שבת קכ״ג ב:ט״ז-קכ״ד א:א׳

afiktoizin, a drug to induce vomiting, on Shabbat. Apparently, actions associated with treating the body on Shabbat are prohibited. And Rav Sheshet explains: There, with regard to a drug to induce vomiting, drinking it for any reason other than medicinal purposes is atypical. Here, aligning the limbs of an infant is typical conduct not undertaken solely for medicinal purposes.,Rav Sheshet said: From where do I say that this is the halakha? As we learned in the mishna: One is permitted to take an ordinary hand needle used for sewing clothes to extract a thorn with it. Apparently, some curative actions are permitted and there is no concern that they are similar to completing the production process of a vessel. And Rav Naḥman objects: That is no proof, as there, the thorn is merely deposited in the skin and it is not an organic part of the body. Removing a foreign object from the body effects no fundamental change in the body. Here, in the case of aligning the limbs, it is not merely tending to a foreign object deposited in the body; rather it involves effecting a fundamental change in the body itself, which is both a curative act and one similar to completing the production process.,MISHNA: A reed that is used for turning olives in a bundle, if there is a cork-like knot at the top of it, it can become ritually impure as a vessel, and if not, it cannot become ritually impure, because it is not a vessel. In either case, it may be moved on Shabbat for use in a permitted action.,GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why would this reed become impure? It is in the category of flat wooden vessels without a receptacle, and the governing principle in that case is: Flat wooden vessels do not become ritually impure. What is the reason for this? We require an object similar to a sack. The halakhot of ritual impurity are derived from the sack mentioned in the Torah as an example of an item that can become ritually impure. If it lacks a receptacle, it is unlike that sack and it cannot become ritually impure. To explain this halakha, the Gemara cites that which was taught in a baraita in the name of Rabbi Neḥemya: At the time that one turns over the olives with the reed, he turns over the reed and sees inside it. There is a small cavity at the end of the reed near the knot. He looks there to ascertain whether it has filled with oil, which would indicate that the olives are ready to be placed in the olive press. That cavity is a type of small receptacle, which renders the reed fit to become ritually impure.,MISHNA: Rabbi Yosei says: All utensils may be moved on Shabbat except for a large saw and the blade of a plow. Since they must be sharp and ready for use and there is concern that they might be damaged, one sets them aside from his consciousness and they may not be used for any other purpose.,GEMARA: Rav Naḥman says: A launderer’s sprinkler is considered to be like the blade of a plow. Moving it is prohibited on Shabbat because one sets it aside from use out of concern that it might be damaged.,Abaye says: A shoemaker’s knife, and a butcher’s knife, and a carpenter’s drawknife are considered to be like the blade of a plow, because their owners set them aside from use out of concern that they might be damaged.,The Sages taught in the Tosefta: Initially, they would say that only three utensils may be moved on Shabbat: A knife for cutting a cake of dried figs, and a combined spoon and fork (ge’onim) to clean the filth [zuhama listeran] of a pot, and a small knife that is on the table. Each of these items is required for eating and may be used, and it had been prohibited to move any other utensil. However, over the generations, when the Rabbis saw that Jewish people were vigilant in observing the prohibitions of Shabbat, they permitted, and then they permitted again, and then they permitted again, until they said in the last mishna: All utensils may be moved on Shabbat except for a large saw and the blade of a plow.,The Gemara asks: What are the stages described in the Tosefta: They permitted, and then they permitted, and then they permitted?,Abaye says: Initially, they permitted moving an object whose primary function is for a permitted use, for the purpose of utilizing the object itself to perform a permitted action. And then they permitted moving an object whose primary function is for a permitted use, for the purpose of sitting in or utilizing its place. And then they permitted moving an object whose primary function is for a prohibited use, for the purpose of utilizing the object itself to perform a permitted action, yes; however, for the purpose of utilizing its place, no. And still, utensils that can be held in one of his hands, yes, they may be moved; however, utensils that can only be held in his two hands, no, they may not be moved, in order to signify that there is a prohibition to move certain items. This prohibition remained intact until they said: All utensils may be moved on Shabbat, and even those that can only be held in both hands.,Rava said to him: After all, it was taught in the Tosefta: They permitted, what difference is there to me if it is for the purpose of utilizing the object itself, and what difference is there to me if it is for the purpose of utilizing its place; why introduce distinctions that are not explicitly stated in the Tosefta? Rather, Rava said that it should be explained as follows: Initially, they permitted moving an object whose primary function is for a permitted use, both for the purpose of utilizing the object itself and for the purpose of sitting in or utilizing its place. And then they permitted moving that object from the sun into the shade. And then they permitted moving an object whose primary function is for a prohibited use, both for the purpose of utilizing the object itself and for the purpose of sitting in or utilizing its place, yes; however, moving that object from the sun into the shade, no, they did not permit it. And still, utensils that can be carried by one person, yes, they may be moved; however, utensils that can only be carried by two people, no, they may not be moved. This prohibition remained intact until they said: All utensils may be moved on Shabbat, and even those that can only be carried by two people.,Abaye raised a challenge to Rava’s opinion from that which was taught: With regard to a mortar, if it has garlic in it, one may move it on Shabbat, and if not, one may not move it on Shabbat. According to Rava’s opinion that all utensils may be moved, why is it prohibited to move the mortar? Rava responded: With what we are dealing here? We are dealing with a case of moving the mortar from the sun to the shade. Abaye raised a challenge to Rava’s opinion from that which was taught: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that if one cut meat on it for the purpose of a Festival that it is then prohibited to move it because there is no further need for it on the Festival. According to Rava’s opinion, all utensils may be moved. He answered him: Here, too, we are dealing with a case of moving the mortar from the sun to the shade.,Rabbi Ḥanina said: This mishna was taught in the days of Nehemiah, son of Hacaliah, a period when many stringent decrees were issued with regard to Shabbat prohibitions, as it is written: “In those days I saw in Judea some treading winepresses on Shabbat and bringing in heaps of grain and lading donkeys with them; as also wine, grapes, figs, and all manner of burdens which are brought into Jerusalem on the Shabbat day. I forewarned them on that day when they sold food” (Nehemiah 13:15). Since the people treated the sanctity of Shabbat with disdain, Nehemiah instituted many stringencies with regard to all the halakhot of Shabbat in order to educate the people to observe Shabbat.,Rabbi Elazar said: The mishnayot that deal with the topics of rods, poles, the thick end [gelostera] of the bolt in a door lock, and a mortar were all taught before permission to move utensils on Shabbat was adopted. At that time, moving most utensils was still prohibited and only a small number of utensils whose primary function was for a permitted use were permitted to be moved. The Gemara cites the relevant mishnayot.,Rods: Golden rods were placed between the loaves of showbread in the Temple to support the loaves and to aerate them. At that time, moving the rods was prohibited because they were considered to be set-aside, as we learned in a mishna: Neither arranging the rods nor moving them overrides the prohibition of set-aside on Shabbat.,And the source for the matter of poles is as we learned in a mishna: There were thin, smooth poles in the Temple, and every Passover eve one places the pole on his shoulder and on the shoulder of another, and suspends the Paschal lamb on it and flays its hide. And Rabbi Elazar said: With regard to the fourteenth of Nisan, the day that the Paschal lamb is sacrificed, that occurred on Shabbat, they would not use the poles, as a conspicuous reminder that it was Shabbat. Instead, one places his hand on the shoulder of another, and the other’s hand on his shoulder, and suspends the lamb and flays its hide.,The source for the thick end of a bolt is as we learned in a mishna: With regard to a bolt used in a door lock which has a thick end at the head of the bolt, Rabbi Yehoshua says: One may drag it from this doorway and hang it in another doorway on Shabbat, but he may not move it with his hands, because it was considered to be set-aside. Rabbi Tarfon says: It is like all the other utensils and may be moved in a courtyard.,The case of a mortar is that which we said above. Rabba said: From what does that conclusion ensue? Perhaps, actually I could say to you that these mishnayot were taught after permission to move utensils on Shabbat was adopted, and nevertheless, the prohibitions can be understood. With regard to the rods for the showbread, what is the reason that they are used? They are used due to concern that the bread will decay. In that brief period until the conclusion of Shabbat it will not decay. With regard to poles, why may they not be used on Passover eve? It is prohibited because it is possible to flay the lamb in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. Use of the pole is superfluous, and therefore it is set-aside.,In the case of the thick end of the bolt in the door, why was it prohibited to move it by hand? It was prohibited in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yanai, as Rabbi Yanai says: We are dealing with a courtyard for which a joining of courtyards [eiruv] was not established. Rabbi Yehoshua holds that inside the doorway is considered to be like inside the house, and therefore, he is moving utensils of the houses in the courtyard. Since there is no joining of the courtyards, one may not move a vessel from the house to the courtyard. And Rabbi Tarfon holds that inside the doorway is considered to be like outside the house, and therefore, he is moving utensils of the courtyard in the courtyard, which is permitted.,With regard to a mortar, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya, who holds that a vessel may only be moved on Shabbat for the purpose of its designated use.,MISHNA: All vessels may be moved for a specific purpose and not for a specific purpose. Rabbi Neḥemya says: Vessels may only be moved for a specific purpose.,GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: For a specific purpose, and what is the meaning of: Not for a specific purpose?,Rabba said: For a specific purpose means: Moving an object whose primary function is for a permitted use for the purpose of utilizing the object itself. Not for a specific purpose means: Moving an object whose primary function is for a permitted use for the purpose of utilizing its place. And an object whose primary function is for a prohibited use, for the purpose of utilizing the object itself, yes, it is permitted; for the purpose of utilizing its place, no, it is prohibited. And Rabbi Neḥemya came to say: And even an object whose primary function is for a permitted use, moving it for the purpose of utilizing the object itself, yes; for the purpose of utilizing its place, no. Rava said to him: Do you call for the purpose of utilizing its place, not for a specific purpose? It is for a purpose.,Rather, Rava said: For a specific purpose means: Moving an object whose primary function is for a permitted use both for the purpose of utilizing the object itself and for the purpose of utilizing its place. Not for a specific purpose means: Moving it even from the sun to the shade. And an object whose primary function is for a prohibited use, both for the purpose of utilizing the object itself and for the purpose of utilizing its place, yes, it is permitted; moving it from the sun to the shade, no, it is prohibited. And Rabbi Neḥemya came to say: Even an object whose primary function is for a permitted use, moving it for the purpose of utilizing the object itself and for the purpose of utilizing its place, yes, it is permitted; moving it from the sun to the shade, no, it is prohibited.,It is told that Rav Safra and Rav Aḥa bar Huna and Rav Huna bar Ḥanina sat together and they sat and they said: According to Rabba’s explanation in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya that it is prohibited to move an object whose primary function is for a permitted use for the purpose of utilizing its place, these empty bowls, how do we carry them? Rav Safra said to them: You may move them, just as is the case of a chamber pot containing waste that may be moved because it is disgusting.,Abaye said this same matter to Rabba: According to the Master’s explanation in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya, these empty bowls, how do we carry them? He said to him: Our colleague Rav Safra interpreted it: Just as is the case of a chamber pot.,Abaye raised an objection to Rava’s opinion from that which was taught: With regard to a mortar, if it has garlic in it, one may move it on Shabbat, and if not, one may not move it on Shabbat. According to Rava’s opinion that all utensils may be moved, why is it prohibited to move the mortar? Rava responded: With what we are dealing here? We are dealing with a case of moving the mortar from the sun to the shade, which Rava prohibited. Abaye raised an objection to Rava’s opinion from that which was taught: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that if one cut meat on it for the purpose of the Festival that it is then prohibited to move it because there is no further need for it on the Festival. According to Rava’s opinion, all utensils may be moved. He answered him: Here, too, we are dealing with a case of moving the mortar from the sun to the shade.,And Abaye raised another objection with regard to that which we learned in a mishna: One may not prop a pot with a piece of wood, and so too, one may not prop a door on a piece of wood. Isn’t a piece of wood on a Festival an object whose primary function is for a permitted use, since it is permitted to move it to light an oven? Apparently, there is an opinion that moving an object whose primary function is for a permitted use, both for the purpose of utilizing the object itself and for the purpose of utilizing its place is prohibited, and according to Rabba, even Rabbi Neḥemya does not hold that this is so. Rava answers: There, what is the reason for the prohibition? It is because on Shabbat it is an object whose primary function is for a prohibited use. Since the wood is set aside from use on Shabbat, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting moving it on a Festival, due to Shabbat.,And if you say: Moving the wood should be permitted on Shabbat itself because an object whose primary function is for a prohibited use is permitted both for the purpose of utilizing the object itself and for the purpose of utilizing its place, that assertion is rejected. This ruling, which permits moving an object whose primary use is prohibited, applies only in a case where the status of a vessel applies to it; in a case where the status of a vessel does not apply to it, no, it is prohibited.,The Gemara asks: And do we issue decrees prohibiting actions on Festivals due to the fact that they are prohibited on Shabbat? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: One may drop fruits from the roof through a skylight on a Festival, but not on Shabbat. Apparently, the Sages do not prohibit on a Festival all of the actions that are prohibited on Shabbat.,The Gemara asks on the contrary: And do we not issue decrees on a Festival due to Shabbat? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: The only difference between a Festival and Shabbat is with regard to the preparation of food alone. In all other matters the Sages established that the halakhot of Shabbat and Festivals are the same.,Rav Yosef says: This is not difficult. This mishna, which rules that it is prohibited, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer; that mishna, which rules that it is permitted, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. As it was taught in a baraita: It is prohibited to slaughter a mother animal and its offspring on the same day, as it is stated: “You shall not slaughter it and its offspring both in one day” (Leviticus 22:28). With regard to it and its offspring that fell into a pit on a Festival, Rabbi Eliezer says: One may raise the first in order to slaughter it, and then slaughter it; and with regard to the second one, one may provide it sustenance in its place in the pit so that it will not die. Rabbi Yehoshua says: One may raise the first in order to slaughter it, and then reconsider and not slaughter it, and then employ artifice and say that he reconsidered and wants to slaughter the other, and raise the second. If he so desires, he slaughters this one; if he so desires, he slaughters that one. Apparently, Rabbi Yehoshua permits certain actions on a Festival due to financial considerations, and does not issue decrees in those cases.,The Gemara rejects this: From what does that conclusion ensue? Perhaps Rabbi Eliezer only stated that he may not raise the second animal there, in a case where it is possible to save the animal by feeding it in the pit; however, in a case where it is impossible to save it by feeding it in the pit, no, he would permit raising the animal.,Alternatively, Rabbi Yehoshua only said that he may raise the second animal in a case where it is possible to employ artifice; however, in a case where it is not possible to employ artifice, no, he would not permit doing so.,Rather Rav Pappa said: This is not difficult. This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, and that mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. As we learned in a mishna that Beit Shammai say: