Shabbat 50

נוטל את הכיסוי והן נופלות

He lifts the cover, which he is permitted to move, and the wool fleece falls by itself. Contrary to Rava’s statement, even wool fleece in which a person insulated food may not be moved on Shabbat.

אלא אי איתמר הכי איתמר אמר רבא לא שנו אלא שלא יחדן להטמנה אבל יחדן להטמנה מטלטלין אותן

Rather, if it was stated, it was stated as follows: Rava said: This halakha that wool fleece may not be moved on Shabbat applies only in a case where one did not designate it for insulating food. However, if he designated it for insulating food, one may move it, as in that case, it is no longer set-aside.

איתמר נמי כי אתא רבין אמר רבי יעקב אמר רבי אסי בן שאול אמר רבי לא שנו אלא שלא יחדן להטמנה אבל יחדן להטמנה מטלטלין אותן

It was also stated that when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Ya’akov said that Rabbi Asi ben Shaul said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: This halakha that wool fleece may not be moved on Shabbat applies only in a case where one did not designate it for insulating food. However, if one designated it for insulating food, he may move it.

רבינא אומר בשל הפתק שנו תניא נמי הכי גיזי צמר של הפתק אין מטלטלין אותן ואם התקינן בעל הבית להשתמש בהן מטלטלין אותן

Ravina said: In fact, Rava’s statement can be understood as it was originally understood, i.e., one who insulated food in wool fleece may move it because it is considered designated for insulating food. In the mishna that indicates otherwise they taught about wool fleece taken from a merchant’s shelves [heftek]. That wool was certainly not designated for insulating food. It will be returned to those shelves to be sold. Therefore, it is set-aside for that purpose and may not be moved on Shabbat, even if it is used to insulate food. That was also taught in a baraita: With regard to wool fleece taken from a merchant’s shelves, one may not move it on Shabbat. And if a homeowner prepared the fleece to use it, one may move it.

תנא רבה בר בר חנה קמיה דרב חריות של דקל שגדרן לעצים ונמלך עליהן לישיבה צריך לקשר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אין צריך לקשר הוא תני לה והוא אמר לה הלכה כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל

With regard to the question of what can be done to permit use of items ordinarily set-aside on Shabbat, Rabba bar bar Ḥana taught the following baraita before Rav: With regard to hard branches of a palm tree that one cut for fire wood or for construction, and then he reconsidered their designation and decided to use them for sitting, he must tie the branches together on Shabbat eve. This allows him to move them on Shabbat like any other household utensil. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He need not tie them together and, nevertheless, he is permitted to move them. Rabba bar bar Ḥana taught the baraita, and he said about it that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

איתמר רב אמר קושר ושמואל אמר חושב ורב אסי אמר יושב אף על פי שלא קישר ואף על פי שלא חישב

On that same topic, it was stated that Rav said: He ties the branches together on Shabbat eve. And Shmuel said: If he merely has in mind on Shabbat eve that he wishes to sit on them on Shabbat, he need not tie them together. And Rav Asi said: If he even briefly sits on them on Shabbat eve, sitting on the branches is permitted the next day, even though he did not tie them together and even though he did not have that in mind.

בשלמא רב הוא דאמר כתנא קמא ושמואל נמי הוא דאמר כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל אלא רב אסי דאמר כמאן

The Gemara comments: Granted, Rav, he stated his opinion in accordance with the unattributed opinion of the first tanna of the baraita, and Shmuel, too, he stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. However, in accordance with whose opinion did Rav Asi state his opinion? Apparently, he disagrees with both tanna’im who expressed an opinion on the issue.

הוא דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא יוצאין בפקורין ובציפא בזמן שצבען בשמן וכרכן במשיחה לא צבען בשמן ולא כרכן במשיחה אין יוצאין בהם ואם יצא בהן שעה אחת מבעוד יום אף על פי שלא צבע ולא כרכן במשיחה מותר לצאת בהן

The Gemara explains: Rav Asi stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it was taught in the Tosefta: One may go out into a public domain on Shabbat with combed flax [pakorin] or combed wool covering a wound, when he previously dipped them in oil and tied them to the wound with twine. If he did not dip them in oil or tie them with twine, he may not go out into the public domain with them. And if he went out with them for a brief period on Shabbat eve while it was still day, even if he did not dip them in oil or tie them with twine, he is permitted to go out with them on Shabbat. Apparently, there is a tanna who maintains that using an item before Shabbat enables one to use it on Shabbat as well. No additional steps are necessary.

אמר רב אשי אף אנן נמי תנינא הקש שעל גבי המטה לא ינענעו בידו אבל מנענעו בגופו אבל אם היה (עליו) מאכל בהמה או שהיה עליו כר או סדין מבעוד יום מנענעו בידו שמע מינה

Rav Ashi said: We too have also learned in a mishna: Straw that is piled on a bed to be used for fuel or mixed with clay is set aside for that purpose and may not be moved. Therefore, one who seeks to lie on the bed may not move the straw with his hand, but he may move it with his body, as this is not the typical way of moving straw. However, if that straw had been designated as animal feed, or if there was a pillow or sheet spread over it on Shabbat eve while it was still day and he lay on it before Shabbat, he may move it with his hand. Apparently, even brief use before Shabbat suffices to permit use on Shabbat as well. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that there is a tannaitic opinion in accordance with which Rav Asi stated his opinion.

ומאן תנא דפליג עליה דרבן שמעון בן גמליאל רבי חנינא בן עקיבא דכי אתא רב דימי אמר זעירי אמר רבי חנינא פעם אחת הלך רבי חנינא בן עקיבא למקום אחד ומצא חריות של דקל שגדרום לשום עצים ואמר להם לתלמידיו צאו וחשבו כדי שנשב עליהן למחר ולא ידענא אי בית המשתה הוה אי בית האבל הוה

The Gemara asks: And who is the unnamed tanna who disagrees with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the baraita cited above? He holds that in order to use palm branches for sitting, one must perform an action, e.g., tie them together, before Shabbat? The Gemara answers: It is Rabbi Ḥanina ben Akiva, as when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Ze’iri said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Akiva once went to a certain place on Shabbat eve and found there hard branches of a palm tree that they had cut for fire wood. And he said to his disciples: Go out and have in mind that you will use them so that we will be permitted to sit on them tomorrow, on Shabbat. And, Ze’iri added, I do not know if the house where Rabbi Ḥanina ben Akiva went was the house of a wedding feast or if it was the house of mourning.

מדקאמר אי בית המשתה הוה אי בית האבל הוה דוקא בית האבל או בית המשתה דטרידי אבל הכא קשר אין לא קשר לא

The Gemara explains: From the fact that Ze’iri said: I do not know whether it was the house of a wedding feast or the house of mourning, it may be inferred that this halakha applies specifically to the house of mourning or the house of a feast because they are preoccupied with other matters and do not have time to tie the wood. However, here, in ordinary circumstances, if he tied the branches together, yes, it is permitted to sit on them on Shabbat; if he did not tie them together, no, it is not permitted.

אמר רב יהודה מכניס אדם מלא קופתו עפר ועושה בה כל צרכו דרש מר זוטרא משמיה דמר זוטרא רבה והוא שיחד לו קרן זוית

Rav Yehuda said: A person may bring a basket full of earth into his house on Shabbat eve, pour it on the floor, and use it for all his needs on Shabbat, e.g., to cover excrement. Mar Zutra taught in the name of Mar Zutra Rabba: That applies only if he designated a specific corner in his house for the earth.

אמרו רבנן קמיה דרב פפא כמאן כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל דאי כרבנן האמרי בעינן מעשה

The Sages said before Rav Pappa: In accordance with whose opinion was this last ruling taught, that designating a place for the earth is sufficient to permit its use on Shabbat? It must have been taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with respect to palm branches, as if it was taught in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, didn’t they say that in order to permit use of an object that is set-aside on Shabbat, we require an action, e.g., tying the palm branches together? Thought alone is insufficient.

אמר להו רב פפא אפילו תימא רבנן עד כאן לא קאמרי רבנן דבעינן מעשה אלא מידי דבר עבידא ביה מעשה אבל מידי דלא בר מיעבדא ביה מעשה לא

Rav Pappa said to them: Even if you say that the halakha was taught in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the Rabbis stated their opinion that we require an action, only with regard to something with which it is possible to perform a preparatory action. However, with regard to something with which it is not possible to perform a preparatory action, no, they did not require an action. Since it is not possible to perform a preparatory action with the earth, one is permitted to use the earth by means of thought alone.

נימא כתנאי בכל חפין את הכלים חוץ מכלי כסף בגרתקון הא נתר וחול מותר

The Gemara asks: Let us say that this issue, whether or not an action is required in that case, is parallel to a dispute among the tanna’im. As it was taught in one baraita: One may clean utensils on Shabbat with any type of cleaning agent, except for silver utensils with cream of tartar [gartekon], as that not only polishes the silver, but also smooths it. By inference: Cleaning with natron and sand is permitted.

והתניא נתר וחול אסור מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר בעינן מעשה ומר סבר לא בעינן מעשה

Wasn’t it taught in the Tosefta: Cleaning with natron and sand is prohibited on Shabbat? What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this following point? That one Sage, who prohibits use of sand on Shabbat, holds that an action is required in order to permit the use of items that would otherwise be set-aside on Shabbat. Since it is impossible to perform an action with sand, its use is prohibited. And the other Sage, who permits use of sand, holds that an action is not required.

לא דכולי עלמא לא בעינן מעשה ולא קשיא (הא רבי יהודה הא רבי שמעון)

The Gemara rejects this argument: No, everyone agrees that an action is not required; and, nevertheless, it is not difficult. This baraita, which prohibits use of sand and natron, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda; that baraita, which permits their use, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

הא רבי יהודה דאמר דבר שאין מתכוין אסור הא רבי שמעון דאמר דבר שאין מתכוין מותר

The Gemara elaborates: This baraita, which prohibits use of sand and natron, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said with regard to the laws of Shabbat in general that an unintentional act is prohibited. It is prohibited to perform an otherwise permitted action from which an unintended prohibited labor ensues. Therefore, cleaning a silver utensil with sand or natron is prohibited because he thereby unintentionally smooths the utensil, which is prohibited on Shabbat. That baraita, which permits the use of sand and natron, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said that an unintentional act is permitted.

במאי אוקימתא להא דשרי כרבי שמעון אימא סיפא אבל לא יחוף בהם שערו ואי רבי שמעון משרא קשרי דתנן

The Gemara raises an objection: In what manner did you establish that baraita, which permits the use of sand and natron? You established it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. If so, say the latter clause of that same baraita: However, one may not wash his hair with them on Shabbat. And, if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, he permits doing so. As we learned in a mishna:

נזיר חופף ומפספס אבל לא סורק

A nazirite, for whom it is prohibited to cut his hair, may wash his hair with sand and natron and separate it with his fingers; however, he may not comb it, as combing will certainly cause hair to fall out. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon permits washing hair even in a case where it is prohibited to cause hair to fall out; in his opinion, the fact that washing one’s hair might inadvertently cause that to happen is not a source of concern.

אלא הא והא רבי יהודה היא ותרי תנאי אליבא דרבי יהודה האי תנא אליבא דרבי יהודה סבר גריר והאי תנא אליבא דרבי יהודה סבר לא גריר

Rather, both this baraita and that baraita, which disagree with regard to cleaning silver utensils with sand and natron, are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that an unintentional act is prohibited. And there are two tanna’im in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. They disagree with regard to Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion. This tanna, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that sand and natron scrape and smooth the utensils. Therefore, their use on Shabbat is prohibited. And that tanna, also in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that sand and natron do not scrape and smooth the utensils. Therefore, their use on Shabbat is permitted.

במאי אוקימתא כרבי יהודה אימא סיפא אבל פניו ידיו ורגליו מותר הא מעבר שיער

The Gemara raises an objection: How did you establish that baraita? It was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. If so, say the latter clause of the baraita: But his face, his hands, and his feet, it is permitted to wash with sand and natron. Doesn’t he thereby cause hair to fall out? It should be prohibited according to Rabbi Yehuda.

איבעית אימא בקטן ואיבעית אימא באשה ואיבעית אימא בסריס

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the permission to wash one’s face with sand and natron refers to a child; and if you wish, say instead that it refers to a woman; and if you wish, say instead that it refers to a eunuch. All of them have no facial hair, and that is why there is no concern that use of sand and natron to clean their faces will cause hair to fall out.

אמר רב יהודה עפר לבינתא שרי אמר רב יוסף כוספא דיסמין שרי אמר רבא עפר פלפלי שרי אמר רב ששת ברדא שרי

The Gemara continues: Rav Yehuda said: Washing one’s face with powdered frankincense (Rav Hai Gaon) is permitted on Shabbat, even if he has a beard, as it does not cause hair to fall out. Rav Yosef said: Washing with the solid residue of jasmine from which its fragrant oil was squeezed is permitted. Rava said: Washing with ground pepper is permitted. Rav Sheshet said: Washing with berada is permitted on Shabbat.

מאי ברדא אמר רב יוסף תילתא אהלא ותילתא אסא ותילתא סיגלי אמר רב נחמיה בר יוסף כל היכא דליכא רובא אהלא שפיר דמי

The Gemara asks: What is berada? Rav Yosef said: It is a mixture of one-third aloe, one-third myrtle, and one-third violets. Rav Neḥemya bar Yosef said: Everywhere that there is a mixture with no majority of aloe, it may well be used. Even if the mixture contains more than a third aloe, as long as it constitutes less than a majority, it does not cause hair to fall out.

בעו מיניה מרב ששת מהו לפצוע זיתים בשבת אמר להו וכי בחול מי התירו קסבר משום הפסד אוכלין

The Sages raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: What is the halakha with regard to splitting olives on a rock on Shabbat in order to wash with the oil that oozes from them (ge’onim)? He said to them: And did they permit doing so on a weekday? Rav Sheshet holds that crushing olives in that manner is prohibited even during the week because it involves ruining food. After the olives are split in that manner, they are no longer fit for consumption.

לימא פליגא דשמואל דאמר שמואל עושה אדם כל צורכו בפת אמרי פת לא מאיסא הני מאיסי

The Gemara comments: Let us say that Rav Sheshet disagrees with the opinion of Shmuel. As Shmuel said: A person may perform all his needs with bread, and he need not be concerned that it might be ruined. The Sages said in response: Rav Sheshet does not necessarily disagree with Shmuel. Using bread does not render it disgusting and inedible; splitting these olives renders them disgusting and inedible.

אמימר ומר זוטרא ורב אשי הוו יתבי אייתו לקמייהו ברדא אמימר ורב אשי משו מר זוטרא לא משא אמרו ליה לא סבר לה מר להא דאמר רב ששת ברדא שרי אמר להו רב מרדכי בר מיניה דמר דאפילו בחול נמי לא סבירא ליה

The Gemara relates that Ameimar, Mar Zutra, and Rav Ashi were sitting on Shabbat, and they brought berada before them for washing. Ameimar and Rav Ashi washed with it; Mar Zutra did not wash. They said to him: Doesn’t the Master hold in accordance with that which Rav Sheshet said: Washing with berada is permitted on Shabbat? Rav Mordekhai, who was also there, said to them: Except for him, the Master; i.e., do not draw conclusions from Mar Zutra, as he does not hold that one is permitted to use berada, even on a weekday.

סבר לה כי הא דתניא מגרר אדם גלדי צואה וגלדי מכה שעל בשרו בשביל צערו אם בשביל ליפות אסור

Mar Zutra holds in accordance with that which was taught in a baraita: A person may scrape off dried excrement crusts and scabs of a wound that are on his flesh because of the pain that they are causing him. However, if he does so in order to clean and beautify himself, it is prohibited. According to the tanna of this baraita, it is prohibited to adorn or beautify oneself, as the verse: “Neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment” (Deuteronomy 22:5) prohibits dressing or conducting oneself in the manner of women.

ואינהו כמאן סברוה כי הא דתניא רוחץ אדם פניו ידיו ורגליו בכל יום בשביל קונו משום שנאמר כל פעל ה׳ למענהו:

The Gemara asks: And Ameimar and Rav Ashi, who permit use of berada, in accordance with whose opinion do they hold? They hold in accordance with that which was taught in a baraita: A person must wash his face, his hands, and his feet every day for the sake of his Maker, as it is stated: “The Lord has made everything for His own purpose” (Proverbs 16:4). Every beautiful thing that exists in the world sings the praise of God Who created beautiful things. Therefore, it is appropriate for one to beautify himself in praise of God.

רבי אלעזר בן עזריה אומר קופה מטה על צדה ונוטל שמא יטול וכו׳: אמר רבי אבא אמר רבי חייא בר אשי (אמר רב) הכל מודים שאם נתקלקלה הגומא שאסור להחזיר

We learned in the mishna: Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: If he placed the pot in a basket filled with fleece, he leans the basket on its side so that the fleece will fall to the side of the pot, and takes the pot. Otherwise, there is room for concern lest the wool collapse when he lifts the pot from the basket. Then he will be unable to replace the pot. It is prohibited to move the fleece to make room for the pot, since the fleece is set-aside. However, the Rabbis disagree and say: He may lift the pot and afterward replace it. Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: Everyone agrees, even the Rabbis, that if the cavity in which the pot had been placed was destroyed, its walls having collapsed inward, it is prohibited to return the pot to the basket.

תנן וחכמים אומרים נוטל ומחזיר היכי דמי אי דלא נתקלקלה הגומא שפיר קא אמרי רבנן אלא לאו אף על פי דנתקלקלה הגומא

The Gemara asks, based on what we learned in the mishna. And the Rabbis say: He may lift the pot and afterward replace it. The Gemara elaborates: What are the circumstances? If the cavity in which the pot had been placed was not destroyed, the Rabbis say fittingly that it is permitted to replace the pot; why would Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya prohibit the practice? Rather, is it not that the Rabbis permit returning the pot even though the cavity was destroyed? Apparently, that is the subject of the dispute in the mishna.

לא לעולם דלא נתקלקלה והכא בחוששין קמיפלגי מר סבר חוששין שמא נתקלקלה הגומא ומר סבר אין חוששין

The Gemara rejects this: No, actually, everyone agrees that if the cavity was destroyed, it is prohibited to return the pot to the basket. The mishna is dealing with a case where the cavity was not destroyed, and here the tanna’im disagree with regard to whether or not one need be concerned lest, if one is allowed to remove the pot from the basket without tilting it to the side, the cavity be destroyed and he will come to return the pot to the basket anyway. One Sage, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, holds that one need be concerned lest the cavity be destroyed and he return the pot anyway; and the other Sage, a reference to the Rabbis, holds that one need not be concerned about that.

אמר רב הונא האי סליקוסתא דצה שלפה והדר דצה שריא ואי לאו אסיר

The Gemara records several rulings with regard to placing an object into another object that is set-aside. Rav Huna said: With regard to this fragrant daffodil branch that was kept in a pot of moist earth in the house; if on Shabbat eve one inserted it into the earth, then pulled it out, and then inserted it again into the earth, it is permitted to pull it out again on Shabbat. By inserting it and then pulling it out, he has already widened the cavity in which the branch was placed. There is no room for concern that when he pulls it out again on Shabbat he will cause earth to shift from its place. And if he did not do so on Shabbat eve, it is prohibited to pull it out on Shabbat.

אמר שמואל האי סכינא דביני אורבי דצה שלפה והדר דצה שרי ואי לאו אסיר

Shmuel said: This knife that is stored between bricks; if one stuck it between the bricks on Shabbat eve, pulled it out, and then stuck it between the bricks, it is permitted to pull it out on Shabbat. And if he did not do so on Shabbat eve, it is prohibited to pull it out on Shabbat.

מר זוטרא ואיתימא רב אשי אמר בגורדיתא דקני שפיר דמי

Mar Zutra, and some say Rav Ashi, said: Placing a knife between the branches of a hedge of reeds (ge’onim) may well be done and there is no concern lest one come to cut the reeds when he removes it.

אמר ליה רב מרדכי לרבא מתיב רב קטינא תיובתא הטומן לפת וצנונות תחת הגפן אם היה מקצת עליו מגולים אינו חושש

Rav Mordekhai said to Rava: Rav Ketina raised a conclusive refutation of the opinions of Rav Huna and Shmuel from that which we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who conceals a turnip or radish in the ground beneath a vine for safekeeping, if some of its leaves were showing, allowing access to pull the turnip or the radish from the ground, he need neither be concerned;