Rif Shabbat 63a {Shabbat 147b continues ... 149a}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
63a

{Shabbat 147b continues}
underneath which is clay which is like glue, and if a man goes down there, we fear lest he sink into that clay and get stuck there, unable to ascend until they assemble other men and bring him out from there.

And there is one who says that one who bathes in particular valley in cooled, and those particular waters loosen the bowels.

"ONE MAY NOT INDUCE VOMITING ON SHABBAT":
Rabba bar bar Chana cited Rabbi Yochanan: They learnt this only [when it Is effected] by a drug, but it may be done by hand.

They learnt {in a brayta}: Rabbi Nechemia says: It is forbidden even during the week, because of the waste of food.

And it is reasonable to say that these words are said in an instance when there is no pain involved, but when there is pain, and when he vomits the food in his belly he is healed, it is permitted. And so too says the Baal Halachot citing Rav Tzemach bar Palti Gaon z"l.

"ONE MAY NOT STRAIGHTEN AN INFANT['S LIMBS]":
Rabba bar bar Chana said {in our gemara, he cites Rabbi Yochanan}: To swaddle an infant on Shabbat is permitted. But we learnt {in the Mishna} ONE MAY NOT STRAIGHTEN AN INFANT['S LIMBS]? There it refers to the spinal vertebrae, which appears as building.
{If one is dislocated it may not be reset.}

"ONE MAY NOT RESET A BROKEN BONE":
Rav Chana of Bagdad cited Shmuel:

{Shabbat 148a}
The halacha is that one may reset a fracture.
{He held that this is the correct reading of the Mishnah.}

And so is the halacha.

END PEREK TWENTY-TWO

BEGIN PEREK TWENTY-THREE

MISHNA:
A MAN MAY BORROW PITCHERS OF WINE AND PITCHERS OF OIL FROM HIS NEIGHBOUR {on Shabbat}, PROVIDED HE DOES NOT SAY TO HIM, 'LEND [THEM] [HALVENI] TO ME';
AND SIMILARLY A WOMAN [MAY BORROW] LOAVES FROM HER NEIGHBOUR.

IF HE DOES NOT TRUST HIM HE LEAVES HIS CLOAK WITH HIM [AS A PLEDGE] AND MAKES A RECKONING WITH HIM AFTER SHABBAT.

IN THE SAME WAY, IF EREV PESACH IN JERUSALEM FALLS ON A SHABBAT, ONE LEAVES HIS CLOAK WITH HIM [THE VENDOR] AND RECEIVES HIS PASCHAL LAMB AND MAKES A RECKONING WITH HIM AFTER YOM TOV.

Gemara:
Rav Natan {our gemara: Rava bar Rav Chanan} said to Abaye: Wherein does halveni differ from hash'ileni?
He {Abaye} said to him: In the case of hash'ileni, he [the lender] will not come to write it down (for it is not a long time {that he is borrowing it); whereas [if he says] halveni (which connotes for a long time) he will come to write it down.

{Shabbat 148b}
It was stated {by Amoraim}:
As for a loan made on a Yom Tov:
Rav Yosef said: It cannot be claimed; whilst Rava {our gemara: Rabba} said: It can be claimed.

In this matter, the {post-Talmudic} Rabbis disputed. There is one who ruled like Rav Yosef and said this is so because Rav Yosef is the teacher of Rava. And further, because Rav Avia holds like him, for he took a deposit. {thus the person would return his object in order to get back the deposit}And Rabba bar Rav Huna would resort to trickery {about this law} and not claim {request} it explicitly, but rather said to him: halveni {lend to me}, and when he lent to him he said: behold I have {from before} by you such-and-such. {Thus one loan canceled the other.}

And there is one who ruled like Rava who said that it can be claimed, and says that this is because he is later, and the halacha is like the later ones.

MISHNA:
A MAN MAY COUNT HIS GUESTS AND HIS DAINTY PORTIONS BY WORD OF MOUTH, BUT NOT FROM WRITING.

A MAN MAY CAST LOTS WITH HIS SONS AND THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD FOR THE TABLE, PROVIDED THAT HE DOES NOT INTEND TO OFFSET A LARGE PORTION AGAINST A SMALL ONE.

AND [PRIESTS] MAY CAST LOTS FOR SACRIFICES ON FESTIVALS, BUT NOT FOR THE PORTIONS.

{Shabbat 149a}
Gemara:
What is the reason?
Rav Bibi said: It is a preventive measure, lest he erase.
{He may find too many names on the list and erase some before instructing his servant to invite the guests.}
Abaye said: It is a preventive measure, lest he read secular documents.
Wherein do they differ? — They differ where it is written high up on the wall:

Rif Shabbat 62b {Shabbat 147a continues ... 147b; digression to Sanhedrin 101a}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
62b

{Shabbat 147a continues}
[So] Rabbi let his cloak fall.

When Rabin came {from Eretz Yisrael} he said: It was not Yehoshua ben Ziruz but Yehoshua ben Kapusai, Rabbi Akiva's son-in-law. And he {Yehoshua ben Kapusai} said to him {Rabbi}: Did not Rabbi Akiva declare one liable to a sin-offering in such a case? He {Rabbi} said to him: Was Rabbi Akiva so very particular? [So] Rabbi let his cloak fall.

When Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda {our gemara: R Yehuda} came {from Eretz Yisrael}, he said: It was stated that this [question] was asked.
{That is, it was a question that was posed, rather than event that occurred.}

MISHNA:
IF ONE BATHES IN THE WATER OF A PIT {which had been heated} OR IN THE WATER OF TIBERIAS {which had naturally hot springs} AND DRIES HIMSELF EVEN WITH TEN TOWELS, HE MUST NOT FETCH THEM IN HIS HAND {even if carrying is permitted, because it is in his house or an eruv was established}.
BUT TEN MEN MAY DRY THEIR FACES, HANDS, AND FEET ON ONE TOWEL AND FETCH IT IN THEIR HANDS.

Gemara:
THE WATER OF A PIT is taught analogous to THE WATER OF TIBERIAS: just as the water of Tiberias is hot, so [by] the water of a pit hot [water is meant].

[and furthermore, it states] IF ONE BATHES: only if it is done {=bidieved}, but not at the outset {lichatchila}.

And if it is difficult for you that which we learn in perek Shemoneh Sheratzim {Shabbat 109a}: The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: One may bathe in the water of Gerar, in the water of Hammethan, ... and in the water of Tiberias...

And we learn also in perek Kira {Shabbat 40a}: But when they saw that this [series of restriction] could not stand, they permitted the hot springs of Tiberias, whilst sweating remained in status quo.

And we derive from there that it is permitted to bathe in the water of Tiberias even initially {lechatchila} and here the Mishna states IF ONE BATHES, which implies only if it is done, but not at the outset.

It is no question. This that it states "only if it is done, but not at the outset" is only stated regarding THE WATER OF A PIT, and the reason it states THE WATER OF TIBERIAS next to THE WATER OF A PIT is to shed light on the nature of THE WATER OF A PIT - that just as the water of Tiberias is hot, so [by] the water of a pit hot [water is meant]. That is why it {the Mishna} teaches it {the waters of Tiberias} next to it. But the waters of Tiberias, it is permitted to bathe in them even initially {lechatchila}.

And THE WATER OF A PIT, what is the reason that they did not permit it? Because it is covered, as we learn in perek Shor sheNagach et HaPara: {Bava Kamma 50b} "A pit is square and covered." therefore its mist is abundant, and he will come to steam {himself}; therefore they did not permit him at the outset {lechatchila}.

{Shabbat 147b}
"AND DRIES HIMSELF EVEN WITH TEN TOWELS, HE MUST NOT FETCH THEM IN HIS HAND...":
Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba cited Rabbi Yochanan: The halacha is: A person may dry himself with a towel and carry it home in {wrapped round?} his hand, and we do not decree lest he come to squeeze it out.

Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba cited Rabbi Yochanan: The bath attendants may bring women's bathing clothes to the baths, providing that they cover their heads and the greater part of their bodies in them {so that they are brought as garments}.

As for a sabnitha: {Rashi: a large cloth covering, falling over the shoulders. Rambam: a small cloth, not large enough to cover the head and the greater part of the body.}
Rabbi Avin bar Rav Chisda {our gemara: Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba} cited Rabbi Yochanan: One must tie its two bottom ends {so that it should not fall off}, below the shoulders {so that it looks like wearing apparel}.

Rava said to the citizens of Mechoza: When you carry the apparel of the troops, let them drop below your shoulders.

{Shabbat 147a}
MISHNA:
ONE MAY OIL AND [LIGHTLY] MASSAGE [THE BODY]. BUT NOT KNEAD {=massage strongly} OR SCRAPE {with a scraper, to invigorate the circulation}.

YOU MUST NOT GO DOWN TO A PILOMA {Jastrow: WRESTLING GROUND. alternative manuscripts: the clay ground (of a brickyard). Rashi considers this the name of a river. See below for Rif's explanation.} OR INDUCE VOMITING {via an emetic}, OR STRAIGHTEN AN INFANT['S LIMBS] {by manipulation}, OR SET A BROKEN BONE.
IF ONE'S HAND OR FOOT IS DISLOCATED, HE MUST NOT AGITATE IT VIOLENTLY IN COLD WATER BUT MAY BATHE IT IN THE USUAL WAY, AND IF IT HEALS, IT HEALS.

{Shabbat 147b}
Gemara:
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: One may oil and massage the bowels [of a sick person] on Shabbat, provided this is not done as on weekdays.
How then shall it be done?
Rabbi Chama bar Chanina said: They must first be oiled and then massaged.
And Rabbi Yochanan said: The oiling and massaging must be done simultaneously.

And the halacha is like Rabbi Yochanan.

---

We learn in Sanhedrin, in perek Chelek {perek 11, Sanhedrin 101a}:
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: One may oil and massage the bowels [of a sick person] on Shabbat, and snakes and scorpions may be charmed [to render them tame and harmless] on Shabbat, and an article may be placed over the eye on Shabbat [to protect it]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: This applies only to articles which may be handled; but those which may not be handled are forbidden.

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: Demons may not be consulted on Shabbat. Rabbi Yossi said: This is forbidden even on week-days.

Rav Huna said: The halacha is [not] {Vilna Gaon deletes not} like Rabbi Yossi. And even Rabbi Yossi only said this at time of {=because of} danger.

---

{Shabbat 147b resumes}
"BUT [ONE MAY] NOT KNEAD":
Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba cited Rabbi Yochanan: One may not stand on the mud of Diomsith*, because it stimulates [the body] and loosens [the bowels].
{Jastrow: identical with Emmaus, a town in the plain of Judea renowned in Talmudic days for its warm springs and luxurious life.}

"BUT [ONE MAY] NOT SCRAPE":
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: One may not scrape with a strigil on Shabbat. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: If one's hands {our gemara: feet} are soiled with clay and dirt he may scrape them off in the usual way, without fear.

And the halacha is like him {Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel}.

"YOU MAY NOT GO DOWN TO A PILOMA":
What is the reason? Because of sinking [in the clay soil].

{The Rif explains this as a quicksand like substance:}
To explain: it is a valley, and there is there water,

Rif Shabbat 62a {Shabbat 146b continues ... 147a}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
62a

{Shabbat 146b continues}
on account of [the making of] a pipe.
Rav Ashi said: It is a preventive measure lest one pluck it [from the tree].

Wherein do they differ? They differ where it is [already] plucked and [others too] are lying about.

MISHNA:
A DISH MAY BE PLACED IN A PIT FOR IT TO BE GUARDED, AND WHOLESOME WATER INTO NOISOME WATER FOR IT TO BE COOLED, OR COLD WATER IN THE SUN FOR IT TO BE HEATED.

IF ONE'S GARMENTS FALL INTO WATER ON THE ROAD, HE MAY WALK IN THEM WITHOUT FEAR.
WHEN HE REACHES THE OUTERMOST COURTYARD {within the town} HE MAY SPREAD THEM OUT IN THE SUN, BUT NOT IN SIGHT OF THE PEOPLE {lest they suspect him of having washed them on Shabbat}.

Gemara:
Rav Yehuda cited Rav: Wherever the Sages forbade [aught] for appearance's sake, it is forbidden even in the innermost chambers.

But we {just} learnt {in the Mishna}: HE MAY SPREAD THEM OUT IN THE SUN, BUT NOT IN SIGHT OF THE PEOPLE?
It is a matter of Tannaitic dispute. For we learnt {in a brayta}: He may spread them out in the sun, but not in sight of the people; Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Shimon forbid it.

In this matter, even though there is a straightforward {stam} Mishna and a dispute in a brayta, the halacha is like the disputants in the brayta, for Rav holds like it. For we ask from this statement of Rav in the first perek of Avoda Zara {Avoda Zara 12a}. For it states

{the following based on a brayta which contains the statement: If a splinter has got into his [foot] while in front of an idol, he should not bend down to get it out, because he may appear as bowing to the idol; but if not apparent it is permitted.}

What is meant by 'not being apparent' — Shall we say that he is not seen? But Rav Yehuda cited Rav: Wherever the Sages forbade [aught] for appearance's sake, it is forbidden even in the innermost chambers.

{And the gemara concludes: It can only mean that if [by bending] he will not appear as bowing to the idol.}

Thus, it is clear that so is the halacha {like Rav}.

{Shabbat 146b continues}
Rav Huna said:

{Shabbat 147a}
If one shakes out his cloak {Rashi: too free it of dust. Tosafot: to free it of dew} on Shabbat, he is liable to a sin-offering.
Now, we said this only of new ones, but in the case of old ones we have nought against it; and this is said only of black ones, but in the case of white or red ones we have nought against it; [but in any case there is no culpability] unless he is particular about them.

Ulla visited Pumbeditha. Seeing the scholars shaking their garments he observed, 'The scholars are desecrating Shabbat.'
Rav Yehuda said to them: Shake them in his presence, [for] we are not particular at all [about the clothes].

Abaye was standing before Rav Yosef. He {Rav Yosef} said to him: Give me my hat. Seeing some dew upon it he {Abaye} hesitated to give it to him. He {Rav Yosef} said to him: Shake it and throw it off, [for] we are not particular at all.

Rabbi Yitzchak bar Yosef cited Rabbi Yochanan: If one goes out on Shabbat with a cloak folded up [and] lying on his shoulders, he is liable to a sin-offering.

A brayta also says so: Clothes vendors who go out on Shabbat with cloaks folded up [and] lying on their shoulders are liable to a sin-offering. And they [the Sages] said this not of clothes vendors alone but of all men, but that it is the nature of merchants to go out thus. Again, if a shopkeeper goes out with coins bound up in his wrapper, he is liable to a sin-offering. And they said this not of a shopkeeper alone but of all men, but that it is a shopkeeper's nature to go out thus. And runners may go out with the scarfs on their shoulders on Shabbat; and they said this not of runners alone but of all men, but that it is the nature of runners to go out thus.

Rav Yehuda said: It once happened that Hyrcanus, son of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, went out on Shabbat with the scarf on his shoulder, but that a thread [thereof] was wound round his finger. But when the matter came before the Sages they said, [It is permitted] even if a thread is not wound about one's finger.

Rav Nahman {our gemara: Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda} lectured in Rav Chisda's name, who {in turn} cited Rabbi Yochanan {our gemara omits Rabbi Yochanan}: [it is permissible] even if a thread is not wound about his finger.

Ulla visited the academy {lit. house} of Assi bar Hini [and] was asked: Is it permitted to make a marzev on Shabbat?
He said to them: So said Rabbi Eleazar {our gemara: Rabbi Ilai}: It is forbidden to make a marzev on Shabbat.

What is marzev?
Rabbi Zera said: kishei bavlaita {=The capes worn by Babylonian women. Formed by drawing up the skirts of their garments backwards and attaching it with ribbons, thus shaping it like a tube or gutter, which is the meaning of marzev.}

There are those who say that this marzev is: when one dons his cloak, and folds over its two corners in the form of a fold, and places it over his left shoulder, and turns and folds the rest of his cloak such that it drapes over his right side, and places it over his right shoulder, such that his cloak is folder over both here and there, and drapes over his shoulder, and its hollow {chalal} is by the spine, and it appears like a marzev {tube or gutter, which is the meaning of marzev}. And in this manner was the kishei bavlaita, for they tied the two strips, and called it kisha.

Rabbi Yirmiya was sitting before Rabbi Zera.
He {Rabbi Yirmiya} said to him: How is it thus? {gathering up his garment in a specific way}
He {Rabbi Zera} said to him: It is forbidden. {on Shabbat}
"And how is thus?" {gathering up his garment in another way}
He {Rabbi Zera} said to him: It is forbidden.
Rav Papa said: Adopt this general rule: Whatever [is done] with the intention of gathering it [the skirts] up* is forbidden; whatever is for adornment is permitted. Just as Rav Shisha son of Rav Idi used to adorn himself with his cloak.

{*: Rashi: to remain so permanently. Vilna Gaon, citing Rambam: to prevent it from being torn or soiled. Jastrow translates: with the intention of creasing.}

When Rav Dimi came {from Eretz Yisrael}, he said: On one occasion Rabbi went out into the field with the two ends of his cloak lying on his shoulder. [Thereupon] Rabbi {our gemara omits Rabbi} Yehoshua ben Ziruz, the son of Rabbi Meir's father-in-law, said to him {Rabbi}: Did not Rabbi Meir declare one liable to a sin-offering in such a case? He {Rabbi} said to him: Was R. Meir so very particular {as to call this a burden}?

Rif Shabbat 61b {Shabbat 145b continues ... 146b}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
61b

{Shabbat 145b continues}
and when the desired to eat it, they would steep it in hot water. And if it was placed into hot water on erev Shabbat, they may steep it in hot water on Shabbat. And if not, it is forbidden to steep it in hot water on Shabbat.

"WHATEVER WAS NOT PUT INTO HOT WATER...":
It was a question to them:
What if one does rinse [them] {=the exceptions, that is the fish mentioned in the Mishna that one should not even rinse them}?
Rav Yosef said: If he rinsed them, he is liable to a sin-offering.

{Shabbat 146a}
MISHNA:
ONE MAY BREAK OPEN A CASK IN ORDER TO EAT RAISINS THEREOF, PROVIDED THAT HE DOES NOT DESIGN MAKING A UTENSIL {=a proper opening for a cask, since this would constitute a melacha};
AND ONE MAY NOT PERFORATE THE BUNG OF A CASK: THIS IS R. JUDAH'S RULING;
BUT THE SAGES PERMIT IT.

AND ONE MUST NOT PIERCE IT AT THE SIDE THEREOF, WHILE IF IT IS PERFORATED {and he wishes to close the holds} ONE MUST NOT PLACE WAX UPON IT, BECAUSE HE CRUSHES IT.
R. JUDAH SAID: [SUCH] AN INCIDENT CAME BEFORE R. JOHANAN B. ZAKKAI IN ARAV AND HE SAID, I FEAR ON HIS ACCOUNT [THAT HE MAY BE LIABLE] TO A SIN-OFFERING.

Gemara:
They learnt {in a brayta}: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One may bring a cask of wine, strike off its head with a sword, and place it before guests on Shabbat, and have no fear.

They learnt {in a brayta}: One may untie, unravel, or cut through the wicker wrappers of raisins and dates.

The inquired of Rav Sheshet: What about piercing a cask with a spit by forcing it between the splices} on Shabbat?
does he intend [making] an opening, so it is forbidden, or perhaps his intention is to be generous and it is permitted?
He said to them: He intends [making] an opening, and it is forbidden.

"ONE MAY NOT PERFORATE THE BUNG...":
Rav Huna said: The controversy is [in respect of a hole] at the top; but all agree that it is forbidden at the side. And thius he teaches {in the Mishna}: ONE MUST NOT PIERCE IT AT THE SIDE THEREOF.

And so is the halacha.

{Rav Chisda in the gemara offers a different interpretation of the Mishna, but Rif here is consistent with his rule of psak that we rule like Rav Huna over Rav Chisda, since Rav Huna was the teacher.}

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: One may not pierce a new hole on the Sabbath, but if one comes to add, he may add; but some say, One may not add. But they all agree that one may pierce an old hole {which became stopped up} at the very outset on Shabbat.

{Shabbat 146b}
Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda {our gemara: Rav Nachman} lectured on the authority of Rav Nachman {our gemara: Rabbi Yochanan}: The halacha is as 'some maintain'.

'But they all agree that you may pierce an old hole at the very outset':
Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: They learnt this only where it {the stopping up of the old hole} was done in order to conserve; but if in order to strengthen it [the cask], it is forbidden.

To explain, 'to conserve' means to take out wine.
{Soncino renders: to conserve the fragrance.}

How is it [when it is] to conserve, and how is it [when meant] to strengthen?

Rav Chisda said: If it is above the [level of the] wine, its purpose is to strengthen {our gemara: conserve} ; if below the [top of the] wine, its purpose is to conserve {our gemara: strengthen}.

Rabba said: [If] above {our gemara: below} the [top of the] wine, that too is to conserve. Then how is it to strengthen? — E.g. if it was pierced below the wine sediment {there it has to bear the weight of all the wine and so must be strengthened}.

And the halacha is like Rabba, for there is a brayta that supports him.

Guvta - to explain, a tube {the insertion of a tube into a barrel as a pipe} - Rav forbids and Shmuel permits.
As for cutting it in the first place {to fit the hole in the barrel}, all agree that it is forbidden; [again], all agree that replacing it {a fitted tube} is permitted. They differ only where it is cut but not made to measure: he who forbids [its insertion] [holds that] we preventively prohibit [it], lest he come to cut it out in the first place; while he who permits it, [holds that] we do not preventively prohibit lest he come to cut it out in the first place.

This is dependent on a Tannaitic dispute.
One may not cut a tube on Yom Tov, and it it goes without saying on Shabbat. If it falls out, it may be replaced on Shabbat, and it goes without saying on Yom Tov.
And Rabbi Yoshia is lenient.

On what {is Rabbi Yoshia lenient}?
To the first clause? Surely he prepares a utensil?
Again, if to the second clause, the Tanna Kamma too certainly permits it?
Hence they must differ where it is cut but not made to measure: the Tanna Kamma holds that we preventively prohibit, while Rabbi Yoshia holds that we do not preventively prohibit.

Rav Shisha the son of Rav Idi lectured in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: The halacha is like Rabbi Yoshiya.

"WHILE IF IT IS PERFORATED...":
Oil [to stop up the hole]:
Rav forbids, and Shmuel permits.

He who forbids [holds]: We preventively prohibit on account of wax; while he who permits [holds]: We do not preventively prohibit.

And the halacha is like Rav.

Tabuth the fowler cited Shmuel: This tarfa deAssa is forbidden.
To explain: it is forbidden to place myrtle leaves into the hole of a barrel to keep in the wine so that it does not pour on the sides of the barrel.
{Soncino had: One may not shape a myrtle leaf into a funnel or pipe and insert it into the mouth of a bottle or cask.}

What is the reason?
Rav Yirmiya {our gemara: Yemar} of Difti said: It is a preventive measure

Rif Shabbat 61a {Shabbat 145a continues; digression to Ketubot 60a; Shabbat 145b}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
61a

{Shabbat 145a continues}
And from all this we learn that the halacha is as Rav and Shmuel. Therefore, the halacha is also like Rav Chisda, in that we learn from him that a man may milk {by hand} a goat on Yom Tov into a pot but not into a plate. And so indeed did we see Rav Hai Gaon z"l {state} as we have ruled, and there is no doubt in this.

We learn in perek Af Al Pi {Ketubot 60a}: They learn {in a brayta}: Rabbi Marinus says: A man suffering from an attack on the chest {angina pectoris?} may suck milk [from a beast] on Shabbat.

What is the reason? — Sucking is an act of unusual unloading {מפרק כלאחר יד הוא} against which, where pain is involved, no preventive measure has been enacted by the Rabbis.

Rav Yosef said: The halacha is as Rabbi Marinus.

They learnt {in a brayta}: Nachum the Galatian stated, If rubbish was collected in a gutter {and thus prevents the proper flow of water} it is permissible to crush it with one's foot quietly on Shabbat, and not be concerned.

What is the reason? — Such repair is carried out in an unusual manner against which, when loss is involved, the Rabbis enacted no preventive measure.

Rav Yosef said: The halacha is as Nachum the Galatian.

And if it troubles you that which we learnt in perek Cheresh sheNasa Pikachat {Yevamot 114a}: Abba Shaul says: we were accustomed to suckle from a kosher animal on Yom Tov. And we ask on this, Howso? If no danger was involved, it should be forbidden even on Yom Tov. And if danger was involved, [the sucking should be permitted] even on Shabbat as well! And we conclude: No, it is necessary in the case where pain was involved, [Abba Saul] being of the opinion [that sucking] is an act of indirect detaching {milking an animal with one's hands is regarded as direct detaching}. {And so,} Shabbat, which involves a prohibition carrying a penalty of stoning, the Sages decreed. Yom Tov, however, where the prohibition [is only that of] a negative precept, the Rabbis have not instituted any decree.

For we deduce from there that a man suffering from an attack on the chest is forbidden to suckle from an animal on Shabbat!?

This is no difficulty at all, for this statement was according to Abba Shaul, and the halacha is not like him, for Rav Yosef ruled that the halacha is like Rabbi Marinus, who said that even on Shabbat, in an instance in which pain is involved, the Sages did not decree.

And we have seen that there is one who establishes this opinion of Rabbi Marinus as referring to an instance of pain which involves {mortal} danger, so that he will not face the difficulty of the statement of Abba Shaul. And this answer is not a good one, for if it were so that the case of Rabbi Marinus involves pain which involves {mortal} danger, why deal with unusual unloading {מפרק כלאחר יד}? Even an absolute labor {melacha gemura} in case of danger is permitted!

And furthermore, this that is stated "in case of pain, the Sages did not institute," it should have stated "in case of danger."

And furthermore, this is well by the case of the man {suffering chest pains}, since in that case there is danger. But by the gutter, that they learn that it is repairing in an unusual manner, and in case of loss, the Sages did not institute -- there, what danger is there?

Therefore, this answer is not {a good answer}.

{Shabbat 145a}
Gufa: {return to the gemara briefly cited earlier; i.e., To turn to [the main] text:}
If one presses out [pickled] preserves, Rav said: If for their own sake, it is permitted; if for their fluid, he is not culpable, nevertheless it is forbidden. But with boiled preserves, whether for their own sake or for their fluid, it is permitted.
And Shmuel said: Both with [pickled] preserves and boiled preserves, if for their own sake, it is permitted; if for their fluid, he is not culpable, yet it is forbidden.
And Rabbi Yochanan said: Both with [pickled] and boiled preserves, if for their own sake, it is permitted; if for their fluid, he is liable to a sin-offering.

And the halacha is not like Rabbi Yochanan in terms of having to bring a sin-offering, for Rav and Shmuel are of one opinion that there is not liability to bring a sin-offering, except by olives and grapes. And Rabbi Yochanan is an individual {against them} and the words of an individual do not {stand} against two. And further, this that the academy of Menashe taught {tna} supports them, for he said: As a Biblical matter, he is not liable except for treading olives and grapes.

And it makes sense to us that the halacha is like Shmuel in this matter, for Rabbi Yochanan maintains like him in terms of it being forbidden, and the only difference of opinion between them is in terms of liability to bring a sin-offering.

Rabbi Chiyya bar Ashi cited Rav: As a Biblical matter, he is not liable except for treading olives and grapes.

And the School of Menasseh taught likewise: As a Biblical matter, he is not liable except for treading olives and grapes. And a witness [attesting] what he heard from another witness is valid only

{Shabbat 145b}
in evidence concerning a woman {that is, to testify that her husband is dead so that she may remarry}.

It was a question to them: What about a witness [attesting] what he heard from another witness in evidence relating to a bechor {=firstborn of an animal, which may not be eaten until it acquires a blemish accidentally}?
Rav Assi {our gemara: Ammi} forbids.
And Rav Ashi permits.

Rav Assi {our gemara: Ammi} said to Rav Ashi: But the School of Menasseh taught: A witness testifying what he heard from another witness is valid in testimony concerning a woman alone?
He {Rav Ashi} said to him: Learn {instead a different girsa}: Only in testimony for which a woman is valid.
{A woman is a valid witness only in certain matters, which includes a firstling's blemish, and in these hearsay too is admissible.}

Like this that they learnt {in a brayta}: Rabbi Shimon ben Kaposai says: The bechor {firstborn animal} of a Kohen requires two from the marketplace to testify about it {that it acquired a blemish accidentally}. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even his son and his daughter.
And specifically his son and his daughter, but his wife, no.
What is the reason?
For his wife is like him own self.

Rav Yemar recognized as fit a witness [testifying] from the mouth of another witness in respect to a firstling, [whereupon] Meremar called him {critically} 'Yemar who permits firstlings.'

{Yet,} the halacha is that a witness [testifying] from the mouth of another witness is valid in case of a firstling {bechor}.

To explain, a bechor {firstling} of an animal. That is to say, if a witness who heard from the mouth of another witness comes and says that this blemish which befell this bechor was not at the hands of man, we permit it for consumption immediately because of its blemish, based on his testimony.

"IF HONEYCOMBS ARE CRUSHED {ON EREV SHABBAT HONEY EXUDES ON ITS OWN ON SHABBAT}":
When Rav Oshaya came from Nehardea, he brought with him a brayta: If one crushes olives and grapes on erev Shabbat, and they [their juices] ooze out of themselves {on Shabbat}, they are forbidden; And Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Shimon permit.

And the Baal Halachot rules, citing Rav Tzemach bar Palti the head of the Metivta {academy} like Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Shimon.

MISHNA:
WHATEVER WAS PUT INTO HOT WATER BEFORE SHABBAT MAY BE STEEPED [AGAIN] IN HOT WATER ON SHABBAT;
BUT WHATEVER WAS NOT PUT INTO HOT WATER BEFORE SHABBAT MAY [ONLY] BE RINSED WITH HOT WATER ON SHABBAT, EXCEPT OLD SALTED [PICKLED] FISH, [SMALL SALTED FISH], AND THE COLIAS OF THE SPANIARDS {= a kind of tunny-fish}, BECAUSE THEIR RINSING COMPLETES THEIR PREPARATION.

Gemara:
"WHATEVER WAS PUT INTO HOT WATER...":
What, for example?
Such as Rabbi Abba's fowl.

In explanation, it {the fowl} was excessively salted

Rif Shabbat 60b {Shabbat 144b continues ... 145a}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
60b

{Shabbat 144b continues}
fruits in order that they express their juice, and if they exuded on their own accord, they are forbidden, and we establish this {statement in the Mishna} as referring to olives and grapes, that whether they are intended for food or drink, they are forbidden, and therefore, this statement of Shmuel can only refer to Yom Tov, and so do we find the Baal Halachot Pesukot who writes "on Yom Tov" and does not write "on Shabbat."

And there is one who says that this statement of Shmuel refers to Shabbat, and he establishes the Mishna as a case where one squeezes into a plate, in which case it is reckoned as liquid, but into a pot, he may squeeze, like Shmuel. And this diyuk of Rav Chisda, that alone refers to Yom Tov, and so does one's thoughts lean. And Rav Chananel z"l's opinion was so, except that he said that the words of Shmuel and Rav Chisda, from whom we derive {daykinan}, the halacha is not like them, and so does he say:

And the halacha is like the answer of Rabbi Yochanan in this Mishna {Shabbat 145a} and we derive from it that a man may squeeze out [pickled] preserves {=raw vegetables, preserved or pickled in wine or vinegar} or boiled preserves for their own sake; but if for their fluid, it is forbidden. And if he squeezed for their fluid, he is reckoned as if he squeezed olives and grapes, and is liable to bring a sin-offering. And there is no distinction, when he squeezed for their fluid, between a pot or a plate, but rather all is forbidden. For squeezing of olives and grapes, whether to a pot or to a plate, he requires {desires} their fluid; and Rabbi Yochanan said that one who squeezes out [pickled] preserves or boiled preserves for their fluid is like one who squeezes out olives and grapes, and is liable to bring a sin-offering.

And from these words it is clear that the halacha is not like Shmuel and not like Rav, who said that "a man may squeeze a bunch of grapes and place them into a pot [of food], but not into a plate."

And there is one who establishes the words of Rav and Shmuel as referring to Yom Tov, from the fact that Rav Chisda carefully analyzes {is medayek} the words of Rav and said that from their words, we may learn that one may milk a goat into a pot [of food], but not into a plate -- in order to establish their {Rav and Shmuel's} words as halacha {somewhere}.

And these words are incorrect, for even on Yom Tov it is forbidden {even} to suckle with one's mouth from an animal, and certainly not to milk, as we learn in perek Cheresh sheNasa Pikachat {Yevamot 114a}: Abba Shaul said: we were accustomed to suckle from a kosher animal {see there for context} on Yom Tov, and we ask on this, Howso? If no danger was involved, it should be forbidden even on Yom Tov. And if danger was involved, [the sucking should be permitted] even on Shabbat as well! And we conclude: No, it is necessary in the case where pain was involved, [Abba Saul] being of the opinion [that sucking] is an act of indirect detaching {milking an animal with one's hands is regarded as direct detaching}. {And so,} Shabbat, which involves a prohibition carrying a penalty of stoning, the Sages decreed. Yom Tov, however, where the prohibition [is only that of] a negative precept, the Rabbis have not instituted any decree.

Behold, that even to suckle from an animal on Yom Tov was not permitted except where there is {alleviation of} pain involved, and certainly to milk {by hand} in a case where there is no pain involved is forbidden.

And we need not go looking for an answer and to take the sugya from its {normal} place. But rather, it is certain that this that it says that one may squeeze into a pot but not into a plate was said regarding Shabbat, and this that Rav Chisda said was regarding Yom Tov, and the halacha is not like him, not on Shabbat and not on Yom Tov. And so have we received from our teachers.

These {preceding} were the words of Rav Chananel זצ"ל, and we have delved into them and have found an answer to it all. First, that this that it states that they did not distinguish in their squeezing for liquids between to a pot and to a plate, but rather all is forbidden -- is not so. For when Rabbi Yochanan said that for their liquids, he is laible to bring a sin-offering, this was stated in the context of the statements of Rav and Shmuel who said that he is exempt, yet it is forbidden. And when Rav and Shmuel stated that for their liquids, he is exempt yet it is forbidden, this was to the plate, but to the pot, no {but rather it is permitted}. Likewise, this that Rabbi Yochanan said that for their liquids, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, is to a plate, but not to a pot. Know this, for Rav and Shmuel are the ones who say that a man may squeeze a cluster {of grapes} into a pot but not into a plate, and they are the ones who say regarding [pickled] preserves or boiled preserves that if for their liquids {he squeezes them} he is exempt yet it is forbidden.

And if the thought emerges that according to the one who says that for liquids it is forbidden, it does not matter whether this is to a pot or to a plate, but he means to say that in all instances it is forbidden -- if so, there is a question {and contradiction} Rav on Rav and Shmuel on Shmuel. But what do you have to say? This statement that if for their liquids it is forbidden they say regarding into a plate, and not into a pot. Likewise, when Rabbi Yochanan stated that if for their liquids, he is liable to a sin-offering, he stated this in terms of into the plate, and not into the pot. And Rabbi Yochanan does not argue on Rav and Shmuel except in terms him being exempt, but it being forbidden vs. liability to bring a sin-offering, but in terms of a plate and a pot, no. For if it were so, let them argue explicitly about a plate and a pot. And from the fact that we do not find their dispute except that it is permitted according to Rav, and that he is exempt {from bringing a sin-offering} yet it is forbidden according to Shmuel, and that he is liable {to bring} a sin-offering according to Rabbi Yochanan, we may deduce from this that they do not argue regarding a plate and a pot.

And furthermore, we do not find that Rabbi Yochanan argues on Rav and Shmuel except regarding [pickled] preserves and boiled preserves, but in terms of a cluster of grapes, we do not find that he argues. And one who says that he {Rabbi Yochanan} does argue needs a proof.

And this that it states that squeezing olives and grapes, whether to a pot or to a plate, he needs {and thus is doing it for} its liquid, and this that Rabbi Yochanan says that one who squeezes [pickled] preserves and boiled preserves for their liquids is like one who squeezes olives and grapes, and is liable to {bring} a sin-offering, this is also not a proof, for one who squeezes grapes into a pot which has food, even though he needs their liquid, since he squeezes into a food, he is not like one who squeezes liquids but rather like one who crumbles food into {another} food, which is permitted.

And this that Rabbi Yochanan said regarding one who squeezes [pickled] preserves and boiled preserves for their liquids, that this is like one who squeezes olives and grapes, and he is liable, he only intended by that one who squeezes [pickled] preserves and boiled preserves into a plate is like one who squeezes olives and grapes into a plate, but into a pot, both these and those are permitted, for it is a food and not a liquid.

And in sooth, the halacha is like Shmuel in that a man may squeeze a cluster of grapes into a pot. And Rabbi Yochanan does not deal with squeezing a cluster at all.

And this that it stated that even to suckle from a {clean} animal with his mouth {and not milking with one's hands} on Yom Tov is forbidden, and certainly to milk {with one's hands} -- is it not so that suckling from an animal is more stringent than one who milks into a pot {containing food}? and even though it {suckling with one's mouth} is an act of indirect detaching, for one who suckles with his mouth is like one who squeezes out liquids, and one who milks into a pot is like one who crumbles food, and it is therefore permitted.

And further, this that Rami bar Chama objects, and we resolve his objection, and Ravina, who is later, also objects, and he objects and resolves his own objection; Also Rabbi Yirmiya wishes to establish it as a Tannaitic dispute, and it does not stand unless according to all, a liquid that comes into a food is reckoned a food.

Rif Shabbat 60a {Shabbat 143a continues ... 144b}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
60a

{Shabbat 143a continues}
in virtue of a bowl [flask] of water.

Rav Sheshet threw them {the kernels} away [spat them out] with his tongue.

Rav Papa threw them behind the couch.

It was said of Rabbi Zechariah ben Avtolas that he would turn his face to the back of the couch and throw them away.

END PEREK TWENTY-ONE

BEGIN PEREK TWENTY-TWO
{Shabbat 143b}
MISHNA:
IF A CASK [OF WINE] IS BROKEN, ONE MAY SAVE THEREOF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THREE MEALS, AND HE [THE OWNER] CAN SAY TO OTHERS, 'COME AND SAVE FOR YOURSELVES', PROVIDED THAT HE DOES NOT SPONGE IT UP.

FRUIT MAY NOT BE SQUEEZED IN ORDER TO EXPRESS THEIR JUICES: IF THEY EXUDE OF THEIR OWN ACCORD THEY ARE PROHIBITED.
R. JUDAH SAID: IF [THEY STAND] AS EATABLES, THAT WHICH EXUDES FROM THEM IS PERMITTED; BUT IF FOR LIQUIDS, THAT WHICH EXUDES FROM THEM IS PROHIBITED.

IF HONEYCOMBS ARE CRUSHED ON EREV SHABBAT AND IT [THE HONEY] EXUDES SPONTANEOUSLY, IT IS FORBIDDEN;
BUT R. ELEAZAR {or R Eliezer} PERMITS IT.

Gemara:
A Tanna taught: One must not sponge up wine nor dab up oil {with his hands, which he then wipes on the edge of a vessel so that the oil runs unto it}, so that he should not act as he does during the week.

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: If one's produce is scattered in his courtyard, he may collect a little at a time and eat it, but not into a basket or a tub, so that he should not act as he does during the week.

"{FRUIT} MAY NOT BE SQUEEZED":
Rav Papa {our gemara: Rabba} cited Rav Yehuda who cited Shmuel: The Sages agreed with Rabbi Yehuda in respect to all other fruits, and Rabbi Yehuda agreed with the Sages in respect to olives and grapes.

Rabbi Yirmiya said to Rabbi Abba: If so, in what do they argue?
He said to him: When you find it [I will tell you]. {probably = if you think carefully about it you will find the answer yourself}
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: It is reasonable that they differ in the case of mulberries and pomegranates.

Rabbi Yochanan said: The halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda in regard to all other fruits.

{Shabbat 144a}
They learnt {in a brayta}: One may express {=squeeze}

{Shabbat 144b}
plums, quinces and sorb-apples, but not pomegranates, for the household of Menashia ben Menachem used to express pomegranates on weekdays, and made from them wine, and thus we see that pomegranates are intended for squeezing. Therefore it is forbidden to squeeze them on Shabbat.

Rav Nachman said: The halacha is as those of the house of Menashia ben Menachem.

We now find that the fitting rule for all these matters is as follows: Olives and grapes, we may not squeeze them on Shabbat, and if they exuded on their own accord, they are forbidden, whether for eating of for drinking, according to all. And mulberries and pomegranates, it is forbidden to squeeze them on Shabbat, according to all; and if they exuded on their own, if they were intended for food, that which exudes from them is permitted, and if they were intended for liquids, that which exudes from them is prohibited, like Rabbi Yehuda. And all other fruits, such as plums, quinces and sorb-apples, one may squeeze them even initially {lechatchila} on Shabbat, acccording to all.

And if {?} there is one who thinks that pomegranates are grouped with olives and grapes, for this that Rav Nachman said, that the halacha is like the house of Menashia ben Menachem, was stated regarding squeezing in the first place {lechatchila}, that one may not squeeze them on Shabbat, but if they exude on their own, and they are for eating, it is permitted initially, like Rabbi Yehuda. And it is also reasonable, for we learn {katani - in a brayta}: One may express {=squeeze} plums, quinces and sorb-apples, but not pomegranates - thus it is clear that it is going on squeezing. And further, from the fact that they give the reason like Rav Chisda, who says:

If beets are expressed and [the juice] poured into a mikveh, it renders the mikveh unfit on account of changed appearance.
But why? These are not normally expressed?!
What you must then answer is that since he assigned value thereto, it ranks as liquid; so here too, since one assigns a value thereto, it ranks as a liquid.

We may deduce from this that this is going on squeezing, for one cannot sat that he assigns a value thereto unless he squeezed them.

Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: One may squeeze out a cluster of grapes into a pot, but not into a plate.

To explain: the pot has food in it and therefore it is liquid entering a food, and it is reckoned as a food. And the plate does not have food in it and therefore it is a liquid and forbidden.

There is one who says that this statement {meimera} was stated in regard to Yom Tov and not to Shabbat, for we establish in the Mishna: one may not squeeze

Rif Shabbat 59b {Shabbat 142b continues ...143a}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
59b

{Shabbat 142b continues}
Gemara:
Rav Huna cited Rav: They learnt this only where one forgot [it there], but if he placed [it there]. it [the cask] becomes a stand for a forbidden article.

And the halacha is like Rav, for Rabbi Ammi cited Rabbi Yochanan holds like him in perek kol haKeilim {125b}.

"IF IT IS [STANDING] AMONG [OTHER] CASKS":
They learnt {in a brayta}: Rabbi Yossi says: If the cask is lying among a store [of casks], or if glassware is lying under it, he lifts it out elsewhere, tilts it on a side, so that it falls off, takes thereof what he requires, and replaces it.

"IF MONEY IS LYING ON A CUSHION":
Rabbi Chiyya bar Ashi said: They learnt this only where one forgot [it there]; but if he placed [it there], it [the cushion] became a stand for a forbidden article.

Rabba bar bar Channa cited Rabbi Yochanan {our gemara: simply Rabba bar bar Channa}: They learnt this only when it is required for itself; but if its place is required, one may remove it [the cushion] while they [the coins] are yet upon it.

Rav Oshaya said: If one forgets a purse in a courtyard, he places a loaf or a child thereon and moves it.

And the halacha is not like him {Rav Oshaya} for Rav Ashi said: they said {=permitted the expedient of} a loaf or a child only in connection with a corpse.
And so is the halacha.

{Shabbat 143a}
MISHNA:
BETH SHAMMAI SAY: ONE MAY REMOVE BONES AND [NUT]SHELLS FROM THE TABLE;
BUT BETH HILLEL RULE: ONE MUST TAKE AWAY THE WHOLE BOARD AND SHAKE IT.

ONE MAY REMOVE FROM THE TABLE CRUMBS LESS THAN THE SIZE OF AN OLIVE AND THE PANICLES OF BEANS AND LENTILS, BECAUSE THEY ARE FOOD FOR ANIMALS.

AS FOR A SPONGE, IF IT HAS A LEATHERN HANDLE, ONE MAY WIPE [THE BOARD] WITH IT;
IF NOT, ONE MAY NOT WIPE [THE BOARD] WITH IT.
THE SAGES MAINTAIN]: IN EITHER CASE IT MAY BE HANDLED ON SHABBAT AND IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO DEFILEMENT.

Gemara:
Rav Nachman said: As for us, we have no other [view] but that Beth Shammai agrees with Rabbi Yehuda and Beth Hillel with Rabbi Shimon.

And when Rabbi Shimon permits moving things, it is such things as bones, which are fit food for dogs, and shells, which are fit food for animals. But things which are not fit as food for man nor for animals, Rabbi Shimon does not permit.

And the Sages learnt {in a brayta}: We may move bones because it is food for dogs, and foul meat because it is food for undomesticated animals.

"ONE MAY REMOVE CRUMBS FROM THE TABLE...":
This supports Rabbi Yochanan. For Rabbi Yochanan says that crumbs less than an olive in size may be destroyed by hand.

The kernels of Syrian dates may be handled, since they are fit [for cattle] on account of their parent source {=the dates themselves} --

To explain, because they are soft, and are therefore consumed together with the date itself.

{The kernels} of Persian dates are forbidden -- because they are hard, and are therefore not consumed with the date itself.

Another explanation: Syrian dates are hard, and the animal consumes them with the kernels, and therefore, we may handle them. Persian dates are soft and the animal does not consume them.
And it is logical that these words apply in places where they feed dates to animals, such as in Babylonia and Jericho. But in a place where they do not feed dates to animals, both this and that are forbidden to be handled.

Shmuel handled them in virtue of [a piece of] bread. Shmuel is consistent with his view, for Shmuel said: One may carry out all his requirements with bread.

Rabba handled them

Rif Shabbat 59a {Shabbat 141b continues ... 142b}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
59a

{Shabbat 141b continues}
but one may rub his foot with oil and place it in his shoe or sandal; he may also oil his whole body and roll himself on a leather spread without fear.

And Rav Chisda said: They learnt this only [if his intention is] to polish it {to polish the leather when he puts his foot in}; but [if it is] to dress it {=to soften the leather or make it more pliable}, it is forbidden.

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: A small[-footed] man must not go out with the shoe of a large[-footed] man {lest it fall off and he come to carry it} but he may go out with [too] large a shirt. A woman must not go out with a gaping shoe, nor may she perform chalitzah therewith; yet if she does perform chalitzah therewith, the chalitzah is valid. And one must not go out with a new shoe -- of what shoe did they rule this? Of a woman's shoe. {Since she is particular about the fit, and if it is not exact, she may remove and carry it.}

Bar Kappara taught: They learnt [this] only where she had not gone out therein one hour before nightfall; but if she went out therein one hour while it was yet day {on Friday}, it is permitted.

And a shoe which is on its last {imus} {last = A block or form shaped like a human foot and used in making or repairing shoes} may be removed on Shabbat.

To explain, an imus is the form for the shoe.

We learn in Zevachim, in perek Dam Chatat {94b}:
Rava expounded: it is permissible to wash {lechabes = clean with water} a shoe.
Rav Papa said to Rava: But many times I stood before Rabba, and they scrubbed his garments with water. Scrubbing yes, but washing, no!
Rava recanted, and appointed a speaker {Amora} upon this and expounded: The matters which I told you were an error at my hands. Rather, so did they say: Scrubbing is permitted but washing is forbidden.

END PEREK TWENTY

BEGIN PEREK TWENTY-ONE

MISHNA:
A MAN MAY TAKE UP HIS SON WHILE HE HAS A STONE IN HIS HAND OR A BASKET WITH A STONE IN IT; AND UNCLEAN TERUMAH MAY BE HANDLED TOGETHER WITH CLEAN [TERUMAH] OR WITH HULLIN. R. JUDAH SAID: ONE MAY ALSO REMOVE THE ADMIXTURE [OF TERUMAH IN HULLIN] WHEN ONE [PART IS NEUTRALIZED] IN A HUNDRED [PARTS].

Gemara:
The academy of Rabbi Yannai said: This {the case in which man who may take up his son while the son is holding a stone} refers to a child who pines for his father.

{Shabbat 142a}
And specifically a stone, since if it falls, he will not come to carry it, but a dinar, which if it falls he may come to carry it, no.

{Shabbat 142b}
MISHNA:
IF A STONE IS ON THE MOUTH OF A CASK [OF WINE], ONE TILTS IT ON A SIDE AND IT FALLS OFF.
IF IT [THE CASK] IS [STANDING] AMONG [OTHER] CASKS, HE LIFTS IT OUT, TILTS IT ON A SIDE, AND IT FALLS OFF.

IF MONEY IS LYING ON A CUSHION, ONE SHAKES THE CUSHION, AND IT FALLS OFF. IF DIRT IS UPON IT, ONE WIPES IT OFF WITH A RAG; IF IT IS OF LEATHER, WATER IS POURED OVER IT UNTIL IT DISAPPEARS.

Rif Shabbat 58b {Shabbat 140b continues ... 141b}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
58b

{Shabbat 140b continues}
Thus we may deduce from this that they disagree in both.

Rav Chisda said: They differ in respect of a vessel manger, but all hold that a ground manger is forbidden.

"ONE MAY TAKE [FODDER] FROM ONE ANIMAL":
One brayta taught: One may take [fodder] from before an animal that is fastidious and place [it] before an animal that is not fastidious; while another brayta taught: One may take [fodder] from before an animal that is not fastidious and place [it] before an animal that is fastidious.

Abaye said: Both [Baraithas hold] that one may not take from an ox [and place it] before an ass, but from an ass [to put] before an ox, one may take.

Now, when it is taught, 'One may take from before an animal that is fastidious', it refers to an ass, which does not drop saliva [into its food]; 'and place [it] before an animal that is not fastidious', to a cow,
{Shabbat 141a}
which drops saliva.
And when it is taught, 'One may take [fodder] from before an animal that is not fastidious', it refers to an ass, which is not particular about what it eats; 'and put [it] before an animal that is fastidious,' to a cow, which is particular about what it eats.

MISHNA:
ONE MUST NOT MOVE STRAW [LYING] UPON A BED WITH HIS HAND, YET HE MAY MOVE IT WITH HIS BODY.
BUT IF IT IS FODDER FOR ANIMALS, OR A PILLOW OR A SHEET WAS UPON IT BEFORE NIGHTFALL, HE MAY MOVE IT WITH HIS HAND.

ONE MAY UNDO A HOUSEHOLDER'S CLOTHES PRESS, BUT NOT FORCE IT DOWN.
{The two boards of the press fitted on to four perforated rods: the upper board was pressed down and pegs were inserted in the holes to keep it there. The press may be undone by withdrawing these pegs, because the clothes are required for Shabbat. One may not force it down to start pressing, because it is needed for after Shabbat.}

BUT A LAUNDERER'S [PRESS] MAY NOT BE TOUCHED.
{This was screwed down very tightly, and undoing it would resemble taking a utensil to pieces.}
R. JUDAH SAID: IF IT WAS UNDONE BEFORE SHABBAT, ONE MAY UNFASTEN THE WHOLE AND REMOVE IT.

Gemara:
Rav Nachman said: A radish, if it is the right way up, it is permitted; if it is reversed, it is forbidden.

For he holds that moving {tiltul} from the side {min hatzad} is called moving -- and the halacha is not so, but rather whether right side up or wrong side up it is permitted, for Rav Nachman retracted in perek Kol HaKeilim {Shabbat 123a} and says that moving from the side is not called moving.

Rav Yehuda said: To crush peppergrains one by one with a knife-handle is permitted; in twos, it is forbidden. {because then, it looks like grinding}

Rava said: Since he does it in a different way {from usual, that is via a mill or mortar}, crushing even many [is permitted] too.

Some establish this discussion as referring to Shabbat, and some to Yom Tov. And it is logical to establish it as referring to Shabbat, for no one would say that we would require one to crush peppergrains one by one with a knife-handle on Yom Tov.

And Rav Yehuda said: if one bathes in water, he should first dry himself {the parts of his body not in water} and then ascend, lest he come to carry four cubits in a karmelith.

If so, when he enters too, his force propels the water four cubits, which is forbidden?
They did not prohibit one's force in a karmelith.

Abaye, and some say Rav Yehuda, said: One may scrape off the clay from his foot on to the ground, but not on to a wall.
Rava said: Why not on to a wall? because It looks like building? but it is ignorant building?!
Rather, Rava said: He may scrape it off on to a wall but not on to the ground, lest he come to level holes.

It was stated {by Amoraim}:
Mar the son of Ravina said: Both are forbidden.
Rav Papa said: Both are permitted.

But according to Mar son of Ravina, whereon shall he scrape it? He scrapes it on a plank.

There is one who says that the halacha is like Mar the son of Ravina, because they explain his words {the plank comment}. And the Baal Halachot rules like Rav Papa.

And Rava said: One must not bend sideways a cask [which is standing] on the ground, lest he come to level hollows..

Rava said: A man should not sit by a stake {a lechi at the entrance to an alley, whereby carrying therein is permitted}, lest an article roll away from him {out of the alley into the public domain} and he come to fetch it.

And Rava said: One must not squeeze a cloth stopper into the mouth of a jug, lest he come to wring [it] out.

Rav Kahana said: As for the clay [mire] on one's garment, he may rub off from the inside but not from the outside.
{In the latter case he looks as though he desires to wash the garment, though it is not actual washing.}

And it is permitted to scrape it with his fingernail.

{Shabbat 141b}
Rabbi Chiyya taught {tanei}: One must not scrape either a new shoe or all old one, nor must he rub his foot with oil while it is in the shoe or sandal;

Rif Shabbat 58a {Shabbat 139b continues ... 140b}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
58a

{Shabbat 139b continues}
Rav Yaakov Karcha recited:

{Shabbat 140a}
Because it is only done for coloring.

It was stated {by Amoraim}: If mustard grain is kneaded on erev Shabbat, on the morrow --
Rav said: One must crush [dissolve] it {in water} 'with a utensil, but not by hand {for by hand is the usual way}.
And Shmuel said: He must crush it by hand, but not with a utensil.
Rabbi Eleazar said: Both this and that are forbidden.
And Rabbi Yochanan said: Both this and that are permitted.

Mar Zutra said: The halacha is not like any of the aforementioned, but rather as the following, which was stated {itmar = by Amoraim}: If mustard is kneaded on erev Shabbat, on the morrow one may crush [dissolve] it both by hand or with a utensil; he may pour honey in it, yet he must not beat it up but may mix them. If cress was chopped up on erev Shabbat, on the morrow one may put oil and vinegar into it and add ammitha thereto; and he must not beat then, up but may mix them. If garlic was crushed on erev Shabbat, on the morrow one may put beans and grits therein, yet he must not pound them, but may mix them, and one may add ammitha to it.

What is ammitha? — Ninya. {Jastrow: ammi, Bishop's weed. Rashi: mint.}
Abaye said: We may deduce from this that ninya is good for [seasoning] cress.

"AND ENOMLIN MAY BE PREPARED ON SHABBAT":
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: Enomlin may be prepared on Shabbat but aluntith may not be prepared on Shabbat.
What is enomlin and what is aluntith? — Enomlin is [a mixture of] wine, honey, and pepper. Aluntith is [a mixture of] old wine, clear water and balsam, which is prepared as a cooling [draught] in the baths.

MISHNA:
CHILTITH {Jastrow: = assa foetida, an umbelliferous plant used as a resin in leaves, for a spice and for medicinal purposes} MUST NOT BE DISSOLVED IN WARM WATER {to be drunk medicinally}, BUT IT MAY BE PUT INTO VINEGAR;

AND ONE MUST NOT CAUSE LEEKS TO FLOAT {=pour water over them to make the refuse float up so that it can be removed}, NOR RUB THEM {by hand, likewise to remove the refuse}; BUT THEY MAY BE PUT INTO A SIEVE {and the refuse may fall through} OR A BASKET {which can function like a sieve}.

STUBBLE MAY NOT BE SIFTED THROUGH A SIEVE, NOR PLACED ON AN EMINENCE, FOR THE CHAFF TO DROP DOWN; BUT ONE MAY TAKE IT UP IN A SIEVE AND PUT IT INTO THE MANGER
{Though some chaff may fall through. this is unintentional, the Mishnah agreeing with R. Simeon that whatever is unintentional is permitted.}

Gemara:
Rabbi Yochanan inquired of Rabbi Yannai: May chiltith be dissolved in cold water?
He said to him: It is forbidden.

But we learnt {in the Mishna}: CHILTITH MUST NOT BE DISSOLVED IN WARM WATER, implying that it is permitted in cold water?
He {Rabbi Yannai} said to him: The Mishna records an individual's opinion, for we learnt {in a brayta}: Chiltith may be dissolved neither in warm nor in cold water; Rabbi Yose says: In warm water it is forbidden; in cold it is permitted.

And the halacha is like Rabbi Yannai who said that whether in warm or cold water it is forbidden.

And if it was dissolved from the previous day, it is permitted to drink it on Shabbat.

And if he drank it {medicinally} on Thursday, and on Friday before Shabbat, and on Shabbat he did not have any that was dissolved {from before Shabbat} and he fears that if he does not drank, he will be endangered, it is permitted to dissolve it in cold water and to place it in the sun in order that he is not endangered, like the case of Rabbi Chiyya bar Avin.

Rav Chiyya {our gemara: Acha} bar Yosef was walking along, leaning on the shoulder of Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, his sister's son. He {R Chiyya} said to him: When we reach Rav Safra's house, lead me in.
When they arrived [there] he led him in.
He asked of him {Rav Safra}: How about rubbing [the stiffness out of] linen [washing] on Shabbat? {when it is starched. the rubbing softens it and makes it whiter.} Is his intention to soften the linen, and it is permitted, or perhaps his intention is to make it whiter, which is forbidden?
He said to him: His intention is to soften it, and it is permitted.
When he {Rav Chiyya} went out he [Rav Nachman] came and said to him: What did Master ask him?
He {Rav Chiyya} said to him {Rav Nachman}: I asked him, What about rubbing linen on Shabbat, and he answered me, It is permitted.

Rav Chisda said: As for linen,
{Shabbat 140b}
to draw it away from the cane is permitted; to draw out the cane from it is forbidden.

{To explain: Linen was hung up on a cane passing through the sleeves to dry. A cane must not be handled on Shabbat, being regarded as muktzeh, as it stands to be used as fuel.}

Rava said: But if it is a weaver's implement {kli kivai}, it is permitted. {That is, then a utensil, which may be handled.}

To explain, kli kivai is a weaver's implement.

Rav Chisda said: A bunch of vegetables, if fit as food for animals, may be handled; if not, it is forbidden.

Rav Chiyya bar Ashi cited Rav: A meat hook is permitted [to be handled]; a fish [hook] is forbidden, for since its smell is great, he removes his thoughts from it, and it is muktzeh because of digust {mius}, and because of this, it is forbidden to handle it.

Rav is consistent with his own opinion, for Rav holds like Rabbi Yehuda. But according to Rabbi Shimon, he maintains that their is no such muktzeh because of disgust. And the halacha is like him {Rabbi Shimon}.

A scholar should not send his garments to his host {the keeper of the boarding house} for washing, for this is not in good taste {orach ar'a = derech eretz}.

MISHNA:
ONE MAY SWEEP OUT [THE MANGER] FOR A STALL OX, AND MOVE [THE REMNANTS] ASIDE FOR THE SAKE OF A GRAZING ANIMAL: THIS IS R. DOSA'S VIEW,
BUT THE SAGES FORBID IT.

ONE MAY TAKE [FODDER] FROM ONE ANIMAL AND PLACE IT BEFORE ANOTHER ANIMAL ON SHABBAT.

Gemara:
It was a question to them:
Do the Sages argue with the former portion {of Rabbi Dosa's statement} or do they argue with the latter portion?

Come and hear: For they learnt {in a brayta}: But the Sages maintain: Both the one and the other must not be moved to the sides.

Rif Shabbat 57b {Shabbat 139b continues}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
57b

{Shabbat 139b continues}
Fringes are important in relation to the cloak, hence they are not merged [therein]; these are not of [separate] importance, and [so] are accounted as nought.

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: A man may employ an artifice in connection with a strainer on a Yom Tov, suspending it for pomegranates yet straining lees therein
Rav Huna {our gemara: Ashi} said: Provided he does place pomegranates in it {for some time}.

How does it differ from what was taught {tnan}: One may brew beer on the [intermediate days of a] Yom Tov when it is required for the Yom Tov , but if not required for the Yom Tov it is forbidden: [this applies to] both barley beer and date beer. Though one has old [beer], he may practise an evasion and drink of the new.
There the matter is not evident; here the matter is evident {that he is evading the law}.

The Sages said to Rav Ashi: See, sir, a Rabbinical disciple. whose name is Rav Huna bar Chivan -- others state, Rav Huna bar Chilyon was his name -- who took peel of garlic, placed it in the bung hole of a barrel, and asserted, 'My intention is to put it away [here]'
{But actually it was to prevent the wine from running out, and thus he repaired the barrel.}
He also went and dozed in a ferry and thus crossed to the other side and looked after his fruit, asserting, 'My intention was to sleep.'
He {Rav Ashi} said to them: You speak of an artifice: it is an artifice [in connection with] a Rabbinical [interdict], and a disciple of the Rabbis will not come to do this at the very outset.

MISHNA:
WATER MAY BE POURED OVER LEES IN ORDER TO CLARIFY THEM, AND WINE MAY BE STRAINED THROUGH CLOTHS AND THROUGH A BASKET MADE OF PALM TWIGS; AND AN EGG MAY BE PASSED THROUGH A MUSTARD STRAINER;
{Rashi: the strainer contains mustard, and when the egg is poured upon it the yolk passes through and the white remains on top. R. Halevi (quoted by Rash): the egg is strained into a dish, not into mustard, but a mustard strainer is specified in order that the action on the Sabbath, though permitted, shall be done differently from what it is on weekdays.}
AND ENOMLIN MAY BE PREPARED ON SHABBAT.

R. JUDAH SAID: ON SHABBAT[IT MAY ONLY BE MADE] IN A GOBLET;
ON YOM TOV, IN A LAGIN {= Larger than a goblet but smaller than a barrel};
AND ON THE INTERMEDIATE DAYS OF YOM TOV IN A BARREL.
R. ZADOK SAID: IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE [NUMBER OF] GUESTS.

Gemara:
Ze'iri said: One may pour clear wine and clear water into a strainer on Shabbat without fear, but not turbid [liquids].

And if it is between the vats, such that it is still fermenting, and it is not clear, yet it is also not muddy, one may stir up a barrel of wine, [i.e..] the wine and the lees, and pour it into a strainer on Shabbat without fear.

"WINE MAY BE STRAINED THROUGH CLOTHS":
Rav Shimi bar Chiyya said {in our gemara he cites Rav}: Provided that one does not make a hollow. {that is, the cloth must be taut and not form a hollow.}

"AND THROUGH A BASKET MADE OF PALM TWIGS":
Rav Chiyya bar Ashi cited Rav: Provided he does not lift it [the basket] a handbreadth from the bottom of the vessel. {or else it forms a tent}

Rabba said: [Spreading] a rag {פרוינקא} over the whole cask is forbidden {since a tent is made}; over half a cask [to cover it] is permitted.

To explain, a פרוינקא is a cloth.

Rav Papa said: A man must not stuff chips into the mouth of a cask jug {=a jug used for taking wine out of a cask; the chips act as a strainer} because it looks like a strainer.

Rav Papa's household poured wine slowly from one vessel to another {so as to leave the sediment behind}.

Rav Acha of Difti said {=objected} to Ravina {our gemara: missing to Ravina}: But there is the residue?
{The last drops percolating through the dregs left behind in the first vessel, which shows that their purpose was to strain the wine}
The residue had no value in Rav Papa's household.
{He was a beer brewer and could afford to throw away the little wine left at the bottom together with the chips, thus leaving nothing at all there to show their real motive.}

"AN EGG MAY BE PASSED THROUGH A MUSTARD STRAINER":

Rif Shabbat 57a {Shabbat 138b continues ... 139b}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
57a

{Shabbat 138b continues}
for Rav said: The Torah is destined to be forgotten in Israel, because it is said {Devarim 28:59}:

נט וְהִפְלָא ה אֶת-מַכֹּתְךָ, וְאֵת מַכּוֹת זַרְעֶךָ: מַכּוֹת גְּדֹלֹת וְנֶאֱמָנוֹת, וָחֳלָיִם רָעִים וְנֶאֱמָנִים.

59 then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.

This wonder, I do not know what it is. Once he says {in Yeshaya 29:14}:

יד לָכֵן, הִנְנִי יוֹסִף לְהַפְלִיא אֶת-הָעָם-הַזֶּה--הַפְלֵא וָפֶלֶא; וְאָבְדָה חָכְמַת חֲכָמָיו, וּבִינַת נְבֹנָיו תִּסְתַּתָּר.

14 Therefore, behold, I will again do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder; and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the prudence of their prudent men shall be hid.

This states that "wonder" = Torah.

{Shabbat 139a}
The citizens of Bashkar sent [a question] to Levi: What about [setting up] a canopy [on Shabbat]; what about cuscuta in a vineyard? what about a dead man on a Yom Tov?
By the time he [the messenger] arrived [at Levi's home] Levi had died.
Shmuel said to Rav Menashia: If you are wise {alternatively, if you recognize the answer}, send them [an answer].
[So] he sent [word] to them: 'As for a canopy, we have examined it from all aspects and do not find any aspect by which it can be permitted'.

But let him send them [a permissive ruling] in accordance with Rami bar Yechezkel?
[He did not do this] because they were not learned in the law {and they would go still further}.

'Cuscuta in a vineyard is a [forbidden] mixture.'
But let him send them [a reply] in accordance with Rabbi Tarfon. For they learnt {tnan}: As for cuscuta, Rabbi Tarfon maintains: It is not kil'ayim in a vineyard; while the Sages rule: It is kil'ayim in a vineyard.
And it is an established principle for us: The view of him who is lenient in respect to Eretz Yisrael is halacha outside of Eretz Yisrael.

[Likewise] because they were not learnt in the law.

As for a corpse {he sent word to them}: Neither Jews nor non-Jews may occupy themselves with a corpse, neither on the first day of a Yom Tov nor on the second.

{Shabbat 139b}
But Rava said: A corpse on the first day of Yom Tov, gentiles should occupy themselves with it. A corpse on the second day of Yom Tov, Israelites should should occupy themselves with it. And so too on the two days of Rosh HaShana, which is not so in the case of an egg.

[Here too] because they were not learned in the law.

Rav Huna cited Rav Chama bar Guria who cited Rav {our gemara does not cite Rav}: A man may wrap himself in a canopy sheet and [tie it] with its cords to go out into the public domain on Shabbat and not worry.

How does this differ from Rav Huna's [dictum]? For Rav Huna said {our gemara: in the name of Rav}: If one goes out on Shabbat wearing a garment not provided with [proper] fringes as required by law, he is liable to a sin-offering.

Rif Shabbat 56b {Shabbat 138a continues ... 138b}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
56b

{Shabbat 138a continues}
and if he does he is not culpable, but it is forbidden. However, one must not make a permanent tent, and if he does he is liable to a sin-offering. But a bed, chair, three-legged stool, and a footstool may be set up at the very outset.

"NOR POUR [WINE] THROUGH A SUSPENDED {STRAINER} ON SHABBAT":
It was a question to them: What if one does strain [wine]?
Rav Kahana said: If one strains he incurs a sin-offering.

And on what grounds is he warned {that he is violating}?
Rabba said: On the grounds of selecting {borer}.
And Rabbi Zera said: On the score of sifting.

Rami bar Yechezkel recited: One must not spread a doubled-over sheet,
{Rabbenu Chananel explains: Tent-wise over a pole. the ends being fastened to the ground, so that the whole forms a tent under which he can lie}
yet if he does he is not culpable, but it is forbidden. And if a thread {chut} or a cord {meshicha} was wound about it, it may be spread at the very outset.

To explain, such as a doubled over sheet which is tied between two walls, and it drapes and touches the ground, and he enters between its two ends and sleeps under it, in its shade - and there is not in its roof a handsbreadth - and therefore, it is not reckoned a permanent tent, but rather a temporary tent. And since there is not in its roof a handsbreath, nor within three {=lavud} to its roof a handsbreadth. And therefore he is not liable, yet it is forbidden. And if there were threads from yesterday {before Shabbat}, and he pitches it today {on Shabbat}, it is {entirely} permitted.

Rav Yosef said: I saw the canopy beds of Rav Huna's house stretched out at night and thrown down in the morning.

Rav Kahana said: I saw the canopy beds of Rav Papa's house, and of Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua's house stretched out at night and thrown down in the morning.

Rav cited Rabbi Chiyya: A [door] curtain {vilon} may be hung up and taken down.
To explain vilon, it is a curtain.

And Shmuel cited Rabbi Chiyya:
{Shabbat 138b}
A bridal bed may be set up and it may be dismantled.

Rav Shisha {our gemara: Sheshet} son of Rav Iddi said: A peaked cap {סיאנא} is permitted. {Jastrow: A felt cap with a shade in front.}
To explain, this is a hat that people place on their heads, and it forms a tent on their face {to protect} from the sun.
But it was stated: a peaked cap is forbidden?
There is no difficulty: in the one case it is a handbreadth; in the other it is not a handbreadth.
If so, if one lets his cloak protrude a handbreadth, is he too culpable?
Rather [say] there is no difficulty: here it is tightly fitted [on his head]; there it is not tightly fitted.
{Rashi: and if it blows off he may come to carry it}

Rami bar Yechezkel sent to Rav Huna: Tell us, pray. those well-favoured dicta which you told us [formerly] in Rav's name, two about Shabbat and one about Torah.
He sent [back] to him: As to what was taught {in a brayta}, It is permitted to stretch the leather bag by its thongs, Rav said: They learnt this only of two men; but [if done] by one man, it is forbidden.
Abaye said: But a canopy, even [if stretched] by ten men, is forbidden, [for] it is impossible that it shall not be somewhat stretched.

What is the other [dictum]? This that they learnt {in a brayta}: If one of the shafts of a stove falls off, it [the stove] may be handled; if both [fall off], it may not be handled -- Rav said: Even if one [falls out] it is forbidden, lest he [re]fix it.

And the halacha is like Rav.

'[And one about] Torah' -- what?

Rif Shabbat 56a {Shabbat 137b continues ... 138a; digression to Eruvin 67b-68a; Avoda Zara 27b}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
56a

{Shabbat 137b}
like the case {in Eruvin 67b} of a certain infant whose hot water spilled, Rabba said to them: bring water from my house. Abaye said to him: But they made no eruv {chatzeirot}! He {Rabba} said to him: Let us rely on the shituf {of alleyways}! Abaye said to him: They made no shituf. {Rabba said:} Let them say to a gentile to bring it from my house! {Subsequently} Abaye said {to him}: I had a mind to dispute even this last order of my master, but Rav Yosef would not permit me to do this; for Rav Kahana said: Where a biblical ordinance is in question the case should be discussed before the act is committed, but in the matter of rabbinical ordinances the deed may be accomplished and then the decision may be asked for.

Later he {Rav Yosef?} asked him: Upon what grounds do you desire to dispute him?
He {Abaye} said to him: from this that they learnt {in a brayta}:
{Eruvin 68a}
The sprinkling {of an unclean man with the ashes of the red heifer by a clean man} is a rabbinical ordinance. Likewise telling a gentile {to perform a forbidden labor} is a rabbinical ordinance. Just as sprinkling is rabbinic ordinance and does not push off Shabbat, so too telling a gentile is a rabbinical ordinance and does not push off Shabbat.
He said to him {Abaye}: And did you not learn the distinction between a rabbinic ordinance that has to it an action and a rabbinic ordinance that lacks an action? For Master did not say to the gentile 'go heat for me' which is an action which is prohibited Biblically, but rather 'go bring me' which lacks an act of the hands, but is in its totality only speech.
He was silent and found no answer.

And we have considered the matter and have found that these {the conclusion that the halachot gedolot derives that one may tell a gentile to repair the scalpel} are not words to be relied upon, and from the substance of this case you learn that it is forbidden to tell a gentile to repair it or to bring it via a public domain -- from the fact that he said to him {Abaye} "For Master did not say to the gentile 'go heat for me'" it is clear that it is forbidden to tell a gentile to 'go heat for me.'

And many of the {post-Talmudic} Rabbis erred in their understanding of this sugya, in that they think that this that "He said to him {Abaye}: And did you not learn the distinction between a rabbinic ordinance that has to it an action and a rabbinic ordinance that lacks an action?" is going on the rabbinic ordinance regarding sprinkling, he spoke to him - that the rabbinic ordinance of sprinkling is the rabbinic ordinance that has to it an action, while the rabbinic ordinance of speaking is the rabbinic ordinance that lacks an action, in that it is merely speech - and it is difficult for them as follows - for they say, "since speaking to a gentile is a rabbinic ordinance which lacks an action, what is the difference if he says to him {the gentile} 'bring it from within my house' or if he says to him 'go heat up for me?' In both instances, it is a rabbinic ordinance which lacks an action, for it is mere speech, and thus permitted!"

And all of these people introduce an error in the nusach {text} of the gemara, for they maintain that there should not be in the gemara this statement that "Master did not say 'go heat for me'" but rather there is an error in the nusach of the gemara.

And it is not in fact as they understand it, and the nusach does not in fact have an error in it, but rather it is a superior nusach, but it should not be explained as they attempted to explain it. Rather, this that he said to him {Abaye}, "And did Mar not learn the distinction between a rabbinic ordinance that has to it an action and a rabbinic ordinance that lacks an action?" -- he was not speaking about the rabbinic ordinance of sprinkling, but rather, so did he say to him:

This that you said that speaking to a gentile is a rabbinic ordinance, and that you compare it to the rabbinic ordinance of sprinkling, such that it is forbidden, do you not make a distinction between the rabbinic ordinance that the speaking itself is trying to accomplish {in other words, the rabbinic action X, where you ask the gentile to accomplish action X} between a rabbinic ordinance which has in it a melacha {labor} and a rabbinic ordinance which lacks a melacha? For Master did not say 'go heat up for me,' which {heating} has to it a melacha, but rather 'go bring to me from my house,' which is merely moving it {tiltul}, and in which there is no melacha.

For we derive from this that when we say that speaking to a gentile {to request he perform something forbidden to you on Shabbat} is a rabbinic ordinance, this is as regards something which is a melacha, but as regards something which is not a melacha, such as the present case, we do not say that speaking to a gentile is a rabbinic ordinance.

Thus it is made clear to you that there is no error in the nusach, and they are clear matters.

And this that we say {use the terminology} a rabbinic ordinance {shevut} which lacks an action {maaseh} and do not say a rabbinic ordinance which lacks a labor {melacha}, "action" and "labor" in this subject are one and the same, for men call labor "action" as we say "And between the seventh day to the six days of action {yemei haMaaseh}" and this refers to labor.

And it was already made clear to you that it is forbidden to tell a gentile to repair it {the scalpel} or do bring it via a public domain. And this that the Baal Halachot says is a mistake, and one should not rely upon it.

And a gentile is forbidden to circumcise, for we learn in tractate Avoda Zara {Avoda Zara 27b}: How do we know that circumcision via a gentile that it is invalid?
Daru bar Papa cited Rav: As it is written {in Bereishit 17:9}:

ט וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹקִים אֶל-אַבְרָהָם, וְאַתָּה אֶת-בְּרִיתִי תִשְׁמֹר --אַתָּה וְזַרְעֲךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ, לְדֹרֹתָם.

9 And God said unto Abraham: 'And as for thee, thou shalt keep My covenant, thou, and thy seed after thee throughout their generations.

Rabbi Yochanan said: {Bereishit 17:13}:

יג הִמּוֹל יִמּוֹל יְלִיד בֵּיתְךָ, וּמִקְנַת כַּסְפֶּךָ; וְהָיְתָה בְרִיתִי בִּבְשַׂרְכֶם, לִבְרִית עוֹלָם

13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised; and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

HaMal {without the cholam} Yimol it is read. {that is, one who is circumcised does the circumcision}.

What is the difference between them? This is the difference: A woman.
To Rav, who says וְאַתָּה אֶת-בְּרִיתִי תִשְׁמֹר - "And as for thee, thou shalt keep My covenant" - a woman, since she is not in the covenant {or circumcision} she may not circumcise.
To Rabbi Yochanan, who says הִמּוֹל יִמּוֹל - since he is an Israelite -- and even the uncircumcised {male Israelite} are like the circumcised. So too a woman is within the category of Israelite and may circumcise.

And if there is a Jewish woman who knows how to circumcise, and circumcises, it is fine, for the halacha is like Rabbi Yochanan, for it is established for us that {in a dispute between} Rav and Rabbi Yochanan, the halacha is like Rabbi Yochanan.

END PEREK NINETEEN

BEGIN PEREK TWENTY

MISHNA:
R. ELIEZER SAID: ONE MAY SUSPEND A STRAINER ON YOM TOV, AND POUR [WINE] THROUGH A SUSPENDED [STRAINER] ON SHABBAT.

BUT THE SAGES RULE: ONE MAY NOT SUSPEND A STRAINER ON YOM TOV, NOR POUR [WINE] THROUGH A SUSPENDED [STRAINER] ON SHABBAT, BUT WE MAY POUR [IT] THROUGH A SUSPENDED [STRAINER] ON YOM TOV.

Gemara:
"BUT THE SAGES RULE...":
It was a question to them: What if one does suspend [it]?
Rav Yosef said: If one suspends [it] he is liable to a sin-offering.
Abaye said to him: If so, if one hangs a pitcher on a peg. is he too liable?
{Surely not. Here too it is not a real building and is forbidden by Rabbinical law only.}

{Shabbat 138a}
Rather Abaye said: It is [forbidden] by Rabbinical law, in order that one should not act in the very way he acts on weekdays.

And so is the halacha.

Abaye collected some general principles of Baraithas, and he recited: One must not stretch out a leather bag, a strainer, a canopy, or a camp chair {Jastrow renders camp chair. Tosafot: a framework over which the leather seat was stretched; this is like the making of a tent}