Shabbat 142a — the Talmud in English

And we refute:

If so, ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page-column position")

why specifically

[why is it speaking here specifically] when there is a

stone

in the infant’s hand? For

even

when there is a

dinar

in his hand,

also it should be permitted because of the danger of illness!

it should be permitted because of the danger of illness!

Thus

and why?

Rava said: They taught

that it is permitted to carry the infant together with what is in his hand,

only [when it is] a stone. But

if there was in the infant’s hand

a dinar, it is forbidden!

And we answer: With

a stone

they permitted [it], because

if it falls

from the infant’s hand,

his father will not come to bring it

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

a dinar

they did not permit [it], because

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

And carrying with the hands is more stringent than carrying by means of a permitted object, and when the Sages were concerned about carrying with the hands, they were stringent even in a place where there is concern for an illness that involves no danger, and it is forbidden to hold the hand of an infant who is walking on his feet when he is holding a dinar in his other hand .

It was taught in a beraita in accordance with [the opinion of] Rava:

1.

One who takes out his vessels

[his garments]

folded and placed on his shoulder, and

likewise one who takes out

his sandals and his rings in his hand

and not on his fingers,

is liable,

because he did not take them out in the manner of wearing.

But if he was wearing them, he is exempt,

and it is permitted initially.

2.

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

and his rings on his hands

on his fingers,

is exempt

for taking out the person, because a living being carries itself, and the person’s garments and ornaments are subordinate to him.

But if he took them out as they are

in the hands of the person being carried,

the one carrying him is liable

who takes him out.

And we do not say that the person being carried took them out, and not the one carrying him. And this is as Rava said.

We learned in our Mishna: A person may take

a basket, with the stone in it, and so forth.

And we raise an objection:

But why? Let the basket be a base for an object

that is forbidden

and become forbidden itself because of muktzeh!

Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Here, we are dealing with a basket full of fruit,

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

And we raise an objection:

Let him throw out the fruit, and throw out the stone

[for he has the possibility of throwing the fruit and the stone out of the basket],

and let him take them

[and pick up the fruit with his hands] from the ground, since the law is that when a muktzeh object is placed upon a permitted object, and the permitted object does not acquire the status of a base for a certain reason, and it is permitted to carry it, one must throw the muktzeh object off it [if possible] before carrying it, as is explained in the following Mishna!

And we answer: The Mishna should be established

in accordance with [the teaching of] Rabbi Elaai in the name of Rav,

who explained the continuation of the Mishna

as referring to fruit that is spoiled by being thrown,

such as figs and strawberries, which are spoiled when thrown onto the ground.

Here too—

[it is referring] to fruit that is spoiled by being thrown,

which will be ruined if they throw it onto the ground. And where there is a need, the Sages did not require one to shake out the muktzeh.

And we raise a further objection:

Let him shake them out by shaking

the fruit to the side within the basket, and when the stone is separated from them, let him shake it out!

Rabbi Hiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav:

Here

we are dealing with a defective basket

[one that has a hole in its side or at its bottom],

for the stone itself becomes a side [wall] for the basket.

And if he throws it out, the fruit will fall from the basket through the hole. And since it is impossible to throw out the muktzeh, it is permitted to carry the basket together with it.

We learned in the Mishna:

They may carry impure teruma

together with pure [teruma].

Rav Hisda said: They taught [this] only

in a situation

in which

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 carrying the impure [teruma] beforehand. Therefore they permitted him to take the entire basket to the table, and there he will throw 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, for evidently the Mishna speaks of the usual case, in which pure and impure teruma are not placed together but in separate baskets, and it is possible to take the pure teruma by itself, in its basket, from the basket .

And we raise an objection:

And is it so that

when the

pure is below, as well,

behold, it is possible to avoid carrying the entire basket together with the impure teruma in it, since there is a possibility

to throw them out,

[to throw all the fruit] onto the ground,

and to pick them up

[and take the pure fruit] from the ground!

Rabbi Elaai said in the name of Rav:

Here

we are dealing with fruit that is spoiled by being thrown,

for if it falls onto the ground, it will be ruined. And when it is impossible to avoid carrying the muktzeh, they permitted carrying muktzeh together with a permitted object.

He raises an objection

from a beraita, in which we learned:

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

A refutation of Rav Hisda,

who says that they do not permit it when the pure [teruma] is above!

And we answer:

Rav Hisda can say to you: The Mishna

speaks of a case in which he carries the basket

for the sake of its use,

because he wants to eat the fruit now, and when the pure teruma is above, he can take it by itself, and there is no need to carry muktzeh. But the

beraita

speaks of a case in which he 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 compels Rav Hisda to establish the Mishna as [referring to carrying] for the sake of its use,

and to establish the Mishna in a particular situation? Let Rav Hisda establish it as carrying for the sake of its place, and in any event!

Rava said: The Mishna, in accordance with [the opinion of]

Rav Hisda,

is precise,

for it deals with carrying for the sake of its use.

For 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 Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: They taught [this] only

that he is required to shake the cushion

only

when he carries it

for the sake of its use,

because he needs the cushion.

But

if he carries it

for the sake of its place,

of the cushion,

he carries it

the cushion

with them still upon it,

for the coins will interfere with his use of the place.

And from [the fact that]

we establish the

latter clause

as carrying

for the sake of its use, the first clause too

Rav Hisda establishes as carrying

for the sake of its use.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Judah says: They may even raise

the meduma in one hundred and one.

And we inquire about this:

But why

is it permitted to do so?

For he is thereby fixing

the food , and the matter should be forbidden as a preventive measure lest one fix a vessel!

And we answer: Since it is possible to raise the teruma and establish that this is the teruma, therefore, for certain matters we regard the teruma even when it is mixed as though it were placed separately and recognizable. For

Rabbi Judah holds like Rabbi Eliezer, who says: Teruma

that is meduma is as though

placed as it is

[it is placed as itself and recognizable in the mixture]. And just as it is permitted to separate teruma from non-sacred produce when the teruma is recognizable, so it is permitted to raise the teruma from the meduma.

For we learned: A seah of teruma that fell into fewer than one hundred [seahs of]

non-sacred produce,

and they became meduma,

the entire mixture becomes forbidden to non-priests,

and there fell

a portion

from the meduma

equal to the amount of the teruma

to another place,

into non-sacred produce.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

That mixture

renders meduma

the non-sacred produce

as

if all of it were

definite teruma.

And there must be one hundred times as much non-sacred produce as it among the second non-sacred produce in order to permit it to non-priests. And 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 meduma

that falls into another place

renders [it] meduma only according to the proportion

of the mixture. If the teruma is 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 is one-quarter of the mixture, there is also one-quarter teruma in that portion, and it is sufficient that there be one hundred times the portion of teruma in order to permit the second mixture .

And we reject this:

Say: You may have heard him

[Rabbi Eliezer] hold this reasoning only when it is

to stringency,

but when it is

to leniency—

did you hear him hold it?

And it is difficult to introduce such a reasoning even to be lenient.

And we say:

Rather, he

[Rabbi Judah in our Mishna]

speaks in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

who says the reasoning “teruma [is] placed as it is” even to be lenient.

As we learned: A seah of teruma that fell into one hundred [seahs of]

non-sacred produce, and it is necessary to raise one seah in order to permit the mixture,

but he did not suffice to raise

the seah

until there fell

a seah

of another

teruma into the mixture—

this is forbidden,

because now the teruma is not nullified in one hundred.

And Rabbi Shimon permits,

and apparently, the reason of Rabbi Shimon is that he considers the teruma that must be removed from the mixture as though it were standing by itself; and since it is not mixed, it does not combine with the second teruma that fell, and the second teruma is nullified in one hundred ordinary portions into which it fell.

And we reject this:

And from where

is this the reason of Rabbi Shimon?

Perhaps there, this is what they disagree about:

For the first tanna holds: Even though they fell

the two terumot

one after the other,

and when the first fell it was possible to permit the mixture by lifting it out, nevertheless, since the mixture was not permitted and the teruma is found in it, this is

considered as though it fell all at once: this fell into fifty, and this 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,

will be nullified in one hundred and one

ordinary portions. And although the mixture is forbidden as long as they have not lifted out the teruma, this is not because the teruma is mixed into it and has still not been nullified; rather, since the teruma is the property of a kohen, the Sages forbade the mixture to non-kohanim until they lift out the teruma.

Accordingly, we have not found anywhere a view that holds “the teruma is regarded as lying separately” as a leniency, and Rabbi Shimon holds that the teruma is considered nullified, however, it is not possible to permit lifting it out on Shabbat on the basis of this reasoning, since the mixture is still forbidden to non-kohanim until they lift out the teruma, and when they lift it out—a rectification is performed.

And we say:

Rather, it is he,

[Rabbi Yehuda]

who says in accordance with Rabbi Shimon son of Elazar.

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon son of Elazar says:

One who wishes to eat from meduma in the proportion of one to one hundred does not need to lift out the teruma; rather, it is sufficient that he

directs his eyes to this side

and designates that the teruma is placed there,

and eats on the other side.

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

And we ask:

And does he hold this

Rabbi Yehuda

like him

Rabbi Shimon son of Elazar, concerning lifting out teruma on Shabbat?