Shabbat 36a (לו.) — the Talmud in English

If so,

it is also fit for public use

to drink

water from it

for a poor infant

whose sustenance the public is responsible for.

And furthermore, as it is taught

in a third beraita:

Just as one may move a shofar

so may one move trumpets.

Who is the author of this statement?

Rather, this is not difficult.

This

case, in which one may move a shofar but may not move trumpets, is

the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda

, who holds that only a shofar has the status of a utensil, since it is fit for drinking water from for an infant. But a trumpet does not, since it has no use on Shabbat.

This

case, in which one may move both the shofar and the trumpets, is

the opinion of Rabbi Shimon

, who holds that a utensil does not become muktze even when it has no use on Shabbat.

This

case, in which one may move neither a shofar nor trumpets, is

the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya

, who holds that even utensils that are used on Shabbat may be moved only for their designated use. And a shofar, whose designated use is sounding it, may not be taken on Shabbat in order to drink water from it for an infant.

And if you raise the difficulty: Why did Rabbi Neḥemya state at the beginning of his words that one may not move a shofar, and then say that one may not move a trumpet? Surely, if one may not move a shofar, which is fit for drinking water from for an infant, all the more so one may not move a trumpet.

Your answer is:

And what does “shofar” mean

, which Rabbi Neḥemya mentioned at the beginning of his words?

Also

—that is, his intention is

to trumpets

. And when he says “trumpets,” his intention is to shofars. And this is

in accordance with Rav Ḥisda

, who listed three things whose names were exchanged, including the shofar and the trumpet.

For Rav Ḥisda said: These three things changed

their names from the time the Temple was destroyed:

a.

A trumpet—

a shofar. A shofar—

a trumpet.

What practical difference does it make

to know that their names were changed?

With regard to the shofar of Rosh HaShana

, for one fulfills the mitzva only with a shofar that common people call a trumpet.

b.

An arava—

a tzafzafa.

A tzafzafa—

an arava.

What practical difference does it make—

with regard to the lulav

, as only an arava is fit for it, but not a tzafzafa.

c.

A large loaf—

a small loaf. A small loaf—

a large loaf.

At first, they called a large loaf petura and a small one peturta, but later their names changed.

What practical difference does it make—

with regard to buying and selling

, for if one paid for one of them, what did he purchase?

Abaye said: We too

will add further things to Rav Ḥisda’s statement whose names changed, and

say:

The hublila—

the bei kasei. The bei kasei—

the hublila.

At first, they called the omasum [which is one of the organs of the animal’s digestive system] the hublila. But they called the reticulum [which also serves as part of the digestive system] the bei kasei. Now the names have been reversed.

What practical difference does it make—

with regard to a needle found in the thickness

of the wall of

“the reticulum.”

d.

If the hole made by the needle is found only

on one side

of the wall of the reticulum, the animal is

fit

, since it becomes tereifa only if the hole passes all the way through the wall from one side to the other.

And

if the hole is found

on both sides

of the wall, it is

a tereifa.

And all this applies specifically when the needle is found in the wall of the reticulum, because it is thick and contains folds of fat capable of sealing the hole. But if the hole is found in the wall of the omasum, whose wall is thin, we are concerned that it may have pierced from one side to the other, and therefore the animal is a tereifa.

Rav Ashi said: We too shall say:

Babylonia—

Borsif. Borsif—

Babylonia ...