Shabbat 141a (קמא.) — the Talmud in English

“And they place [food] before an animal whose mouth is bad” —

in the case of a cow,

and it is called this because

it has saliva.

And as for that which it teaches: “They take [the food] from before an animal whose mouth is bad,” this is referring to a donkey,

which is called this in this beraita because

it is not particular,

as it does not distinguish the quality of the food,

and it eats

even thorns and thistles.

“And they place [food] before an animal whose mouth is good” —

in the case of a cow, which is particular and eats

only straw and barley. The reason for the ruling is not connected to the fact that the donkey eats thorns; rather, its mouth is called a bad mouth for this reason.

Mishna:

Ordinary straw is muktzeh, because it is designated for fuel. But if its owner had thought of it for animal food or for lying upon, it is not muktzeh. Likewise, if he had lain upon it before Shabbat, even though he had not explicitly thought that the straw would be used for lying upon, its status as muktzeh is removed.

The straw that

was placed

on the bed

not for the purpose of lying upon it —

he may not move it with his hand

so that it will not be compressed but will remain soft and comfortable for lying upon;

rather,

he moves it with his body,

such as with his shoulders, because this is not the usual manner of moving an object and is permitted.

And if

the straw was prepared for

animal food, or if there was a cushion or sheet upon it

and he had lain upon it during the day — it has the status of a utensil, and

he may move it with his hand.

The press of householders,

used for pressing clothes and consisting of two boards between which the clothes are pressed —

they may release

the connection between the boards, which was made by means of a peg inserted into the posts located on the four sides of the press,

but they may not press [the clothes],

because since the clothes will not be ready on Shabbat, he is found to be preparing on Shabbat for the weekday.

And the

press

of launderers —

one may not touch it,

even to release it, because it is tightened extremely firmly, and releasing it appears to constitute dismantling.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

Since the press of launderers was prohibited only because of dismantling, therefore

if it had been loosened

somewhat

before Shabbat —

he releases all of it and removes it,

and there is no prohibition of muktzeh.

Gemara:

Rav Naḥman said: This radish

(a radish) that one buries in the ground with part of it exposed, and which has not taken root, and the one who buried it did not intend to plant it but only to preserve the radish , and he comes to remove it on Shabbat: the ruling depends on how it is positioned. If the radish was lying in the ground with its broad end

above

and its narrow stem

below,

so that the cavity is broad above and narrows toward the bottom —

it is permitted

to remove it, since he does not move earth when removing it.

But if it was positioned with its end

below

and its stem

above —

it is forbidden

to remove it, because when its broad end rises toward the upper part of the cavity, which is narrow, it moves the earth, which is muktzeh.

Rav Adda bar Abba said in the name of the students of Rav: We learned [a Mishna] not in accordance with Rav Naḥman.

For we learned in our Mishna:

The straw that is upon the bed —

one may not move it with his hand, but he moves it with his body. And if it is animal food, or if there is a cushion or sheet upon it —

he may move it with his hand.

Infer from this

that since they permitted moving muktzeh with one’s body,

indirect movement

is not considered movement,

and the Sages prohibited moving muktzeh only in the ordinary manner of moving an object. Accordingly, one who takes a radish and thereby moves earth is not moving the earth in the ordinary manner, and it is permitted—unlike Rav Naḥman.

And we conclude:

Infer from this.

The Gemara cites, incidentally, additional instances in which we find statements of amoraim that the Sages sometimes permitted even ab initio the performance of a Torah labor in an unusual manner.

Rav Yehuda said: With regard to these peppers —

grinding them one by one with the handle of a knife —

it is permitted

(it is permitted to pound peppers one by one with the handle of a knife), because this is considered grinding in an unusual manner, since the usual practice is to pound many together.

But to pound

two —

it is forbidden.

Rava said: Since he makes a change

by grinding with the handle rather than with the implement customarily used for grinding, he need not make an additional change, and

even many as well

is permitted.

The Gemara gathers various halakhot of Shabbat here, although they are not particularly connected to the law of our Mishna.

Rav Yehuda said: One who bathes in water

(one who swims in river water),

should first dry himself, and then ascend

(he should first dry himself and afterward leave the river), because if he leaves before drying himself, there is concern

lest he come to carry

(lest he carry along with his body)

four cubits

in

the riverbank, which is

a karmelit.

And we challenge this:

If so,

that we are concerned about this, we should also prohibit bathing in a river, since

when he descends, he likewise propels [the water] by his force four cubits

(for when he descends, he also propels the water four cubits by his force),

and it is forbidden!

And we answer: With regard to moving

by his force in a karmelit,

they did not issue a decree.

Abaye said, and some say Rav Yehuda said: As for mud that is on his foot —

he may wipe it on the ground,

but he may not wipe it on a wall.

Rava said: What is the reason that he may not

wipe it on a wall, according to the one who prohibits this?

Because it appears as though he is building

and thereby strengthening the wall.

But

surely one does not build in this manner in any ordinary construction; this is comparable to

the construction of a farmer a weak farmers’ construction—

[a weak building constructed by farmers],

it is

the way to strengthen it in this manner!

Rather, Rava said:

the opposite:

he may wipe it on a wall

because there is no reason for concern,

but he may not wipe it on the ground,

because there is reason for concern

lest

while he is occupied with wiping his foot, he forgets that it is Shabbat

and comes to level depressions.

It was stated: Mar, son of Ravina, said: Both this one and that one—

are prohibited;

this one because of building, and that one because of leveling depressions.

Rav Pappa said: Both this one and that one—

are permitted,

because there is no concern that it appears as building, in accordance with Rava; nor is there concern that, as a result, he will forget and level depressions. And even if he levels depressions unintentionally, there is nothing wrong with this, because the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon .

And we clarify:

According to Mar, son of Ravina—

with what may he wipe it?

And we say:

He may wipe it on a beam

that is lying on the ground.

Rava said: A person should not sit

at the mouth of a side-post [a person should not sit beside a side-post of an alley] that

opens onto a public domain

lest it roll

away

an object

into the public domain.

And he may come to carry it in,

because the distinction between an alley and a public domain is not sufficiently recognizable.

And Rava said: A person should not set a jug firmly on the ground

[a person should not properly settle a jug on the ground], since it is heavy . There is concern

lest he come to level depressions .

And Rava said: A person should not press stuffing into the mouth of a jug

[a person should not press stuffing into the mouth of a pitcher],

lest

he come to squeezing,

since the stuffing is wet .

Rav Kahana said: As for mud that is on his garment—

he may rub it from the inside

[he rubs it from its inner side]

but he may not rub it from the outside

in the manner of laundering. Although by Torah law the labor of laundering applies only to water , the Sages were stringent and prohibited rubbing a garment even without water, because it appears like laundering. However, when he rubs it from the inside, they permitted it because it does not appear like laundering.

They raised an objection to it: As for mud that is on his shoe—

he may scrape it with the back of a knife,

but not with its edge, because the edge peels the leather and this constitutes smoothing.

And

mud

that is on his garment—

he may scrape it with his fingernail,

and all the more so with the back of a knife ,

provided that he does not rub it.

And we raise an objection:

Does this not mean

[does it not imply]

that he may not rub it at all?

And we answer:

No. It means that he may not rub it from the outside, but from the inside,

and scraping it with his fingernail is permitted even from the outside.

Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Yannai said: One may scrape a new shoe, but not an old one,

because he smooths it.