Shabbat 123a (קכג.) — the Talmud in English

He holds

that the tanna of our Mishna

permits an object whose primary use is for a forbidden purpose when it is needed for its own use.

Abaye challenged Rabba:

We learned in the Tosefta:

A mortar

in which garlic is pounded [and it is a utensil whose primary use is for a forbidden purpose, since pounding garlic violates the prohibition of grinding].

If there is garlic in it, it may be carried,

the mortar being carried along with the garlic.

But if not, it may not be carried,

even to sit on it, since it is an object whose primary use is for a forbidden purpose. We see that an object whose primary use is for a forbidden purpose may not be carried for its own use.

Rabba said to him: Who is the author of this

beraita?

It is Rabbi Nehemiah, who says: No utensil,

even one whose primary use is permitted,

may be carried except for its designated use,

its specific use. Therefore it prohibited carrying the mortar even for its own use.

He challenged him:

We learned in the Mishna in Beitza:

Beit Shammai say: One may not take the pestle -

[a utensil designated for pounding things that may not be pounded on a Festival,] even

to cut meat on it. And Beit Hillel permit

on account of the joy of the Festival.

And we learned in a beraita:

And Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree

that

that if one cut meat on it, it is forbidden to carry it,

even for its own use, since this does not involve the need for the joy of the Festival. We see that an object whose primary use is for a forbidden purpose may not be carried for its own use.

And we explain:

Rabba considered

Rabba

answering him

—Abaye—that the beraita follows the view

of Rabbi Nehemiah,

who says that a utensil may be carried only for its designated use, and therefore it is forbidden to carry the pestle.

Once Rabba heard what Rav Ḥinnana bar Shelemya said in the name of Rav: Everyone

—including the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Nehemiah—

agrees with regard to colored rods and shuttles

—tools used by dyers. [And some say they are weaving tools.]

Since

he is particular about them,

the craftsman, that they not become soiled or damaged,

he designates

them

a place

for them and sets them aside so that they will not be used for other purposes. [They therefore have the status of objects set aside because of financial loss.]

So too

with the pestle and mortar,

he designates a place for them

and sets them aside from other uses. Even the Rabbis agree that it is forbidden to carry them, even for their own use, since they have the status of objects set aside because of financial loss.

It was stated: Rav Ḥiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: We learned in our Mishna of a goldsmith’s hammer

, with which it is permitted to crack nuts. Even though a person is particular about it, since its use is by striking on an anvil, he does not set it aside from other uses; and all the more so, a blacksmith’s hammer may be used to crack nuts.

Rav Shemen bar Abba said: We learned of a spice hammer,

with which spices are ground.

The one who says that we learned of a spice hammer

that we learned about

certainly

a hammer

of a goldsmith

may be used to crack nuts, since he is less particular about it.

The one who says

that our Mishna is dealing with

a goldsmith’s hammer, but

a

spice hammer

may not be used to crack nuts, because he

is particular about it,

so that it will not be ruined through other uses.

We learned in the Mishna:

The spindle and the shuttle

and so on.

The Sages taught: An unripe fig -

[a fig that has not fully ripened]

that one buried in straw

on Friday in order to complete its ripening.

And a partially baked cake -

[a cake half of which was baked]

that one buried in coals

on Friday in order to complete its baking. The straw has the status of an object set aside, since it is ordinarily designated for making plaster, and the coals likewise have the status of an object set aside.

If part of

the unripe fig or the partially baked cake

is exposed, it is permitted to carry it

on Shabbat. Since he can grasp it at its exposed place, this does not even constitute indirect carrying, for he lifts the cake or fig by its exposed part, and the straw or coals fall away on their own.

But if not,

if the unripe fig and the partially baked cake are not exposed,

it is forbidden to carry it,

since even indirect carrying of an object set aside is forbidden on Shabbat.

Rabbi Elazar ben Tadai says: One may insert the spindle or shuttle, and they are shaken off on their own.

This is only indirect carrying, and not direct carrying of the object set aside, and it is permitted.

Rav Naḥman said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar ben Tadai.

And we challenge this:

Does this mean that Rav Naḥman holds that indirect carrying is not considered carrying?

But Rav Naḥman said: With regard to this radish,

a detached radish that one buried in the ground with part of it exposed:

from top to bottom,

if the upper part of the radish, which is its wider part, is exposed,

it is permitted

to pull the radish by its upper part and remove all of it, since there is no carrying of the earth here at all.

But

from bottom to top,

if the upper side of the radish, which is the wider side, is below and covered with earth,

it is forbidden.

This is because he moves the earth when he pulls out the entire radish, even though he moves the earth only indirectly, through moving the radish. We may infer from this that Rav Naḥman holds that indirect carrying is considered carrying.

And we answered:

He retracted

—

Rav Naḥman retracted from that statement.

Even from bottom to top it is permitted, because indirect carrying is not considered carrying.

We learned in the Mishna:

A hand needle, to remove with it

and so on.

Rava son of Rabba sent to Rav Yosef: Let our master teach us: A needle from which its eye has been removed

—the hole through which the thread is threaded—

or its point,

its sharp end,

what is

the law concerning carrying it? Has it lost its status as a utensil?

He said to him: You have learned it

in our

Mishna -

a hand needle may be carried in order

to remove a thorn with it.

What difference does a thorn care about between

a

perforated needle and one that is not perforated?

Since we see that the needle serves to remove a thorn, even a needle whose eye has been removed still has the status of a utensil.

He challenged him: A needle from which its eye or point has been removed is pure.

This clearly indicates that it has lost its status as a utensil and is therefore pure. The same applies with regard to carrying: the needle has lost its status as a utensil, and it is forbidden to carry it.

Abaye said: Are you comparing ritual impurity to Shabbat?!

There is no comparison between ritual impurity and Shabbat.

With regard to ritual impurity—

we require a functional utensil

whose use as a utensil remains possible; and once its eye or point has been removed, and it can no longer be used for sewing, which is the purpose for which a needle is intended, its status as a utensil is nullified.

But

with regard to Shabbat, something fit

for use

is required. And that

whose point has been removed

also

although it is not fit for sewing, is nevertheless

fit for extracting a thorn with it.

Rava said: The one who raises the objection

by deriving an objection from ritual impurity with regard to Shabbat

raises it properly!

Since with regard to ritual impurity it is not a utensil—

it is not considered a utensil when its point or eye has been removed—

with regard to Shabbat as well, it is not a utensil

and it is forbidden to move it, even though it is fit for extracting a thorn.

A challenge was raised: A needle, whether it has an eye or whether it does not

that has no hole,

it is permitted to move it on Shabbat. And they said

that one must have

an eye only with regard to

receiving

ritual impurity alone.

And we see that no comparison is made between ritual impurity and Shabbat.

Abaye interpreted it in accordance

with the words of

Rava

[who did not distinguish between ritual impurity and Shabbat]: This beraita

concerns unfinished

needles that are intended to have eyes pierced in them;

we are dealing

with a case in which the manufacture of the needle has not yet been completed, until its eye is pierced. Therefore, with regard to ritual impurity, since the utensil is not complete, the needle does not receive ritual impurity. But with regard to Shabbat,

sometimes he changes his mind

and decides

about them

to leave them as they are and not pierce them,

and makes them utensils

and turns them into utensils for extracting a thorn, and therefore it is permitted to move them. [For anywhere that a person can make them into utensils through his intention, that is sufficient with regard to moving them on Shabbat.] Tosafot.

But

with regard to an intact needle that broke,

where its eye or point has been removed, a person

does not keep it in order to extract a thorn with it. Rather, he

throws it among the scrap

and its status as a utensil is nullified even with regard to Shabbat, and it is forbidden to move it.

Arranging and adjusting a newborn’s limbs

after birth.

Rav Naḥman prohibits

on Shabbat, as it resembles repairing.

And Rav Sheshet permits.