Shabbat 142a (קמב.) — the Talmud in English

And we challenge this:

If so,

why specifically

[why is the case here specifically] when there is a

stone

in the infant’s hand?

Even

when there is a

dinar

in his hand,

also

it should be permitted because of the danger of illness!

Apparently [

and why?]

Rava said: They taught

that it is permitted to carry the infant together with whatever he is holding

, only in the case of a stone. But

if the infant was holding

a dinar, it is prohibited!

And we answer: With regard to a

stone,

they permitted it because

if it falls

from the infant’s hand,

his father will not come to retrieve it [

his father will not come to pick it up]. But with regard to a

dinar,

they did not permit it, because

if it falls, his father will come to retrieve it.

Carrying with one’s hands is more stringent than carrying by means of a permitted object, and when the Sages were concerned that one might carry with his hands, they were stringent even in a case where there is concern for an illness that does not involve danger, and it is prohibited to hold the hand of an infant who is walking on his own when he is holding a dinar in his other hand

. A beraita was taught in accordance with Rava’s opinion:

a.

One who carries his garments [

his clothing]

folded and placed on his shoulder, and

likewise one who carries

his sandals and his rings in his hand

rather than on his fingers

, is liable,

because he did not carry them in the ordinary manner of wearing.

But if he was wearing them, he is exempt,

and it is permitted even initially.

b.

One who carries a person with his garments upon him, and his sandals on his feet,

and his rings on his hands

on his fingers,

is exempt

with regard to carrying the person, because a living person carries himself, and the person’s garments and ornaments are subordinate to him.

But if he carried them as they are

in the hands of the person being carried,

the one carrying him is liable

for carrying them.

And we do not say that the person being carried carried them, rather than the one carrying him. And this is in accordance with what Rava said.

We learned in our Mishna: A person may carry

a basket with a stone inside it and so forth.

And we challenge this:

Why? Let the basket be a base for an object

that is prohibited

and itself become prohibited as muktze!

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Here we are dealing with a basket full of fruit,

which is a base for both a prohibited object and a permitted object, and in a case such as this, where the permitted object is more important than the prohibited object, we regard the base as serving primarily the permitted object, and it does not become muktze.

And we challenge this:

Let him throw out the fruit and throw out the stone

and

take the fruit with his hands [

and gather the fruit with his hands] from the ground, since the law is that when a muktze object is resting on a permitted object, and the permitted object does not acquire the status of a base for a particular reason and may be carried, one must first cast the muktze object off it [if possible], before carrying it, as explained in the following Mishna

!

And we answer: The Mishna must be understood

as Rabbi Ela’i said that Rav

explained the continuation of the Mishna: It is referring to fruit that becomes soiled, such as figs and berries, which become soiled when thrown onto the ground.

Here too—

it is referring to fruit that becomes soiled,

which would spoil if thrown onto the ground. And in a situation of need, the Sages did not require one to shake off the muktze object.

We nevertheless challenge this:

Let him shake the fruit

to the side within the basket, and once the stone is separated from it, he can shake the stone out!

Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav:

Here

we are dealing with a defective basket [

that has a hole in its side or bottom]

where the stone itself forms a wall of the basket.

If he throws it out, the fruit will fall from the basket through the hole. Since there is no possibility of throwing out the muktze object, it is permitted to carry the basket together with it.

We learned in the Mishna:

One may carry impure teruma

together with pure teruma.

Rav Ḥisda said: They taught this only

in a case

where

the

pure

teruma is placed in the basket

below, and

the

impure

teruma is placed

above

it, and it is impossible to take the pure teruma by itself without first carrying the impure teruma. Therefore, they permitted one to carry the entire basket to the table, where he can cast out the fruit and take the pure teruma.

But

if the teruma was

pure above, and

the

impure teruma below—

he takes the pure one and leaves the impure one [

he takes the pure one and leaves the impure one] in the basket, since presumably the Mishna is speaking of the ordinary case, in which pure and impure teruma are not placed together but in separate baskets, and it is possible to take the pure teruma alone, in its basket, from the basket

. And we challenge this:

But

when the

pure teruma is below as well,

is it not possible to avoid carrying the entire basket together with the impure teruma inside it? After all, there is an option

to throw it out, [

to throw all the fruit] onto the ground,

and gather it [

and take the pure fruit] from the ground!

Rabbi Ela’i said that Rav:

Here

we are dealing with fruit that becomes soiled,

which would spoil if it fell onto the ground. When it is impossible to avoid carrying the muktze object, they permitted carrying muktze together with a permitted object.

The beraita raises an objection

to this, as we learned in it:

One may carry impure teruma together with pure teruma and together with non-sacred produce, whether the pure teruma is above and the impure teruma below, or whether the impure teruma is above and the pure teruma below.

This is a refutation of Rav Ḥisda,

who says that it is not permitted when the pure teruma is above!

And we answer:

Rav Ḥisda could have said to you: The Mishna

is speaking of a case where one carries the basket

for its own use,

because he wants to eat the fruit now. When the pure teruma is above, he can take it by itself, and there is no need to carry a muktze object. Whereas the

beraita

is speaking of a case where one carries the basket

for the sake of its place,

and if he takes only the pure teruma, the place occupied by the basket will not be cleared.

And we inquire about this:

What pressure was there on Rav Ḥisda to establish the Mishna as referring to carrying for its own use,

and to establish the Mishna in a particular manner? Let Rav Ḥisda establish it as referring to carrying for the sake of its place, and in any event it would be permitted!

Rava said: The Mishna, in accordance with

Rav Ḥisda’s opinion,

is precise,

as it deals with carrying for the sake of the object itself.

As it teaches in the latter clause: “Coins that are on a cushion—he shakes the cushion, and they fall,”

and afterward he takes the cushion.

And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They taught

that one is required to shake the cushion

only

when he carries it

for its own use,

because he needs the cushion.

But

if he carries it

for the sake of its place,

the place of the cushion,

he carries

the cushion

with the coins still upon it,

since the coins would interfere with his use of the place.

And from the fact that

we establish the

latter clause

as referring to carrying

for its own use, the first clause too

Rav Ḥisda establishes as referring to carrying

for its own use.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: One may even elevate

the medumma by one part in one hundred.

And we inquire about this:

Why

is it permitted to do so?

He is thereby fixing

the food , and this should be prohibited as a precautionary measure lest one come to fix a vessel!

And we answer: Since it is possible to elevate the teruma and designate this as the teruma, therefore, with regard to certain matters we regard the teruma, even while mixed in, as though it were lying separately and identifiable. For

Rabbi Yehuda holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says: Teruma

that is mixed is as though it were

lying intact [

lying in its own place and identifiable within the mixture]. Just as it is permitted to separate teruma from non-sacred produce when the teruma is identifiable, so too it is permitted to elevate the teruma from the medumma.

As we learned: If a se’a of teruma falls into fewer than one hundred

se’ah of non-sacred produce,

and they became mixed,

the entire mixture becomes prohibited to non-priests,

and

a portion

of the mixture

equal in measure to the teruma

falls into another place,

into non-sacred produce.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

That mixture

renders

the non-sacred produce

as though all of it were

teruma

certainly.

There must be one hundred times its amount of non-sacred produce in the second mixture in order to permit it to non-priests. The reason is that we regard the portion that separated from the dimua as though it had been placed separately within the non-sacred produce.

And the Sages say: The medumma

that falls into another place

renders it mixed only according to the proportion

of the teruma. If the teruma constituted one-third of the first mixture, we say that one-third of the portion that fell into the other place is teruma; and if it constituted one-quarter of the mixture, then one-quarter of that portion is teruma as well. It is sufficient for the second mixture to contain one hundred times the teruma portion in order to permit it.

And we reject this:

Perhaps, you heard

Rabbi Eliezer express this reasoning only when it leads

to stringency,

but when it leads

to leniency—

did you hear him express it?

It is difficult to introduce such a principle even as a leniency.

And we say:

Rather, it is he [

Rabbi Yehuda in our Mishna]

who speaks in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

who maintains the reasoning that “teruma is lying intact” even when it leads to leniency.

As we learned: If a se’a of teruma falls into one hundred

measures of non-sacred produce, and one must elevate one se’a in order to permit the mixture,

but he did not manage to elevate

the se’a

before

another

se’a

of teruma fell into the mixture—

it is prohibited,

because at that point the teruma is not nullified in one hundred.

And Rabbi Shimon permits,

apparently, Rabbi Shimon's rationale is that he considers the teruma that must be removed from the mixture as though it were standing separately. Since it is not mixed in, it does not combine with the second teruma that fell, and the second teruma is nullified in the one hundred parts of ordinary produce into which it fell.

And we reject this:

From where

is it established that this is Rabbi Shimon's rationale?

Perhaps, there, this is the point of their disagreement:

For the first tanna holds: Even though

the two terumot fell

one after the other,

and when the first fell it was possible to permit the mixture by removing it, nevertheless, since the mixture was not permitted and the teruma remains in it,

it is considered as though they fell simultaneously: this one fell into fifty, and that one fell into fifty,

and the terumot are not nullified in one hundred.

And Rabbi Shimon holds:

the first teruma

is nullified in one hundred

and becomes ordinary produce.

And this,

the second teruma,

is nullified in one hundred and one

parts of ordinary produce. Although the mixture is prohibited as long as the teruma has not been removed, this is not because the teruma is mixed into it and has not yet been nullified. Rather, since the teruma belongs to a kohen, the Sages prohibited the mixture until the teruma is removed.

Accordingly, we find nowhere an opinion that holds, “teruma is considered present” as a leniency, and Rabbi Shimon holds that the teruma is considered nullified , but one may not permit removing it on Shabbat on the basis of this reasoning, since the mixture remains prohibited to non-kohanim until they remove the teruma, and when they remove it, a rectification is effected.

And we say:

Rather, it is he

[Rabbi Yehuda]

who says in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:

One who wishes to eat from meduma in which the ratio is one part in one hundred need not raise the teruma. It is sufficient that he

directs his attention to this side

and designates that the teruma is located there,

and eats on the other side.

According to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, it is permitted to rectify meduma in this manner on Shabbat, because a rectification effected through thought is not comparable to the labor of rectification on Shabbat , and Rabbi Yehuda likewise holds this.

And we challenge this:

Does Rabbi Yehuda indeed hold

Rabbi Yehuda

like him,

like Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, with regard to removing teruma on Shabbat?