Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Shabbath

Folio 142a

why particularly a stone? the same applies to a denar! Why did Raba say: They learnt only a stone, but a denar is forbidden? — In the case of a stone, if it falls down the father will not come to fetch it, [but] with a denar, if it falls down the father will come to fetch it. It was taught in accordance with Raba: If one carries out his garments folded up and lying on his shoulder, or his sandals or his rings in his hands, he is liable; but if he was wearing them, he is not culpable. If one carries out a person with his garments' upon him, with his sandals on his feet and his rings on his hands,¹  he is not culpable. Hence if he carried them as they are²  he would be culpable.³

A BASKET WITH A STONE IN IT: yet why? let the basket be [regarded as] a stand for a forbidden article?⁴  — Said Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in R. Johanan's name: We treat here of a basket full of produce.⁵  Then let the produce be thrown out, and let the stone be thrown out, and then we can collect [the produce] by hand?⁶  — As R. Elai said [elsewhere] in Rab's name: The reference is to fruit which becomes soiled, so here too [we treat] of fruit which becomes soiled.⁷  Then let one shake it [the basket] about?⁸  — Said R. Hiyya b. Ashi in Raba's name: We treat here of a broken basket, so that the stone itself becomes a wall for the basket.⁹

[UNCLEAN] TERUMAH MAY BE HANDLED, etc. R. Hisda said: They learnt [this] only where the clean [terumah] is underneath and the unclean is on top; but if the clean [terumah] is on top and the unclean underneath, one must take the clean and leave the unclean.¹⁰  But if the clean is underneath too, let him throw off [the unclean] and take it? — Said R. Elai in Rab's name: We treat of fruit which becomes soiled. An objection is raised: One may handle unclean terumah together with clean terumah or with hullin, whether the clean is on top and the unclean is below, or the unclean is on top and the clean is underneath; this refutes R. Hisda? — R. Hisda answers you: Our Mishnah [means that] it is required for itself;¹¹  the Baraitha is where its place is required.¹²  What compels R. Hisda to interpret our Mishnah as meaning that it is required for itself?¹³  — Said Raba, Our Mishnah, by deduction, supports him. For the second clause¹⁴  states: If money is lying on a cushion, one shakes the cushion, and it falls off. Whereon Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: They learnt this only if it [the cushion] is required for itself; but if its place is required, one removes it while it [the money] is upon it. And since the second clause means that it is required for itself, the first clause too means that it is required for itself.

R. JUDAH SAID: ONE MAY ALSO REMOVE, etc. Yet why? surely he makes it fit?¹⁵  — R. Judah agrees with R. Eliezer, who maintains: The terumah lies as a [separate] entity.¹⁶  For we learnt: If a se'ah of terumah falls into less than a hundred,¹⁷  and thus they become a [forbidden] mixture, and then some of the mixture falls elsewhere,¹⁸  R. Eliezer said: It creates a [forbidden] mixture as though it were certain terumah,¹⁹  but the Sages maintain: The mixture creates a [forbidden] mixture only in proportion.²⁰  [But] say that you know him [to rule thus] with stringency; do you know him [to rule thus] with lenience?²¹  — Rather [reply thus]: He [R. Judah] rules as R. Simeon, as we learnt: If a se'ah of terumah falls into a hundred,²²  and one has no time to remove [it] until another falls in, it is [all] forbidden;²³  but R. Simeon permits it.²⁴  Yet how [does this follow]? Perhaps there they differ in this: viz., the first Tanna holds: Though they fell in consecutively it is as though they fell in simultaneously, so that each falls into fifty; whereas R. Simeon holds: The first is neutralized in the hundred, and this one is neutralized in a hundred and one?²⁵  — Rather [reply thus]: He [R. Judah] rules as R. Simeon b. Eleazar. For it was taught, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: One may cast his eyes at one side and eat from the other.²⁶  Yet does he agree with him?

1. I.e., the man is wearing them.
2. If the person carried were holding, not wearing them.
3. This is analogous to Raba's dictum, for a purse 'suspended from a child's neck is not in the position of being worn.
4. V. p. 213, n. 4.
5. 'So that the basket serves as a stand for a permitted thing.
6. And replace it in the basket. Why did they permit to carry the stone?
7. If thrown on the ground, e.g., figs and grapes.
8. Until the stone lies at a side, when it can be thrown out without affecting the produce.
9. By filling up the gap.
10. And there is no reason for handling the unclean.
11. I.e., he wishes to eat the terumah. Therefore if the clean terumah is on top he can simply take it and leave the rest.
12. He needs the place where the utensil containing it is standing: therefore he must remove them — Sc. the clean and the unclean — together, whatever their position.
13. So that he has to explain the Mishnah as referring to when the unclean terumah is on top.
14. Sc. the Mishnah infra b.
15. For use. This should be preventively forbidden out of consideration for that which is made fit by means of labour.
16. Since one part is to be removed, it is as though the terumah therein lay separate and distinct, and therefore the whole mixture is fit for use in any case.
17. Se'ahs of hullin.
18. I.e., into another pile of produce.
19. Sc. as though it were all terumah and therefore it can only be neutralized by a hundred times its quantity. Thus he regards the terumah as distinct.
20. E.g., if a se'ah of terumah falls into nine se'ahs of hullin in the first place, and then a se'ah of the mixture falls into another heap of produce, this second se'ah is regarded as containing one tenth of a se'ah of terumah only, and if the second pile contains ten se'ahs it neutralizes it.
21. As in our Mishnah, where this view would result in greater lenience.
22. Hence it is neutralized, but that one se'ah of the whole must be removed.
23. Since here are now two se'ahs of terumah in one hundred of hullin.
24. It is now assumed that his reason is because he regards the first se'ah as lying distinct and apart, and therefore the second se'ah alone is counted, and that too is neutralized.
25. Hence on the contrary, instead of regarding the terumah as a thing apart, he maintains that it becomes entirely one with the hullin.
26. I.e., he may decide to remove a se'ah from one side of the pile and then, without actually removing it, eat from the other. Thus the removing is not essential.

surely he disagrees? For it was taught, R. Judah said: One removes the admixture [of terumah in hullin] when one part [is neutralized] in a hundred and one parts;¹  R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: One casts his eyes at one side and eats from the other?²  — R. Judah's [ruling] goes beyond R. Simeon b. Eleazar's.³ 

MISHNAH. IF A STONE IS ON THE MOUTH OF A CASK [OF WINE], ONE TILTS IT ON A SIDE AND IT FALLS OFF.⁴  IF IT [THE CASK] IS [STANDING] AMONG [OTHER] CASKS,⁵  HE LIFTS IT OUT, TILTS IT ON A SIDE, AND IT FALLS OFF. IF MONEY IS LYING ON A CUSHION, ONE SHAKES THE CUSHION, AND IT FALLS OFF. IF DIRT⁶  IS UPON IT, ONE WIPES IT OFF WITH A RAG;⁷  IF IT IS OF LEATHER,⁸  WATER IS POURED OVER IT UNTIL IT DISAPPEARS.

GEMARA. R. Huna said in Rab's name: They learnt this only where one forgot [it there], but if he placed [it there]. it [the cask] becomes a stand for a forbidden article.

IF IT IS [STANDING] AMONG [OTHER] CASKS, etc. Which Tanna holds that wherever there is something permitted and something forbidden, one must occupy oneself with what is permitted, not with what is forbidden?⁹  — Said Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in R. Johanan's name, It is R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. For we learnt: If one selects beans on a festival, Beth Shammai maintain: He must select the edible [beans] and eat them;¹⁰  whereas Beth Hillel rule: He may select in the usual way¹¹  into his lap or into a plate. Now it was taught, R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: When was this said? When the edible exceeds the non-edible;¹²  but if the non-edible exceeds the edible, all agree that he must select the edible. But here it is analogous to where the edible exceeds the non-edible?¹³ — Since he cannot take [the whole of] the wine, should he desire it, unless he lifts it up, it is analogous to where the non-edible exceeds the edible.¹⁴

IF IT IS [STANDING] AMONG THE CASKS, HE LIFTS IT OUT. It was taught, R. Jose said: If the cask is lying among a store [of casks], or if glassware is lying under it, he lifts it out elsewhere, tilts it on a side, so that it falls off, takes thereof what he requires, and replaces it.

IF MONEY IS LYING ON A CUSHION: R. Hiyya b. Ashi said: They learnt this only where one forgot [it there]; but if he placed [it there],¹⁵  it [the cushion] became a stand for a forbidden article. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said: They learnt this only when it is required for itself; but if its place is required, one may remove it [the cushion] while they [the coins] are yet upon it. And thus did Hiyya b. Rab of Difti¹⁶  recite: They learnt this only when it is required for itself; but if its place is required, one may move it while they are yet upon it.

IF MONEY IS LYING ON A CUSHION, ONE SHAKES, etc. R. Oshaia said: If one forgets a purse in a courtyard, he places a loaf or a child thereon and moves it. R. Isaac said: If one forgets a brick in a courtyard, he places a loaf or a child thereon and moves it. R. Judah b. Shila said in R. Assi's name: They once forgot a saddlebag full of money in the street, and went and consulted R. Johanan and he told them, Place a loaf or a child thereon and move it.¹⁷  Mar Zutra said: The law is as all these rulings, where one forgets. R. Ashi said: Even if one forgets, this is still not [permitted], and they permitted [the expedient of] a loaf or a child only in connection with a corpse.¹⁸

Abaye placed a ladle on a pile of sheaves;¹⁹  Raba placed a knife on a young dove²⁰  and handled it. Said R. Joseph: How keen are the rulings of children!²¹  assume that the Rabbis ruled thus when one forgets: but was it said [that it is permitted] at the very outset? Abaye retorted: But that I am a person of importance,²²  would I need a ladle on sheaves: surely they are fit for reclining thereon.²³  Raba retorted: But that I am a person of importance, would I need a knife on a young dove? surely it is fit for me as raw meat.²⁴  Thus the reason is because it is fit as raw meat; but if it were not fit as raw meat it might not [be handled]:²⁵  shall we say that Raba agrees with R. Judah?²⁶  But surely Raba said to his servant, Roast me a duck²⁷  and throw its entrails to a cat?²⁸

1. One hundred and one is stated inclusively.
2. Thus R. Judah insists on actual removal.
3. He agrees with R. Simeon b. Eleazar but adds that since mere intention suffices to make the mixture fit, one can also remove the se'ah on the Sabbath.
4. When he wishes to draw the contents.
5. And the falling stone might cause damage.
6. E.g., secretion, spittle, etc.
7. But not with water, which is forbidden as washing.
8. Which is not such as is washed with water.
9. As here: one must not handle the stone, a forbidden article, but the whole cask, which is a permitted object, even though the stone lies upon it.
10. Leaving the non-edible beans in the bowl.
11. I.e., he can remove the non-edible beans, if he wishes.
12. Then Beth Hillel permit the latter to be picked out, because it is less trouble.
13. For there is more trouble in lifting out the whole cask than in simply removing the stone.
14. Eventually he must lift out the cask and tilt it in order to obtain the wine at the very bottom; hence there is no more trouble in lifting it out now.
15. Before the Sabbath.
16. V. p. 35, n. 5.
17. Less than four cubits at a time, since carrying in a street is forbidden; or, within a barrier formed by a chain of persons, v. 'Er. 43b.
18. V. supra 30b.
19. To handle the latter in virtue of the former.
20. Killed, raw and unsalted.
21. Said sarcastically.
22. Who sets an example.
23. Hence I may hand]e them in any case, and I place the ladle there merely because I do not wish to encourage laxity of observance.
24. Which used to be eaten in his days.
25. Though it would still be fit for dogs; thus fitness for dogs does not permit handling by humans.
26. Who holds the view expressed in the preceding note; v. Bez. 6b.
27. It was a festival.
28. Thus he permitted him to handle it, though unfit for human beings just then, entrails not being eaten on Festivals: nevertheless on the previous day, before the festival commenced, they would have been fit for human beings too.