Rif Shabbat 55b {Shabbat 137a continues ... 137b}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
55b

{Shabbat 137a continues}
full seven days for his [complete] recovery.
It was a question to them: Do we require twenty-four hours' days {that is, 7 days to the hour}, or not?
And we resolve that we require 7 twenty-four hours' days.

MISHNA:
THESE ARE THE SHREDS WHICH INVALIDATE CIRCUMCISION: FLESH THAT COVERS THE GREATER PART OF THE CORONA;

AND IF HE IS A KOHEN, HE MUST NOT PARTAKE OF TERUMAH.

AND IF HE IS FLESHY {so that though the circumcision was correctly performed the foreskin nevertheless looks as though it was uncircumcised}, HE MUST REPAIR IT FOR APPEARANCES SAKE.

{Shabbat 137b}
IF ONE CIRCUMCISES BUT DOES NOT UNCOVER THE CIRCUMCISION, {=pri'a: uncovering the corona, by splitting the membrane and pulling it down} IT IS AS THOUGH HE HAS NOT CIRCUMCISED.

Gemara:
Rabbi Avin cited Rabbi Yirmiya bar Abba {our gemara continues: who cited Rav}: [This means,] the flesh that covers the greater part of the height of the corona.

And so is the halacha.

{"AND IF HE IS FLESHY":}
Shmuel said: If an infant['s membrum] is overgrown with flesh, we examine him: as long as he appears circumcised when he forces himself {to cause his bowels to function}, it is unnecessary to recircumcise him; but if not he must be recircumcised.

In a braita it was taught: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: If an infant['s membrum] is overgrown with flesh, we examine him: if he does not appear circumcised when he forces himself, he must be recircumcised: otherwise he need not be recircumcised.

What is the difference between these {which have slightly different formulations}?
They differ where it is only partially visible.

"IF ONE CIRCUMCISES BUT DOES NOT UNCOVER THE CIRCUMCISION":
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}:

He who circumcises must recite: 'Baruch Ata Hashem Elokeinu Melech HaOlam Asher Kiddeshanu BeMitzvotav veTzivanu concerning circumcision.'

The father of the son recites, 'Baruch Ata Hashem Elokeinu Melech HaOlam Asher Kiddeshanu BeMitzvotav veTzivanu to enter him into the covenant of our father Abraham.'

The bystanders exclaim, 'Even as he has entered the covenant, so may he enter into the Torah, the marriage canopy, and good deeds.'

And he who pronounces the benediction recites: Baruch Ata Hashem Elokeinu Melech HaOlam Who hast sanctified the beloved one from the womb; He set a statute in his flesh, and his offsprings he sealed with the sign of the holy covenant. Therefore as a reward for this, O living God Who art our portion, give command to save the beloved of our flesh from the pit, for the sake of Thy covenant which Thou hast set in our flesh. Baruch Ata Hashem Who makest the covenant.

He who circumcises proselytes says: Baruch Ata Hashem Elokeinu Melech HaOlam Asher Kiddeshanu BeMitzvotav veTzivanu to circumcise converts, and to cause the drops of the blood of the covenant to flow from them, etc.
{the gemara continues: since but for the blood of the covenant Heaven and earth would not endure, as it is said, {Yirmiyahu 33:25}:

כה כֹּה אָמַר ה, אִם-לֹא בְרִיתִי יוֹמָם וָלָיְלָה--חֻקּוֹת שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ, לֹא-שָׂמְתִּי.

25 Thus saith the LORD: If My covenant be not with day and night, if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth;

Baruch Ata Hashem Who makest the covenant.
}

{our gemara has a different girsa: He who circumcises proselytes says: Baruch Ata Hashem Elokeinu Melech HaOlam Asher Kiddeshanu BeMitzvotav veTzivanu on circumcision. And he who pronounces the benediction recites: Baruch Ata Hashem Elokeinu Melech HaOlam Asher Kiddeshanu BeMitzvotav veTzivanu to circumcise converts...}

He who circumcises slaves recites Baruch Ata Hashem Elokeinu Melech HaOlam Asher Kiddeshanu BeMitzvotav veTzivanu to circumcise slaves, and hast commanded us to cause the drops of the blood of the covenant to flow from them, since but for the blood of the covenant the ordinances of heaven and earth would not endure, as it is said, {Yirmiyahu 33:25}:

כה כֹּה אָמַר ה, אִם-לֹא בְרִיתִי יוֹמָם וָלָיְלָה--חֻקּוֹת שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ, לֹא-שָׂמְתִּי.

25 Thus saith the LORD: If My covenant be not with day and night, if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth;

Baruch Ata Hashem Who makest the covenant.

{our gemara again has a different girsa: The once who circumcises slaves recites: He who circumcises proselytes says: Baruch Ata Hashem Elokeinu Melech HaOlam Asher Kiddeshanu BeMitzvotav veTzivanu on circumcision. And he who pronounces the benediction recites: Baruch Ata Hashem Elokeinu Melech HaOlam Asher Kiddeshanu BeMitzvotav veTzivanu to circumcise slaves, etc...}

And one who circumcises converts and slaves first covers the erva and then blesses "on {performing} circumcision," and then performs the circumcision. And after he circumcises, he recites {who commanded us} "to circumcise converts."

And a convert, even if he was already circumcised while still a gentile, one needs to cause the drops of the blood of the covenant to flow from him. And until he heals we do not make him immerse; and when we make him immerse, three need to go after him and say as we said to him initially; and he shaves himself and trims his fingernails and toenails; and they need see him as he immerses. And when he leaves {the mikveh} he blesses Baruch Ata Hashem Elokeinu Melech HaOlam Asher Kiddeshanu BeMitzvotav veTzivanu on immersion.

And so a freed slave, and so a servant and maidservant whom he has purchased initially from a gentile -- three come and tell him him the commandments {mitzvot} which the slave is obligated in; and we immerse him - as we have written in the halachot of converts in perek haCholetz.

And if the hot water of the Jewish infant spilled or the drugs scattered after the circumcision took place, we prepare them for him on Shabbat because of the danger.

We find in the halachot gedolot written: And if they brought a scalpel from before Shabbat for use on Shabbat, and it is stolen or became nicked {nifgam} before the circumcision, it is permitted to say to a gentile to repair it or to bring another scalpel

Rif Shabbat 55a {Shabbat 136a continues ... 137a; digression to Nidda 42b}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
55a

{Shabbat 136a continues}
Do the Sages disagree with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel or not?
{The question is whether they permit a young animal to be eaten before it is eight days old.}
And if you say that they are on him, is the halacha like him or not?

Come and hear: For Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: The halacha is like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

From the fact that it says {the} halacha {is like X or Y} implies that there is one who argues, and that the halacha is like him.

And this that we said that eight days {and on} for an animal is not considered a nefel {miscarriage}, there words were said about a sacrifice, but for eating, if he waits seven days, it is permissible to slaughter it on the night of the eighth and eat it, for Rav Papa and Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua were visiting the house of Rav Iddi bar Avin, and they prepared a third-born calf for them on its seventh day [from birth], whereupon they said to him 'Had you waited with it until evening (of the eighth), the time which it is fit for slaughter, we would have eaten thereof: now we will not eat thereof'!

The son of Rav Dimi bar Yosef had an infant born to him, [and] it died within thirty days. [Thereupon] he sat and mourned for it. His father said to him "Do you wish to eat dainties {sent by friends to mourners}?! {after all, it has the status of a nefel before 30 days.} He said to him {his father}: I know for certain that its months [of pregnancy] were complete.

Rav Ashi visited the home of Rav Kahana. A mishap befell him within the thirty days. {A child died within the first 30 days after birth.} He saw him sitting and mourning for it.
He {Rav Ashi} said to him: Does master not agree with Rav Yehuda's citation of Shmuel, that the halacha is as Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?
He {Rav Kahana} said to him: I know for certain that its months were complete.

It was stated {by Amoraim}:
If it died within thirty days, and she [the mother] arose and was betrothed {at a later date, thinking that the child had freed her from the obligation of yibbum}:
Ravina cited Rava:
{Shabbat 136b}
If she is an Israelite's wife, she must perform chalizah {for a regular Israelite may marry one upon whom chalitza was performed; but if she is a Kohen's wife, she does not perform chalizah
{since a Kohen may not marry one upon whom chalitza was performed - rather, we may assume that her child was viable, relying on the majority of births, and therefore she has no yibbum/chalitza obligation}.

And so is the halacha.

"R. JUDAH PERMITS BY A HERMAPHRODITE":
Rav Shizvi cited Rav Chisda: Not in respect of everything did Rabbi Yehuda rule [that] an hermaphrodite is a male; for if you do say thus, in the case of vows of valuation let him be subject to valuation.
And how do we know that he is not subject to 'valuation'?
Because it was taught: {Vayikra 27:3}:

ג וְהָיָה עֶרְכְּךָ, הַזָּכָר, מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה, וְעַד בֶּן-שִׁשִּׁים שָׁנָה: וְהָיָה עֶרְכְּךָ, חֲמִשִּׁים שֶׁקֶל כֶּסֶף--בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ.

3 then thy valuation shall be for the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy valuation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary.

but not a tumtum {=one whose genitals are hidden or undeveloped, so that his sex is doubtful} or an hermaphrodite. You might think that he does not come within the valuation of a man, yet he does come within the valuation of a woman; therefore it is stated {Vayikra 27:3-4}:

ג וְהָיָה עֶרְכְּךָ, הַזָּכָר, מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה, וְעַד בֶּן-שִׁשִּׁים שָׁנָה: וְהָיָה עֶרְכְּךָ, חֲמִשִּׁים שֶׁקֶל כֶּסֶף--בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ.	3 then thy valuation shall be for the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy valuation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary.
ד וְאִם-נְקֵבָה, הִוא--וְהָיָה עֶרְכְּךָ, שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁקֶל.	4 And if it be a female, then thy valuation shall be thirty shekels.

a certain male, a certain female, but not a tumtum or a hermaphrodite'.

There is one who says that from the fact that Rav Chisda explains the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda, we may deduce that the halacha is like him {Rabbi Yehuda}. And the Gaon states that the halacha is not like him.

{Shabbat 137a}
MISHNA:
IF A MAN HAS TWO INFANTS, ONE FOR CIRCUMCISION AFTER SHABBAT AND THE OTHER FOR CIRCUMCISION ON SHABBAT, AND HE ERRS AND CIRCUMCISES THE ONE BELONGING TO AFTER SHABBAT ON SHABBAT, HE IS CULPABLE.
{For unwittingly desecrating Shabbat. For since circumcision is obligatory from the eighth day only, this is not circumcision, but the mere inflicting of a wound, which entails culpability.}

[IF HE HAS] ONE FOR CIRCUMCISION ON EREV SHABBAT {=Friday} AND ANOTHER FOR CIRCUMCISION ON SHABBAT, AND HE ERRS AND CIRCUMCISES THE ONE BELONGING TO EREV SHABBAT ON SHABBAT,
R. ELIEZER HOLDS [HIM] LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING
{For though he has actually fulfilled a precept, nevertheless circumcision after the proper time does not supersede Shabbat};
BUT R. JOSHUA EXEMPTS [HIM]
{He erred through the fulfilment of a precept, viz., because he was occupied with the circumcision of the second, which actually was to be done that day; he also did fulfil a precept by circumcising the first, and R. Joshua holds that in such a case one is not culpable.}

AN INFANT IS TO BE CIRCUMCISED ON THE EIGHTH, NINTH, TENTH, ELEVENTH, AND TWELFTH [DAYS], NEITHER EARLIER NOR LATER.
HOW SO?
IN THE NORMAL COURSE, IT IS ON THE EIGHTH;
IF HE IS BORN AT TWILIGHT, ON THE NINTH;
{As it may have been night already, and circumcision must not take place before the eighth.}
AT TWILIGHT ON EREV SHABBAT, ON THE TENTH;
IF A YOM TOV FOLLOWS SHABBAT {in Eretz Yisrael, where Yom Tov is one rather than two days} ON THE ELEVENTH;
IF THE TWO DAYS OF ROSH HASHANA {FOLLOW SHABBAT}, ON THE TWELFTH.

AN INFANT WHO IS ILL IS NOT CIRCUMCISED UNTIL HE RECOVERS

Gemara:
We learn in perek Yoztei Dofen {Nidda 42b}:
A certain person once came before Raba and asked him, 'Is it permissible to perform a circumcision on Shabbat?'
He {Rava} said to him: It is fine to do so.
After that person went out Rava considered: Is it likely that this man did not know that it was permissible to perform a circumcision on Shabbat? He brought him back, and said to him, 'Pray tell me all the circumstance of the case.'
He said to him {Rava}: I heard the child cry on twilight {Friday night} but it was not born until it became dark {and was certainly Shabbat}.
He {Rava} said to him: This is a case of one who put his head out of the ante-chamber {prozdor}, for had he not put out {his head} he would not have cried, for so long as he is in his mother's womb, his mouth is closed and his umbilical cord is open. And so he is reckoned as born during twilight {on Friday night}, and this is then circumcision not in its proper time {since 8 days including the Friday he was born occurs on the next Friday, not Shabbat}, and on account of a circumcision that does not take place at the proper time Shabbat may not be desecrated.

{Shabbat 137a resumes}
"AN INFANT WHO IS ILL IS NOT CIRCUMCISED UNTIL HE RECOVERS":
Shmuel said: When his temperature subsides [to normal], we allow him

Rif Shabbat 54b {Shabbat 135b continues ... 136a}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
54b

{Shabbat 135b continues}
and there is [a slave] born in his [master's] house who is circumcised on the first [day]. There is [a slave] bought with money who is circumcised on the first [day], and there is [a slave] bought with money who is circumcised on the eighth day.
How so?
If one purchases a pregnant female slave and then she gives birth, that [the infant] is an acquired slave who is circumcised at eight days. If one purchases a female slave together with her infant child, that is a slave bought with money who is circumcised on the first day. If one purchases a female slave and she conceives in his house and gives birth, that is [a slave] born in his [master's] house who is circumcised at eight days. Rabbi Chama says: If she gives birth and then has a ritual bath, { - by this rite she enters the Jewish household as slave, becoming liable to all duties enjoined upon a Jewish woman} that is [a slave] born in his [master's] house who is circumcised on the first day; if she has a ritual bath and then gives birth, that is [a slave] born in his [master's] house who is circumcised at eight days.
But the first Tanna allows no distinction between one who [first] has a ritual bath and then gives birth and one who gives birth and then has a ritual bath, so that even though his mother is not defiled through her giving birth he is circumcised on the eighth day.

Rava said: As for Rabbi Chama, it is well: we find [a slave] born in his [master's] house who is circumcised on the first day, and [a slave] born in his [master's] house who is circumcised on the eighth day -- such that she gave birth and then ritually immersed, and where she ritually immersed and then gave birth. One bought with money who is circumcised on the eighth day - if one purchases a pregnant female slave and she has a ritual bath and then gives birth. One bought with money who is circumcised on the first day - where one buys a [pregnant] female slave and another buys her unborn child.
But, according to the first Tanna, as for all [others] it is well: they are conceivable.
Rabbi Yirmiya said: In the case of one who buys a female slave for her unborn child.
This is satisfactory on the view that a title to the fruit is not as a title to the principal; but on the view that a title to the fruit is as a title to the principal, what can be said?
Rav Mesharshiya said: [It is possible] where one buys a female slave on condition that he will not subject her to a ritual bath. {There her child is certainly unlike a Jewish-born one.}

They learnt {in a brayta}: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Any human being who lives thirty days is not a nefel, for it is stated {Bemidbar 18:16}:

טז וּפְדוּיָו, מִבֶּן-חֹדֶשׁ תִּפְדֶּה, בְּעֶרְכְּךָ, כֶּסֶף חֲמֵשֶׁת שְׁקָלִים בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ: עֶשְׂרִים גֵּרָה, הוּא.

16 And their redemption-money--from a month old shalt thou redeem them--shall be, according to thy valuation, five shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary--the same is twenty gerahs.

An animal [which lives] eight days is not a nefel, for it is said {Vayikra 22:27}:

כז שׁוֹר אוֹ-כֶשֶׂב אוֹ-עֵז כִּי יִוָּלֵד, וְהָיָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תַּחַת אִמּוֹ; וּמִיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי, וָהָלְאָה, יֵרָצֶה, לְקָרְבַּן אִשֶּׁה לַה.

27 When a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat, is brought forth, then it shall be seven days under the dam; but from the eighth day and thenceforth it may be accepted for an offering made by fire unto the LORD.

Thus, if does not wait {until the eighth day} it is doubtful.

As regards the wife of one's brother, which are of those carrying a kareit penalty, the Sages were stringent, such that one does not perform yibbum in case of doubt {e.g. of whether there was child or not}, but as regards mourning, the Sages were lenient in this.

{Shabbat 136a}
It was a question to them:

Rif Shabbat 54a {Shabbat 135a continues ... 135b}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
54a

{Shabbat 135a continues}
{Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel argue} regarding whether to desecrate Shabbat for him {to cause a few drops of the covenant blood to flow from him on Shabbat}. For Bet Shammai say: we desecrate Shabbat for him; and Bet Hillel say we do not desecrate Shabbat for him.
From this we may derive that the Tanna Kamma {who argues with Rabbi Eleazar haKappar cited immediately above} maintains that the words of all {=both Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel} are that we do not desecrate Shabbat for him.

And because Rabba, who is later {than Rav and Shmuel}, learned {this} from this brayta, we thus deduce that this is the halacha. And even though Rav Yosef argues on him, we have established that {in a case of dispute between} Rabba and Rav Yosef, the halacha is like Rabba, with the exception of {and here we can refer to Bava Batra 104b} Field {when one of the heirs has a field adjoining the field that is to be divided}, Subject {they stay within the subject and thus do not nullify the testator's instructions}, and Half {where a testator expressed the wish that his estate be divided between his wife and his son}.
{The Rif earlier applied this principle in masachet Shabbat on daf 15a in his pages.}

Therefore we hold like Rabba who said that "We suspect that it may be a suppressed foreskin," and therefore we must to cause a few drops of the covenant blood to flow from him on a weekday, but not on Shabbat, for in a case of doubt, we do not desecrate the Shabbat.
And so is the halacha.

---

{The Rif attributes the following} To Rabbenu Hai Gaon, זצ"ל:
"And this that you asked, 'one who is born circumcised, must we cause a few drops of the covenant blood to flow from him, or not? and if we must cause a few drops of the covenant blood to flow from him, do we say a blessing on it or not?'
The rule of the matter is that the Rabbis before me in the Mesivta so agreed that we must cause a few drops of the covenant blood to flow from him; however, it should be done gently, and we need to inspect the matter carefully with hands and eyesight, and not with iron {implements}, so as not to distress him, and we do not bless on the circumcision unless it is discernible that he has a suppressed foreskin.

And we check and are careful how we circumcise him, and if no foreskin is visible, we wait for him a long time, so that we do not bring him to danger, and we pay no heed to {the desire to circumcise on} the eighth {day}.

---

Master said {that is, we said earlier}: And doubt does not push of Shabbat.
To include what? {for the various cases of doubt had been enumerated}
To include this, that the Sages learnt {in a brayta}: For a seven-months' infant {one born after seven months of pregnancy} one may desecrate Shabbat, but for an eight-months' infant one may not desecrate Shabbat. For one in doubt whether the is a seven-months' or an eight-months' infant, one may not desecrate Shabbat. An eight-months' infant is like a stone and may not be handled, but his mother bends [over] and suckles him because of the danger {to herself, if she is not eased of her milk}.

Rava cited Rav Assi {our gemara: just Rav Assi}: He whose mother is defiled through giving birth must be circumcised at eight [days], but he whose mother is not defiled through giving birth {e.g. if the child is not born in the usual manner but extracted through the cesarean section; or if a Gentile woman gives birth and becomes a proselyte the following day} is not circumcised on the eighth day, for it is stated {Vayikra 12:2}:

ב דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, לֵאמֹר, אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ, וְיָלְדָה זָכָר--וְטָמְאָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים, כִּימֵי נִדַּת דְּו‍ֹתָהּ תִּטְמָא.

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying: If a woman be delivered, and bear a man-child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of the impurity of her sickness shall she be unclean.

and it is written {next pasuk}:

ג וּבַיּוֹם, הַשְּׁמִינִי, יִמּוֹל, בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ.

3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

Abaye said to him: Let the early generations {preceding the giving of the Torah} prove [the reverse], where the mother was not defiled through giving birth {the law of defilement being as yet non-existent}, yet circumcision was of the eighth day.
He said to him: The Torah was given and the halacha was renewed {changed}.

{Shabbat 135b}
Is this indeed so? But is was stated {by Amoraim}:
If one is extracted through the cesarean section, or has two foreskins -
Rav Huna and Chiyya bar Rav:
One said: We desecrate Shabbat for him {to circumcise}; and one said: We do not desecrate.
They only argue regarding desecrating Shabbat for him, but we certainly circumcise them on the eighth day!
One is dependent on the other.
{That is, the infant who must be circumcised on the eighth day must be circumcised even on Shabbat, since that is deduced from the verse about the (eighth) day, but where the eighth day is not necessary Shabbat may not be desecrated.}

This is a controversy of Tannaim: There is [a slave] born in his [master's] house who is circumcised on the eighth [day],

Rif Shabbat 53b {Shabbat 134b continues; digression to Eruvin 102b; Shabbat 135a}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
53b

{Shabbat 134b continues}
whether with hot water that had been heated on Shabbat or with hot water that had been heated on erev Shabbat.

Rav said: One does not withhold hot water and oil from a wound on Shabbat.
And Shmuel said: One must place it outside the wound, and it flows down on to the wound.

And the halacha is like Shmuel for there is a brayta like him: One may not apply hot water [and oil] to a wound on Shabbat, but one may put it outside the wound, and it flows down on to the wound.

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: One may apply dry wadding or a dry sponge to a wound but not a dry reed or dry rags [of cloth].

But the first part of the brayta stated that one may appy dry rags?! {assuming wadding = rags}
Rags on rags is no contradiction. Here where it stated "One may apply dry wadding" was by new wadding, while this that they learnt "but not dry rags" refers to old.

---

We learn at the end of Eruvin {Eruvin 102b}: The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: A sticking plaster which separates {falls} from a wound on Shabbat, we may place it back on Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda says: If it was moved up it may be moved down and if it was moved down it may be moved up, and it is permitted to remove part of the plaster and cleanse the exposed portion of the wound, then replace the plaster, remove another part, cleanse the exposed wound and again replace the plaster, but it is not permitted to cleanse the plaster because by so doing one would "rub" the plaster and if he "rubs" (מרח) he is liable to bring a sin-offering.

Rav Chisda said: The dispute is only when it {the plaster} falls onto a vessel, but if it fell onto the ground all agree that it is forbidden to return it.

Rav Yehuda said {our gemara: cited Shmuel}: The halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda.

And the halacha is not {in fact} like him {Rav Yehuda}, since Rav Ashi, who is lated, conducted himself in practice like the Tanna Kamma.

---

{resume Shabbat 134b - about a doubtful infant - born prematurely - see above - and a hermaphrodite }
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: {Vayikra 12:3}:

ג וּבַיּוֹם, הַשְּׁמִינִי, יִמּוֹל, בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ.

3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

'His foreskin' - in case of certainty {vadai} pushes off the Shabbat,
{Shabbat 135a}
but a case of doubt does not push of the Shabbat. 'His foreskin' - in case of certainty pushes off the Shabbat, but that of a hermaphrodite does not push off the Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda says: A hermaphrodite does push off the Shabbat, and there is a penalty of kareit {for not circumcising.} 'His foreskin' - in case of certainty pushes off the Shabbat, but one born on twilight {such that the obligation might not be on Shabbat} does not push off the Shabbat, nor does one who is born circumcised push off the Shabbat, for Bet Shammai say: One must cause a few drops of the covenant blood to flow from him; while Bet Hillel say: It is not necessary to cause a few drops of the covenant blood to flow from him. Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar said: Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel do not argue regarding one who is born circumcised that one must cause a few drops of the covenant blood to flow from him {that is, they agree that one must}; Regarding what do they argue? Regarding one who converts when he is already circumcised. That Bet Shammai say: One must cause a few drops of the covenant blood to flow from him; while Bet Hillel say: It is not necessary to cause a few drops of the covenant blood to flow from him.

It was stated {by Amoraim}:
Rav said: The halacha is like the Tanna Kamma.
And Shmuel said: The halacha is like Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar.

And even though Rav and Shmuel argue in this matter, we establish like the later ones {batrai}, who are Rabba and Rav Yosef.

For it was stated {by Amoraim}:
Rabba said: We suspect that it may be a suppressed foreskin;
And Rav Yosef said: It is certainly a suppressed foreskin.

And Rabba {our gemara: Rav Yosef} said: From where do I know this?
For they learnt {in a brayta}: Rabbi Eleazar haKappar says: Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel do not argue regarding one who is born circumcised that one must cause a few drops of the covenant blood to flow from him.

Rif Shabbat 53a {Shabbat 133b continues ... 134b}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
53a

{Shabbat 133b continues}
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: The membrum must be trimmed*, and if one does not trim it, he {the mohel} is punished with kareit.

{*: Rashi and Rabbenu Chananel: the shreds which invalidate the circumcision must be removed.}

How so?
Such that he comes {to circumcise} at twilight {on Shabbat} and they told him 'you have no time,' but he insisted, 'I have time.' So he performed it but had not time [to complete it]. Thus the net result is that he [merely] made a wound {on Shabbat - it is not considered circumcision}, hence he is punished with kareit.

"WE SUCK OUT":
Rav Papa said: If a surgeon does not suck [the WOUND], it is dangerous and he is dismissed.

"IF ONE DID NOT CRUSH CUMMIN {ON EREV SHABBAT}":
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: The things which may not be done for circumcision on Shabbat may be done on Yom Tov: cummin may be crushed, and wine and oil may be beaten up together on its account.

"ONE MAY NOT MAKE A CHALUK FOR IT":
Abaye said: Mother told me: The side-selvedge of an infant's chaluk should be uppermost {that is, not facing the flesh}, lest a thread thereof stick and he [the infant] may become privily mutilated.

They learnt {in a brayta}: Rabbi Natan said: I once visited the Sea-towns {=Tyre, etc.}, and a woman came before me who had circumcised her first son and he had died and her second son and he had died; the third she brought before me. Seeing that he was [too] red I said to her, My daughter, wait until his blood is absorbed. So she waited until his blood was absorbed and [then] circumcised him and he lived; and they called him Natan the Babylonian after my name. On another occasion I visited the Province of Cappadocia, and a woman came before me who had circumcised her first son and he had died and her second son and he had died; the third she brought before me. Seeing that he was green, I examined him and saw no covenant blood in him. {The blood which circumcision causes to flow is so designated. Thus circumcision would be physically dangerous, and furthermore even if performed it would be inadequate, as covenant blood is required.} I said to her, My daughter, wait until he is full-blooded; she waited and [then] circumcised him and he lived, and they called him Nathan the Babylonian, after my name.

{Shabbat 134b}
MISHNA:
WE MAY BATHE THE INFANT BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE CIRCUMCISION, AND SPRINKLE [WARM WATER] OVER HIM BY HAND BUT NOT WITH A VESSEL.
R. ELEAZAR B. 'AZARIAH SAID: WE MAY BATHE AN INFANT ON THE THIRD DAY [OF CIRCUMCISION] WHICH FALLS ON THE SABBATH, BECAUSE IT IS SAID {in Bereishit 34:25 regarding the men of Shechem who had circumcised themselves}:

כה וַיְהִי בַיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי בִּהְיוֹתָם כֹּאֲבִים, וַיִּקְחוּ שְׁנֵי-בְנֵי-יַעֲקֹב שִׁמְעוֹן וְלֵוִי אֲחֵי דִינָה אִישׁ חַרְבּוֹ, וַיָּבֹאוּ עַל-הָעִיר, בֶּטַח; וַיַּהַרְגוּ, כָּל-זָכָר.

25 And it came to pass on the third day, when they were in pain, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city unawares, and slew all the males.

AS FOR ONE WHO IS DOUBTFUL {=born prematurely, who might be a child of "eight months"}, AND AN HERMAPHRODITE, WE MAY NOT DESECRATE THE SABBATH ON THEIR ACCOUNT;
BUT R. JUDAH PERMITS [IT] IN THE CASE OF AN HERMAPHRODITE.

Gemara:
When Rabin came {from Eretz Yisrael}, he cited Rabbi Abahu who cited Rabbi Eleazer, and some say {our gemara omits this}, he cited Rabbi Yochanan: The halacha is as Rabbi Eleazar ben 'Azariah in respect of both hot water heated on Shabbat and hot water heated on erev Shabbat, whether for the bathing of the whole body or for the bathing of the membrum, because it is dangerous for him.

And the {post-Talmudic} Sages say that the halacha is like Rabbi Eleazar ben 'Azariah on the third day, and certainly on the first day, that they bathe him in the regular manner, whether before the circumcision or after the circumcision,

Rif Shabbat 52b {digression to Eruvin 91a, Yerushalmi Shabbat 86a continues; Shabbat 132a ... 133b}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
52b

{to crush spices to mix into wine} to make konditon you did not forget, but to bring the scalpel you forgot? Let it be pushed off to the morrow.

And to us, this ruling which the early ones {Rishonim - here probably the Geonim, who rule against Rabbi Shimon by a scalpel} ruled is difficult, for we rule explicitly {Eruvin 91b} like Rabbi Shimon who said that roofs, courtyards, and enclosures are all one domain, and it is permitted to carry in all of them, and there is not even a prohibition when it comes to something voluntary {that is, there is no requirement for carrying} and certainly in a matter of a mitzvah {as here, by circumcision}! And furthermore, they acted in practice like Rabbi Shimon, as we said earlier - Rav Avin cited Rav Adda who cited Rabbi Yitzchak: one time they forget and did not bring a scalpel, etc., and we establish like a maaseh rav in all cases.

And all these proofs which the {post-Talmudic} Sages learn - that we do not bring a scalpel by way of roofs, courtyards, and enclosures - there is an answer to each and every one of them. Forthe fact that we decide the halacha like Rabbi Akiva, who says that ANY [MANNER OF] WORK WHICH COULD BE PERFORMED ON EREV SHABBAT DOES NOT SUPERSEDE SHABBAT - we only derive from this that one may not push off Shabbat, and bring it via the public domain, like Rabbi Eliezer, but to bring it via roofs, courtyards, and enclosures, this matter has nothing to do with it at all. But rather it is a dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Sages, in which the Sages maintain that via roofs and courtyards there is a prohibition, because of shevut, and we do not push off that prohibition even in case of mitzvah, and Rabbi Shimon maintains that via roofs, courtyards, and enclosured, it is reckoned a single domain, and it is permitted to carry {even} voluntary items, and certainly those of mitzvah. And we have already ruled in accordance with Rabbi Shimon in this as well. And this that Rava said, that arel, hazaah, and izmel their words do stand when there is an issue of kareit, he is not stating his own opinion, nor ruling the halacha, but rather he is mentioning the opinion of the Sages {against Rabbi Shimon}, that they hold that bringing the scalpel via roofs, courtyards, and enclosures has in it an issue of shevut, and they prohibited it even in an instance of kareit. And since they make their made their words stand in an instance of kareit, Rava comes and mentions it {scalpel} next to the cases of areil and hazaah, which are from their words {Rabbinic} and they caused to stand {even} in case of kareit. And Rabbi Shimon argues by scalpel on the Sages and says that there is no prohibition at all, as we have discussed.

And furthermore, Rabbi Shimon also holds by this of Rava, for Rabbi Shimon only argues on the Sages by vessels which rested {when Shabbat first came in} in the courtyard, but vessels which rested in the house, Rabbi Shimon would maintain that they are prohibited, and that the Sages maintained their words {even} in case of kareit. And therefore there is also no proof from this that Rava said regarding arel, hazaah, and izmel.

And also, this that they said that Rabbi Shimon is an individual and he argues against the rabim {many}, and we have established that an individual vs. the many, the halacha is like the many, there words are so {only} where they did not rule explicity like the individual, but here, they ruled explicitly that the halacha is like Rabbi Shimon, and they also acted in practice like him.

And this case where they forgot, which occurs in Yerushalmi, one should not learn from it that it is forbidden to bring it via roofs, for it is possible to say that this that it said "it should be pushed off to the morrow" was because it was not possible to bring it via roofs and enclosures - for instance if there was an intervening public domain, or if there was no scalpel that rested {when Shabbat first entered} in a courtyard, for Rabbi Shimon spoke of vessels which rested {when Shabbat first entered} in it {the courtyard} and not of vessels which rested within the house. And it {the Yerushalmi} comes not to dismiss the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, but to dismiss the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

And further, even if you say it comes to dismiss the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, we only rely on our own gemara {=Bavli, and not Yerushalmi} and this {deciding like Rabbi Shimon} is the opinion of our gemara in this sugya, and they {the words of the Bavli} are clear, and there is not the slightest ambiguity in them.

{Shabbat 133a}
"R. AKIBA STATED A GENERAL PRINCIPLE..":
Rav Yehuda said {in our gemara, he cites Rav}: The halacha is like Rabbi Akiva.

The dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva is only as regards the preparations for {machshirei} circumcision {such as bringing the scalpel}.

{Shabbat 132a}
But as regards the circumcision itself, that it pushes off Shabbat, from where?
Rabbi Yochanan said: The verse states {Vayikra 12:3}:

ג וּבַיּוֹם, הַשְּׁמִינִי, יִמּוֹל, בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ.

3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

and even on Shabbat.

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: : Circumcision supersedes leprosy, whether [performed] at its [proper] time {=day 8} or not at its [proper] time; it superseds Yom Tov only [when performed] at its [proper] time.

And circumcision, whether [performed] at its [proper] time or not at its [proper] time, we only circumcise by day, for they learnt {in a brayta, in Yevamot 72a}: I only have that one circumcised on the eighth day that he is circumcised by day. On the ninth, on the tenth, on the eleventh, on the tweltth, and all the other ones who are curcumcised, from where {do I know} that they are only circumcised by day? They Torah teaches {Vayikra 12:3}:

ג וּבַיּוֹם, הַשְּׁמִינִי, יִמּוֹל, בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ.

3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

{?? Perhaps a mikol makom derasha based on the verb יִמּוֹל as modified by וּבַיּוֹם? Perhaps the וּ of וּבַיּוֹם to include?}

We learn in Kiddushin, in the first perek {Kiddushin 29a} that when the father does not circumcise him, the Bet Din is obligated to circumcise him, for it is written {Bereishit 17:10}

י זֹאת בְּרִיתִי אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁמְרוּ, בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם, וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ, אַחֲרֶיךָ: הִמּוֹל לָכֶם, כָּל-זָכָר.

10 This is My covenant, which ye shall keep, between Me and you and thy seed after thee: every male among you shall be circumcised.

{in plural}
And when the Bet Din does not circumcise him, he himself is obligated to circumcise himself, for it is written {Bereishit 17:14}:

יד וְעָרֵל זָכָר, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יִמּוֹל אֶת-בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ--וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא, מֵעַמֶּיהָ: אֶת-בְּרִיתִי, הֵפַר.

14 And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant.'

{Shabbat 133a resumes}
MISHNA:
WE PERFORM ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF CIRCUMCISION ON SHABBAT.
WE CIRCUMCISE, UNCOVER [THE CORONA], SUCK [THE WOUND], AND PLACE A COMPRESS AND CUMMIN UPON IT {to make the wound heal}.

IF ONE DID NOT CRUSH [THE CUMMIN] ON EREV SHABBAT, HE MUST CHEW [IT] WITH HIS TEETH AND APPLY [IT TO THE WOUND];
IF HE DID NOT BEAT UP WINE AND OIL ON EREV SHABBAT, EACH MUST BE APPLIED SEPARATELY.
WE MAY NOT MAKE A CHALUK {=a kind of shirt-shaped bandage placed over the membrum and tied at the corona, to prevent the flesh from growing back and recovering the membrum} FOR IT IN THE FIRST PLACE, BUT MUST WRAP A RAG ABOUT IT.

IF THIS WAS NOT PREPARED FROM EREV SHABBAT, ONE WINDS IT ABOUT HIS FINGER {as though it were a garment, so that it shall not be carried just like on weekdays} AND BRINGS IT, AND EVEN THROUGH ANOTHER COURTYARD.

{Shabbat 133b}
Gemara:
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: He who circumcises, as long as he is engaged in the circumcision, he returns both for the shreds [of the corona] which invalidate the circumcision and for those which do not invalidate the circumcision. Once he has withdrawn {from circumcising, thinking it finished}, he returns on account of the shreds which invalidate the circumcision, but not for the shreds which do not invalidate the circumcision.

Rif Shabbat 52a {Shabbat 129a continues ... 130a; digression to Eruvin 91a, Yerushalmi Shabbat 86a}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
52a

{Shabbat 129a continues}
Rava said: We said this only if her husband is not with her {after the ritual bath, which she takes in order to eat terumah, etc}; but if her husband is with her, he makes her warm.
Even as Rav Chisda's daughter performed tevilla within thirty days in her husband's {Rava's} absence, caught a chill, and was carried in a bed to Rava at Pumbeditha.

Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: We may make a fire for a lying-in woman {=a woman giving birth} on Shabbat. Now it was understood from him, only for a lying-in woman, but not for a sick person; only in winter, but not in summer.
And we conclude that there is no difference between a lying-in woman and a sick person, between winter and summer. From that which Rav Chiyya bar Avin cited Rav Sheshet {our gemara, he cites Shmuel}: If one lets blood and catches a chill, a fire is made for him even on the Tammuz [summer] solstice.
A teak chair was broken up for Shmuel {for a fire, other wood being unavailable}. A table [made] of juniper-wood was broken up for Rav Yehuda. A footstool was broken up for Rabbah, whereupon Abaye said to Rabbah: But you are infringing {Devarim 20:19}:

יט כִּי-תָצוּר אֶל-עִיר יָמִים רַבִּים לְהִלָּחֵם עָלֶיהָ לְתָפְשָׂהּ, לֹא-תַשְׁחִית אֶת-עֵצָהּ לִנְדֹּחַ עָלָיו גַּרְזֶן--כִּי מִמֶּנּוּ תֹאכֵל, וְאֹתוֹ לֹא תִכְרֹת: כִּי הָאָדָם עֵץ הַשָּׂדֶה, לָבֹא מִפָּנֶיךָ בַּמָּצוֹר.

19 When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by wielding an axe against them; for thou mayest eat of them, but thou shalt not cut them down; for is the tree of the field man, that it should be besieged of thee?

{bal tashchit. The point is that he was wasting the footstool.}
He said to him: 'Thou shalt not destroy' in respect of my own body is more important to me.

Rabbi Chiyya bar Ashi said {our gemara: Rav Yehuda cited Rav}: One should always sell [even] the beams of his house and buy shoes for his feet. If one has let blood and has nothing to eat, let him sell the shoes from off his feet and provide the requirements of a meal therewith.
What are the requirements of a meal?
Rav said: Meat;
And Shmuel said: Wine.
Rab said meat - life for life.
And Shmuel said: Wine - red [wine] to replace red [blood].

"WE TIE UP THE NAVEL-STRING":
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: We tie up the navel-string. Rabbi Yossi says: We cut [it] too; and we hide the after-birth, so that the infant may be kept warm. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: princesses hide [it] in bowls of oil, wealthy women in wool fleeces, and poor women in soft rags.

Rav Nachman cited Rabba bar Avuah {our gemara: who in turn cited Rav}: The halacha is as Rabbi Yossi.

And Rav Nachman cited Rabba bar Avuah {our gemara: who in turn cited Rav}: The Sages agree with Rabbi Yossi in the case of the navel-string of twins, that we cut them.
What is the reason? Because they pull upon each other.

Rav Nachman cited Rabba bar Avuah {our gemara: who in turn cited Rav}: All that is mentioned in the chapter of rebuke {in Yechezkel 16 as not being done for this metaphorical woman} is done for a lying-in woman on Shabbat. For it it stated {Yechezkel 16:4}:

ד וּמוֹלְדוֹתַיִךְ, בְּיוֹם הוּלֶּדֶת אוֹתָךְ לֹא-כָרַּת שָׁרֵּךְ, וּבְמַיִם לֹא-רֻחַצְתְּ, לְמִשְׁעִי; וְהָמְלֵחַ לֹא הֻמְלַחַתְּ, וְהָחְתֵּל לֹא חֻתָּלְתְּ.

4 And as for thy nativity, in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut, neither wast thou washed in water for cleansing; thou was not salted at all, nor swaddled at all.

from here that they cut the navel string on Shabbat.

וּבְמַיִם לֹא-רֻחַצְתְּ לְמִשְׁעִי - "neither wast thou washed in water for cleansing" - from here that they wash the infant.

וְהָמְלֵחַ לֹא הֻמְלַחַתְּ - "thou was not salted at all" - from here that they salt the infant.

וְהָחְתֵּל לֹא חֻתָּלְתְּ - "nor swaddled at all" - from here that they swaddle the infant on Shabbat.

END PEREK EIGHTEEN

BEGIN PEREK NINETEEN
{Shabbat 130a}
MISHNA:
R. ELIEZER SAID: IF ONE DID NOT BRING AN INSTRUMENT ON EREV SHABBAT {a knife for circumcision} HE MUST BRING IT ON SHABBAT UNCOVERED {that all may see it};
BUT IN [TIMES OF] DANGER {when circumcision is forbidden by the State} HE HIDES IT ON THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES.

R. ELIEZER SAID FURTHER: ONE MAY CUT TIMBER TO MAKE CHARCOAL FOR MANUFACTURING IRON {for a circumcision knife}.

R. AKIBA STATED A GENERAL PRINCIPLE: ANY [MANNER OF] WORK WHICH COULD BE PERFORMED ON EREV SHABBAT DOES NOT SUPERSEDE SHABBAT; BUT THAT WHICH COULD NOT BE PERFORMED ON EREV SHABBAT DOES SUPERSEDE SHABBAT.

{not in the Mishna in our gemara. perhaps added by the Rif in explanation}
CIRCUMCISION, WHICH CANNOT BE PERFORMED ON EREV SHABBAT SUPERCEDES SHABBAT.

Gemara:
Rav Avin cited Rav Adda who cited Rav Yitzchak {our Gemara: R. Abba b. R. Adda said in R. Isaac's name}: they once forgot to bring a knife on erev Shabbat, so they brought it on Shabbat through roofs and courtyards,
{Shabbat 130b}
[this being] against the will of Rabbi Eliezer, who permits via the public domain.
But with the consent of Rabbi Shimon, who permits it through courtyards, roofs, and enclosures.

For we learnt {tnan}: R. Simeon said: Roofs, enclosures and courtyards are all one domain {such that carrying from one to the next is permitted} in respect of utensils which spent Shabbat therein {that is, from the beginning of Shabbat}, but not in respect of utensils which rested in the house {at the beginning of Shabbat}.

And the {post-Talmudic} Rabbis have ruled that the halacha is not like Rabbi Shimon regarding a scalpel, and even though Rav said in perek Kol HaIr {Eruvin 91a} that the halacha is like Rabbi Shimon, in this we establish that the halacha is like the Sages, and we rule like Rabbi Akiva who said ANY [MANNER OF] WORK WHICH COULD BE PERFORMED ON EREV SHABBAT DOES NOT SUPERSEDE SHABBAT. And further, Rabba {our gemara: Rava} said in perek HaIsha in Pesachim {Pesachim 92a} that arel, hazaah, and izmel {simanim of halachot} do not stand when there is an issue of kareit. What does izmel refer to? That which they learnt {in a brayta}: just as they do not bring it via the public domain, so do they not bring it via courtyards, roofs, and enclosures. And further, the Sages and Rabbi Shimon is {a dispute between} an individual and the many, the halacha is like the many.

And there is one who brings support to the matter from the incident which is found in the Yerushalmi {Yerushalmi Shabbat 86a}, that we learn there that Rav Shmuel bar Avdimi to circumcise for Rav Shash'a his son. They forgot to bring the scalpel. He asked Rabbi Mana, and he said to him: push it {the curcumcision} until the morrow. He asked Rabbi Yitzchak the son of Rabbi Eleazar {our gemara: just the son of Eleazar}

Rif Shabbat 51b {Shabbat 128b continues ... 129a}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
51b

{Shabbat 128b continues}
"CALVES AND FOALS MAY BE MADE TO WALK, AND A WOMAN MAY MAKE HER SON WALK. R. JUDAH SAID: WHEN IS THAT? {IF HE LIFTS ONE [FOOT] AND PLACES [ANOTHER] DOWN; BUT IF HE DRAGS THEM IT IS FORBIDDEN}":
And so is the halacha, for we have established that in every instance that Rabbi Yehuda uses the phrase "when is that," he comes to explain the words of the Sages {and thus there is no dispute in the Mishna but rather an elaboration}.

MISHNA:
ONE MAY NOT DELIVER AN ANIMAL [IN GIVING BIRTH] ON A FESTIVAL, BUT ONE MAY ASSIST IT.
WE MAY DELIVER A WOMAN ON THE SABBATH, SUMMON A MIDWIFE FOR HER FROM PLACE TO PLACE, DESECRATE THE SABBATH ON HER ACCOUNT, AND TIE UP THE NAVEL-STRING.
R. JOSE SAID: ONE MAY CUT [IT] TOO.
AND ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF CIRCUMCISION MAY BE DONE ON THE SABBATH.

Gemara:
How may we assist?
Rav Yehuda says: The new-born [calf, lamb, etc.] is held so that it should not fall on the earth.

There is a brayta in accordance with Rav Yehuda: How do we assist? We may hold the young so that it should not fall on the ground, blow into its nostrils, and put the teat into its mouth that it should suck.
Rabbi Yehuda {our gemara: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel} said: We stimulate pity {arouse the maternal instinct} to a kosher animal on a Yom Tov.
How should he do?
Abaye: A lump of salt was brought and placed in its womb so that it [the mother] might remember its travails and have pity upon it; and we sprinkle the water of the after-birth upon the newly-born [animal] so that its mother might smell it and have pity upon it.
And specifically a kosher animal, but a non-kosher animal, no.
For an unclean {non-kosher} animal does not spurn its young, and if it does spurn it, it does not take it back.

"ONE MAY DELIVER A WOMAN":
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: If she needs a lamp, her neighbour may kindle a lamp for her. And if she needs oil, her neighbour brings her oil in her hand; but if that in her hand is insufficient, she brings it in her hair; and if that in her hair is insufficient, she brings it to her in a vessel via the public domain. {our gemara lacks "via the public domain".}

The Master said {immediately above}: 'If she needs a lamp, her neighbour may kindle a lamp for her.'
That is obvious?!
Rav Ashi {our gemara has this as anonymous} said: This is necessary [to be taught] only in the case of a blind [woman]: you might argue, Since she cannot see it, it is forbidden; hence he informs us that we tranquillize her mind, [as] she reasons, if there is anything [required] my friend will see it and do it for me.

And if she needs oil, her neighbour brings her oil in her hand; but if that in her hand is insufficient, she brings it in her hair {and it continues: and if that in her hair is insufficient, she brings it to her in a vessel via the public domain}
[But] deduce it on the grounds of wringing out?
{I.e., if she brings it in her hair she must then wring it out, which is just as much forbidden as carrying it in a vessel. Since this is so, why not carry it ordinarily?}
Rav Ashi said: You may even say that wringing out does apply to hair:
Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: [The interdict of] wringing out does not apply to hair.
And Rav Ashi said: You may even say that wringing out does apply to hair: she brings it to her in a vessel by means of her hair, [because] as much as we can vary it we do so.

Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: If a woman is in confinement {giving birth}, as long as the uterus is open, whether she states, 'I need it,' or 'I do not need it,' we must desecrate Shabbat on her account. If the uterus is closed,

{Shabbat 129a}
if she says, 'I need it,' we desecrate Shabbat for her; if she does not say, 'I need it,' we do not desecrate Shabbat. Rav Ashi learnt it thusly.

Mar Zutra learned as follows: Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: If a woman is in confinement, as long as the uterus is open, whether she says, 'I need it' or 'I do not need it,' we desecrate Shabbat for her. If the uterus is closed, if she says, 'I do not need it,' we do not desecrate Shabbat for her; if she does not say, 'I do not need it,' we desecrate Shabbat for her.

{In our gemara, what Rif attributes to Rav Ashi is the position of Mar Zutra. Meanwhile, Rav Ashi had an even stricter position, that if the uterus is closed, we do not desecrate Shabbat regardless of what she says.}

Ravina said to Mereimar: Mar Zutra recited it in the direction of leniency, [while] R. Ashi recited it in the direction of stringency; which is the law?
He said to him: The law is as Mar Zutra: where [a matter of] life is in doubt we are lenient.

From when is the opening of the uterus?
Abaye said: From when she sits on the seat of travail {mashbeir}.
Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said: From when the blood slowly flows down. others state, From when her friends carry her by her arms.

And the {post-Talmudic} Sages are medayek and say that since Rav Huna did not say until the blood slowly flows down {but rather, from the time}, we may deduce that this is before sitting on the seat of trevail.
And we practice like Abaye, and do not desecrate the Shabbat for her until the blood slowly flows down and she sits on the seat of travail.

For how long is the opening of the uterus?
We conclude that the scholars of Nehardea said: A lying-in woman [has three periods: from] three [days after confinement], seven [days], and thirty [days].
From three [days], whether she says, 'I need it' or she says, 'I do not need it,' we desecrate Shabbat for her.
[From] seven [days], if she says 'I need it,' we desecrate the Shabbat for her; if she says, 'I do not need it,' we do not desecrate the Shabbat for her. -- this implies that if she says nothing, we desecrate Shabbat for her.
From] thirty days, even if she says, 'I need it,' we may not desecrate the Shabbat for her, but rather we may do so by means of a gentile, like Rav Ulla the son of Rabbi Illai, who said: All the requirements of a sick person may be done by means of a gentile on Shabat, and as Rav Hamnuna, who said: In a matter entailing no danger [to life] {for a sick person}, one bids a gentile and he does it.

Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: For a woman in confinement [the period is] thirty days. In respect of what law? The scholars of Nehardea said: In respect of a ritual bath {which she must not take until thirty days for fear of a cold}.

Rif Shabbat 51a {Shabbat 128a continues ... 128b}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
51a

{Shabbat 128a continues}
Bundles of straw, bundles of branches, and bundles of young shoots, if one prepared them as animal fodder, may be handled; if not, they may not be handled. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Bundles which can be taken up with one hand may be handled; with two hands, may not be handled. As for bundles of si'ah {Jastrow: a plant classified with hyssop. Satureia Thymbra (savory)}, hyssop and koranith {Jastrow: thyme or origanum}: if they were brought in for fuel, one must not draw on them [for food] on Shabbat; and he may break [it] with his hand and eat [thereof], provided that he does not break it with a utensil. And he may crush it and eat, provided that he does not crush a large quantity with his hands {our gemara: a utensil} - these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda. But the Sages maintain: He may crush [it] with the tips of his fingers and eat, provided, however, that he does not crush a large quantity with his hands in the [same] way as he does on weekdays; the same applies to ammitha, the same applies to higgam [rue], and the same applies to other kinds of spices.

What is ammitha? Ninya {Jastrow: Bishop's weed. Rashi: mint.}
[What is] si'ah? Rav Yehuda said: Si'ah is zithre {Satureia -- see above}. ezov is abratha [hyssop]; koranith is what is called koranitha.

And the halacha is not like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, for we establish like the stam Mishna.

It was stated {by Amoraim}:
Raw meat {our gemara: salted meat} may be handled on Shabbat. Unsavory meat {תפוח. Rashi says that tafel and תפוח both mean unsalted. But this is from a girsa opposite "salted." Soncino takes the word תפוח on the next amud to refer to putrid meat, which firstly, is the girsa we have here in the Rif, and which the Rif associates with this statement.}:

Rav Huna said: It may be handled.
And Rav Chisda said: It may not be handled.

And the halacha is like Rav Huna, for Rav Chisda was a student before Rav Huna; and furthermore, Rav Huna is like Rabbi Shimon, whom we hold like; and furthermore, there is a brayta like him, for the Sages learnt {in a brayta}: Bones may be handled because they are food for dogs;
{Shabbat 128b}
putrid meat, because it is food for beasts; uncovered water, because it is fit for a cat. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: It may not be kept at all, because of the danger.

{Shabbat 128a}
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: Salted fish may be handled; unsalted fish may not be handled; raw meat {our gemara: just meat}, whether unsalted or salted, may be handled.

{Shabbat 128b}
"A BASKET MAY BE OVERTURNED":
Rav Yehuda said {in our gemara, he cites Rav}: If an animal falls into a dyke, one brings pillows and bedding and places [them] under it, and if it ascends it ascends.
And even though he thus nullifies a vessel from its readiness {for use}.
What is the reason?
Nullifying a vessel from its readiness {on Shabbat} is Rabbinic, and [the avoidance of] suffering of animals is Biblical. And the Biblical comes and pushes off the Rabbinic.

And these words are where it is otherwise impossible to provide it with sustenance there in its place, but if it is possible to provide it with sustenance there in its place, and it is sufficient.

"IF A FOWL {tarnegolet} RUNS AWAY [FROM THE HOUSE], SHE IS PUSHED [WITH THE HANDS]...":
{This implies} we may only push [it], but not make it walk.
We have learnt this.
For the Sages learnt {in a brayta}: An animal, beast, or bird may be made to walk in a courtyard, but not a fowl {tarnegolet}.

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: An animal, beast, and bird may not be carried in a courtyard, but we may push them until they enter.

Rif Shabbat 50b {Shabbat 127a continues ... 128a}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
50b

{Shabbat 127a continues}
"TO MAKE ROOM FOR GUESTS OR ON ACCOUNT OF THE NEGLECT OF THE BETH HAMIDRASH":
For they are mitzvot.
For Rabbi Yochanan said: Hospitality to wayfarers is as 'great' as early attendance at the Beth Hamidrash.
And Rav Dimi {our gemara: of Nehardea} said: It is 'greater' than early attendance at the Beth Hamidrash, because he states, TO MAKE ROOM FOR GUESTS, and then returns and states, AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE NEGLECT OF THE BETH HAMIDRASH.

But not in the case of a mitzvah, no.

Rav Yehuda cited Rav: Hospitality to wayfarers is greater than welcoming the presence of the Shechinah, for it is written {Bereishit 18:3}:

ג וַיֹּאמַר: אֲדֹנָי, אִם-נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ--אַל-נָא תַעֲבֹר, מֵעַל עַבְדֶּךָ.

3 and said: 'My lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant.

{The traditional explanation of this narrative is that Avraham was talking to Hashem, and then saw the three angels and left off from speaking to Hashem in order to fulfill hachnasat orechim.}

Rabbi Eleazar said: Come and observe how the conduct of the Holy One, blessed be He, is not like that of mortals. The conduct of mortals [is such that] an inferior person cannot say to a great[er] man, Wait for me until I come to you; whereas in the case of the Holy One, blessed be He, it is written it is written {Bereishit 18:3}:

ג וַיֹּאמַר: אֲדֹנָי, אִם-נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ--אַל-נָא תַעֲבֹר, מֵעַל עַבְדֶּךָ.

3 and said: 'My lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant.

Rav Yehuda bar Shela cited Rav Assi who cited Rabbi Yochanan: There are six things, the fruit of which man eats in this world, while the principal remains for him for the world to come, and these are they: Hospitality to wayfarers, visiting the sick, meditation in prayer, early attendance at the Beth Hamidrash, rearing one's sons to the study of the Torah, and judging one's fellow in the scale of merit.

{Shabbat 127b}
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: He who judges his neighbour in the scale of merit is himself judged favourably.
Thus a story is told of a certain man who descended from Upper Galilee and was engaged by an individual in the South for three years. On the eve of the Regel {one of the three Yomim Tovim - our gemara: Yom Kippur} he requested him:Give me my wages that I may go and support my wife and children.
He said to him: I have no money.
'Give me cattle.'
He said to him: I have none.
'Give me land.'
He said to him: I have none.
'Give me produce.'
He said to him: I have none.
'Give me pillows and bedding.'
He said to him: I have none.
[So] he slung his things behind him and went home with a sorrowful heart.
After the Festival his employer took his wages in his hand together with three laden asses, one bearing food, another drink, and the third various sweetmeats, and went to his house. After they had eaten and drunk, he gave him his wages (in his hand), and he said to him: When you said to me, "Give me my wages," and I said to you, "I have no money," of what did you suspect me?
'I said {=thought}, Perhaps you came across cheap merchandise and had purchased it therewith.'
'And when you said to me "Give me cattle," and said to you, "I have no cattle," of what did you suspect me?'
'I thought, they may be hired to others.'
'When you said to me, "Give me land," and I told you, "I have none," of what did you suspect me?'
'I thought, perhaps it is leased to others.'
'When you said to me, "Give me produce," and I told you, "I have none," of what did you suspect me?'
'I thought, perhaps they are not tithed.'
'When you said to me, "Give me pillows or bedding," and I told you, "I have none," of what did you suspect me?'
'I thought, perhaps he has sanctified all his property to Heaven.'
He said to him: By the [Temple] service! it was even so; I vowed away all my property because of my son Hyrcanus, who would not occupy himself with the Torah, but when I went to my companions in the South they absolved me of all my vows. And as for you, just as you judged me favourably, so may the Omnipresent judge you favourably.

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: It happened that a certain chasid {pious man} ransomed an Israelite maiden [from captivity]; at the inn he made her lie at his feet. On the morrow he went down, had a ritual bath, and learnt with his disciples.
He said to them: When I made her lie at my feet, of what did you suspect me?
'We thought, perhaps there is a disciple amongst us who[se character] is not clearly known to our Master.'
'When I descended and had a ritual bath, of what did you suspect me?'
'We thought, perhaps through the fatigue of the journey the Master was visited by nocturnal pollution.'
He said to them: By the [Temple] Service! it was even so. And just as you judged me favourably, so may the Omnipresent judge you favourably.

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: The scholars were once in need of something from a noblewoman where all the great men of Rome were to be found.
They said: Who will go to her?
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chanania said to them: I will go to her.
When he reached the door of her house, he removed his tefillin at a distance of four cubits, entered, and shut the door in front of them. After he came out he descended, had a ritual bath, and learnt with his disciples.
He said to them: When I removed my tefillin, of what did you suspect me?
'We thought, our Master reasons, "Let not sacred words enter a place of uncleanness".'
'When I shut [the door], of what did you suspect me?'
'We thought, perhaps he has [to discuss] an affair of State with her.'
'When I descended and had a ritual bath, of what did you suspect me?' 'We thought, perhaps some spittle spurted from her mouth upon the Rabbi's garments.' {which by rabbinical law affects levitical purity}
He said to them: By the [Temple] Service! it was even so; and just as you judged me favourably, so may the Omnipresent judge you favourably.

{Shabbat 128a}
"NOR LOF NOR CHARDAL":
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: We may handle hatzav {Jastrow: a shrubby plant, probably cistus}, because it is food for gazelles, and mustard, because it is food for doves.
{See here:
In the Midwest, the oily seeds of Mustards are not popular with birds – apparently, they are more important as a food source for birds in California and the Pacific Coast. Occasionally, the Mourning Dove may eat the seeds.
}

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: We may also handle fragments of glass, because it is food for ostriches. Rabbi Natan said to him: If so, let bundles of twigs be handled, because they are food for elephants. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? Ostriches are common, [whereas] elephants are rare.

Abaye said: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi Yishmael, and Rabbi Akiva, all hold that all Israel are royal children.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel - this that we have said.
{That is, he permits lof to be handled because it is food for ravens, which only wealthy people — who are the same as princes — kept.}

Rabbi Shimon, for we learn {tnan - in the Mishna on Shabbat 111a}: Royal children may anoint their wounds with rose oil, since it is their practice to anoint themselves thus on weekdays. Rabbi Shimon said: All Israel are royal children.

Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva, for we learnt {in a brayta}: If one is a debtor for a thousand zuz, and wears a robe a hundred manehs in value, he is stripped thereof and robed with a garment that is fitting for him. It was taught in the academy of Rabbi Yishmel: Rabbi Yishmael, and it was taught in the name of Rabbi Akiva: All Israel are worthy of that robe.

And we have established that all of these are of one rule, and the halacha is not like any of them.

(And we may not handle the mustard, for we establish like the stam Mishna.)

{Shabbat 126b}
MISHNA:
AS FOR BUNDLES OF STRAW, TWIGS, OR YOUNG SHOOTS, IF THEY WERE PREPARED AS ANIMAL FODDER, THEY MAY BE MOVED; IF NOT, THEY MAY NOT BE MOVED.

{Shabbat 128a}
A BASKET MAY BE OVERTURNED BEFORE FLEDGLINGS, FOR THEM TO ASCEND OR DESCEND.
IF A FOWL RUNS AWAY [FROM THE HOUSE], SHE IS PUSHED [WITH THE HANDS] UNTIL SHE RE-ENTERS.

CALVES AND FOALS MAY BE MADE TO WALK, AND A WOMAN MAY MAKE HER SON WALK.
R. JUDAH SAID: WHEN IS THAT? IF HE LIFTS ONE [FOOT] AND PLACES [ANOTHER] DOWN; BUT IF HE DRAGS THEM IT IS FORBIDDEN.

Rif Shabbat 50a {Shabbat 126b continues ... 127a}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
50a

{Shabbat 126b continues}
BEGIN PEREK EIGHTEEN

MISHNA:
ONE MAY CLEAR AWAY EVEN FOUR OR FIVE BASKETS OF STRAW OR PRODUCE [GRAIN] TO MAKE ROOM FOR GUESTS OR ON ACCOUNT OF THE NEGLECT OF THE BETH HAMIDRASH {to make room for the students to sit}, BUT NOT THE STORE.

ONE MAY CLEAR AWAY CLEAN TERUMAH, DEM'AI, THE FIRST TITHE WHOSE TERUMAH HAS BEEN SEPARATED, REDEEMED SECOND TITHE AND HEKDESH, AND DRY LUPINES, BECAUSE IT IS FOOD FOR GOATS.
BUT [ONE MAY] NOT [CLEAR AWAY] TEBEL, THE FIRST TITHE WHEREOF TERUMAH HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN, UNREDEEMED SECOND TITHE OR HEKDESH, LOF OR MUSTARD.
R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL PERMITS [IT] IN THE CASE OF LOF, BECAUSE IT IS FOOD FOR RAVENS.

Gemara:
{"ONE MAY CLEAR AWAY EVEN FOUR OR FIVE BASKETS OF STRAW":}
Seeing that five may be cleared away, need four be stated?
Rav Chisda said: [It means] four out of five.
{If the entire store consists of five, only four may be removed, but not all, lest depressions in the ground are revealed which may be levelled on Shabbat.}

And what is meant by "BUT NOT THE STORE?"
That one must not commence [dealing] with a store for the first time {if he had not already starting using it for food before Shabbat}; and which [Tanna] rules [thus]? Rabbi Yehuda, who holds by muktzeh.

And Shmuel said: [It means] four or five,
{Shabbat 127a}
just as people speak; yet if one desires even more may be cleared away. And what does BUT NOT THE STORE mean? That one must not complete[ly remove] the whole of it, lest he come to level up depressions; but one may indeed commence therewith. And who [rules thus]? It is Rabbi Shimon, who rejects [the interdict of] muktzeh.

In this matter, we have seen a dispute amongst the {post-Talmudic} Sages. There is one who rules like Rav Chisda, for the sugya in the gemara is based on him, and the Tanna of the Mishna stated simply {satam} like him, and the gemara asks and answers to explain the measures {four or five} of the Mishna. And there is one that rules like Shmuel, because he establishes our Mishna like Shmuel, whom we have established like.

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: One must not commence with a store for the first time, but he may make a path through it to enter and go out. 'He may make a path'! but surely you say, 'One must not commence'? — This is its meaning: one may make a path through it with his feet as he enters and goes out.

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: If produce is heaped together [for storage] and one commenced [using] it on erev Shabbat, he may take supplies from it on the Sabbath; if not, he may not take supplies from it on the Shabbat: this is Rabbi Shimon's view; but Rabbi Acha permits it.

Whither does this tend?! {for Rabbi Shimon generally says there is no muktzeh!}
Rather say: this is Rabbi Acha's view; but Rabbi Shimon permits it.

A Tanna taught {tana}: What is the standard quantity for produce that is heaped together? — A letek.
{Half a kor=fifteen se'ahs. But less does not constitute a store, and the prohibition of mukzeh does not apply to it in any case.}

It was a question to them: These four or five that are stated, [does it mean] even if he has more guests; or perhaps it all depends on the [number of] guests?
And should you say that it all depends on the number of guests, can one person clear [them] away for all of them, or perhaps each man must do so for himself?

And we conclude that it all depends of the [number of] guests, but whether each man must clear them for himself we do not come to a conclusion, and since it is a matter of prohibition {issura}, we conduct ourselves stringently.

Rif Shabbat 49b {Shabbat 126a-b}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
49b

{Shabbat 126a}
Whether it is fastened or not, providing that it was prepared {for this purpose before Shabbat}.

And the halacha is like the Sages {in the Mishna}, and even though the Tanna makes Rabbi Eliezer the stama {anonymous voice of the Mishna} {in Eruvin 102a, cited here in Shabbat 126a} regarding the dragging bolt, we establish like a different stama, that we learn in the Mishna {on Shabbat 157a} "AND FROM THEIR WORDS WE LEARN THAT WE MAY CLOSE [A SKYLIGHT] AND MEASURE AND TIE ON THE SABBATH" for it is a maaseh rav {-- the story regarding Ulla and Rabba bar Rav Huna on Shabbat 157b?}.

---

We learn at the end of Eruvin {Eruvin 102a}: Rami bar Yechezkel sent to Rav Amram: Let Master say from those excellent words that he said to me in the name of Rav Assi concerning the canopies of boats.
And he sent to him: So said Rav Assi: These {poles of} canopies of boats, when they have in {under} them a handbreadth, or else if they do not have a handbreadth but there is not between one and the next 3 tefachim {such that we have lavud} he may bring a mat and spread upon it.
What is the reason?
He is adding to {an existing} temporary tent, and this is fine.

These rams which Rav Huna had rams which at night required fresh air and in daytime required a shady place, so he came to Rav {and asked him what to do on Shabbat}.
He {Rav} said to him: {on Friday} when you remove the covering of the stalls which the rams occupied during the day, do not quite remove all the covering, but leave a handbreadth covered. The next day {Shabbat}, spread {a covering} over it, for this is adding to a temporary tent, and is fine.

---

{We return to Shabbat 126a}
They learnt {in a brayta}: If a house-owner prepares {=sets aside} a cane for opening and shutting [a door] therewith: if it is tied and suspended to the door, he may open and shut [it] therewith; if it is not tied and suspended may not open and shut [it] therewith. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If it is prepared even if it is not fastened and suspended. {Bach removes "and suspended"}

Rav Yehuda bar Shela {our gemara: Shelat} cited Rav Assi who cited Rabbi Yochanan: the halacha is like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
and specifically where it has the status of a vessel. {i.e. providing that they have the character of utensil}

And we learn at the end of Eruvin {Eruvin 102a}: There was a שריתא - to explain, a beam {קורה} - in the house of Rabbi Pedat, which weighed such that it would be carried by 10 {men} and he placed it on the door. He said: It has the status of a vessel.

{Shabbat 126b}
MISHNA:
ALL LIDS OF UTENSILS WHICH HAVE A HANDLE MAY BE HANDLED ON THE SABBATH.

SAID R. JOSE, WHEN IS THAT SAID?
IN THE CASE OF LIDS OF GROUND [BUILDINGS], {e.d. lids of pits built into the ground} BUT THE LIDS OF UTENSILS MAY IN ANY CASE BE HANDLED ON THE SABBATH.

Gemara:
Rav Yehuda bar Shela {here, our gemara has also: Shela} cited Rav Assi who cited Rabbi Yochanan: Provided that they have the character of a utensil.
For all agree: Covers of ground [buildings may be handled] if they have a handle, yes; if not, no; covers of utensils, even if they have no handle, they are permitted.
Where do they differ? {Depending on if you take the text in parentheses or not, the Rif is dealing with the first or second version of the difference in the gemara.}
In respect to the cover of (an oven: one Master likens it to the cover of a ground [building], while the other Master likens it to the cover) of utensils, joined to the ground: The Tanna Kamma holds - we decree {preventively}, and Rabbi Yossi holds - we do not decree.

And the halacha is like the Tanna Kamma.

END PEREK SEVENTEEN

Rif Shabbat 49a {Shabbat 125b}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
49a

{Shabbat 125b}
IF A [VINE-]BRANCH IS TIED TO A PITCHER {to let it down into the well}, ONE MAY DRAW [WATER] WITH IT ON THE SABBATH.

AS FOR THE STOPPER OF A SKYLIGHT, R. ELIEZER SAID: WHEN IT IS FASTENED {by a cord to the wall} AND SUSPENDED {in the air, the cord being too short to allow it to reach the ground}, ONE MAY CLOSE [THE SKYLIGHT] WITH IT; IF NOT, ONE MAY NOT CLOSE (THE SKYLIGHT] WITH IT.
BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: IN BOTH CASES WE MAY CLOSE [THE SKYLIGHT] WITH IT.

Gemara:
{"IF A [VINE-]BRANCH IS TIED TO A PITCHER":} If it is tied, yes, but if it is not tied, no, as a decree lest he cut {i.e., shorten} it.

"R. ELIEZER SAID: WHEN IT IS FASTENED...":
Rabba bar Rav Channa cited Rabbi Yochanan: All agree that we may not make for the first time a temporary building on a Yom Tov, and it goes without saying, on Shabbat. They differ only in respect of adding [to a building]: Rabbi Eliezer holds that we may not add on a Yom Tov whilst on Shabbat it goes without saying; whereas the Sages rule: We may add on Shabbat, and one need not say, on Yom Tov.

{I did not see the following in our gemara}
A brayta also says so: All agree that we may not make for the first time a temporary building on a Yom Tov, and it goes without saying, on Shabbat. They differ only in respect of adding [to a building]: Rabbi Eliezer holds that we may not add on a Yom Tov whilst on Shabbat it goes without saying; whereas the Sages rule: We may add on Shabbat, and one need not say, on Yom Tov.

"BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: IN BOTH CASES WE MAY CLOSE [THE SKYLIGHT] WITH IT":
What is meant "in both cases?"
Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said:

Rif Shabbat 48b {Shabbat 124b continues ... 125a}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
48b

{Shabbat 124b continues}
that the halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda for it is established for us that {in a dispute between} Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, the halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda.
And to us {=the Rif} it is logical that these words are only when they argue explicitly {that is, Rabbi Meir is mentioned by name}, but when Rabbi Meir is stam {anonymous} and Rabbi Yehuda is the one who argues on him explicitly {by name}, we do not say that {in a dispute between} Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, the halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda, but rather, the halacha is like the stam.

And even though they argue explicitly {with Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda mentioned explicitly} in a brayta, since the Tanna {who wrote this Mishna} made for us the anonymous opinion that of Rabbi Meir, the halacha is like Rabbi Meir, and we do not convern ourselves with the dispute in the brayta.

Rav Nachman said: The bricks that are left over from a building may be handled, since they are fit to sit on. [But] if he places them in rows, then he has certainly set them apart {for another building}.

Rava said: A small shard may be moved about, even in a public domain. Now, Rava is consistent with his view. For Rava was walking in the manor of Machoza, when his shoes become soiled with clay; [so] his attendant came, took a shard, and wiped it off. The Sages lifted their voice against him. He said to them: It is not enough that they have not learnt — they would even teach! If it were in a courtyard, would it not be fit for covering a utensil? Here too I have a use for it.

Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: The bung of a barrel which is broken in pieces may be handled on Shabbat.
A brayta also said so: If a bung is broken in pieces [both] it and the fragments thereof may be handled on Shabbat. But one must not trim {יספות} a fragment thereof to cover a vessel or support the legs of a bed therewith; but if one throws it away on the dung heap while it is yet day {of Friday - this insertion "while it is yet day" is according to Rav Papa}, it is forbidden.

The explanation of יספות is to cut, as we learn in the Mishna {Maasarot 3:9}: וסופת באבטיח

{Shabbat 125a}
Rav {our gemara: Bar} Hamduri cited Shmuel: Shreds of reeds detached from a mat {קרומיות של מחצלת} may be handled on Shabbat.
What is the reason?
Rava said: Bar Hamduri explained it to me: What is the [reed-] mat itself fit for? For covering the earth. These too are fit for covering dirt.

To explain, קרומיות של מחצלת are the shreds of mats that have worn out.

Rabbi Zers cited Rav: Pieces of silk of aprons {שירי פרוזמיות} may not be handled on Shabbat.
Abaye said: This refers to rags less than three [fingerbreadths] square, which are of no use to rich or poor.

To explain, שירי פרוזמיות are worn out pieces of cloth, as we say in the first perek of Succah {Succah 11a}: Rav Amram Chasida made fringes {actually techeilet} on the garments of the members of his household {רמא תכלתא לפרזומא דאינשי ביתיה}...

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: The fragments of an old oven are like all utensils which may be handled in a courtyard: this is Rabbi Meir's view. Rabbi Yehuda says: They may not be handled. Rabbi Yossi testified in the name of Rabbi Eleazar ben Yaakov concerning the fragments of an old oven that they may be handled on Shabbat, and concerning its lid [of the oven] that it does not require a handle {in order that it shall be permissible to handle it on Shabbat}.

And the halacha is like Rabbi Meir, as we have said earlier {on the top of this page}, and like Rabbi Eleazar ben Yaakov, since Ravina said: In accordance with whom do we handle nowadays the oven lids of the town Mechasia which have no handle? In accordance with whom? Rabbi Eleazar ben Yaakov.

MISHNA:
IF A STONE [IS PLACED] IN A PUMPKIN SHELL {used for drawing water}, AND ONE CAN DRAW [WATER] IN IT AND IT [THE STONE] DOES NOT FALL OUT, ONE MAY DRAW [WATER] IN IT; IF NOT, ONE MAY NOT DRAW WATER IN IT

Rif Shabbat 48a {Shabbat 124a continues ... 124b}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
48a

{Shabbat 124a}

"ALL UTENSILS MAY BE HANDLED WHETHER REQUIRED":
Whay is meant by REQUIRED and what is meant by NOT REQUIRED.
Rava said: An item whose function is permitted, whether for the purpose of itself or for the purpose of its place, {and} even from the sun to shade - is permitted. An items whose {usual} function is prohibited, for the purpose of itself or for the purpose of its place, yes; from sun to shade, no.

{Shabbat 124b}
And even Rav holds by this of Rava, for Rav said: [Moving] a hoe lest it be stolen is unnecessary handling, and is forbidden. Thus only when it is in order that it should not be stolen, but if it is required for itself or its place is required, it is permitted.

Rav Mari bar Rachel had some pillows lying in the sun. He came before Rava.
He said to him {Rava}: May these be moved?
He {Rava} said to him: It is permitted, for they are fit for you {to use}.
"I have others."
"It is fit for guests."
"I have also for guests."
He {Rava} said to him: You have revealed your opinion that you do not agree with with me, but rather you hold like Abaye {our gemara: Rabba}; to all others it is permitted, but to you it is forbidden.
Therefore they are fit to sit upon to all who enter and come.

Rabbi Abba cited Rabbi Chiyya bar Ashi who cited Rav: brushes of cloth {מכבדות של מילת - Soncino translates "table brushes made of cloth - used for brushing the table of crumbs, which is permitted - but this will not be how the Rif renders it} may be handled on Shabbat, but those of palm[-twigs] {Soncino: used for sweeping the floor, which is forbidden}, no. And so did Rabbi Eleazar say. {following the gemara's emendation of what Rabbi Eleazar said.}

And these words are regarding {moving} from the sun to the shade, but for the purpose of itself or for the purpose of its place, even of palm[-twigs] are permitted, for it is established for us that anything whose function is prohibited, it is permitted to move them for the purpose of itself or for the purpose of its place, but from sun to shade, no.

By way of explanation, מכבדות של מילת are such as the tail of a fox and the like which one sweeps with them vessels {clothing?} of מילת {cloth}. And now that we establish like Rabbi Shimon who says that something which was not intended {davar sheAin mitkavein} is permitted, we will say that {even} brushes of palm[-twigs] are items whose function is permitted, and so even from the sun to the shade is permitted.

MISHNA:
ALL UTENSILS WHICH MAY BE HANDLED ON THE SABBATH, THEIR FRAGMENTS MAY BE HANDLED TOO, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THEY CAN PERFORM SOMETHING IN THE NATURE OF WORK.
[THUS]: THE FRAGMENTS OF A KNEADING TROUGH [THAT CAN BE USED] TO COVER THE MOUTH OF A BARREL THEREWITH, [AND] THE FRAGMENTS OF A GLASS, TO COVER THEREWITH THE MOUTH OF A CRUSE.

R. JUDAH MAINTAINED: PROVIDED THAT THEY CAN PERFORM SOMETHING IN THE NATURE OF THEIR OWN [FORMER] WORK;
[THUS:] THE FRAGMENTS OF A KNEADING TROUGH, TO POUR A THICK MASS THEREIN; OR OF A GLASS, TO POUR OIL THEREIN.

Gemara:
Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: The controversy is only if they were broken on Shabbat {following the gemara's emendation of Rav Yehuda's statement}, for one Master holds that they are mukhan {since when Shabbat came in they were fit for use}, and permitted, whilst the other Master holds that they are nolad {since they came into this state on Shabbat} and forbidden.
But if they were broken from erev Shabbat, all would say they are premitted, since they were "prepared" for another function while it was yet day {on Friday}.

And the halacha is like the first Tanna {that it is provided they are fit for any type of work, and not like Rabbi Yehuda, who said only for the same type of work}.

And the Baal Halachot cited Rav Tzemach Gaon