Shabbat 80
תָּנָא: שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת בִּדְיוֹ, שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת בְּקוּלְמוֹס, שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת בְּקַלְמָרִין. בָּעֵי רָבָא: אוֹת אַחַת בִּדְיוֹ, אוֹת אַחַת בְּקוּלְמוֹס, אוֹת אַחַת בְּקַלְמָרִין, מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.
A tanna taught in a Tosefta: The measure that determines liability for carrying out ink is equivalent to that which is used to write two letters when he carries out dried ink, and two letters when the ink is in the quill, and two letters in the inkwell [kalmarin]. Rava raised a dilemma: What is the halakha if one carried out sufficient ink to write one letter in the form of dried ink, and sufficient ink to write one letter in the quill, and sufficient ink to write one letter in the inkwell? Do they join together to constitute the measure for liability, or is each considered separately? No resolution was found for this dilemma. Therefore, let it stand unresolved.
אָמַר רָבָא: הוֹצִיא שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת וּכְתָבָן כְּשֶׁהוּא מְהַלֵּךְ — חַיָּיב, כְּתִיבָתָן זוֹ הִיא הַנָּחָתָן. וְאָמַר רָבָא: הוֹצִיא אוֹת אַחַת וּכְתָבָהּ, וְחָזַר וְהוֹצִיא אוֹת אַחַת וּכְתָבָהּ — פָּטוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? בְּעִידָּנָא דְּאַפְּקַהּ לְבָתְרָיְיתָא, חֲסַר לֵיהּ שִׁיעוּרָא דְקַמַּיְיתָא.
Rava said: One who carried out a measure of ink equivalent to that which is used to write two letters on Shabbat, and he wrote two letters as he walked, even though he did not place the written material in the public domain, he is liable for carrying out the ink. Their writing is their placement. He is liable even without placing the ink on the ground. And Rava said: One who carried out sufficient ink to write one letter and he wrote it, and then proceeded to carry out sufficient ink to write one more letter and he wrote it, is exempt. What is the reason that he is exempt? At the time that he carried out the last drop of ink, he was lacking the first measure of ink. The ink that he carried out first dried slightly in the interim and not enough remained to write one letter.
וְאָמַר רָבָא: הוֹצִיא חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת אַחַת וְהִנִּיחָה, וְחָזַר וְהוֹצִיא חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת אַחַת וְהִנִּיחָה — רִאשׁוֹנָה נַעֲשָׂה כְּמִי שֶׁקְּלָטָהּ [כֶּלֶב] אוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׂרְפָה, וּפָטוּר. וְאַמַּאי? הָא מַנְּחָה? הָכִי קָאָמַר: וְאִם קָדַם וְהִגְבִּיהַּ רִאשׁוֹנָה קוֹדֶם הַנָּחַת שְׁנִיָּיה — נַעֲשֵׂית רִאשׁוֹנָה כְּמִי שֶׁנִּקְלְטָה אוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׂרְפָה, וּפָטוּר. וְאָמַר רָבָא: הוֹצִיא חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת וְהִנִּיחָהּ, וְחָזַר וְהוֹצִיא חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת וְהֶעֱבִירָהּ דֶּרֶךְ עָלֶיהָ — חַיָּיב. וְאַמַּאי? הָא לָא נָח! כְּגוֹן שֶׁהֶעֱבִירָהּ תּוֹךְ שְׁלֹשָׁה.
And Rava said with regard to a similar issue: One who carried out half of a dried fig on Shabbat and placed it in a different domain, and proceeded to carry out another half of a dried fig and placed it, the first becomes as one that was snatched by a dog or burned and he is exempt, as he did not carry out the measure of a dried fig for which he would be liable. The Gemara wonders: And why is he exempt; isn’t an entire dried fig placed together? Why isn’t he liable for carrying it out? The Gemara explains: This is what Rava is saying: And if he lifted the first half-fig first before placement of the second, i.e., the two half-figs were never placed together, the first becomes as one that was snatched by a dog or burned and he is exempt. And Rava said: One who carried out half of a dried fig on Shabbat and placed it in a different domain, and proceeded to carry out another half of a dried fig and passed the second half-fig over the already placed first half-fig, is liable even though they were never placed together. The Gemara asks: And why is he liable? The second half-fig did not come to rest. The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case where he passed the second half-fig within three handbreadths of the first half-fig. The halakha is that objects less than three handbreadths apart are considered attached.
וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: תּוֹךְ שְׁלֹשָׁה לְרַבָּנַן צָרִיךְ הַנָּחָה עַל גַּבֵּי מַשֶּׁהוּ! לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּזוֹרֵק, כָּאן בְּמַעֲבִיר.
The Gemara asks: And didn’t Rava himself say: An object that passes within three handbreadths of the ground, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, must come to rest atop some defined place and if it does not it is not considered placed? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, where Rava said that it must actually come to rest, it is referring to one who throws the object; here, where proximity alone is sufficient to render him liable, it is referring to one who passes an object in his hand, since he can place the object down at any point.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הוֹצִיא חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת וְחָזַר וְהוֹצִיא חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת, בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד — חַיָּיב, בִּשְׁתֵּי הֶעְלֵמוֹת — פָּטוּר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד לִרְשׁוּת אַחַת — חַיָּיב, לִשְׁתֵּי רְשׁוּיוֹת — פָּטוּר. אָמַר רַבָּה: וְהוּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ חִיּוּב חַטָּאת בֵּינֵיהֶם. אֲבָל כַּרְמְלִית — לֹא.
The Sages taught: One who carried out half of a dried fig into the public domain on Shabbat and proceeded to carry out another half of a dried fig, within one lapse of awareness, is liable; within two lapses of awareness, he is exempt because in neither lapse did he carry out a measure that would render him liable. Rabbi Yosei says: If he carried out the half-figs within one lapse of awareness to one domain he is liable; to two domains he is exempt. If he carried the two half-figs to two separate sections of the public domain, he is exempt because there is no permitted manner to unite the two halves. Rabba said with regard to Rabbi Yosei’s statement: That is only in a case where there is an area in which there is liability to bring a sin-offering between them. It only applies in a case where there is a private domain between the two sections of the public domain and carrying between them is prohibited by Torah law. However, if the two sections of the public domain were separated by a karmelit, no, he would not be exempt. In that case, there is no Torah prohibition against carrying between the two sections of the public domain through the karmelit, and by Torah law they are not considered separate.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ כַּרְמְלִית. אֲבָל פִּיסְלָא — לֹא. וְרָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ פִּיסְלָא. וְאָזְדָא רָבָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: רְשׁוּת שַׁבָּת כִּרְשׁוּת גִּיטִּין דָּמְיָא.
Abaye said: Even if they were separated by a karmelit it is not considered one domain, and he is exempt. However, if the two sections were separated by a large beam, no, they are not considered separate. And Rava said: Even if the two sections were separated by a large beam, according to Rabbi Yosei, they are considered separate and he is exempt. The Gemara comments: And Rava follows his line of reasoning stated elsewhere as Rava said: The definition of domain for Shabbat is like the definition of domain for bills of divorce. Just as with regard to bills of divorce, two areas separated by a beam are not considered one domain, so too, with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, they are not considered one domain.
כְּחוֹל כְּדֵי לִכְחוֹל עַיִן אַחַת. עַיִן אַחַת הָא לָא כָּחֲלִי! אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: שֶׁכֵּן צְנוּעוֹת כּוֹחֲלוֹת עַיִן אַחַת. מֵיתִיבִי, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: כְּחוֹל, אִם לִרְפוּאָה — כְּדֵי לִכְחוֹל עַיִן אַחַת, אִם לְקַשֵּׁט — בִּשְׁתֵּי עֵינַיִם. תַּרְגְּמַהּ הִילֵּל בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי: כִּי תַּנְיָא הַהִיא בְּעִירָנִיּוֹת.
We learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out blue eye shadow is equivalent to that which is used to paint one eye blue. The Gemara asks: How could the mishna say one eye? Women do not paint only one eye blue. Rav Huna said: Because modest women, who cover their faces with a veil, paint only the one eye that shows blue. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: For carrying out blue eye shadow, if it is used for healing, the measure for liability is equivalent to that which is used to paint one eye blue; if it is used to adorn the eye, the measure that determines liability for carrying out is equivalent to that which is used for two eyes. Hillel, son of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani, explained it: When this baraita was taught it was in reference to village women. Because immodest behavior is less common there, women do not customarily cover their faces.
(שַׁעֲוָה כְּדֵי לִיתֵּן עַל פִּי נֶקֶב קָטָן. תָּנָא: כְּדֵי לִיתֵּן עַל פִּי נֶקֶב קָטָן שֶׁל יַיִן.)
We learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out wax is equivalent to that which is used to place on the opening of a small hole to seal it. A tanna taught in a Tosefta: Enough to place on the opening of a small hole in a receptacle holding wine. The size of a hole that enables pouring wine is smaller than the size of the hole required when pouring more viscous liquids.
דֶּבֶק כְּדֵי לִיתֵּן בְּרֹאשׁ הַשַּׁפְשָׁף. תָּנָא: כְּדֵי לִיתֵּן בְּרֹאשׁ שַׁפְשָׁף שֶׁבְּרֹאשׁ קָנֶה שֶׁל צַיָּידִין.
We learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out glue is equivalent to that which is used to place on the top of a board [shafshaf]. The Sages taught: This means an amount equivalent to that which is used to place on the top of a board that is attached to the top of a hunter’s rod. Hunters would spread glue to trap the birds that land on the board.
זֶפֶת וְגׇפְרִית כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת כּוּ׳. תָּנָא: כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת נֶקֶב קָטָן.
We learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out tar and sulfur is equivalent to that which is used to seal a hole in a vessel and to make a small hole in that seal. Tar and sulfur were used to seal large cavities in jars. Holes were sometimes made in those seals. A tanna taught in a Tosefta: One is liable for carrying out a measure equivalent to that which can be used to make a large hole into a small hole.
חַרְסִית כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת פִּי כוּר כּוּ׳. לְמֵימְרָא דְּשִׁיעוּרָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְפִישׁ? הָא קַיְימָא לַן דְּשִׁיעוּרָא דְרַבָּנַן נְפִישׁ, דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי לִיטּוֹל הֵימֶנּוּ מִדַּת מִנְעָל לְקָטָן. אֵימָא: כְּדֵי לָסוּד פִּיטְפּוּט כִּירָה קְטַנָּה.
We learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out crushed earthenware is equivalent to that which is used to knead and make an opening for the bellows to be placed in a gold refiners’ crucible. Rabbi Yehuda says: An amount equivalent to that which is used to make a small tripod for the crucible. The Gemara wonders: Is that to say that the measure of Rabbi Yehuda is greater? Don’t we maintain that the measure of the Rabbis is greater, as we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says with regard to reeds: The measure for liability is equivalent to that which is used to take the measure of a shoe for a child? That is smaller than the measure determined by the Rabbis. The Gemara answers: Here too, say it does not mean sufficient material to make the entire tripod, but to plaster the cracks in the small tripod of a small stove, which requires a minimal amount of plaster.
סוּבִּין כְּדֵי לִיתֵּן עַל פִּי כוּר שֶׁל צוֹרְפֵי זָהָב.
We learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out bran is equivalent to that which is used to place on the opening of a gold refiners’ crucible.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמּוֹצִיא שֵׂיעָר כְּדֵי לְגַבֵּל בּוֹ אֶת הַטִּיט. [טִיט] לַעֲשׂוֹת פִּי כוּר שֶׁל צוֹרְפֵי זָהָב.
The Sages taught: One who carries out hair is liable in a measure equivalent to that which is used to knead clay with it, as hair would be mixed with clay to reinforce it. The measure that determines liability for carrying out clay is if it is sufficient to make an opening for the bellows to be placed in a gold refiners’ crucible.
סִיד כְּדֵי לָסוּד. תָּנָא: כְּדֵי לָסוּד אֶצְבַּע קְטַנָּה שֶׁבַּבָּנוֹת. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהִגִּיעוּ לְפִירְקָן וְלֹא הִגִּיעוּ [לְשָׁנִים], בְּנוֹת עֲנִיִּים — טוֹפְלוֹת אוֹתָן בְּסִיד. בְּנוֹת עֲשִׁירִים — טוֹפְלוֹת אוֹתָן בְּסוֹלֶת, בְּנוֹת מְלָכִים — טוֹפְלוֹת אוֹתָן בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמּוֹר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שִׁשָּׁה חֳדָשִׁים בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמּוֹר״. מַאי שֶׁמֶן הַמּוֹר? רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִיָּיא אָמַר: סְטָכַת. רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר: שֶׁמֶן זַיִת שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא שְׁלִישׁ. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַנְפִּיקְנוּן — שֶׁמֶן זַיִת שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא שְׁלִישׁ. וְלָמָּה סָכִין אוֹתוֹ — שֶׁמַּשִּׁיר אֶת הַשֵּׂיעָר וּמְעַדֵּן הַבָּשָׂר.
We learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out lime is equivalent to that which is used to spread as a depilatory on the smallest of girls. A tanna taught in a Tosefta: In a measure equivalent to that which is used to spread on the finger of the smallest of girls, who would use lime to soften and pamper the skin. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said that initially, lime was used for a different purpose. It was used for daughters of Israel who reached physical maturity, but had not yet reached the age of maturity, and women who sought to remove hair for cosmetic purposes. They would smear daughters of the poor with lime; they would smear daughters of the wealthy with fine flour; they would smear daughters of kings with shemen hamor, as it was stated: “For so were the days of their anointing filled, six months with shemen hamor” (Esther 2:12). The Gemara asks: What is shemen hamor? Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya said: Setaket. Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said: It is olive oil extracted from an olive that has not yet reached a third of its growth; the acidic oil is effective as a depilatory. It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that anfiknon is olive oil from an olive that has not reached a third of its growth. And why is it spread on the body? Because it removes the hair and pampers the skin.
רַב בִּיבִי הַוְיָא לֵיהּ בְּרַתָּא, טַפְלַהּ אֵבֶר אֵבֶר, שְׁקַל בָּהּ אַרְבַּע מֵאָה זוּזֵי. הֲוָה הָהוּא גּוֹי בְּשִׁבָבוּתֵיהּ. הַוְיָא לֵיהּ בְּרַתָּא, טַפְלַהּ בְּחַד זִימְנָא וּמֵתָה. אֲמַר: קְטַל רַב בִּיבִי לִבְרַתִּי. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: רַב בִּיבִי דְּשָׁתֵי שִׁיכְרָא — בָּעֲיָין בְּנָתֵיהּ טִפְלָא, אֲנַן דְּלָא שָׁתֵינַן שִׁיכְרָא — לָא בָּעֲיָין בְּנָתַן טִפְלָא.
With regard to lime, the Gemara relates: Rav Beivai had a daughter. He smeared her with lime limb by limb and, as a result, she became so beautiful that when marrying her off, he received four hundred zuz in gifts for her beyond her dowry. There was a certain gentile in Rav Beivai’s neighborhood. He had a daughter and wanted to do the same. He smeared her entire body with lime at one time and she died. He said: Rav Beivai killed my daughter. Rav Naḥman said: Rav Beivai, who drinks beer, his daughters require that they be smeared with lime, as beer causes hair growth; we, who do not drink beer, our daughters do not require that they be smeared with lime.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר כְּדֵי לָסוּד כִּלְכּוּל. מַאי כִּלְכּוּל וּמַאי אַנְדִּיפֵי? אָמַר רַב: צִידְעָא וּבַת צִידְעָא. לְמֵימְרָא דְּשִׁיעוּרָא דְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְפִישׁ? הָא קַיְימָא לַן דְּשִׁיעוּרָא דְרַבָּנַן נְפִישׁ! זוּטָא מִדְּרַבָּנַן, וּנְפִישׁ מִדְּרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה. מֵיתִיבִי, אָמַר רַבִּי: נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּחָבוּט, וְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה בְּבֵיצַת הַסִּיד. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ צִידְעָא וּבַת צִידְעָא, אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי חָבוּט? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק, אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי אַמֵּי — אַאַנְדִּיפָא.
We learned in the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: An amount equivalent to that which is used to spread on the hair that grows over the temple [kilkul] so that it will lie flat. Rabbi Neḥemya says: An amount equivalent to that which is used to spread on the temple [andifi] to remove fine hairs. The Gemara asks: What is kilkul and what is andifi? Rav said: The temple and the area beneath the temple. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the measure of Rabbi Yehuda is greater? Don’t we maintain that the measure of the Rabbis is greater? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda’s measure is smaller than that of the Rabbis and greater than the measure of Rabbi Neḥemya. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita where Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda and his measure appear to be correct with regard to dissolved lime, and the statement of Rabbi Neḥemya appears to be correct with regard to blocks of lime. And if it should enter your mind that these terms refer to the temple and the area beneath the temple, both that which is spread on this, kilkul, and that which is spread on that, andifi, are referring to dissolved lime. Rather, Rabbi Yitzḥak said that the school of Rabbi Ami said: When Rav Neḥemya said andifi he meant a’andifa, meaning the lime which was spread on the inside of earthenware vessels containing wine.
מַתְקִיף לַהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא: וְכִי אָדָם עוֹשֶׂה מְעוֹתָיו אַנְפָּרוֹת?! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: שְׁנָתוֹת. כְּדִתְנַן: שְׁנָתוֹת הָיוּ בַּהִין — עַד כָּאן לַפָּר, עַד כָּאן לָאַיִל, עַד כָּאן לַכֶּבֶשׂ. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מַאי ״אַנְדִּיפָא״ — אַפּוּתָא. וְכִי הָא דְּהָהוּא בַּר גָּלִיל [דְּאִיקְּלַע לְבָבֶל], דַּאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: קוּם דְּרוֹשׁ לַנָא בְּ״מַעֲשֵׂה מֶרְכָּבָה״. אֲמַר לְהוּ: אֶדְרוֹשׁ לְכוּ כְּדִדְרַשׁ רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה לְחַבְרֵיהּ. וּנְפַקָא עָרָעִיתָא מִן כּוּתְלָא וּמְחָתֵיהּ בְּאַנְדִּיפֵי וּמִית. וַאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: מִן דִּילֵיהּ דָּא לֵיהּ.
Rav Kahana strongly objected to this: And does a person turn his money into a loss [anparot]? In doing so, he ruins both the lime and the wine. Rather, Rav Kahana said: This lime is not placed inside the vessel, but it is used to make markings on the outside of the vessel to measure the contents of the vessel, as we learned in a mishna: In the Temple, there were markings on the hin vessel to measure wine. These would indicate that when it is filled to here, that is the measure of wine required for the libation of the sacrifice of an ox, half a hin; when it is filled to here, the measure of wine required for the libation of the sacrifice of a ram, a third of a hin; when it is filled to here, the measure of wine required for the libation of the sacrifice of a sheep, a quarter of a hin. And if you wish, say instead: What is andifa? It is the forehead upon which lime is smeared, not to remove hairs, but to pamper and soften the skin. Thick lime can be used for this purpose. And proof for that is cited from a certain Galilean who happened to come to Babylonia, to whom they said: Stand and teach us the esoteric Act of the Divine Chariot [Ma’aseh Merkava]. He said to them: I will teach it to you as Rabbi Neḥemya taught it to his colleague. And a hornet emerged from the wall and stung him on his forehead [andifi] and he died. Apparently, andifi means forehead. And with regard to the incident itself, they said about him, in a play on words: From his own, that came to him [min dilei da lei]. He was punished for his arrogance in seeking to teach Ma’aseh Merkava publicly.
מַתְנִי׳ אֲדָמָה — כְּחוֹתַם הַמַּרְצוּפִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כְּחוֹתַם הָאִיגְּרוֹת. זֶבֶל וָחוֹל הַדַּק — כְּדֵי לְזַבֵּל קֶלַח שֶׁל כְּרוּב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כְּדֵי לְזַבֵּל כְּרֵישָׁא. חוֹל הַגַּס — כְּדֵי לִיתֵּן עַל מְלֹא כַּף סִיד. קָנֶה — כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת קוּלְמוֹס. וְאִם הָיָה עָבֶה אוֹ מְרוּסָּס — כְּדֵי לְבַשֵּׁל בּוֹ בֵּיצָה קַלָּה שֶׁבַּבֵּיצִים, טְרוּפָה וּנְתוּנָה בָּאִילְפָּס.
MISHNA: The measure that determines liability for carrying out earth on Shabbat is equivalent to the seal of large sacks; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Earth was used to seal the openings of sacks so that any tampering would be evident. And the Rabbis say: The measure for liability is much smaller, equivalent to the seal of letters. The measure that determines liability for carrying out manure and fine sand is equivalent to that which is used to fertilize one stalk of cabbage; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis say: The measure that determines liability for carrying it out is equivalent to that which is used to fertilize a leek, which is less than that used for cabbage. The measure that determines liability for carrying out coarse sand is equivalent to that which is used to place on a full spoon of plaster. The measure that determines liability for carrying out a reed is equivalent to that which is used to make a quill. And if the reed was thick and unfit for writing, or if it was fragmented, its measure for liability is equivalent to that which is used to cook an egg most easily cooked, one that is already beaten and placed in a stew pot.
גְּמָ׳ עַל מְלֹא כַּף סִיד. תָּנָא: כְּדֵי לִיתֵּן עַל פִּי כַּף שֶׁל סַיָּידִין. מַאן תְּנָא דְּחוֹל מְעַלֵּי לֵיהּ לְסִיד? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: לֹא יָסוּד אָדָם אֶת בֵּיתוֹ בְּסִיד, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן עֵירַב בּוֹ תֶּבֶן אוֹ חוֹל. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: תֶּבֶן מוּתָּר, חוֹל אָסוּר — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא טְרַכְסִיד. רָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן — קִילְקוּלוֹ זֶהוּ תִּיקּוּנוֹ.
GEMARA: We learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out coarse sand is equivalent to that which is used to place on a full spoon of plaster. A tanna taught in a Tosefta: An amount equivalent to that which is placed on the opening of a plasterer’s trowel, and not on a spoon used for eating. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who holds that sand is beneficial for plaster and is, therefore, mixed with it? Rav Ḥisda said: It is Rabbi Yehuda, as it was taught in a baraita: In mourning the destruction of the Temple, one may not plaster his house with plaster, which is white, unless he mixed straw or sand in it, which will make the color off-white and less attractive. Rabbi Yehuda says: Straw is permitted, but sand is prohibited because when mixed with plaster it forms white cement [teraksid]. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda holds that sand is typically mixed with plaster. Rava said: Even if you say that our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda, we can say that its ruination is its improvement. Even though the Rabbis hold that mixing sand with plaster is not beneficial, since following the destruction of the Temple only partially ruined plaster may be used, adding sand to plaster enables its use.
קָנֶה כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת קוּלְמוֹס. תָּנָא: קוּלְמוֹס הַמַּגִּיעַ לְקִשְׁרֵי אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו. בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: קֶשֶׁר הָעֶלְיוֹן אוֹ קֶשֶׁר הַתַּחְתּוֹן? תֵּיקוּ.
We learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out a reed is equivalent to that which is used to make a quill. The size of the quill was not specified. A tanna taught in a Tosefta: This refers to a quill that reaches to the joints of one’s fingers. Rav Ashi raised a dilemma: Is this referring to the upper joint of the fingers, or the lower joint? No resolution was found to this dilemma, and therefore let it stand unresolved.
וְאִם הָיָה עָבֶה כּוּ׳. תָּנָא: טְרוּפָה בְּשֶׁמֶן וּנְתוּנָה בָּאִילְפָּס. אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבִינָא לִבְרֵיהּ: מִי שְׁמִיעַ לָךְ בֵּיצָה קַלָּה מַאי הִיא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בֵּיעֲתָא דְצִילְצְלָא. מַאי טַעְמָא — מִשּׁוּם דְּזוּטְרָא? אֵימָא: דְּצִיפַּרְתָּא! אִישְׁתִּיק. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִידֵּי שְׁמִיעַ לָךְ בְּהָא? [אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי] אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: בֵּיצַת תַּרְנְגוֹלֶת. וּמַאי קָרוּ לַהּ ״בֵּיצָה קַלָּה״ — שִׁיעֲרוּ חֲכָמִים, אֵין לָךְ בֵּיצָה קַלָּה לְבַשֵּׁל יוֹתֵר מִבֵּיצַת תַּרְנְגוֹלֶת. וּמַאי שְׁנָא כׇּל שִׁיעוּרֵי שַׁבָּת כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת וְהָכָא כְּבֵיצָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָכִי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת מִבֵּיצָה קַלָּה.
We learned in the mishna: And if the reed was thick and unfit for writing, it is considered as fuel, and its measure for liability is equivalent to that which is used to cook a beaten egg. A tanna taught in a Tosefta: Beaten means beaten in oil and placed in a stew pot. Mar, son of Ravina, said to his son: Have you heard what an egg cooked easily is? He said to him: The egg of a turtledove. He asked his father: What is the reason? Is it because it is small? If so, say the egg of a sparrow. He was silent and had no explanation. He subsequently asked his father: Have you heard anything about this? He said to him that Rav Sheshet said as follows: This refers to the egg of a chicken. And what is the reason that they call it an egg cooked easily? Because the Sages estimated that there is no egg easier to cook than the egg of a chicken. He asked his father: And what is different about this measure? All measures of prohibited labors on Shabbat involving food are a dried fig-bulk, and here the measure is like an egg cooked easily? He said to him that Rav Naḥman said as follows: He is liable for carrying out a dried fig-bulk from an egg cooked easily, not the entire egg.
