Shabbat 95a — the Talmud in English

applying eye makeup

is liable

because of dyeing.

braiding the hair and applying makeup

is liable

because of building,

as it explains and proceeds.

And we raise it concerning this:

But is this the manner of building?

And we answer:

Yes! As Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya expounded:

It is written:

“And the Lord God built the rib”—

this teaches,

the verse, in saying “built,”

that the Holy One, blessed be He, braided Eve’s hair

her hair,

and brought her to Adam

the first.

For in the coastal cities they call a braid,

a braiding of hair,

building.

Thus, braiding hair is considered building with regard to a person [and likewise pokeset, which is an improvement of the hair. And according to another explanation, when she reddens the skin of her face, building also applies, since it is an improvement of the woman. Tosafot, s.v. pokeset, Moed Katan 9b].

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:

the

braider and

the woman applying eye makeup

and applying makeup

on Shabbat

for herself is exempt,

for this is not the manner of building, since she cannot build properly for herself. But

for her fellow woman, she is liable.

For this is the manner of building, since she sees and does.

And likewise Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: A woman may not apply rouge

red dye

to her face

on Shabbat

because she is dyeing.

The Sages taught: One who milks, and one who makes curds,

who places milk in rennet in order to make it sour, and through this the curd [the coagulated milk] separates from the milk, or who placed the curd in a perforated vessel, and the water separating from the milk drips from it while the coagulated milk remains,

and one who makes cheese

who made cheese from the curd, and in one of these acts there was

an amount the size of a dried fig.

And likewise one who sweeps,

who sweeps the house,

and one who sprinkles,

who sprinkles water on the floor so that dust will not rise,

and one who removes honeycombs,

who extracts the honey from the wax tablets within which the honey is placed.

With regard to all these labors, whose nature and liability will be explained below:

If he

acted inadvertently

in performing them

on Shabbat—

he is liable for a sin-offering.

And if he

acted intentionally

in performing them

on a Festival—

he receives forty lashes.

For all these are labors of Torah origin: sweeping and sprinkling involve building [see Studies 4], and the others are explained below.

These are the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

And the Sages say: Both this and that,

both Shabbat and a Festival, their prohibition

is only because of shevut [

from sweeping onward. But with regard to those above, the Rabbis agree with Rabbi Eliezer, Rashi, Pesachim 65a].

Rav Naḥman bar Gurya happened to arrive in Nehardea.

They asked him: One who milks—

because of what is he liable?

He said to them: Because of milking!

They asked him again:

one who makes curds—

because of what is he liable?

He said to them: Because of making curds!

They asked again:

one who makes cheese—

because of what is he liable?

He said to them: Because of making cheese!

They said to him: Your teacher—

cuts reeds in the marsh,

he is one who cuts reeds in the marsh! That is, he is not a sage in Torah.

Rav Naḥman bar Gurya

Rav Naḥman bar Gurya

came and asked in the house of study.

They said to him: One who milks—

is liable because of extracting!

For it is a derivative of threshing, through which one extracts the grain from the ears; so too this one extracts the milk from the place where it is covered.

One who makes curds—

is liable because of selecting!

For he selects the refuse from the food.

One who makes cheese—

is liable because of building!

For he joins the particles of milk to one another, similar to the labor of building, through which one joins the parts of a house to one another.

We learned in a beraita:

One who sweeps, one who sprinkles, and one who extracts honeycombs,

if he

acted inadvertently on Shabbat, he is liable for a sin-offering.

And if he

acted intentionally on a Festival, he receives forty lashes. These are the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

Rabbi Elazar said: What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer

that he holds one liable for extracting honey?

And we answer:

For it is written: “And he dipped it into the honeycomb.”

But what connection does a forest have with honey?

Rather, this is to tell you: Just as one who detaches from a forest on Shabbat is liable for a sin-offering, so too honeycombs,

one who extracts from them

honey

on Shabbat is liable for a sin-offering.

For the place of the “growth of the honey” is in the wax combs in the hive, and it is considered attached to the hive; therefore one who takes it from its “place of growth” is liable. [See Mishna Berura 321:13, whether the reference is to extracting the combs from the hive or extracting the honey from the combs].

It was not explained whether this is a derivative of harvesting, similar to detaching from a forest [and apparently harvesting applies only to something that has some independent growth, and not to honey, which comes into being through bees], or whether it is a derivative of shearing, or a derivative of threshing. And it is possible that Rabbi Eliezer holds that the verse innovated that there is a prohibition of harvesting with regard to honey, even though it does not grow by itself.

Ameimar permitted sprinkling in Meḥoza.

He permitted sprinkling the house in the city of Meḥoza, and all the houses of the city were paved with stones.

He said: What is the reason the Rabbis said

that sprinkling is prohibited because of shevut?

Perhaps one will come to level depressions,

perhaps in the course of sprinkling, the depressions in the house will become filled with earth by themselves, and this is building. But

here,

in Meḥoza,

there are no depressions

in the houses, since their floors are made of stones.

Rava Tosfa'a found Ravina suffering from the dust,

which had formed from dust.

And some say,

that Mar Kashisha, the son of Rava, found Rav Ashi suffering from the dust.

He said to him:

But

does the Master not accept that which was taught in a beraita?

One who wishes to sprinkle his house on Shabbat—

brings a basin

a bowl

full of water, and washes his face in this corner, his hands in this corner, and his feet in this corner, and the house thereby becomes sprinkled by itself,

for in such a manner the Sages did not decree.

He said to him: It was not in my mind!

I did not remember this beraita [another explanation: I do not agree with this beraita].

A tanna taught: A wise woman [

the wife of a Torah scholar or the daughter of a Torah scholar who heard it from her father. Rashi]

sprinkles her house on Shabbat,

by washing dishes in every corner of the house.

And we conclude:

And nowadays, since we hold in accordance with Rabbi Shimon

that an unintended act is permitted—

it is permitted

to sprinkle

even initially!

For the one who sprinkles does not intend to fill the depressions, but only that dust should not rise. Therefore, even if the depressions become filled, there is nothing to this.

Mishna:

One who detaches from a perforated flowerpot—

is liable.

For it is like something attached to the ground, since it draws from the ground through the hole, through which it senses the moisture of the ground [and even if the hole is in the side of the flowerpot].

And

one who detaches from a flowerpot

that is not perforated—

is exempt,

for it is not attached to the ground.

And Rabbi Shimon exempts in both this and that.

For both are like detached things.

Gemara:

Abaye raised an objection to Rava. And some say, Rabbi Hiyya bar Rav to Rav:

We learned

in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon exempts in both this and that.

Evidently,

a flowerpot

perforated, according to Rabbi Shimon, is like

a flowerpot

that is not perforated, which he considers it.