אפילו דינר נמי אלמה אמר רבא לא שנו אלא אבן אבל דינר אסור אבן אי נפלה לה לא אתי אבוה לאיתויי דינר אי נפיל אתי אבוה לאתויי

why does the mishna refer specifically to moving a stone? The same should hold true even for a dinar, as well. Why, then, did Rava say: They only taught this in a case where the child has a stone in his hand; however, if the child has a dinar in his hand, it is prohibited to lift the child? The Gemara answers: Actually, lifting the child with a dinar should also be permitted. However, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting lifting the child with a dinar because with regard to a stone, if it falls, his father will not come to bring it. However, with regard to a dinar, if it falls, his father will come to bring it.

תניא כוותיה דרבא המוציא כליו מקופלים ומונחים על כתפו וסנדליו וטבעותיו בידו חייב ואם היה מלובש בהן פטור

It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: On Shabbat, one who carries out his clothes to the public domain while they are folded and placed on his shoulder, and his sandals on his feet and his rings in his hand, not on his fingers, is liable. And if he was wearing them, he is exempt for all of them, as they are negated relative to him.

המוציא אדם וכליו עליו וסנדליו ברגליו וטבעותיו בידיו פטור ואילו הוציאן כמות שהן חייב:

One who carries out a person with his garments on him, and his sandals on his feet, and his rings on the fingers of his hands, i.e., wearing all of his clothes and jewelry in the typical manner, is exempt, whereas if he carried them out as they are, i.e., the person was holding his clothes in his hands, he is liable for carrying out the clothes, just as Rava said.

כלכלה והאבן בתוכה: ואמאי תיהוי כלכלה בסיס לדבר האסור אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן הכא בכלכלה מלאה פירות עסקינן ולישדינהו לפירי ונישדי לאבן ונינקטינהו בידים כדרבי אלעי אמר רב בפירות המיטנפין הכא נמי בפירות המיטנפין

We learned in the mishna: And it is permissible to take a basket with a stone inside it on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: And why may he do so? The basket should be a base for a prohibited object, and a base for a prohibited object is set-aside and may not be moved on Shabbat. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Here, we are dealing with a basket full of fruit. The basket is a base for permitted items as well, not only a base for the stone. The Gemara asks: Why may he move the basket and the stone? There is an alternative. And let him throw the fruit and throw the stone out of the basket, and take the fruit in his hands, and there will be no need to move the stone. The Gemara answers: As Rabbi Elai said that Rav said in a different context: It is referring to fruits that become soiled and ruined. Here, too, it is referring to fruits that become soiled and ruined if he throws them down.

ולינערינהו נעורי אמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר רבא הכא בכלכלה פחותה עסקינן דאבן גופה נעשית דופן לכלכלה:

The Gemara asks a question: And let him shake them until the stone is on one side of the basket, enabling him to throw the stone out of the basket. Rav Hiyya bar Ashi said that Rava said: Here, we are dealing with a broken basket with a hole, in which the stone serves as a side of the basket by sealing the hole. Therefore, he cannot throw it out of the basket.

מטלטלין תרומה וכו׳: אמר רב חסדא לא שנו אלא שטהורה למטה וטמאה למעלה אבל טהורה למעלה וטמאה למטה שקיל ליה לטהורה ושביק ליה לטמאה

We learned in the mishna: And one may move ritually impure teruma with ritually pure teruma. Rav Ḥisda said: They only taught this in a case where the pure teruma is on the bottom and the impure teruma is on the top. In that case, if one wants to reach the pure teruma, there is no alternative to taking the impure teruma as well. However, if the pure teruma is on the top and the impure teruma is on the bottom, he takes the pure teruma and leaves the impure teruma.

וכי טהורה למטה נמי לישדינהו ולינקטינהו אמר רבי אלעי אמר רב בפירות המיטנפין עסקינן

The Gemara asks a question: And when the pure teruma is on the bottom too, let him throw the impure fruit, and take the pure fruit. Rabbi Elai said that Rav said: It is referring to fruits that become soiled and ruined, which cannot be thrown from the basket.

מיתיבי מטלטלין תרומה טמאה עם הטהורה ועם החולין בין שטהורה למעלה וטמאה למטה בין שטמאה למעלה וטהורה למטה תיובתא דרב חסדא

The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rav Ḥisda: One may move impure teruma with the pure teruma and with the non-sacred produce, whether the pure is on the top and the impure is on the bottom, or whether the impure is on the top and the pure is on the bottom. This is a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rav Hisda.

אמר לך רב חסדא מתניתין לצורך גופו ברייתא לצורך מקומו

The Gemara answers that Rav Ḥisda could have said to you: The mishna, which, according to Rav Ḥisda, permits moving the impure teruma with the pure teruma only when the pure teruma is on top, is referring to a case where he needs the basket for the purpose of utilizing the object itself, i.e., he wants to eat the fruit. The baraita is referring to a case where he needs the basket for the purpose of utilizing its place, i.e., he wants to move the basket in order to vacate its place, in which case he may move it even if it contains impure teruma exclusively.

מאי דוחקיה דרב חסדא לאוקמי מתניתין לצורך גופו

The Gemara asks: What impelled Rav Ḥisda to establish the mishna as referring specifically to a case where he needs the basket for the purpose of utilizing the object itself? Why can’t he explain the mishna as referring to any case?

אמר רבא מתניתין כוותיה דייקא דקתני סיפא מעות שעל הכר מנער את הכר והן נופלות ואמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן לא שנו אלא לצורך גופו אבל לצורך מקומו מטלטלו ועודן עליו ומדסיפא לצורך גופו רישא נמי לצורך גופו:

Rava said: The mishna is precise in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, as it is taught in the latter clause, the next mishna: With regard to coins that are on a cushion, he shakes the cushion and the coins fall. And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They only taught that he may shake the cushion in a case where it is for the purpose of utilizing the cushion itself. However, if he needs it for the purpose of utilizing its place, he may move it, even though the coins are still on it. And from the fact that the latter clause of the mishna is referring to a case where he needs the cushion for the purpose of utilizing the cushion itself, the first clause, too, is referring to a case where he needs the basket for the purpose of utilizing the basket itself.

רבי יהודה אומר אף מעלין וכו׳: ואמאי הא קא מתקן

We learned in the mishna that 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. The Gemara asks: And why is it permitted? Isn’t he rendering the produce fit for consumption? The Sages issued a decree prohibiting the performance of any action that renders an item fit for use on Shabbat.

רבי יהודה כרבי אליעזר סבירא ליה דאמר תרומה בעינא מחתא

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said: Teruma is considered as if it is placed in its pure unadulterated state. By lifting the measure of teruma, one does not render the rest of the mixture fit for consumption. It is considered as if the measure of teruma never intermingled with the rest of the produce and the measure that he lifted from the produce is the measure that fell into the produce.

דתנן סאה תרומה שנפלה לפחות ממאה נדמעו ונפל מן המדומע למקום אחר רבי אליעזר אומר מדמעת כתרומת ודאי

As we learned in a mishna: A se’a of teruma that fell into less than one hundred se’a of non-sacred produce causes it to become a prohibited mixture. The teruma is not nullified by the non-sacred produce. And then, if a se’a from the mixture fell into a different place with non-sacred produce, Rabbi Eliezer says: The se’a from the original mixture renders it a prohibited mixture in the same way that definite teruma would. This is due to the concern that the same se’a of teruma that fell into the first mixture never intermingled with the produce and subsequently fell into the second mixture. Therefore, it requires nullification like unadulterated teruma.

וחכמים אומרים אין המדומע מדמע אלא לפי חשבון

And the Rabbis say: The se’a from the original prohibited mixture only renders the second one a prohibited mixture according to the proportion of teruma in the entire mixture. In other words, the percentage of teruma in each se’a of the original mixture is representative of the percentage of teruma in the entire mixture. Only that measure of teruma need be nullified. Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion that the teruma in the mixture is not considered mixed, and it is considered as if it was placed in its pure unadulterated state, corresponds to Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion that by lifting the measure of teruma, one does not render the rest of the mixture fit for consumption.

אימר דשמעת ליה לחומרא לקולא מי שמעת ליה

The Gemara rejects this: Say that you heard that Rabbi Eliezer expresses his opinion in this matter to rule stringently. Did you hear him express his opinion to rule leniently? He expressed concern lest the fallen teruma might not have intermingled with the non-sacred produce in the first mixture, and therefore, the second mixture is prohibited. However, he does not consider this a certainty.

אלא הוא דאמר כרבי שמעון כדתנן סאה תרומה שנפלה למאה ולא הספיק להגביה עד שנפלה אחרת הרי זו אסורה ורבי שמעון מתיר

Rather, Rabbi Yehuda stated his halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as we learned in a mishna: If a se’a of teruma fell into one hundred se’a of non-sacred produce, and he did not manage to lift that se’a from the mixture until another se’a of teruma fell into the mixture, this entire mixture is prohibited. This is because two se’a of teruma are mixed with one hundred se’a of non-sacred produce. And Rabbi Shimon permits the mixture. Rabbi Shimon holds that the first se’a that fell into the produce is not mixed with it; it is placed in its unadulterated state. When the second se’a falls, it is also placed in its unadulterated state, and the two se’a do not join together.

וממאי דילמא התם בהא קמיפלגי דתנא קמא סבר אף על גב דנפלו בזה אחר זה כמאן דנפל בבת אחת דמי והא לחמשין נפלה והא לחמשין נפלה ורבי שמעון סבר קמייתא בטיל במאה והא תיבטיל במאה וחד

The Gemara rejects this comparison: And from what does that conclusion ensue? Perhaps there, they are disagreeing with regard to this: That the first tanna holds: Even though two se’a of teruma fell one after another, it is as though they fell at once, and this se’a of teruma fell into fifty se’a of non-sacred produce, and this se’a of teruma fell into fifty se’a of non-sacred produce, which are insufficient to nullify teruma. And Rabbi Shimon holds: The first se’a was nullified immediately when it fell into one hundred se’a, and this se’a will be nullified in one hundred and one se’a. There is no connection between this dispute and the opinion that by lifting the measure of teruma, one does not render the rest of the mixture fit for consumption.

אלא הוא דאמר כרבי שמעון בן אלעזר דתניא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר נותן עיניו בצד זה ואוכל מצד אחר

Rather, Rabbi Yehuda stated his halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One need not lift a se’a from the mixture in order to render it permitted to eat. It is sufficient if he casts his eyes on this side of the mixture and decides to separate a se’a from the produce on that side, and he eats from a different side of the mixture and physically separates the se’a later. Lifting a se’a from the mixture does not render the mixture fit for consumption, as it is permitted to partake from the mixture even without removing a se’a. That is the rationale for Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion.

ומי סבר ליה כוותיה

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar?

והא מיפליג פליג עילויה דתניא רבי יהודה אומר מעלין את המדומע באחד ומאה רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר נותן עיניו בצד זה ואוכל מצד אחר

Doesn’t he disagree with him? As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: One may lift a measure of teruma that was nullified from a mixture of one hundred measures of non-sacred produce and one measure of teruma. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One casts his eyes on this side of the mixture and decides to separate a se’a from the produce on that side, and he eats from a different side of the mixture.

דרבי יהודה עדיפא מדרבי שמעון בן אלעזר:

The Gemara rejects this: Fundamentally, the two tanna’im agree, but the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda is more far-reaching than the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. Rabbi Yehuda says that since thought is sufficient, lifting the se’a does not render the produce fit for consumption, and it is preferable if he lifts the se’a even on Shabbat.

מתני׳ האבן שעל פי החבית מטה על צדה והיא נופלת היתה בין החביות מגביה ומטה על צדה והיא נופלת

MISHNA: With regard to a stone, which is set-aside on Shabbat and may not be moved, that was placed on the mouth of a barrel, one tilts the barrel on its side, and the stone falls. If the barrel was among other barrels, and the other barrels might break if the stone falls on them, he lifts the barrel to distance it from the other barrels, and then tilts it on its side, and the stone falls.

מעות שעל הכר מנער את הכר והן נופלות היתה עליו לשלשת מקנחה בסמרטוט היתה של עור נותנין עליה מים עד שתכלה:

With regard to coins that are on a cushion, he shakes the cushion and the coins fall. If there was bird dung (Arukh) on the cushion, he wipes it with a rag, but he may not wash it with water because of the prohibition against laundering. If the cushion was made of leather, and laundering is not a concern, he places water on it until the bird dung ceases.

גמ׳ אמר רב הונא אמר רב לא שנו אלא בשוכח אבל במניח נעשה בסיס לדבר האסור:

GEMARA: Rav Huna said that Rav said: They only taught this halakha with regard to a stone in a case where one forgets the stone on the barrel. However, if he places the stone on the barrel, the barrel becomes a base for a prohibited object, which itself may not be moved throughout Shabbat.

[היתה בין החביות כו׳]: מאן תנא דכל היכא דאיכא איסורא והיתרא בהיתרא טרחינן באיסורא לא טרחינן

We learned in the mishna: If the barrel was among other barrels, he lifts the barrel and then tilts it on its side, and the stone falls. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who holds that any place that there is a prohibited item and a permitted item, we may exert ourselves for the permitted item, but we may not exert ourselves for the prohibited item? One must exert himself to lift the barrel, and he may not remove the stone, although doing so would minimize his exertion.

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן רבן שמעון בן גמליאל היא דתנן הבורר קטנית ביום טוב בית שמאי אומרים בורר אוכל ואוכל ובית הלל אומרים בורר כדרכו בחיקו ובתמחוי

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. As we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who selects legumes on a Festival, separating edible and inedible, Beit Shammai say: He selects food and eats it immediately and leaves the waste. And Beit Hillel say: He selects in his usual manner, and may even remove the waste and leave the food, in his lap or in a large vessel.

ותניא אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל במה דברים אמורים שהאוכל מרובה על הפסולת אבל פסולת מרובה על האוכל דברי הכל בורר אוכל

And it was taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case are these matters, the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, stated: In a case where the quantity of the food is greater than the quantity of the waste. However, if the quantity of the waste is greater than the quantity of the food, everyone agrees that one selects the food to avoid the exertion involved in removing the waste, which itself may not be moved. The same is true here. He moves the barrel and not the stone, which is like waste.

והא הכא דכי אוכל מרובה על הפסולת דמי

The Gemara asks: And here, in the case of the barrel, isn’t it comparable to a case where the food is greater than the waste, as the barrel, which is food, is bigger and heavier than the stone. In addition, it is easier to move the stone. Nevertheless, he is not permitted to do so, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

הכא נמי כיון דאי בעי למישקל לא משתקיל ליה יין עד דשקיל לה לאבן כפסולת מרובה על האוכל דמי:

The Gemara answers: Here, too, since if he wants to take the wine, the wine cannot be taken until he removes the stone, the legal status of the stone is like that of waste which is greater in quantity than the food, and it cannot be likened to the case of selecting. In this case, he is unable to move the barrel without moving the stone.

היתה בין החביות מגביה: תניא רבי יוסי אומר היתה החבית מונחת באוצר או שהיו כלי זכוכית מונחין תחתיה מגביה למקום אחר ומטה על צדה והיא נופלת ונוטל הימנה מה שצריך לו ומחזירה למקומה:

We learned in the mishna: If the barrel was among other barrels, he lifts the barrel. It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: If the barrel was placed in a storeroom amongst other barrels, or if glass vessels were placed beneath it, preventing him from tilting the barrel and letting the stone fall, he lifts the barrel and moves it to a different place, and he tilts it on its side, and the stone falls. And then he takes from the barrel what he needs, and restores the barrel to its place.

מעות שעל הכר: אמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר רב לא שנו אלא בשוכח אבל במניח נעשה בסיס לדבר האסור

We learned in the mishna: With regard to coins that are on a cushion, he shakes the cushion and the coins fall. Rav Hiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: They only taught this halakha with regard to a case where one forgets the coins on the cushion; however, if he places the coins on the cushion, the cushion becomes a base for a prohibited object and may not be moved at all.

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן לא שנו אלא לצורך גופו אבל לצורך מקומו מטלטלו ועודן עליו וכן תני חייא בר רב מדיפתי לא שנו אלא לצורך גופו אבל לצורך מקומו מטלטלו ועודן עליו:

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They only taught the halakha that one shakes the cushion and the coins fall, when he needs the cushion for the purpose of utilizing the cushion itself; but if he needs it for the purpose of utilizing its place, he moves the cushion with the coins still on it. And likewise, Hiyya bar Rav from Difti taught in a baraita: They only taught the halakha that one shakes the cushion and the coins fall, when he needs the cushion for the purpose of utilizing the cushion itself, but if he needs it for the purpose of utilizing its place, he moves the cushion with the coins still on it.

מעות שעל הכר מנער וכו׳: אמר רבי אושעיא שכח ארנקי בחצר מניח עליה ככר או תינוק ומטלטלה אמר רב יצחק שכח לבינה בחצר מניח עליה ככר או תינוק ומטלטלה אמר רבי יהודה בר שילא אמר רבי אסי פעם אחת שכחו דסקיא מלאה מעות בסרטיא ובאו ושאלו את רבי יוחנן ואמר להן הניחו עליה ככר או תינוק וטלטלוה

We learned in the mishna: With regard to coins that are on a cushion, he shakes the cushion and the coins fall.
Rabbi Oshaya said: If one forgot a purse of money in the courtyard on Shabbat eve, and he remembers it on Shabbat and wants to bring it into the house, he places a loaf of bread or a baby on it and moves it. The purse becomes a base for a permitted object and may be moved.
Rav Yitzhak said: If one forgot a brick in the courtyard, he places a loaf of bread or a baby on it and moves it.
Rabbi Yehuda bar Sheila said that Rabbi Asi said: Once, they forgot a saddlebag [diskaya] full of coins in a main street, and they came and asked Rabbi Yoḥanan, and he said to them: Place a loaf or a baby on it, and move it.

אמר מר זוטרא הלכתא ככל הני שמעתתא בשוכח רב אשי אמר אפילו שכח נמי [לא] ולא אמרו ככר או תינוק אלא למת בלבד

Mar Zutra said: The halakha is in accordance with all these statements in the case of one who forgets. However, if one intentionally left an object, even a valuable object, on Shabbat eve, he may not employ artifice and move it the following day. Rav Ashi said: If one forgot, he may also not employ artifice, and they only stated that movement by means of a loaf or a baby for the purposes of moving a corpse alone.

אביי מנח כפא אכיפי רבא מנח סכינא אבר יונה ומטלטלה אמר רב יוסף כמה חריפא שמעתתא דדרדקי אימר דאמור רבנן בשוכח לכתחילה מי אמור

The Gemara relates: Abaye would place a spoon on bundles of produce, so that he would be able to move the bundles because of the spoon. Rava would place a knife on a slaughtered young dove and move it. Rav Yosef said mockingly: How sharp is the halakha of children? Say that the Sages stated this halakha only in a case where one forgets, but did they say that one may do so ab initio?

אמר אביי אי לאו דאדם חשוב אנא כפא אכיפי למה לי הא חזו למיזגא עלייהו

Abaye explained his actions and said: If not for the fact that I am an important person, why would I need to place a spoon on the bundles? Aren’t the bundles themselves suited to lean upon? I could have carried the bundles without the spoon.

אמר רבא אנא אי לאו דאדם חשוב אנא סכינא אבר יונה למה לי הא חזי לי לאומצא

Similarly, Rava said: If not for the fact that I am an important person, why would I need to place a knife on a young dove? Isn’t the young dove itself suited to be eaten as raw meat?

טעמא דחזי לאומצא הא לא חזי לאומצא לא למימרא דרבא כרבי יהודה סבירא ליה

The Gemara asks: The reason that it is permitted to move the slaughtered dove is because it is suited to be eaten by a person as raw meat; but if it is not suited to be eaten by a person as raw meat, no, it may not be moved. Is that to say that Rava holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that on Shabbat it is prohibited to move food that was originally designated for human consumption and is now only suited for animal consumption?

והאמר רבא לשמעיה טווי לי בר אווזא ושדי מיעיה לשונרא

Didn’t Rava say to his attendant on a Festival: Roast a duck for me, and throw its intestines to the cat. Moving the duck’s intestines was permitted in order to feed the cat. Similarly, moving the dove should have been permitted not because it is raw meat fit for consumption by a person, but because it is suited for consumption by a dog.

Join Hadran Communities! Connect with women learning in your area.

Scroll To Top