אַפִּיקְטְוִיזִין בַּשַּׁבָּת. וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: הָתָם — לָאו אוֹרְחֵיהּ, הָכָא — אוֹרְחֵיהּ.
afiktoizin, a drug to induce vomiting, on Shabbat. Apparently, actions associated with treating the body on Shabbat are prohibited. And Rav Sheshet explains: There, with regard to a drug to induce vomiting, drinking it for any reason other than medicinal purposes is atypical. Here, aligning the limbs of an infant is typical conduct not undertaken solely for medicinal purposes.
אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ — דִּתְנַן: מַחַט שֶׁל יָד — לִיטּוֹל בָּהּ אֶת הַקּוֹץ! וְרַב נַחְמָן: הָתָם — פְּקִיד, הָכָא — לָא פְּקִיד.
Rav Sheshet said: From where do I say that this is the halakha? As we learned in the mishna: One is permitted to take an ordinary hand needle used for sewing clothes to extract a thorn with it. Apparently, some curative actions are permitted and there is no concern that they are similar to completing the production process of a vessel. And Rav Naḥman objects: That is no proof, as there, the thorn is merely deposited in the skin and it is not an organic part of the body. Removing a foreign object from the body effects no fundamental change in the body. Here, in the case of aligning the limbs, it is not merely tending to a foreign object deposited in the body; rather it involves effecting a fundamental change in the body itself, which is both a curative act and one similar to completing the production process.
מַתְנִי׳ קָנֶה שֶׁל זֵיתִים, אִם יֵשׁ קֶשֶׁר בְּרֹאשׁוֹ — מְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה, וְאִם לָאו — אֵין מְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה. בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ — נִיטָּל בַּשַּׁבָּת.
MISHNA: A reed that is used for turning olives in a bundle, if there is a cork-like knot at the top of it, it can become ritually impure as a vessel, and if not, it cannot become ritually impure, because it is not a vessel. In either case, it may be moved on Shabbat for use in a permitted action.
גְּמָ׳ אַמַּאי? פְּשׁוּטֵי כְלֵי עֵץ הוּא, וּפְשׁוּטֵי כְלֵי עֵץ אֵינָן מְקַבְּלִין טוּמְאָה, מַאי טַעְמָא? — דּוּמְיָא דְּשַׂק בָּעֵינַן. תָּנָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמְּהַפֵּךְ בְּזֵיתִים הוֹפְכוֹ וְרוֹאֶה בּוֹ.
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why would this reed become impure? It is in the category of flat wooden vessels without a receptacle, and the governing principle in that case is: Flat wooden vessels do not become ritually impure. What is the reason for this? We require an object similar to a sack. The halakhot of ritual impurity are derived from the sack mentioned in the Torah as an example of an item that can become ritually impure. If it lacks a receptacle, it is unlike that sack and it cannot become ritually impure. To explain this halakha, the Gemara cites that which was taught in a baraita in the name of Rabbi Neḥemya: At the time that one turns over the olives with the reed, he turns over the reed and sees inside it. There is a small cavity at the end of the reed near the knot. He looks there to ascertain whether it has filled with oil, which would indicate that the olives are ready to be placed in the olive press. That cavity is a type of small receptacle, which renders the reed fit to become ritually impure.
מַתְנִי׳ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הַכֵּלִים נִיטָּלִין, חוּץ מִן הַמַּסָּר הַגָּדוֹל וְיָתֵד שֶׁל מַחֲרֵישָׁה.
MISHNA: Rabbi Yosei says: All utensils may be moved on Shabbat except for a large saw and the blade of a plow. Since they must be sharp and ready for use and there is concern that they might be damaged, one sets them aside from his consciousness and they may not be used for any other purpose.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הַאי אוּכְלָא דְקַצָּרֵי — כְּיָתֵד שֶׁל מַחֲרֵישָׁה דָּמְיָא.
GEMARA: Rav Naḥman says: A launderer’s sprinkler is considered to be like the blade of a plow. Moving it is prohibited on Shabbat because one sets it aside from use out of concern that it might be damaged.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: חַרְבָּא דְאוּשְׁכָּפֵי וְסַכִּינָא דְאַשְׁכָּבְתָּא וַחֲצִינָא דְנַגָּרֵי — כְּיָתֵד שֶׁל מַחֲרֵישָׁה דָּמֵי.
Abaye says: A shoemaker’s knife, and a butcher’s knife, and a carpenter’s drawknife are considered to be like the blade of a plow, because their owners set them aside from use out of concern that they might be damaged.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים שְׁלֹשָׁה כֵּלִים נִיטָּלִין בַּשַּׁבָּת: מִקְצוֹעַ שֶׁל דְּבֵילָה, וְזוּהֲמָא לִיסְטְרוֹן שֶׁל קְדֵרָה, וְסַכִּין קְטַנָּה שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי שֻׁלְחָן. הִתִּירוּ, וְחָזְרוּ וְהִתִּירוּ, וְחָזְרוּ וְהִתִּירוּ, עַד שֶׁאָמְרוּ: כׇּל הַכֵּלִים נִיטָּלִין בַּשַּׁבָּת, חוּץ מִן מַסָּר הַגָּדוֹל וְיָתֵד שֶׁל מַחֲרֵישָׁה.
The Sages taught in the Tosefta: Initially, they would say that only three utensils may be moved on Shabbat: A knife for cutting a cake of dried figs, and a combined spoon and fork (ge’onim) to clean the filth [zuhama listeran] of a pot, and a small knife that is on the table. Each of these items is required for eating and may be used, and it had been prohibited to move any other utensil. However, over the generations, when the Rabbis saw that Jewish people were vigilant in observing the prohibitions of Shabbat, they permitted, and then they permitted again, and then they permitted again, until they said in the last mishna: All utensils may be moved on Shabbat except for a large saw and the blade of a plow.
מַאי הִתִּירוּ, וְחָזְרוּ וְהִתִּירוּ, וְחָזְרוּ וְהִתִּירוּ?
The Gemara asks: What are the stages described in the Tosefta: They permitted, and then they permitted, and then they permitted?
אֲמַר אַבָּיֵי: הִתִּירוּ דָּבָר שֶׁמְּלַאכְתּוֹ לְהֶיתֵּר לְצוֹרֶךְ גּוּפוֹ, וְחָזְרוּ וְהִתִּירוּ דָּבָר שֶׁמְּלַאכְתּוֹ לְהֶיתֵּר לְצוֹרֶךְ מְקוֹמוֹ, וְחָזְרוּ וְהִתִּירוּ דָּבָר שֶׁמְּלַאכְתּוֹ לְאִיסּוּר, לְצוֹרֶךְ גּוּפוֹ — אִין, לְצוֹרֶךְ מְקוֹמוֹ — לָא. וַעֲדַיִין בְּיָדוֹ אַחַת — אִין, בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיו — לָא, עַד שֶׁאָמְרוּ: כׇּל הַכֵּלִים נִיטָּלִין בַּשַּׁבָּת, וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדַיִם.
Abaye says: Initially, they permitted moving an object whose primary function is for a permitted use, for the purpose of utilizing the object itself to perform a permitted action. And then they permitted moving an object whose primary function is for a permitted use, for the purpose of sitting in or utilizing its place. And then they permitted moving an object whose primary function is for a prohibited use, for the purpose of utilizing the object itself to perform a permitted action, yes; however, for the purpose of utilizing its place, no. And still, utensils that can be held in one of his hands, yes, they may be moved; however, utensils that can only be held in his two hands, no, they may not be moved, in order to signify that there is a prohibition to move certain items. This prohibition remained intact until they said: All utensils may be moved on Shabbat, and even those that can only be held in both hands.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: מִכְּדֵי ״הִתִּירוּ״ קָתָנֵי, מַה לִּי לְצוֹרֶךְ גּוּפוֹ, מַה לִּי לְצוֹרֶךְ מְקוֹמוֹ? אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: הִתִּירוּ דָּבָר שֶׁמְּלַאכְתּוֹ לְהֶיתֵּר בֵּין לְצוֹרֶךְ גּוּפוֹ וּבֵין לְצוֹרֶךְ מְקוֹמוֹ, וְחָזְרוּ וְהִתִּירוּ מֵחַמָּה לַצֵּל. וְחָזְרוּ וְהִתִּירוּ דָּבָר שֶׁמְּלַאכְתּוֹ לְאִיסּוּר, לְצוֹרֶךְ גּוּפוֹ וּלְצוֹרֶךְ מְקוֹמוֹ — אִין, מֵחַמָּה לַצֵּל — לָא. וַעֲדַיִין, בְּאָדָם אֶחָד — אִין, בִּשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם — לָא, עַד שֶׁאָמְרוּ: כׇּל הַכֵּלִים נִיטָּלִין בַּשַּׁבָּת, אֲפִילּוּ בִּשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם.
Rava said to him: After all, it was taught in the Tosefta: They permitted, what difference is there to me if it is for the purpose of utilizing the object itself, and what difference is there to me if it is for the purpose of utilizing its place; why introduce distinctions that are not explicitly stated in the Tosefta? Rather, Rava said that it should be explained as follows: Initially, they permitted moving an object whose primary function is for a permitted use, both for the purpose of utilizing the object itself and for the purpose of sitting in or utilizing its place. And then they permitted moving that object from the sun into the shade. And then they permitted moving an object whose primary function is for a prohibited use, both for the purpose of utilizing the object itself and for the purpose of sitting in or utilizing its place, yes; however, moving that object from the sun into the shade, no, they did not permit it. And still, utensils that can be carried by one person, yes, they may be moved; however, utensils that can only be carried by two people, no, they may not be moved. This prohibition remained intact until they said: All utensils may be moved on Shabbat, and even those that can only be carried by two people.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מְדוֹכָה, אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ שׁוּם — מְטַלְטְלִין אוֹתָהּ, וְאִם לָאו — אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין אוֹתָהּ? הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — מֵחַמָּה לַצֵּל. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: וְשָׁוִין שֶׁאִם קִצֵּב עָלָיו בָּשָׂר שֶׁאָסוּר לְטַלְטְלוֹ? הָכָא נָמֵי מֵחַמָּה לַצֵּל.
Abaye raised a challenge to Rava’s opinion from that which was taught: With regard to a mortar, if it has garlic in it, one may move it on Shabbat, and if not, one may not move it on Shabbat. According to Rava’s opinion that all utensils may be moved, why is it prohibited to move the mortar? Rava responded: With what we are dealing here? We are dealing with a case of moving the mortar from the sun to the shade. Abaye raised a challenge to Rava’s opinion from that which was taught: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that if one cut meat on it for the purpose of a Festival that it is then prohibited to move it because there is no further need for it on the Festival. According to Rava’s opinion, all utensils may be moved. He answered him: Here, too, we are dealing with a case of moving the mortar from the sun to the shade.
אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: בִּימֵי נְחֶמְיָה בֶּן חֲכַלְיָה נִשְׁנֵית מִשְׁנָה זוֹ, דִּכְתִיב: ״בַּיָּמִים הָהֵמָּה רָאִיתִי בִיהוּדָה דּוֹרְכִים גִּתּוֹת בַּשַּׁבָּת וּמְבִיאִים הָעֲרֵימוֹת״.
Rabbi Ḥanina said: This mishna was taught in the days of Nehemiah, son of Hacaliah, a period when many stringent decrees were issued with regard to Shabbat prohibitions, as it is written: “In those days I saw in Judea some treading winepresses on Shabbat and bringing in heaps of grain and lading donkeys with them; as also wine, grapes, figs, and all manner of burdens which are brought into Jerusalem on the Shabbat day. I forewarned them on that day when they sold food” (Nehemiah 13:15). Since the people treated the sanctity of Shabbat with disdain, Nehemiah instituted many stringencies with regard to all the halakhot of Shabbat in order to educate the people to observe Shabbat.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: קָנִין, וּמַקְלוֹת, גְּלוּסְטְרָא, וּמְדוֹכָה — כּוּלָּן קוֹדֶם הַתָּרַת כֵּלִים נִשְׁנוּ.
Rabbi Elazar said: The mishnayot that deal with the topics of rods, poles, the thick end [gelostera] of the bolt in a door lock, and a mortar were all taught before permission to move utensils on Shabbat was adopted. At that time, moving most utensils was still prohibited and only a small number of utensils whose primary function was for a permitted use were permitted to be moved. The Gemara cites the relevant mishnayot.
קָנִין — דִּתְנַן: לֹא סִידּוּר הַקָּנִין וְלֹא נְטִילָתָן דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.
Rods: Golden rods were placed between the loaves of showbread in the Temple to support the loaves and to aerate them. At that time, moving the rods was prohibited because they were considered to be set-aside, as we learned in a mishna: Neither arranging the rods nor moving them overrides the prohibition of set-aside on Shabbat.
מַקְלוֹת — דִּתְנַן: מַקְלוֹת דַּקִּין חֲלָקִין הָיוּ שָׁם, וּמַנִּיחוֹ עַל כְּתֵפוֹ וְעַל כֶּתֶף חֲבֵירוֹ, וְתוֹלֶה וּמַפְשִׁיט. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת, מַנִּיחַ
And the source for the matter of poles is as we learned in a mishna: There were thin, smooth poles in the Temple, and every Passover eve one places the pole on his shoulder and on the shoulder of another, and suspends the Paschal lamb on it and flays its hide. And Rabbi Elazar said: With regard to the fourteenth of Nisan, the day that the Paschal lamb is sacrificed, that occurred on Shabbat, they would not use the poles, as a conspicuous reminder that it was Shabbat. Instead, one places