Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa permits one to move a mortar - if there is garlic inside it (in which case, one may move it together with the garlic (but not to sit on, when there is nothing inside it).

(b) According to Rabah (who holds that a 'Davar she'Melachto le'Isur, le'Tzorech Gufo Mutar') the author of this Beraisa must be Rebbi Nechemyah, who restricts even a K'li she'Melachto le'Heter to be the function for which it was made - but not for any other purpose.

(c) At first, Rabah also established the Beraisa which forbids moving a large chopping-board, like Rebbi Nechemyah. However, he preferred to established it even like the Rabbanan, who agree that certain large or precious vessels, which the owners would tend to designate for their main use exclusively - and the large chopping-board falls into that category (because the owner does not want it to become dirty or warped). According to Rashi, this answer also refers to the previous Beraisa of the mortar, even though the Gemara does not implied this - see Gilyon ha'Shas.

(d) Even though a gold-smith's hammer is prone to lose its smoothness, the gold-smith is not particular about using it for other things, since this is easily rectifiable - by banging it on the anvil (an act which smoothens its base). A spice-maker, on the other hand, is very particular that his hammer should not adopt any other smell, as that will spoil his spices. So he will not permit it to be used for any purpose other than spices.

(a) One is permitted to pull out a fig on Shabbos, from the straw in which it was placed to ripen, or a cake which is still lying in the coals (which are no longer burning) from before Shabbos - provided some of it protrudes from the straw or from the coals (so that it is not necessary to touch them).

(b) Rebbi Elazar ben Tadai even permits sticking a sharp implement into the earth or the coals (with the result that when he pulls the fig or the cake out, he will pull some of the earth out with it) - because he holds 'Tiltul min ha'Tzad Mutar'. Note: It is not clear why Rebbi Elazar ben Tadai's case is considered Tiltul min ha'Tzad any more than that of the Tana Kama (see Rashi DH 'Im Megulah Miktzasah').

(c) In fact, Rav Nachman holds 'Tiltul min ha'Tzad, Mutar', and although he initially forbade pulling a radish from the ground, if only the thin end protruded from the ground, he retracted from that ruling.

(a) Abaye differentiates between Tum'ah and Shabbos. With regard to Tum'ah, a K'li is only called a K'li if it is still fit to be used for its original purpose, but not a needle that has lost its eye or its point. But when it comes to Shabbos, as long as it is still fit to be used, it retains its status (even if itis no longer fit to be used for its original purpose). Consequently, a needle which has lost its eye or its point, is still called a K'li since it can still be used to remove splinters.

(b) According to Rava, it is only a K'li which broke (e.g. a needle whose eye or point broke) which loses its identity in both of the above regards. The Beraisa, which considers a needle without a hole a K'li regarding Shabbos, but not regarding Tum'ah, is speaking about an unfinished needle (Gulmei K'li), in which the owner still intends to punch a hole, and which is not a K'li as far as Tum'ah is concerned (because it is only finished vessels that are subject to Tum'ah), But when it comes to Shabbos, it is considered a K'li, since it is fit to be used as it is (irrespective of one's intention to finish it).

(a) 'Asuvei Yenuka' - is shaping the baby's limbs just after its birth. Rav Nachman prohibits it - because it resembles 'Mesaken Manah' (a branch of Makeh ba'Patish).

(b) In similar vein, argues Rav Nachman, Chazal forbade Apiktozen (drinking beverages to make oneself vomit on Shabbos), even when this is not done as a cure, but in order to be able to eat more on Shabbos. This too, is Asur because of its resemblance to Tikun Manah.

(c) Apiktozen, argues Rav Sheshes, is *not* a normal procedure (which is why Chazal forbade it), whereas Asuvei Yenuka *is* - so they permitted it.

(d) Rav Sheshes proves from our Mishnah ('Machat shel Yad'...) that, if one is permitted to remove a splinter (which is also similar to Tikun Manah), then why should Asuvei Yenuka not also be permitted?

(e) No ! counters Rav Nachman, there is no proof from there, because the splinter is not part of the person, and all one is doing is removing something from the person. That does *not* resemble Tikun Manah; whereas Asuvei Yenuka, where one moves the limbs into place, *does*.

5)

(a) A cane used to stir oil *is* considered a vessel, and may be moved on Shabbos.

(b) If it has a knob at one end, then one tends to use it to test how much oil is in the vat (because the knob creates a receptacle); whereas if it does not, then it is no more than a hollow cane, and 'Peshutei K'lei Eitz are not subject to Tum'ah.

(a) Rebbi Yossi lists both a large commercial saw and the coulter (of a plow) as being Muktzah - despite the fact that they are vessels - because they have no use other what they are made for. Consequently, the owner tends to designate them for that use only, and they fall under the category of 'Muktzah Machmas Chesaron Kis'.

(b) The Amora'im compare a copper laundry-man's sieve, a leather-maker's knife, a butcher's knife and an adze to a commercial-saw and the coulter. Consequently, they too, are Muktzah.

(c) Initially, Chazal permitted only three vessels to be taken and used on Shabbos: a knife to cut cakes of figs, a large ladle to draw the scum from the pot and a regular table-knife.

(a) Rava maintained that 'le'Tzorech Gufo & 'le'Tzorech Mekomo' are one and the same. Consequently, if Chazal permitted the former, they will also have permitted the latter, and it would not have required two stages to permit them, as Abaye explained.

(b) The other three concessions, according to Rava, are: 1. To move a 'K'li she'Melachto le'Heter - me'Chamah le'Tzel; 2. a 'K'li she'Melachto le'Isur, le'Tzorech Gufo u'Mekomo' - but only with *one* hand; 3. a 'K'li she'Melachto le'Isur, le'Tzorech Gufo u'Mekomo' - even with *two* hands.

(a) According to Abaye, the Beraisos which forbid moving a mortar and a large chopping board (which are Kelim she'Melachtan le'Isur) - speak le'Tzorech Mekomo.

(b) According to Rava, they speak me'Chamah le'Tzel.

(a) It was the Beis-Din of Nechemyah ben Chachalyah which decreed on Muktzah, when they saw people going about their everyday business on Shabbos as if it was a weekday.

(b) The Mishnos of Kanin, Maklos and Gelustera, and the Beraisa of Meduchah all forbid moving vessels even le'Tzorech Gufan. Consequently, Rebbi Elazar establishes them after the initial decree of Nechemyah (forbidding the moving of all but the three vessels mentioned above) - before they finally revoked a major part of the decree.

(c) The first three cases are:

1. Kanim: They would remove the half-canes dividing between the rows of Lechem ha'Panim before Shabbos, in order not to handle them when they removed the one set of Lechem ha'Panim on Shabbos, and arranged the new one.
2. Maklos: Normally, those who could not find room in the slaughter-house to strip the lamb of the Korban Pesach on the hooks there, would suspend the lamb from specially prepared sticks which they placed between their own shoulder and that of another Jew, and then proceed to strip it. When Erev Pesach fell on Shabbos however, the sticks were considered Muktzah. Instead, they would suspend the lamb from their arms placed on each other's shoulders.
3. Gelustera: Rebbi Yehoshua rules that one may not move a peg with a knob at one end (which renders it fit to be used for pounding (e.g. vegetables), and which is hanging at the back of a door, where it is used as a bolt, from one door to another. One must pull it from the one door to the other, before hanging it on the door and using it as a bolt. According to Rebbi Tarfon, the bolt has the Din of an ordinary K'li she'Melachto le'Heter, in which case, it may be carried from one door to the other.

(d) Rabah refutes Rebbi Elazar's contention that all of the above were learnt before Nechemyah revoked part of his decree. According to him, they could all be speaking afterwards, and nevertheless, Chazal were stringent in all of the cases:

1. Kanin: They forbade handling the canes - because they were dispensable for the few hours (i.e. the breads would not go bad because there was no space between them) for the twelve hours or so until the old breads were eaten, and from the time that the new breads were placed on the table until Motza'ei Shabbos).
2. Maklos: Since it is possible to strip the lambs using their arms, Chazal did not want to permit using the sticks (It is not however, clear, why Chazal should forbid a K'li she'Melachto le'Heter (in these two cases, for no apparent reason. Perhaps it is due to the fact that it was only with reluctance that they permitted all vessels to be used, due to the fact that it was too difficult for most people to keep the original Chumra. In the Beis ha'Mikdash however, where the Kohanim and the Ochlei Pesach were Zerizin, they Chazal anticipated the level of observance that they would have liked, so they retained the orginal decree.
3. Gelustera: The Mishnah is speaking by a courtyard which has no Eiruv.. Consequently, it is forbidden to carry vessels which were in the houses when Shabbos entered, into the courtyard - and vice-versa. Rebbi Yehoshua holds that the space within the doorway is considered part of the house, in which case one is forbidden to carry the peg from one door to the other via the courtyard; whereas, according to Rebbi Tarfon, the doorway belongs to the courtyard, and carrying the peg in the courtyard is permitted.

Next daf