Rif Shabbat 27a

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
27a

{Shabbat 59b continues}
Rav Shmuel bar bar Channa said to Rav Yosef: You explicitly told us in Rav's name that a coronet is permitted.

They told Rav: A great, tall, and lame man - and who is he? Levi, as we have said {Succah 53a} Levi demonstrated kiddah bowing {before Rabbi} and became lame as a result - has come to Nehardea, and has lectured: A coronet is permitted.

And so is the halacha.

The explanation of niska {in our gemara, אניסכא - which Soncino renders "cast metal"} is a thread of silver or of gold - that is to say, they are strips with holes, and they {machnisin} enter into them a thread to support them.

The explanation of rokta {our gemara: ארוקתא - which Soncino rendered "embroidered stuff"} - as the cloth, that those strips {of silver or gold} are affixed on the cloth.

Rav Yehuda cited Rav Sheshet {our gemara: Rav Shmuel}: A girdle [kamra] is permitted.
{Rashi: Kamra was a costly girdle, made either of solid gold or of cloth adorned with gold and precious stones}

And this is a girdle for the loins, and there were strips affixed, such as kalila {coronet, mentioned above} .

Some say {that the definition of kamra} is of ארוקתא - and Rav Safra said: It may be compared to a robe shot through with gold. {There is no fear of either being removed.}

And some say it is of אניסכא - and Rav Safra said: It may be compared to a royal girdle. {Which was likewise made of beaten gold}
And all Israelites are the sons of kings.

And since of אניסכא is permitted according to the second version, it would certainly be so of ארוקתא -- and the halacha is like the second version.

---

Rav Ashi said: As for a piece of a garment, if it has fringes, it is permitted; {For by their means it can be firmly tied to the wearer, so that it will not fall off and necessitate its being carried in the street.} if not, it is forbidden.

"NOR WITH A KATLA, NOR WITH NEZAMIM":

What is a KATLA?
A trinket holder. {Soncino: A band or necklace on which beads, trinkets, etc., are suspended}

And its name in Arabic is mechanka.

And what are NEZAMIM?
Nose-rings.

"NOR WITH A FINGER-RING THAT HAS NO SIGNET":
This [implies that] if it has a signet, she is liable a sin-offering.
And so is the halacha.

{Shabbat 60a}
"NOR WITH A NEEDLE WHICH IS UNPIERCED":
What is it fit for?
Rav Acha {our gemara: Adda} of Naresh interpreted it before Rav Yosef: Since a woman parts her hair with it, [it is ornamental].

And on Shabbat, what is it fit for?
They learnt {in a brayta - meanwhile, our gemara has this statement by Rabba}: It has a golden plaque at the end thereof: on weekdays she parts her hair therewith, [while] on Shabbat she lets it lie against her forehead.

MISHNA:
A MAN MAY NOT GO OUT WITH A NAIL-STUDDED SANDAL, NOR WITH A SINGLE [SANDAL], IF HE HAS NO WOUND ON HIS FOOT;
NOR WITH TEFILLIN, NOR WITH AN AMULET, IF IT IS NOT FROM AN EXPERT {or as we have it, that is not EXPERT}, NOR WITH A COAT OF MAIL [SHIRYON], NOR WITH A CASQUE [KASDA], NOR WITH GREAVES [MEGAFAYYIM]. YET IF HE GOES OUT, HE DOES NOT INCUR A SIN-OFFERING.

Gemara:
"A NAIL-STUDDED SANDAL":
What is the reason not?
Rav Abba cited Shmuel {in our gemara, just Shmuel}: It was at the end of the period of persecution

Rif Shabbat 26b

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
26b

{Shabbat 58a continues}

and the halacha is like Rabbi Abahu, for there is a brayta like him.

And the explanation of kipa shel tzemer {what we've been calling a wool hair-net} are twisted threads of wool, and they make from them a strip of cloth which is two fingerbreadths wide, like the tzitz, as we say {in Chullin 138a}: a kippa shel tzemer rested on the head of the Kohen Gadol, and upon it the tzitz was placed, since it is stated {Shemot 28:37}:

לו וְעָשִׂיתָ צִּיץ, זָהָב טָהוֹר; וּפִתַּחְתָּ עָלָיו פִּתּוּחֵי חֹתָם, קֹדֶשׁ לַיהוָה.	36 And thou shalt make a plate of pure gold, and engrave upon it, like the engravings of a signet: HOLY TO THE LORD.
לז וְשַׂמְתָּ אֹתוֹ עַל-פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת, וְהָיָה עַל-הַמִּצְנָפֶת; אֶל-מוּל פְּנֵי-הַמִּצְנֶפֶת, יִהְיֶה.	37 And thou shalt put it on a thread of blue, and it shall be upon the mitre; upon the forefront of the mitre it shall be.

{Shabbat 57b}
{We had said in the brayta: A woman may go out into a courtyard with a kabul and a clasp [itztema]}.
What is an itztema?
Rabbi Abahu said: bei zaynei {our gemara Bizyune}.
Whare is bei zaynei?
That which imprisons the flying [locks]. {Soncino: i.e. a clasp or buckle - as we will now see, the Rif does not render this a clasp.}

By way of explanation, a cloth that they hang from it different types of dyed {strands}, such as a blanket {veil?} that they hang for a bride to remove from her flies, for if a fly lands on her face she would be embarrassed to bother it, and it was cause he anguish - like this that they hang for an animal - and therefore, there is not in it any problem of kilayim, for it is not woven, and it does not become ritually impure with negaim, for it lacks warp and woof, and one may not go out with it into the public domain, for it is not an ornament.

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: Three things were said of an itztema: there is not in it any problem of kilayim, for it is not woven, and it does not become ritually impure with negaim, for it lacks warp and woof, and one may not go out with it into the public domain, for it is not an ornament. {The reasoning for each of these we lack in the girsa in our gemara.} On the authority of Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Shimon {our gemara: simply Rabbi Shimon}it was said: It is also not subject to [the interdict against] bridal crowns.

{The wearing of bridal crowns was forbidden as a sign of mourning for the destruction of the Temple}

{Shabbat 58a}
Shmuel said: A slave may go out with a seal round his neck {this equals the slave chain mentioned earlier}, but not with a seal on his garments.

A brayta also said so: A slave may go out with a seal round his neck but not with a seal on his garments.

And I will object {from a brayta which contradicts this}: A slave may not go out with the seal around his neck, nor with the seal on his garments {the brayta continues in the gemara}.

This is not a question.
This that learns that he may not go out refers to a metal [seal] while the one that learns that he may go out refers to a clay [seal]. And it is like Rav Nachman.

For Rav Nachman cited Rabba bar Avuah: That about which the master is particular {on account of its value}, one [a slave] may not go out with it; that about which the master is not particular, one may go out with it.

They learnt {tana - in the same brayta}: An animal may not go out with a seal around its neck nor with a seal on its covering, nor with the bell on its covering nor with the bell around its neck.

{Shabbat 59a}
"NOR WITH A GOLDEN CITY":
What is a golden city?
Rabba bar bar Chana said {in our gemara, cited Rabbi Yochanan}: A golden Jerusalem {an ornament with the picture or the engraving of Jerusalem}.

{Shabbat 59b}
such as Rabbi Akiva made for his wife {see Nedarim 50a}.

As for a kalila {coronet - a wreath or chaplet worn on the forehead. Some were entirely of gold or silver; others of silk shot through with gold or silver}:
Rav forbids
And Shmuel permits.

{Note: in the following two paragraphs, I follow Soncino's translation of רוקתא and ניסכא for convenience, but the Rif actually defines these terms on the next page, so check it out.}

Where it is made of ניסכא - cast metal, all agree that it is forbidden. They differ about רוקתא - an embroidered stuff {where the chaplet or coronet is of a stuff with gold or silver embroidery, which would contain pieces of cast metal too}. One Master holds that the cast metal [sewn on to it] is the chief part; while the other Master holds that the embroidered stuff is the chief part.

Rav Ashi learned the above in a way that is more lenient:
As for an embroidered stuff, all agree that it is permitted. They differ only about what is made of cast metal: one Master holds [that it is forbidden] lest she remove it in order to show, and [thus] come to carry it; while the other Master holds: Whose practice is it to go out with a coronet? That of a woman of rank; and such will not remove it for display.

Rif Shabbat 26a

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
26a

{Shabbat 7a continues}
Gemara:
Rav Kahana asked Rav: What of openwork bands?
{= Chains or cords formed in network fashion. These cannot be tied very tightly; hence the question is whether they need be loosened before a ritual bath and by corollary, must not be worn on Shabbat or not.}
He said to him: You speak of something woven {i.e. a network}. Whatever is woven, no prohibition was enacted [in respect thereof].

{The Rif omits Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua saying the same thing as Rav, and takes instead the alternative girsa listed in the gemara, starting with "And some say."}

And some say, Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua said: I saw that my sisters are not particular about them.

What is the difference between the latter version and the former {in which he stated exactly the same language as Rav -- this would presumably also be a good difference between the statement of Rav and the latter statement of Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua}?
There is a difference where they are soiled.
On the version that no prohibition was enacted for anything that is woven, these too are woven. But according to the version which bases it on [not] being particular; since they are soiled, one does indeed object to them.

Thye learnt {tnan} there:

And the following constitute interpositions {chatzita} in the case of human beings: Wool ribbons, linen ribbons, and the fillet round maidens' heads. Rabbi Yehuda says: Ribbons] of wool or of hair do not interpose. because the water enters through them.

Rav Huna said: And we learnt all with reference to maidens' heads {that is, it is not only the fillet which is used for tying the hair, but the wool and linen ribbons also mean those that are used for tying the hair}.
But ribbons of the neck do not interpose, because a woman does not strangle herself {by tying it so tightly around her neck}.

{Shabbat 57b}
But with regard a riband around the neck, such as a broad band {KATLA}, and the like, they do interpose, for a woman will strangle herself in order to have a fleshy appearance.
{In eastern countries that constitutes beauty. Being broad, the band does not injure her.}

{The brayta had said:} "Rabbi Yehuda says: [Ribbons] of wool or of hair do not interpose, because the water enters through them":

Rav Yosef cited Rav Yehuda who cited Shmuel: The Sages agree with Rabbi Yehudain respect to ribbons of hair that they do not interpose.
{in our gemara, there is a different statement attributed to Rav Yosef citing Rav Yehuda citing Shmuel, and the statement the Rif gives here is attributed to Rav Nachman citing Shmuel.}
Therefore she may go out with them on Shabbat, and she will not come to carry them four cubits in a public domain.

"[SHE MAY] NOT [GO OUT] WITH FRONTLETS [TOTEFETH]":
What is TOTEFETH?
Rav Yosef said: {chomarta dekatifta} A charm containing balsam.
{Rashi: to ward off the evil eye}

By way of explanation, chomarta dekatifta is a known charm that they hang around the neck because of the evil eye.

Abaye said to him: Let it be [regarded] as an approved {=confirmed} amulet, and hence permitted?

Rather, Rav Yehuda cited Abaye: It is an {apzayni} ornament of beads {Jastrow: obsidian beads}.

By way of explanation: an apzayni is a tzitz {frontlet}.

A brayta also says so: A woman may go out with a gilded hair-net {for if she removes it, her hair is uncovered; hence she is unlikely to remove it}, a totefeth, and with sarbitin that are fastened to her.

What is totefeth and what is sarbitin?
Rabbi Abahu said: A totefeth encompasses her [head] from ear to ear; sarbitin reach to her cheeks.

Rav Huna said: Tana {we learnt}: Poor women make them of various dyed materials; wealthy women make them of gold and silver.

"NOR WITH A HAIR-NET [KABUL] TO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN":
Rabbi Yannai said: I do not know what is this [kabul]: whether we learnt of a slave's chain, but a wool hair-net {or wig} is permitted; or perhaps we learnt of a wool hair-net and how much more so a slave's neckchain.

{not here in our gemara}
Rav said: It is a wool hair-net.
And Shmuel said: A slave's neck-chain.

Rabbi Abahu said: Reason supports the view that we learnt of a wool hair-net.

A brayta also says so: And it was taught likewise:

A woman may go out into a courtyard with a kabul and a clasp [itztema] {to keep her hair in order under the wig - note: the Rif does not translate itztema as a clasp - see next page for details}. Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar said: [She may go out] with a kabul into the street {public domain} too. Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar stated a general rule: Whatever is [worn] beneath the net, one may go out therewith: whatever is [worn] above the net, one may not go out with it.

(to the courtyard yes; to the public domain, no) {Gloss: this goes on the Tanna Kamma}

{Shabbat 58a}
And Shmuel said: We learnt of a slave's neck-chain. But a wool hair-net is fine.

And the halacha is

Rif Shabbat 25b

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
25b

{Shabbat 54b continues}
"OR WITH A BELL., EVEN IF IT IS PLUGGED UP":
Because it looks like going to the fair.

"OR WITH A LADDER [-SHAPED YOKE] AROUND ITS NECK":
Rav Huna said: That is a jaw bar. {Jastrow: a bandage or bar under the jaw}
For what purpose is it made? For where it has a bruise, lest it chafe it afresh.

"OR WITH A STRAP ON THEIR LEGS":
It is put on him [the ass] as a guard {gizra`}.

Gizra, we have seen in it two explanations. There is one who said that their footsteps are narrow and short, and their ankles and feet touch one another, and they are damaged. And they make them a cloth, or straps, and tie them on their ankles to that they are not damaged.

And some explain that when the hoof of the foot of the animal, they tie it with a strap, such that it heals and returns to as it was.

"FOWLS MAY NOT GO OUT WITH RIBBONS":
Which are put on them, for a sign, that they should not be exchanged.

"OR WITH A STRAP ON THEIR LEGS":
Which is fastened on them to restrain them from breaking utensils.

"RAMS MAY NOT GO OUT WITH A WAGGONETTE":
[Its purpose is] that their tails may not knock [against rocks, etc.].

"EWES MAY NOT GO OUT PROTECTED [CHANUNOTH]":
What is the meaning of CHANUNOTH?
Rav Huna said: there is a certain wood in the sea towns called chanun, whereof a chip is brought and placed in her nostril to make her sneeze, so that the worms in her head should fall out.
If so, the same [is required] for males?
Since the males butt each other, they fall out in any case.

Shimon the Nazir said: A chip of the juniper tree [is placed in its nostril].

"NOR MAY A CALF GO OUT WITH A GIMON":
What is the meaning of gimon?
Rav Huna said: A little yoke {to accustom it to bend its head under the yoke when it grows up}.
Rav Ashi {??} said: Where is it implied that 'GIMON' connotes bending?
For it is written (Yeshaya 58:5):

ה הֲכָזֶה, יִהְיֶה צוֹם אֶבְחָרֵהוּ--יוֹם עַנּוֹת אָדָם, נַפְשׁוֹ; הֲלָכֹף כְּאַגְמֹן רֹאשׁוֹ, וְשַׂק וָאֵפֶר יַצִּיעַ--הֲלָזֶה תִּקְרָא-צוֹם, וְיוֹם רָצוֹן לַיהוָה.

5 Is such the fast that I have chosen? the day for a man to afflict his soul? Is it to bow down his head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? Wilt thou call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the LORD?

"NOR A COW WITH THE SKIN OF A HEDGEHOG":
It is placed upon it to prevent hedgehogs {Jastrow: Believed to suck and injure the udders of cattle} from sucking it.

"NOR WITH THE STRAP BETWEEN ITS HORNS":
It was stated {by Amoraim}:
Rav Chiyya bar Ashi cited Rav: Whether for decoration or protection, it is forbidden.
And Rav Chiyya bar Avin said: For decoration, it is forbidden, and for protection, it is permitted.
{the girsa in our gemara has the above as a dispute between Rav and Shmuel.}

And the halacha is like Rav, as we have written above, that any additional guarding is considered a burden.

"R. ELEAZAR B. 'AZARIAH'S COW":
They learnt {tana}: This was not his, but a female neighbour of his; yet since he did not protest thereat, it was designated his.

It was said {by Amoraim}:
Rav, Rabbi Chanina, Rav Chanina and Rabbi Yochanan taught [the following] (In the whole of the Order Mo'ed whenever this pair occur some substitute Rabbi Yonatan for Rabbi Yochanan): Whoever can forbid his household [to commit a sin] but does not, is seized for [the sins of] his household; [if he can forbid] his fellow citizens, he is seized for [the sins of] his fellow citizens; if the whole world, he is seized for [the sins of] the whole world.

Rav Papa said: Therefore, the members of the Resh Galutha's [household] are seized for the whole world.

END PEREK FIVE

BEGIN PEREK SIX

{Shabbat 57a}
MISHNA:
WHEREWITH MAY A WOMAN GO OUT, AND WHEREWITH MAY SHE NOT GO OUT {on Shabbat}?
A WOMAN MAY NOT GO OUT WITH RIBBONS OF WOOL, LINEN RIBBONS, OR FILLETS ROUND HER HEAD {all three for tying her hair}; NOR MAY SHE PERFORM RITUAL IMMERSION WHILST WEARING THEM, UNLESS SHE LOOSENS THEM.

(And since during weekdays she may not immerse with them, unless she loosens them, she should not go out with them lest the need for immersion of mitzva occur for her, and she will come to undo them, and she will come to carry them four cubits in the public domain.)

[SHE MAY NOT GO OUT] WITH FRONTLETS {ornaments worn on the forehead}, GARLANDS [SARBITIN] {to the wig on which they are generally sewn}, IF THEY ARE NOT SEWN,
OR WITH A HAIR-NET [KABUL] INTO THE STREET {public domain}, OR WITH A GOLDEN CITY {an ornament which contained a picture of Jerusalem}, OR WITH A NECKLACE [KATLA]. OR WITH EAR-RINGS, OR WITH A FINGER — RING WHICH HAS NO SIGNET, OR WITH A NEEDLE WHICH IS UNPIERCED. YET IF SHE GOES OUT WITH THESE, SHE IS NOT LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING.

Rif Shabbat 25a

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
25a

{Shabbat 53b continues}

Where is it implied that SHEHUZOTH denotes exposed? In the verse {Mishlei 7:10}:

י וְהִנֵּה אִשָּׁה, לִקְרָאתוֹ; שִׁית זוֹנָה, וּנְצֻרַת לֵב.

10 And, behold, there met him a woman with the attire of a harlot, and wily of heart.

{Shabbat 54a}
"{EWES MAY GO OUT} TIED [KEBULOTH]":
What is KEBULOTH?
With their tails tied downwards, to restrain the males from copulating with them.

"[AND COVERED] KEBUNOTH":
What is KEBUNOTH? —
It means that they [the sheep] are covered for the sake of the fine wool.
As we learn {in a Mishna in the beginning of the first perek of Negaim}: [The hue of] a rising is like white wool.
What is white wool?
Rav Bibi bar Abaye said in the name of Rav Ashi {we only have Rav Bibi bar Abaye in our gemara}:Like pure wool [from a sheep] which is covered from birth in order to produce fine wool.

"AND GOATS MAY BE LED OUT [WITH THEIR UDDERS] TIED UP":
It was stated {by Amoraim}:
Rav said: The halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda {who said that GOATS MAY BE LED OUT [WITH THEIR UDDERS] TIED UP IN ORDER TO DRY UP, BUT NOT TO SAVE THEIR MILK}.
And Shmuel said that that halacha is like Rabbi Yossi {who FORBIDS IN ALL THESE CASES, SAVE EWES THAT ARE COVERED}

And some learn this report by itself:
Rav said: If it is in order to go dry, it is permitted. but if it is for milking it is forbidden;
And Shmuel said: Both this and that are forbidden.

And some learn this that goats may be led out {with their udders} tied up in order to dry up but not to save their milk - that they cited this in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira that this is the halacha, but who can vouch which is for going dry and which is for milking? And since we cannot distinguish [between them], both are forbidden. Shmuel said, and some say, Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel, that the halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.
And Rav said: The halacha is like the first Tanna {in our Mishna that both are permitted}.
{In our gemara, this statement is not attributed to Rav but rather, when Rabin came, he cited it in the name of Rabbi Yochanan.}

And the halacha is like Rav who said that the halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda in our Mishna, who said that GOATS MAY BE LED OUT [WITH THEIR UDDERS] TIED UP IN ORDER TO DRY UP, BUT NOT TO SAVE THEIR MILK, for it established to us, Rav and Shmuel - the halacha is like Rav as regards prohibitions.

MISHNA.
AND WHEREWITH MAY IT NOT GO OUT? A CAMEL MAY NOT GO OUT WITH A PAD [TIED TO ITS TAIL] OR 'AKUD OR RAGUL;
AND SIMILARLY OTHER ANIMALS.
ONE MUST NOT TIE CAMELS TOGETHER AND PULL [ONE OF THEM]. BUT HE MAY TAKE THE CORDS IN HIS HAND AND PULL [THEM]. PROVIDING HE DOES NOT TWINE THEM TOGETHER.

Gemara:
They learnt {in a brayta - tana}: A camel must not go out with a pad tied to its tail, but it may go out with a pad tied to its tail and its hump.
{since in the first case it can slide off, but not in the second.}

Rabba bar bar Huna said: A camel may be led out with a pad tied to its after-birth {since the camel will not pull at it, as it is painful}.

"OR 'AKUD OR RAGUL":
Rav Yehuda said: 'AKUD means the tying of hand and foot together, like Yitzchak the son of Avraham {at the Akeida}.
RAGUL means that the forefoot must not be bent back on to the shoulder and tied.

"ONE MUST NOT TIE CAMELS TOGETHER":
What is the reason?
Rav Sheshet {our gemara: Rav Ashi} said: Because it looks as if he is going to the fair.

"BUT HE MAY TAKE THE CORDS IN HIS HAND...":
Rav Ashi said: This was taught only in respect to Kil'ayim.
Kil'ayim of what?
Shall we say, kil'ayim of man {that is, man with camel working together}?
But we learn {tnan}: A man is permitted to plough and pull with all of them.

Perhaps if it means kil'ayim of the cords.
{some are of wool, while others are of flax; when twined together they become kil'ayim, and as he holds them, they warm his hands, which is the equivalent of 'wearing'}
But we learnt {tnan}: If one fastens [two pieces together] with one fastening {=stitch or knot} it is not a connection.

After all, it means kil'ayim of the cords, but this is its teaching: providing that he does not twine and knot [them together] {in a double fastening}

Shmuel said: Providing that a handbreadth of a cord does not hang out of his hand.

But they learnt {tana} in the academy of Shmuel {our gemara: Rabbi Yishmael}: Two handbreadths?

Abaye said: Now that Shmuel said one handbreadth, while the academy of Shmuel taught two handbreadths, Shmuel comes to inform us the halachah in actual practice, of a handbreadth.

{Shabbat 54b}

But we learnt {in a brayta}: Providing that he lifts it a handbreadth from the ground? {implying no limit}? — That was taught of the cord between {the man and the camel}

MISHNA.
A DONKEY MAY NOT GO OUT WITH A CUSHION, WHEN IT IS NOT TIED TO IT, OR WITH A BELL, EVEN IF IT IS PLUGGED, OR WITH A LADDER[-SHAPED YOKE] AROUND ITS NECK, OR WITH A THONG AROUND ITS FOOT.
FOWLS MAY NOT GO OUT WITH RIBBONS, OR WITH A STRAP ON THEIR LEGS;
RAMS MAY NOT GO OUT WITH A WAGGONETTE UNDER THEIR TAILS, {these rams were very fat, and the wagon was there to preserve it}
EWES MAY NOT GO OUT PROTECTED [HANUNOTH].
OR A CALF WITH A GIMON,
OR A COW WITH THE SKIN OF A HEDGEHOG {tied around its udder}, OR WITH THE STRAP BETWEEN ITS HORNS.
R. ELEAZAR B. 'AZARIAH'S COW USED TO GO OUT WITH A THONG BETWEEN ITS HORNS, [BUT] NOT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE RABBIS.

Gemara:
"A DONKEY MAY NOT GO OUT WITH A CUSHION {WHEN IT IS NOT TIED TO IT}":
What is the reason?
As we have stated. {this is a citation of the gemara. It means as we have stated in the gemara in Shabbat 53a}

By way of explanation, as we have stated earlier, "what is meant by 'not tied to it?' If you say that it is not tied to it at all, it is obvious that he must worry lest it fall off and he come to carry it. Rather, is is not {=it must mean} that it was not tied to it since erev Shabbat.

Rif Shabbat 24b

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
24b

{Shabbat 52a continues}

And Shmuel said: [It means,] They may go out led [by the chain], but they may not go out [with the chain] wound round them.
And the conclusion of the gemara is that they may {either} go out [with the chain] wound round them, or may go out led [by the chain].

{Shabbat 52b}
MISHNA:
AN ASS MAY GO OUT WITH ITS CUSHION IF IT IS TIED TO IT {to protect it from the cold}.
RAMS MAY GO OUT COUPLED [LEBUBIN].
EWES MAY GO OUT [WITH THEIR POSTERIORS] EXPOSED [SHEHUZOTH], TIED [KEBULOTH], AND COVERED [KEBUNOTH];
GOATS MAY GO OUT [WITH THEIR UDDERS] TIED UP.
R. JOSE FORBIDS IN ALL THESE CASES, SAVE EWES THAT ARE COVERED.
R. JUDAH SAID: GOATS MAY GO OUT [WITH THEIR UDDERS] TIED IN ORDER TO DRY UP, BUT NOT TO SAVE THEIR MILK

{Shabbat 53a}
Gemara:
"AN ASS MAY GO OUT WITH ITS CUSHION {IF IT IS TIED TO IT}":
Shmuel said: Providing it was tied thereto since erev Shabbat.

A brayta also says so: An ass may go out with its cushion when it was tied thereto on erev Shabbat, but not with its saddle, even if tied thereto on erev Shabbat.

Rav Assi bar Natan asked Rav Chiyya bar Ashi: May the cushion be placed on an ass on the Sabbath (and not to go out with it to the public domain)?
He said to him: It is permitted.
And so is the halacha.

However, a fodder-bag - Rav permits and Shmuel forbids.
And the halacha is like Shmuel, for we say: Rav Chiyya bar Yosef went and related Rav's ruling before Shmuel. He said: If Abba {=Rav} said thus, he knows nothing at all in matters pertaining to Shabbat.
{furthermore}
When R. Zera went up {to Eretz Yisrael} he found Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet sitting and citing Rabbi Yochanan: A cushion may be placed on an ass on the Sabbath.
He said to him, 'Well spoken! and thus did Arioch teach it in Babylon too.'
Now, who is Arioch?
Shmuel!
But Rav too ruled thus? — Rather he had heard him conclude: Yet a fodder-bag may not be hung [around the animal's neck] on the Sabbath. Thereupon he exclaimed, 'Well spoken! And thus did Arioch teach it in Babylon.
For if it were Rav, a fodder-bag is permitted.

And further, they refute two refutations to Rav and Shmuel, and answer for Shmuel and do not answer for Rav.

{Shabbat 53b}
One may anoint [a sore] and scrape [a scab] off for a human being, but not for an animal.
And this is specifically when the sore is finished {has healed}, and the purpose being pleasure, but in the beginning of the sore {before it has healed}, and because of pain, we scrape even for an animal.

They learnt {in a brayta}: If an animal ate [an abundance of] vetch {which causes it to be constipated}, one must not cause it to run about in the courtyard to be cured; but R. Yoshiya is lenient.

Rava darshened {lectured}: The halachah is as Rabbi Yoshiya.

And now that Rava darshened that the halacha is as Rabbi Yoshiya, and is lenient because of the pain of an animal, and does not decree because of crushing of {medical} ingredients, we may deduce that the halacha is not like that which we learnt {in a brayta - tnan}:

If an animal has an attack of congestion {sheAchza dam}. It may not be made to stand in water to be cooled; if a human being has an attack of congestion, he may be made to stand in water to be cooled.

but rather, even an animal may be made to stand in water.
For this Tanna that forbad, forbaf because of {fear of} crushing of {medical} ingredients, and in this, we rule that the halacha is like Rabbi Yoshiya who does not decree because of crushing of {medical} ingredients, for a man is not so churned up about the healing of his animal, so he will not come to crush {medical} ingredients.

They learnt {in a brayta}: A horse must not be led out with a fox's tail {Rashi: it was suspended between its eyes to ward off the evil eye}, nor with a crimson strap between its eyes {suspended as an ornament}, a zav must not go out with his pouch, nor goats with the pouch attached to their udders {either to catch the milk that may ooze out, or to protect the udders from thorns}, nor a cow with a muzzle on its mouth, nor may foals [be led out] into the streets with fodder-bags around their mouths; nor an animal with shoes on its feet, nor with an amulet which is not proven in respect to animals, even though it is proven with respect to humans, {i.e. three animals had been healed thereby}. But he may go out with a bandage on a wound or with splints on a fracture; and [an animal may be led out] with the after-birth hanging down; and the bell at the neck must be stopped up, and it may then amble about with it in the courtyard.

"RAMS MAY GO OUT COUPLED [LEBUBIN]":
What is meant by levuvim?
Rav {our gemara: Rav Huna} said: totarei {=coupled}.

By way of explanation, totarei are perfumed cloths that they use to improve and decorate the animal.

How is it indicated that LEBUBIN implies nearness? For it is written {Shir HaShirim 4:9}:

ט לִבַּבְתִּנִי, אֲחֹתִי כַלָּה; לִבַּבְתִּנִי באחד (בְּאַחַת) מֵעֵינַיִךְ, בְּאַחַד עֲנָק מִצַּוְּרֹנָיִךְ.

9 Thou hast ravished my heart [=you have drawn me near], my sister, my bride; thou hast ravished my heart with one of thine eyes, with one bead of thy necklace.

Ulla said: It is the hide which is tied over their hearts {lev} that wolves should not attack them {Rashi: since wolves attack the heart}.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: It means the hide which is tied under their genitals, to restrain them from copulating with the females.

From what {do you know this is the definition}?
Because the following clause states: AND EWES MAY GO OUT SHEHUZOTH. What is SHEHUZOTH? With their tails tied back upwards {sheOchzot}, for the males to copulate with them.

Where is it implied

Rif Shabbat 24a

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
24a

BEGIN PEREK FIVE
{Shabbat 51b continues}
MISHNA:
WHEREWITH MAY AN ANIMAL GO OUT [ON THE SABBATH], AND WHEREWITH MAY IT NOT GO OUT?
A CAMEL MAY GO FORTH WITH A BIT,
A DROMEDARY [NE'AKAH] WITH ITS NOSE-RING [HOTEM],
A LYBIAN ASS WITH A HALTER,
A HORSE WITH ITS CHAIN,
AND ALL CHAINWEARING ANIMALS MAY GO OUT WITH THEIR CHAINS AND BE LED BY THEIR CHAINS,
AND [WATER OF LUSTRATION] MAY BE SPRINKLED UPON THEM,
AND THEY MAY BE IMMERSED IN THEIR PLACE

Gemara:
What is meant by a NE'AKAH WITH A HOTEM? — Said Rabba bar bar Chana: A white [female] camel with its iron nose-ring.

A LYBIAN ASS WITH A HALTER. Rabba bar bar Chana {our gemara has simply Rav Huna} said: That means a Lybian ass with an iron halter.

Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: They [the scholars] transposed them [in their questions] before Rabbi: What about one animal going forth with [the accoutrement] of the other? As for a dromedary [ne'akah] with a bit, there is no question; since it is not guarded thereby, it is a burden. The problem is in respect of a camel with a nose-ring. How is it: Since a bit is sufficient, this [the nose-ring] is a burden; or Perhaps an additional guard is not called a burden?

Rabbi Yishmael the son of Rabbi Yossi said before him: hus did my father rule: Four animals may go out with a bit: a horse, mule, camel and ass. What does this exclude? Surely it excludes a camel [from being led out] with a nose-ring? — No: it excludes a dromedary [ne'akah] with a bit {which, as we said before, was not a question, and it is surely considered a burden}.

And in a brayta they teach: A Lybian ass and a camel may go out with a bit.

{This would imply}: with a bit, yes, but with a nose-ring, no.
Thus it is clear that all excessive {additional} guards are considered burdens, and so is the halacha.

{Shabbat 52a}
And even though Shmuel said that the halacha is like Chanania who says that additional guards, we do not say that they are burdens -- the halacha is not like him {Shmuel}, for Rav argues on him and says that additional guards are burdens, and they try to disprove Rav, but the refutation does not stand, but rather three later Amoraim answer it. And from the fact that these three later Amoraim bunch up -- that they are Abaye, Rava, and Ravina -- and answer it all according to Rav, we deduce from this that the halacha is like him, and furthermore, it is established for us that Rav and Shmuel, the hal

"A HORSE WITH ITS CHAIN, AND ALL CHAINWEARING ANIMALS MAY GO OUT WITH THEIR CHAINS... {AND BE LED BY THEIR CHAINS}":

What is GO OUT and what is LED? —
Rav Huna said: [It means,] They may either go out [with the chain] wound round them, or led [by the chain].
And Shmuel said:

Rif Shabbat 23b

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
23b

{Shabbat 51a}
and they may be removed on the Sabbath -- and we conclude in it that it is indeed a refutation. Therefore, he need not stick it in and then remove it, but only to reveal part of it -- and so is the halacha.

"A CRUSE MAY BE FILLED {WITH [COLD] WATER AND PLACED UNDER A PILLOW OR BOLSTER}":
Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: Cold [water, food, etc.] is permitted to be hidden.

Rav Nachman said to his servant Daru: Put away cold water for me, and bring me water heated by a Gentile cook.
Rav Ami heard of this and was upset at this.
Rav Yosef said: Why should be have been upset? He {Rav Nachman} acted in accordance with his teachers, one [act] being according to Rav, and the other according to Shmuel. According to Shmuel, for {in our gemara Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel} Shmuel said: Cold [water, etc.] may be hidden {insulated}.
According to Rav, for Rav Shmuel son of Rav Tzadok {our gemara: Yitzchak} cited Rav: Whatever can be eaten in its natural state, raw, is not subject to [the interdict against] the cooking of Gentiles.
But he [R. Ammi] held that an important man is different {and should be more stringent with himself}.

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: Though it was said, One may not store [food] after nightfall even in a substance which does not add heat, yet if one comes to add {another covering}, he may add. How does he do it? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: He may remove the sheets and replace them with blankets, or remove the blankets and replace them with sheets {depending on if he wants more or less insulation}. And thus did Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel say: Only the self-same boiler was forbidden {that is: food may not be insulated after nightfall in the same pot in which it was cooked}; but if it [the food] was emptied from that boiler into another, it is permitted.
If one stored {=insulated [food]} in and covered [it] with a substance that may be handled on the Sabbath, or if he stored [it] in something that may not be handled on the Sabbath, but covered [it] with something that may be handled on the Sabbath, he may remove [the covering] and return it.
If one stored [food] in and covered [it] with a substance that may not be handled on the Sabbath, or if he stored (it] in something that may be handled on the Sabbath, but covered it with something that may not be handled on the Sabbath, provided it was partly uncovered, he may take it [out] and replace [it], but if not,

{Shabbat 51b}
it may not be removed and replaced.
Rabbi Yehuda says: Thoroughly beaten flax is the same as foliage.
{that is, it adds heat, and therefore food may not be put away in it even before the Sabbath}
A boiler may be placed upon a boiler, and a pot upon a pot, {a boiler is of copper, and a pot is of earthenware}, but not a pot upon a boiler, or a boiler upon a pot. And the mouth [thereof] {Rabenu Chananel: of the lower vessel} may [also] be daubed over with dough: not in order to make them {the contents of the upper vessel} hotter, but that [their heat] may be retained.
And just as hot [food] may not be hidden, so may cold [food] not be hidden.
Rabbi permitted cold [food] to be hidden.
And neither snow nor hail may be broken up on the Sabbath in order that the water should flow, but they may be placed in a goblet or dish, without fear {of desecrating Shabbat, even though the melt}.

END PEREK FOUR

Rif Shabbat 23a

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
23a

{Shabbat 50a continues}
he must tie [them] together {before Shabbat, thus indicating their purpose. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He need not tie them together.
He {Rabba bar bar Chana} recited it, and he stated {regarding} it: The halachah is like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

It was stated {by Amoraim}:
Rav said: He must tie [them] together.
And Shmuel said: He must intend [to sit upon them].
And Rav Assi said: If he sits upon them {before Shabbat}, though he had neither tied nor intended them [for sitting, it is well].

And the halacha is like Rav Assi, who said like this Tanna, that we learn {in a brayta}:
One may go out [into the street] with a wool tuft or a flake of Wool {both used as a dressing for a wound -- meanwhile, Tos. translates: a wig}. When? if he had dipped them [in oil] and tied them with a cord. However, if he did not dip them [in oil] and tie them with a cord, he may not go out with them; yet if he had gone out with them for one moment {lit. one hour} before nightfall {before Shabbat}, even if he had not dipped or tied them with a cord, he may go out with them [on the Sabbath].

Rav Ashi said: This also supports - from the brayta that states: 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.

Rav Yehuda said: A man may bring a sack full of earth [into the house] and use it for his general needs.
Mar Zutra lectured in the name of Mar Zutra Rabbah: Providing that he allotted a certain corner to it. {which thus renders it muchan}

They learnt {in a brayta}: Utensils may be cleaned {rubbed} with anything, save silver vessels with white earth {a kind of chalk}.

{Shabbat 50b}
Rav Yehuda said: Powdered brick is permitted.

By way of explanation: to use to clean one's hands.

Rav Yosef said: Poppy pomace [scented] with jasmine is permitted.
Rava said: Crushed pepper is permitted.
Rav Sheshet said: Barda is permitted.
What is barda?
Rav Yosef said: [A compound consisting of] a third aloes, a third myrtle, and a third violets.
Rav Nechemia the son of Rav Yosef said: Providing that there is not a greater quantity of aloes, it is well. {for aloes work as a depilatory}

They inquired of Rav Sheshet: Is it permissible to bruise olives on the Sabbath?
{Rashi: May olives be bruised on a stone, which improves their taste? Ri: May one rub his face with olives, using them as a detergent? The Rif explains otherwise, as follows:}

By way of explanation, to wash his hands.

He answered them: Who permitted it then on weekdays?
(He holds [that it is forbidden] on account of the destruction of food.)

"R. ELEAZAR B. AZARIAH SAID: THE BASKET IS TILTED ON ONE SIDE AND [THE FOOD] IS REMOVED":
Rabbi Abba cited Rabbi Chiyya {our gemara: bar Ashi} who cited Rav {our gemara omits Rav}: All agree that if the cavity becomes disordered {its walls collapsing}, we may not replace [the pot], and in whether we fear lest the cavity become disordered they argue. Rabbi Eleazar holds we do fear, and the Sages hold we do not fear. And the halacha is like the Sages.

Rav Huna said: With respect to selikustha, if one put it in, drew it out, and put it in again, it is permitted; if not, it is forbidden.
{Jastrow: A fragrant plant used after meals in place of burnt spices. It was removed from its pot earth, its fragrance inhaled, and then put back.}

By way of explanation, selikustha is a bundle of spices, such as the chavatzelet haSharon {rose of Sharon} and the like, which one sticks in clay or moist earth so that they do not dry out.
And Rav Huna holds, and days that if he stuck it in on erev Shabbat, and removed it, and turned and stuck it in again, in order that its place be expanded so that when it is taken on Shabbat its furrow is not ruined - it is permitted to handle it on Shabbat, and if not, it is forbidden.
And the halacha is not like him.

And so too this that (Rav) Shmuel said: As regards the knife between the rows of bricks {Rashi: where it was inserted for safety -- but it would seem the Rif disagrees} if one inserted it, withdrew it, and reinserted it, it is permitted; if not, it is forbidden.
And the halacha is not like him.

For we {that is, Rav Katina} raise an objection to them from this that we learn {tnan}: if one stores turnips or radishes under a vine, provided some of their leaves are uncovered, he need have no fear

{Shabbat 51a}
not on account of kil'ayim, nor on account of the seventh year, nor on account of tithes

Rif Shabbat 22b

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE

22b

{Shabbat 49a}
"WHEN THEY ARE MOIST":
It was a question to them: Naturally moist, or artificially moist?
And we conclude that we learnt {in the Mishna} naturally moist.
How can flocking be naturally moist?
In the case of wool plucked from between the flanks {of a living animal}.
And a {naturally} damp cloth?
In the case of- wool plucked from between the flanks.

{The Rif explains in Hebrew:}
And this is the wool which is between the flanks of the animal, which has permanent moisture which does not pass.

MISHNA:
WE MAY STORE {insulate} [FOOD] IN FRESH HIDES, AND THEY MAY BE HANDLED;
IN WOOL SHEARINGS, BUT THEY MAY NOT BE HANDLED.

WHAT THEN IS DONE? THE LID [OF THE POT] IS LIFTED, AND THEY [THE SHEARINGS] FALL OFF OF THEIR OWN ACCORD.
R. ELEAZAR B. AZARIAH SAID: THE BASKET IS LIFTED ON ONE SIDE AND [THE FOOD] IS REMOVED, LEST ONE LIFT [THE LID OF THE POT] AND BE UNABLE TO REPLACE IT.
BUT THE SAGES SAY: ONE MAY TAKE AND REPLACE [IT]

{Shabbat 51a}
IF IT [A POT] WAS NOT COVERED WHILE IT WAS YET DAY, IT MAY NOT BE COVERED AFTER NIGHTFALL.
IF IT WAS COVERED BUT BECAME UNCOVERED, IT MAY BE RECOVERED.
A CRUSE MAY BE FILLED WITH [COLD] WATER AND PLACED UNDER A PILLOW OR BOLSTER

{Shabbat 49a continues}
Gemara:
Rabbi Yochanan bar Achinai and Rabbi Yochanan bar Eleazar were sitting, and Rabbi Chanina bar Abba {our gemara: Chama} sat before them. And he sat and asked them: Did we learn {in the Mishna} FRESH HIDES belonging to a private individual, but those of an artisan, since he is particular about them may not be handled; or perhaps, we learnt about those of an artisan, and all the more so those of a private individual?
{Shabbat 49b}
And it comes out dependant upon {a dispute between} Tanaaim.

{Namely: Hides of a private individual may be handled, but those of an artisan may not: R. Jose maintained: Either the one or the other may be handled.}

And it is logical that the halacha is like Rabbi Yossi, who says: Either the one or the other may be handled.
For Rabbi Yossi, his father was a hide worker,
{our girsa in the gemara would have Rabbi Yossi himself be a hide worker.}
and it was clear to him that the artisans were not particular about them.

And so ruled Rav Sherira Gaon in the name of the "Rishonim" that the halacha is like Rabbi Yossi.

{Shabbat 50a}
"IN WOOL SHEARINGS, BUT THEY MAY NOT BE HANDLED":
Rava said: They learnt this only when one had not designated them for storing {=insulating}, but if he had, they may be handled. {The Rif follows here the Gemara's emendation of Rava's statement.}

It was stated {by Amoraim} also so:
When Rabin came {from Eretz Yisrael}, he cited Rabbi Yitzchak {our gemara: Yaakov} who cited Rabbi Yossi {our gemara: Assi} ben Shaul who cited Rav: They learnt this only where one had not designated them for storing; but if he had designated them for storing, they may be handled.

Rabbi bar bar Channa recited {tnei} before Rabbi Yochanan: If one cuts down dried branches of a palm tree for fuel and then changes his mind, [now intending them] for a seat

Rif Shabbat 22a

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
22a

{Shabbat 47b continues}

R. JUDAH FORBIDS [STORING] IN FINE, BUT PERMITS [IT] IN COARSE [BEATEN FLAX].

Gemara:
It was a question to them: Did we learn {in the Mishna} peat of olives, whereas peat of poppy seed is well; or perhaps we learnt peat of poppy seed, and how much more so of olives?

Come and hear: For Rabbi Zera said on the authority of one of the disciples of the School of Yannai: A basket in which one put away {insulated} [food] may not be placed on peat of olives. We thus deduce {specifically} peat of olives!
No. Really I will tell you that in respect of storing [peat] of poppy seed too is forbidden; [but] as for

{Shabbat 48a}
causing heat to ascend {as here, the food is stored in a substance which does not add heat, but heat may mount up from the peat and penetrate the basket}, [peat] of olives causes heat to ascend, but not [peat] of poppy seed.

Rabba and Rabbi Zera visited the house of the Exilarch. They saw a certain servant place a pitcher of water on the mouth of a kettle {the pitcher contained cold water, and the kettle was hot}. Thereupon Rabba rebuked him.
Rabbi Zera said to him: Wherein does it differ from a boiler [placed] upon a boiler {where it is permitted}?
He said to him: There he [merely] preserves [the heat], he replied, whereas here he creates it.

Then he saw him spread a turban over the mouth of a cask and place a cup upon it. Thereupon Rabba rebuked him.
Rabbi Zera said to him: Why?
He said to him: You will soon see.
Subsequently he saw him [the servant] wringing it out {which is forbidden on Shabbat}.
He said to him: Wherein does this differ from [covering a cask with] a rag {which is permitted}?
He said to him: There one is not particular about it; here he is particular about it.

"NOR IN STRAW, GRAPE-SKINS, SOFT FLOCKING...":
Rav Adda bar Ahava {our gemara: bar Matna} asked of Abaye: Is it permissible to handle flocking in which one stored {insulated} [food]?
He said to him: Because he lacks a bundle of straw, does he arise and renounce {that is, say they have no value to him} a bundle of soft flocking? {hence they may not be handled}
{alternatively: does he arive and move a bundle of soft flocking?}

Rav Chisda permitted stuffing to be replaced in a pillow on the Sabbath.
Rav Chanan the son of Rava {our gemara: the son of Chisda} objected to Rav Chisda: The neck [of a shirt] may be undone on the Sabbath {the launderer typically returns it tied up}, but may not be opened {the first time after it is sewn. This opening makes it fit for wear and thus finishes its work} nor may flocking be put into a pillow or a bolster on Yom Tov, and on the Sabbath it goes without saying?
It is no question.
One refers to new ones, the other to old ones. {that is, a pillow may not be stuffed the first time, as that is part of its manufacture; but if the stuffing falls out, it may be replaced.}

A brayta also say so: Flocking may not be put into a pillow or a bolster on Yom Tov, and on the Sabbath it need not be stated; if it falls out, it may be replaced [even] on the Sabbath, while on Yom Tov it goes without saying.

Rav Yehuda cited Rav: One who opens the neck [of a shirt] on the Sabbath incurs a sin-offering.

{Shabbat 48b}
Rav Kahana objected: What is the difference between this and the bung of a barrel {which according to the Rabbis may be opened}?
He {our gemara: Rava} said to him: The one is an integral part thereof, whereas the other is notan integral part thereof.

"WHEN THEY ARE MOIST":

Rif Shabbat 21b

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
21b

{Shabbat 47a}
Rava said: When we were in the house of Rav Nachman, we would handle a brazier on account of its ashes, even if broken pieces of wood were lying upon it.

They learnt {in a brayta}: The sockets of a bed {into which the legs of a bed fitted. to prevent them from being rotted by the damp earth}, the legs of a bed, and the archer's tablets {Rashi: a small wooden plaque inserted in the bow upon which the arrow presses before it is released} may not be re-inserted, yet if one does re-insert [them], he is not liable [to a sin-offering], but it is forbidden to do so;

{Shabbat 47b}
nor must they be [tightly] fixed in, and if one does so, he is liable to a sin offering. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: if it is loose, it is permitted.

At R. Hama's home there was a folding bed, which they used to put up on Yom Tov.
One of the Rabbis to Rav Chama {our gemara: Rava}: What is your view, that it is building from the side {that is, not done in its usual way}: granted that there is no Scriptural prohibition, yet it is Rabbinically forbidden?
He said to him: I am of the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says: if it is loose, it is permitted.
And so is the halacha.

{The Mishna had said:} "A VESSEL MAY BE PLACED UNDER A LAMP TO CATCH THE SPARKS":
But he nullifies the vessel of its readiness?
Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua said: Sparks are intangible, and it is permitted to handle/move them, and so they do not nullify the readiness of the vessel?

"BUT ONE MUST NOT POUR WATER THEREIN, BECAUSE HE EXTINGUISHES [THEM]":
They learnt {in a brayta}: A vessel may be placed under a lamp on the Sabbath to catch the sparks, and one need not say, on erev Shabbat. But one must not pour water therein - on erev Shabbat, and one need not say, on Shabbat, because one brings the extinguisher near.

END PEREK KIRAH

BEGIN CHAPTER FOUR
MISHNA:
WHEREIN MAY WE STORE [FOOD], AND WHEREIN MAY WE NOT STORE [IT]?
WE MAY NOT STORE [IT] IN PEAT, FOLIAGE, SALT, LIME, OR SAND, WHETHER MOIST OR DRY;
NOR IN STRAW, GRAPE-SKINS, SOFT FLOCKING OR HERBAGE, WHEN THEY ARE MOIST; BUT WE MAY STORE [FOOD] IN THEM WHEN THEY ARE DRY.

{Shabbat 49a}
WE MAY STORE [FOOD] IN, GARMENTS, PRODUCE, DOVES' WINGS, CARPENTERS' SAWDUST AND THOROUGHLY BEATEN HATCHELLED FLAX.

Rif Shabbat 21a

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
21a

{Shabbat 44a, and the Mishna, continues}
EXCEPT A LAMP WHICH HAD BEEN LIT ON THAT PARTICULAR SHABBAT
R. SIMEON MAINTAINED: ALL LAMPS MAY BE HANDLED, EXCEPT A LAMP [ACTUALLY] BURNING ON THE SABBATH.
{Note: This seems to match a brayta, rather than the printed text of the Mishna found in our gemaras}

{Shabbat 47a}
A VESSEL, MAY BE PLACED UNDER A LAMP TO CATCH THE SPARKS, BUT ONE MUST NOT POUR WATER THEREIN, BECAUSE HE EXTINGUISHES [THEM].

{Shabbat 44a}
Gemara:
[The Sages learnt] "[ALL LAMPS] MAY BE HANDLED ... EXCEPT A LAMP {ACTUALLY} BURNING ON THE SABBATH": If it was extinguished, it is permitted to handle {move} it.
{This is actually Rabbi Shimon's opinion in the brayta.}

And even though we establish that the halacha is like Rabbi Shimon in terms of the laws of muktza, in this the halacha is not like him, for we learn in perek mi sheHechshich {24th perek, Shabbat 157a} that Rav Acha and Ravina argue in it - one holds that in the entirety of Shabbat the halacha is like Rabbi Shimon, except for that which is muktza because of its disgustingness, and what is that? an old {=used} lamp. And one holds that in that which is muktza because of its disgustingness, the halacha is also like him {Rabbi Shimon}, with the exclusion of that which is muktza because of prohibition, and what is that? a lamp that he lit with it on that actual Shabbat. But in that which is muktza because of a loss of money, even Rabbi Shimon admits, for we learn {tnan}: All vessels may be handled on the Shabbat with the exception of a large saw and the pin of a plough {which are delicate tools that require careful handling}.

And it is established for us that anytime Rav Acha and Ravina argue, the halacha is like the words of the lenient one. Therefore, a lamp that had been lit on that actual Shabbat, even though it had been extinguished, it is forbidden to handle it, for it is muktzah on account of a prohibition. And also, the remainder of the oil in the lamp and the dish, which you have lit on that actual Shabbat, it is forbidden to handle it, or to draw from it, on that Shabbat.

{now the Rif takes the emended statement of Rav Zera.}
Rabbi Zera said: A shaft on which a lamp was lit on the Sabbath, all agree that it is forbidden [to handle/move it]; if a lamp was not lit therein, all agree that it is permitted.
And so is the halacha.

{Shabbat 44b}
And a bed, upon which is money, it is forbidden to move it. If there is no money upon it, it is permitted to move it. {This is so} whether he designated it {for money} or whether he did not designate it, so long as they {the money} were not upon it at twilight, but if they were on it during twilight, since they were muktzeh during twilight, they are muktzeh for the entire day, and they are muktzeh because of prohibition - therefore, they are forbidden to be moved.

(They asked/objected: As for its wheel-work, if detachable, it has no connection therewith, is not measured with it, does not protect together with it in [the matter of] a covering above the dead, and it may not be rolled on the Sabbath if there is money upon it.
Which implies that if there is not money upon it, it is permitted, even though it had it upon it during twilight.
{They answer:} This is {the opinion of} Rabbi Shimon.
)

{Shabbat 45a}
And the halacha is: A lamp may be placed on a palm tree for the Sabbath, but a lamp may not be placed on a palm tree on Yom Tov.
What is the reason?
Since it is on the Shabbat, he will keep himself away from it, and will not come to make use of that which is connected, while on Yom Tov, since he will not keep himself away from it, he will come to make use of that which is connected. Therefore, on Shabbat it is permitted, and on Yom Tov it is forbidden.

Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: There is no muktzeh according to Rabbi Shimon except for drying figs and drying grapes.

Yerushalmi: What is the difference of these two {that they are muktzeh}?
Since they are disgusting in the intervening time {while they dry}.

Rif Shabbat 20b

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
20b

{Shabbat 42b continues}
for it is forbidden to nullify a vessel from its designated use, but he may overturn a vessel over it so that it does not break.

{Shabbat 43b}

It was said {by Amoraim}:
If a dead man is lying in the sun -
Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: It may be changed over from bier to bier {until it reaches the shade}.
And Rav Chanina bar Shelemya {our gemara has just Rav Chanina} cited Rav: A loaf or a child is placed upon it, and then move it.

When there is a loaf or a child, all agree that it is permitted.
When there is not - one holds that moving from the side {moving indirectly, by changing over from bier to bier} is called moving, and one holds that it is not called moving.

Let us say that this {dispute} parallels that of Tanaim:

A corpse may not be rescued from a conflagration {on Shabbat}.
Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish said: I have heard that a corpse may be rescued from a fire.

How so?
If there is a loaf or a child, what is the reason of the first Tanna who said it is forbidden?
And if there is no loaf or child, what is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish who permits?
Rather, in moving from the side they are arguing - that one holds that moving from the side is called moving, and one holds that it is not called moving.

No. All agree that moving from the side is called moving, and this is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish: since a man is agitated over his dead, if you do not permit to him this moving, which is Rabbinic in origin, he will come to extinguish [the fire], which is Biblical in origin.

{Shabbat 44a}
Rav Yehuda bar Shela cited Rabbi Yochanan: The halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish in terms of a corpse.

And we deduce from this that moving from the side is called moving, (and this is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda - ) that the Sages only permitted it by a corpse, so that he does not come to violate a Biblical prohibition, but in general, it is forbidden.

And it is difficult for us, for we learn in perek kol haKeilim {perek 17, Shabbat 123a} regarding an unripe fig that was hidden in straw, or a cake which was hidden in live coals, if part thereof is uncovered, it may be handled {moved}. Eleazar ben Taddai says: One impales them on a reed or a whorl, and they [the straw or coals] are shaken off of their own accord. Rav Nachman said: The halacha is like Eleazar ben Taddai, who holds moving from the side {or - indirect handling} is not called moving.

And we answer: When is moving from the side called moving? These words are said regarding stones and the like, which are not for the purpose of Shabbat, that it is forbidden to move them from place to place, similar to a corpse, as we say there, one {an infant} of eight months who is alive {pregnancy} is like a stone, that it is forbidden to move him {on Shabbat}, for he is like a corpse. But an unripe fig that was hidden in straw, or radish or a cake which was hidden in hot ashes, or the like, which are foods, that one needs to eat them on Shabbat, moving from the side in all of these matters is not called moving.

"YET ONE MAY NOT BENEFIT FROM IT, BECAUSE IT IS NOT OF THAT WHICH IS PREPARED":
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: The remainder of the oil in the lamp and the dish, it is forbidden to draw from it, and Rabbi Shimon permits.

MISHNA:
A NEW LAMP {which has never been used} MAY BE HANDLED, BUT NOT AN OLD ONE, THESE ARE THE WORDS OF RABBI YEHUDA. RABBI MEIR SAYS: ALL LAMPS MAY BE USED

Rif Shabbat 20a

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
20a

{Shabbat 42a continues}
and Bet Hillel say: Both hot into cold and cold into hot are permitted. When are these words said? to a cup, but in the case of a bath {where the water must be very hot}, hot into cold [is permitted], but not cold into hot. And Rabbi Shimon ben Menassia forbids it.

{The Rif omits the statement of Rav Nachman: The halachah is as Rabbi Shimon ben Menassia. }

And the conclusion of the sugya is that the halacha is like Bet Shammai, for we say {in the continuation}: Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua said: I saw that father {Abba - our gemara: Rava} was not particular about vessels, for Rabbi Chiyya taught {in a brayta}: A person may pour a jug of water into a basin of water, hot into cold or cold into hot.

MISHNA:
IF A STEW POT OR A BOILING POT IS REMOVED SEETHING; [FROM THE FIRE], ONE MUST NOT PUT SPICES THEREIN,

{Shabbat 42b}
BUT ONE MAY PUT [SPICES] INTO A DISH OR A TUREEN {which is a second vessel}. R. JUDAH SAID: HE MAY PUT [SPICES] INTO ANYTHING {even a first vessel} EXCEPT WHAT CONTAINS VINEGAR OR BRINE.

Gemara:
And the halacha is like the first Tanna.
Rav Yosef thought to say that salt is like spices, that in a first vessel it boils, and that in a second vessel it does not cook.
Abaye said to him: Rabbi Chiyya learnt {in a brayta}: Salt is not like spices, for it boils even in a second vessel.

And this argues with Rav Nachman, for Rav Nachman said: Salt requires as much boiling as ox flesh.

And some say: Rav Yosef thought to say that salt is like spices, that in a first vessel it boils, and that in a second vessel it does not cook.
Abaye said to him: Rabbi Chiyya learnt {in a brayta}: Salt is not like spices, for even in a first vessel it does not boil.
And this is in accordance with Rav Nachman, who said: Salt requires as much boiling as ox flesh.

And the halacha is like the second formulation.

MISHNA:
ONE MAY NOT PLACE A VESSEL UNDER A LAMP {on Shabbat} TO CATCH THE OIL.
BUT IF IT IS PLACED THERE BEFORE SUNSET {that is, on Friday}, IT IS PERMITTED.
YET ONE MAY NOT BENEFIT FROM IT, BECAUSE IT IS NOT OF THAT WHICH IS PREPARED.

Gemara:
Rava cited Rav Chisda {our gemara only has "Rav Chisda said"}: Though they [the Sages] said: A vessel may not be placed under a fowl to receive its eggs,

Rif Shabbat 19b

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
19b

{Shabbat 41a continues}
Gemara:
What is meant by 'IF A MILIARUM IS CLEARED OF ITS] COALS'?
A Tanna taught: the water is within and the coals are without.
{Soncino: It is a large vessel on the outside of which a receptacle for coals is attached. Thus it would be something like the old-type Russian samowar.}

What is an ANTIKI?
Rav Nachman {our gemara: bar Yitzchak} said: [It means a vessel suspended] within a cauldron-like vessel.
{Jastrow: The vacant space beneath being filled with coals.}

There is a brayta in accordance with Rav Nachman: From an antiki, even when cleared of coals and covered with ashes, one may not drink, because its copper heats it.

MISHNA:
IF A BOILER IS REMOVED, ONE MAY NOT POUR COLD WATER THEREIN TO HEAT IT, BUT ONE MAY POUR IT [WATER] THEREIN [THE BOILER] OR INTO A GOBLET IN ORDER TO TEMPER IT.

{Shabbat 41b}
Gemara:
What does this mean?
Abaye said: This is what it means: If a boiler is removed [from the fire] and it contains hot water, one must not pour therein a little water to heat it [the added water], but he may pour a large quantity of [cold] water therein to temper it. But if the water is removed from a boiler, no water at all may be poured therein, because that hardens it {the metal of the boiler}; this agreeing with Rabbi Yehuda Judah, who maintains: [Even] that which is unintentional is forbidden.

Rav said: They taught this only where there is [merely] a sufficient quantity to temper it; but if there is enough to harden it, it is forbidden. Whereas Samuel maintained: Even if there is a sufficient quantity to harden it, it is also permitted {the Rif here follows the gemara's emendation} like Rabbi Shimon who says that that which is unintentional is permitted.

{Shabbat 42a}
And if it is difficult for you this that Shmuel said: "One may extinguish a lump of fiery metal in the street, that it should not harm the public, but not a burning piece of wood" - for if he held like Shmuel, even of wood would also be permitted!

{The answer is:} In that which is unintentional, he holds like Rabbi Shimon, but in an act which is not needed for itself {melacha sheAina tzricha legufa} he holds like Rabbi Shimon who says you are liable for it.

Ravina said: Therefore, a thorn in public ground may be carried away in stages of less than four cubits; whilst in a karmelith even a great distance too {is permitted}. And so is the halacha.

"BUT ONE MAY POUR IT [WATER] THEREIN [THE BOILER] OR INTO A GOBLET IN ORDER TO TEMPER IT":
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: A man may pour hot water into cold, but not cold water into hot; this is the view of Bet Shammai.

Rif Shabbat 19a

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
19a

{Shabbat 40b continues}
behold there are embankments that return them.

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: A man may warm himself at a big fire, go out, and have a souse in cold water; providing that he does not have a souse in cold water [first] and then warm himself at the fire, because he warms the water upon him.

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: A man may heat a cloth on the Sabbath to place it on his stomach, but must not bring a hot water bottle and place it on his stomach on the Sabbath; and this is forbidden even on weekdays, because of its danger.

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: A man may bring a jug of water and stand it in front of a fire {on Shabbat}; not for it to become warm, but for its coldness to be tempered. Rabbi Yehuda said: A woman may bring a cruse of oil and place it in front of the fire; not for it to boil, but to become lukewarm. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: A woman may smear her hand with oil, warm it at a fire, and massage her infant son without fear.

Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: Both in the case of oil and water, if the hand shrinks from it {that is, the hand put in it is spontaneously withdrawn}, it is forbidden; if the hand does not shrink from it, it is permitted.

What is the definition of "the hand shrinks from it"?
Rechava said: If an infant's belly is scalded [by it].

Rabbi Yitzchak bar Avdimi said: I once followed Rabbi into the baths, and wished to place a cruse of oil for him in the bath. Whereupon be said to me, Take [some water] in a second vessel and put [the cruse of oil in it]. Three things are inferred from this: [i] Oil is subject to [the prohibition of] boiling; [ii] a second vessel cannot boil; [iii] making it lukewarm is *not* boiling it.
{Our gemara has the girsa: making it lukewarm is boiling it.}

{The Rif cuts out parts of the gemara which make these statements relate - see inside.}
Rabbi Abba cited Rabbi Yochanan {in our gemara: Rabba bar bar Channa citing Rabbi Yochanan}: In all places it is permitted to think {thoughts of Torah} except for in a privy and a bathhouse.

Abaye said: Sacred matters must not be uttered in secular language, while secular matters may be uttered in the Holy language.

And for the purposes of restraining one from transgression, even in the Holy language it is permitted, for Rabbi said to Rabbi Yitzchak bar Avdimi: Take [some water] in a second vessel and put [the cruse of oil in it]. And we also say: Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: It once happened that a disciple of Rabbi Meir followed him into the baths and wished to swill the ground for him, but he said to him, One may not swill; he wished to annoint for him with oil, and he said to him: One may not annoint.

{Shabbat 41a}
MISHNA:
IF A MILIARUM IS CLEARED [OF ITS] COALS, ONE MAY DRINK FROM IT ON THE SABBATH. BUT AS TO AN ANTIKI, EVEN IF ITS COALS HAVE BEEN CLEARED ONE MAY NOT DRINK FROM IT ON SHABBAT.
{The words ON SHABBAT the Rif has but our Mishna does not.}

Rif Shabbat 18b

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE

{Shabbat 39b continues}

They learnt {in a brayta}: A man must not souse the whole of his body, whether with hot or with cold water. These are the words of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Shimon permits. Rabbi Yehuda says: In hot water it is forbidden; in cold water it is permitted.

Rav Chisda said: The argument is with respect to {water} in the earth, but in a vessel {which must have been heated by fire, and people will think it was heated on Shabbat}, all agree it is forbidden.
{The Rif here adopts the gemara's emendation of Rav Chisda's statement on account of the story of Teveria.}

Rabba bar bar Channa cited Rabbi Yochanan: The halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda.
And the halacha is: in hot water, it is forbidden, whether in a vessel or upon the ground, and specifically hot water heated by flame, but the hot springs of Tiberias are permitted, as we will endeavor to say later.

{Shabbat 40b}
It was said {by Amoraim}:
If hot water was heated on erev Shabbat:
Rav said: On the morrow one may wash his whole body in it, limb by limb.
And Shmuel said: They [the Sages] permitted one to wash his face, hands, and feet only.

There is a brayta in accordance with Shmuel: If hot water is heated on the eve of the Sabbath, on the morrow one may wash his face, hands, and feet therein, but not his whole body, limb by limb; and with water heated on Shabbat it goes without saying.
{our gemara: "and with water heated on Yom Tov it goes without saying" - and this should make a big difference lehalacha.}

If the holes of a bath-house are plugged on the eve of the Sabbath, one may bathe therein immediately after the conclusion of the Sabbath.

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi cited Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi who cited bar Kappara:At first people used to wash in pit water heated on the eve of the Sabbath; then bath attendants began to heat the water on the Sabbath, maintaining that it was done on the eve of the Sabbath. So [the use of] hot water was forbidden, but sweating was permitted. Yet still they used to bathe in hot water and maintain, We were perspiring. So sweating was forbidden, yet the thermal springs of Tiberias were permitted. Yet they bathed in water heated by fire and maintained, We bathed in the thermal springs of Tiberias. So they forbade the hot springs of Tiberias but permitted cold water. 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.

Rava said: He who violates {even} a Rabbinical enactment, may be stigmatized a transgressor {without fear of proceedings for libel}.

{Shabbat 40b}
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: One must not swim in a pool full of water {on Shabbat}, even if it stands in a courtyard.
And if there were embankments, it is permitted.
What is the reason?
That is you say he is uprooting the water

Rif Shabbat 18a

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
18a

{Shabbat 38b continues}

A kippah has room for placing one pot.

MISHNA:
ONE MUST NOT PLACE AN EGG AT THE SIDE OF A BOILER FOR IT TO BE ROASTED {lit. 'that it should be rolled'}, AND ONE MUST NOT BREAK IT INTO A [HOT] CLOTH; BUT R. JOSE PERMITS IT.
AND ONE MAY NOT PUT IT AWAY IN [HOT] SAND OR ROAD DUST FOR IT TO BE ROASTED.

Gemara:
It was a question to them: If he did roast it {lit. roll it} what {is the law}?
Rav Assi {our gemara: Rav Yosef} said: If one roasts it, he is liable to a sin-offering.
Mar Zutra {our gemara: Mar the son of Ravina} said: We learnt likewise {in a brayta}:

{Shabbat 39a}
That which came into hot water before the Sabbath may be steeped in hot water on the Sabbath; but whatever did not come into hot water before the Sabbath, may be rinsed with hot water on the Sabbath, except old salted [pickled] fish and the colias of the Spaniards, because their rinsing completes their preparation.

"AND HE MUST NOT BREAK IT INTO A [HOT] CLOTH. AND RABBI YOSSI PERMITS":
And this that we learnt {tnan}: "We may place cold water in the sun to be heated" - shall we say this is Rabbi Yossi, and not the Sages {who argue with him in the Mishna}?
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: In the sun, all agree that it is permitted. In a fire-heated object, all agree that it is forbidden. When do they argue? In a sun-heated object. The Sages hold that we decree on a sun-heated object because of a fire-heated object, and Rabbi Yossi holds that we do not decree.

And the halacha is like the first Tanna {that is, the Sages}.

"AND ONE MAY NOT PUT IT AWAY IN [HOT] SAND":
And in this, even Rabbi Yossi agrees.
What is the reason?
Rabba said: It is a decree lest he insulate in hot ashes.
And Rav Yosef said: It is a decree lest he move earth [sand] from its place.
What is the difference between them?
In respect of crushed earth. {Where Rav Yosef's reason does not apply, since it is already before him}

MISHNA:
IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT THE PEOPLE OF TIBERIAS DID THUS: THEY CONDUCTED A PIPE OF COLD WATER THROUGH AN ARM OF THE HOT SPRINGS.
SAID THE SAGES TO THEM: IF ON THE SABBATH {the water is drawn through the pipe}, IT IS LIKE HOT WATER HEATED ON THE SABBATH, AND IS FORBIDDEN BOTH FOR WASHING AND FOR DRINKING;
IF ON A FESTIVAL, IT IS LIKE WATER HEATED ON A FESTIVAL, WHICH IS FORBIDDEN FOR WASHING BUT PERMITTED FOR DRINKING.

{Shabbat 39b}
Gemara:
Ulla said: The halachah agrees with the inhabitants of Tiberias.
Rav Nachman said to him: The Tiberians have broken their pipe long ago! {and thus they have retracted from their opinion}

And the halacha is like Rav Nachman.

Rif Shabbat 17b

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
17b

{digression to Chullin 15b continues}

to a healthy person as a decree lest he increase on his behalf.

{return to Shabbat 38a}
"And Bet Hillel say: he may even return":
Rav Sheshet said: According to the one who maintains

{Shabbat 38b}
that one may replace it, one may replace it many times {even} on Shabbat.
And even Rabbi Oshiya holds that he may return it even on Shabbat, for Rabbi Oshiya said: We were once standing before Rabbi Chiyya Rabbah, and we brought up a kettle of hot water for him from the lower to the upper storey, mixed the cup {of wine with the hot water} for him, and then replaced it, and he said not a word to us.

Rabbi Zerika cited Rabbi Ami {our gemara: Rabbi Abba} who cited Rabbi Taddai: They only learned this {that he may return it} when it is still in his hand, but if he placed it upon the ground it is forbidden.

Rav Chizkiya cited Abaye: This that they said that while it is still in his hand, it is permitted - they only said this in the case that he has in mind to return it, but if he does not have in mind to return it, it is forbidden.

Thus, if he places it upon the ground, even though he has in mind to return it, it is forbidden.
{The Rif is citing here the first version of this statement in the gemara, and discarding the second.}

Rabbi Yirmiya asked: If he suspended them from a staff, what? If he suspended them on a bed {couch}, what? Teku. {The question stands.}

Rav Ashi asked: What if he emptied them from one kettle to another? Teku. {The question stands.}

MISHNA:
IF AN OVEN {tanur} WAS HEATED WITH STUBBLE OR RAKINGS, ONE MUST NOT PLACE [A POT, ETC.,] EITHER INSIDE OR ON TOP.

IF A KIPPAH {a small stove or brazier} WAS HEATED WITH STUBBLE OR RAKINGS, IT IS LIKE A DOUBLE STOVE {the kira of the first Mishna}; WITH PEAT OR TIMBER, IT IS LIKE AN OVEN {the tanur of this Mishna}.

Gemara:
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: If an oven was heated with stubble or rakings, one may not lean {a pot, etc.,} against it, and one need not say {that one may not place it} inside it, and one need not say on top of it, and one need not say if he heated it with peat or timber.

"A Kippa which was heated":
Rav Acha the son of Rava said to Rav Ashi: This kippa, how it is regarded? If it is like a double stove, even with peat and timber it should be permitted. And if it is like an oven, even with stubble or rakings it should be forbidden!
He said to him: Its heat is greater than a [double] stove's but less than an oven's.

And we deduce from this that anything which it is forbidden to leave {from before Shabbat} upon a double-stove unless it {the stove} is swept and covered, it is forbidden to leave upon a kippa, even if it is swept and covered. But hot water that has been heated sufficiently and cooked food that has cooked sufficiently, it is permitted to leave on a kippa, just as you may upon a double-stove. For even though it is forbidden to leave upon it, when it is not swept or covered, something that has not cooked sufficiently, but something that has cooked sufficiently, it is permitted, so too here {by kippa}, it is no different. {In other words, the kippa has the status in this respect of a double-stove which has not been swept or covered.}

And specifically something which shrinks and deteriorates, similar to a double-stove, but something that shrinks and improves, it is forbidden.

And what is a kippah and what is a [double] stove [kirah]?
Rabbi Yossi the son of Rabbi Chanina said: A [double] stove [kirah] has room for placing two pots.

Rif Shabbat 17a

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
17a

{Shabbat 28a continues}

which is not resolved, and we conduct ourselves leniently and do not forbid that cooked food, for it is a case of doubt in a Rabbinic matter, and thus goes leniently.

We learn in perek Meruba {Bava Kama 71a, perek 7}: One who cooks accidentally on Shabbat may eat {of that food}; deliberately, he may not eat. These are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: Accidentally, it may be eaten on Motza`ei Shabbat; deliberately, it may not be eaten ever. Rabbi Yochanan the Sandler says: Accidentally, it may be eaten on Motza`ei Shabbat by others, and not to him; deliberately, it may never be eaten - not by him, and not by others.

What is the reason of Rabbi Yochanan the Sandler?
As Rabbi Chiyya darshened at the gate of the house of the Prince: {Shemot 31:14}:

יד וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם, אֶת-הַשַּׁבָּת, כִּי קֹדֶשׁ הִוא, לָכֶם; מְחַלְלֶיהָ, מוֹת יוּמָת--כִּי כָּל-הָעֹשֶׂה בָהּ מְלָאכָה, וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִקֶּרֶב עַמֶּיהָ.

14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore, for it is holy unto you; every one that profaneth it shall surely be put to death; for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

Just as kodesh {sanctified food} is prohibited in eating, so too the products of {work on} Shabbat are prohibited in eating.

Why not say: Just as kodesh is prohibited in benefit, so too the products of Shabbat are prohibited in benefit.

Therefore it teaches us:

יד וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם, אֶת-הַשַּׁבָּת, כִּי קֹדֶשׁ הִוא, לָכֶם; מְחַלְלֶיהָ, מוֹת יוּמָת--כִּי כָּל-הָעֹשֶׂה בָהּ מְלָאכָה, וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִקֶּרֶב עַמֶּיהָ.

14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore, for it is holy unto you; every one that profaneth it shall surely be put to death; for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

It is yours {to benefit from}.

Perhaps {it speaks} even accidentally {and so it would be forbidden in eating even if it were cooked on Shabbat accidentally}?

Therefore it teaches us:

יד וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם, אֶת-הַשַּׁבָּת, כִּי קֹדֶשׁ הִוא, לָכֶם; מְחַלְלֶיהָ, מוֹת יוּמָת--כִּי כָּל-הָעֹשֶׂה בָהּ מְלָאכָה, וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִקֶּרֶב עַמֶּיהָ.

14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore, for it is holy unto you; every one that profaneth it shall surely be put to death; for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

{which is surely not speaking about a case of accidental violation}

With regard to deliberate acts I spoke to you and not as regards accidental acts.

Rav Acha and Ravina argue in this. One says that the products of Shabbat {being prohibited in eating} is Biblical, and the other says that the products of Shabbat {being prohibited in eating} is Rabbinic.

The one who says that the products of Shabbat {being prohibited in eating} is Biblical - as we have said.

And the one who says it is Rabbinic - for the Scriptures state {once again, same pasuk}:

יד וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם, אֶת-הַשַּׁבָּת, כִּי קֹדֶשׁ הִוא, לָכֶם; מְחַלְלֶיהָ, מוֹת יוּמָת--כִּי כָּל-הָעֹשֶׂה בָהּ מְלָאכָה, וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִקֶּרֶב עַמֶּיהָ.

14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore, for it is holy unto you; every one that profaneth it shall surely be put to death; for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

{note the bolded word הִוא}
It {Shabbat} is holy to you, and its products are not holy.

And we establish throughout the entire Torah that in case of dispute between Rav Acha and Ravina, the halacha is like the words of the lenient one. And we may deduce that it is not like Rabbi Yochanan the Sandler.

Therefore, the halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda, who says that one who cooks on Shabbat accidentally, it may be eaten on Motza`ei Shabbat, whether for him or for others; deliberately, it may be eaten on Motza`ei Shabbat by others but not by him.

We learn in the first perek of Chullin {Chullin 15b}: One who slaughters {an animal} for a sick person on Shabbat, its meat is permitted {even} for a healthy person.
What is the reason?
For it is impossible to get an olive's measure of flesh without slaughtering, and when he slaughters, it is with the sick person in mind.

One who cooks meat for a sick person on Shabbat, it is forbidden for a healthy person