Shabbat 123b (קכג:) — the Talmud in English

Rav Naḥman said: From where do I say this

that it is prohibited?

As we learned:

One may not make

an emetic on Shabbat

It is prohibited to drink liquids that cause one to vomit what he has eaten so that he can eat a great deal on Shabbat, as this is considered preparing a person. And we see from this that anything resembling the preparation of a person on Shabbat is prohibited; and the same applies to setting an infant’s bones, which is prohibited.

And Rav Sheshet

would say to you:

There

in the case of the emetic,

it is not customary

It is not customary to do this, and therefore it is considered preparing a person on Shabbat.

Here,

in the case of setting an infant’s bones,

it is customary

to do so, and it is therefore like feeding and giving drink to the infant, and it is permitted.

Rav Sheshet said: From where do I say

that setting an infant’s bones is permitted?

As we learned: A hand needle

may be moved in order

to remove a thorn with it.

And we see from this that it is permitted to remove the thorn, for preparing a person with an object that is not medicinal, where there is no concern that one may grind ingredients, is permitted; and the same applies to setting an infant’s bones, which is permitted.

And Rav Naḥman

would say to you:

There,

the thorn is not attached to the body; rather,

it is lodged

there, and removing it is not considered preparing a person.

Here,

in the case of setting an infant’s bones,

it is not lodged

The bones are not merely situated there but are attached, and arranging and joining them resembles an act of labor.

Mishna:

An olive rod. [After the olives were harvested, they would place them in a vessel called a maʿatan so that they would warm and soften, making it easier for their oil to flow. After some time, they would check, by means of the oily substance that had accumulated on a rod designated for this purpose, whether the olives had softened and were ready to be taken to the olive press.]

After the olives were harvested, they would place the olives in a vessel [a vat] so that they would become warm and soften, and their oil would be easy to extract. After some time, they would examine, by means of the oiliness that had accumulated on the reed designated for this purpose, whether the olives had softened and were fit to be taken to the oil press].

If it has a knot at its top

like a stopper made from a reed, on which the oil accumulates [and with which they would check the oiliness of the olives],

it is susceptible to ritual impurity,

as the knot causes it to be considered a vessel.

But if not,

it is not considered a vessel and

is not susceptible to ritual impurity.

Whether

it has a knot

or whether

it does not have a knot,

it may be moved on Shabbat,

as it is considered a vessel with regard to moving it, since it is fit for turning over the olives with it.

Gemara:

And we raised a difficulty:

Why

is the rod susceptible to ritual impurity when it has a knot? Even if it is indeed called a vessel, nevertheless,

it is a flat wooden vessel

a wooden vessel that has no receptacle. [And even if the rod is hollow, the hollow is not made to receive anything inside it, and it is not considered a vessel that has a receptacle.]

And flat wooden vessels

we have established that they

are not susceptible to ritual impurity.

What is the reason

they are not susceptible to ritual impurity?

We require it to resemble a sack.

For it is written in the passage concerning the sheratzim: “Of every wooden vessel, or garment, or leather, or sack.” Wood is juxtaposed to a sack: Just as a sack can be moved whether full or empty, and a sack has a receptacle, so too wood must have a receptacle.

And we answer:

A tanna taught in the name of Rabbi Neḥemya: When he turns over the olives, he turns it over and sees in it.

By turning over the rod, he sees the oil remaining beside the stopper and knows whether the olives are already fit for the olive press; this is considered as though the rod has a receptacle. But if it has no knot, the oil is not visible in it, and the rod has no receptacle.

Mishna:

Rabbi Yosei says: All vessels

whose designated use is for a prohibited activity

may be moved

on Shabbat for the sake of their use.

Except for a large saw,

the

large

saw with which beams are cut,

and a plowshare

with which the furrow is made in the plow’s trench. For people are particular about these utensils, not to perform any other labor with them, and designate a place for them so that they will not be damaged. They are therefore muktzeh due to financial loss and may not be moved for the sake of their use.

Gemara:

Rav Naḥman said: This laundry sprinkler

a launderer’s utensil with holes through which water is sprinkled onto garments. [And some explain that it is a utensil beneath which incense [perfumes] is placed, and through the holes the garments above it are perfumed],

resembles a plowshare

as people are also particular that it not be damaged, and its status is that of muktzeh due to financial loss.

Abaye said: A shoemaker’s sword,

a shoemaker’s knife,

and a butcher’s knife,

a knife with which meat is cut at the butcher’s shop,

and a carpenter’s ax,

the carpenter’s adze,

resemble a plowshare,

as a person is particular not to use them for other purposes, and they are muktzeh due to financial loss.

The Sages taught:

Initially [in the days of Neḥemya, when they decreed restrictions on moving utensils, upon seeing that people were treating the prohibitions of Shabbat lightly, as will be explained below],

in the days of Nehemiah, when they decreed concerning moving vessels after they saw that people were treating the prohibitions of Shabbat lightly, as we explain below],

they would say

only

three utensils may be moved on Shabbat. All other utensils were considered muktzeh. ,

All other vessels had the status of set-aside objects. ,

A cutter for a fig cake

—a utensil with which the fig cake is cut.

And a skimmer for a cooking pot

—a large spoon with which the scum is removed from the pot.

And a small knife on the table

with which food is cut at the table. These utensils are used frequently on Shabbat, and therefore they permitted moving them on Shabbat.

And when they saw that people had again begun to observe the prohibition of Shabbat somewhat carefully,

they permitted

moving more utensils.

And they again permitted

more utensils when the people became more careful,

and they again permitted. [

As will be explained below.]

Until they said: All utensils may be moved on Shabbat except for the large saw and the plowshare.

And we explain:

What is the meaning of “they permitted, and they again permitted, and they again permitted”?

Abaye said: They permitted an object whose designated use

whose primary use on weekdays

is for a permitted purpose, for the sake of its use,

but not for the sake of its place.

And they again permitted an object whose designated use is for a permitted purpose

also

for the sake of its place,

when he needs to use the place where the utensil is lying.

And they again permitted

also

an object whose designated use is for a prohibited purpose for the sake of its use, but not for the sake of its place

They permitted moving it, as this is not considered a valid need.

And still,

a small utensil that can be moved

with one hand may not—

it is permitted to move it, but a utensil that can be moved

with both hands, they did not

permit moving it.

Until they said: All utensils may be moved on Shabbat, even with both hands.

But it is prohibited to move an object whose designated use is for a prohibited purpose for the sake of its place.

Rava said to him: Since the baraita teaches “they permitted,”

in the baraita,

what difference is there whether it is for the sake of its use or for the sake of its place?

Just as they permitted moving it for the sake of its use, so they permitted moving it for the sake of its place, as both are considered a need.

Rather, Rava said: They permitted an object whose designated use is for a permitted purpose, both for the sake of its use and for the sake of its place. And they again permitted

moving it also

from the sun to the shade,

so that the utensil would not be damaged, even though he does not need it at that moment.

And they again permitted an object whose designated use is for a prohibited purpose for the sake of its use, but not for the sake of its place,

but

not from the sun to the shade.

And still,

only a utensil that can be moved

by one person may not,

but a large utensil that can be moved

by two people may not. Until they said: All utensils may be moved on Shabbat,

and

even by two people.

Abaye raised an objection

to Rava: We learned in a baraita,

“A mortar: If there is garlic in it, one may move it; but if not, one may not move it.”

Granted, according to Abaye, it can be established as referring to a case where he needs its place. But according to Rava, who permits moving it even when he needs its place, why did the baraita prohibit moving it? And we answer:

Here, with what are we dealing

in the baraita? When he moves it

from the sun to the shade,

as Rava agrees in this case that an object whose designated use is for a prohibited purpose may not be moved from the sun to the shade.

He raised an objection:

We learned in a baraita, and Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai agree

that if one cut meat on it

on the anvil [which is a utensil designated for pounding prohibited substances],

meat

on a Festival,

it is prohibited to move it.

And we see that an object whose designated use is for a prohibited purpose may not be moved for the sake of its place.

And we answer:

Here too,

this baraita is speaking of a case where he wants to move the anvil

from the sun to the shade,

as Rava agrees in this case that it is prohibited.

Rabbi Ḥanina said: This Mishna was taught in the days of Neḥemya son of Hacaliah,

the Mishna cited above, which states that initially they decreed and permitted moving only three utensils. This was because they saw that people were treating the observance of Shabbat lightly, as

it is written

in the Book of Neḥemya:

“In those days I saw in Judah people treading winepresses on Shabbat and bringing in heaps of grain.”

Rabbi Elazar said: The Mishnayot concerning

the

peg, the rods, the glostera, and the mortar,

which were prohibited to move,

were all taught before the permission concerning utensils,

before utensils were permitted according to Abaye for the sake of their use, and according to Rava even for the sake of their place,

were taught.

The peg! As we learned

in tractate Menaḥot:

“Neither the arranging of the pegs”

which they would place in the arrangement of the leḥem ha-panim, between one loaf and the next, in order to separate them so that the loaves would not become moldy,

“nor their removal”

of the pegs from the old arrangement that had been arranged on the previous Shabbat

overrides Shabbat.

For although the arrangement of the leḥem ha-panim was performed on Shabbat, nevertheless, on Friday the koen would enter and remove the pegs; on Shabbat he would remove the old arrangement and arrange the new one without the pegs; and on Saturday night he would enter and place the pegs between the loaves.

And this Mishna, which prohibited moving these pegs despite the fact that their designated use was for a permitted purpose, was taught before the first permission, when even an object whose designated use was for a permitted purpose was prohibited to move for the sake of its use.

The rods! As we learned

in tractate Pesaḥim:

“There were thin, smooth rods there,”

in the Temple courtyard, on which they would spread out the flesh of the Paschal offering when Passover fell on a weekday.

“And he places it”

the rod

on his shoulder and on his fellow’s shoulder, and hangs

the Paschal offering

and flays it.