Shabbat 282

במה מגררו א"ר אבהו בגב סכין

With what does one scrape it? — Said R. Abbahu: With the back of a knife. A certain old man said to him, Delete your [teaching] on account of what R. Hiyya taught: One must not scrape either a new shoe or all old one, nor must he rub his foot with oil while it is in the shoe or sandal;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the oil incidentally softens the leather, which is forbidden. ');">¹</span>

א"ל ההוא סבא סמי דידך מקמי הא דתני רבי חייא אין מגררין לא מנעל חדש ולא מנעל ישן ולא יסוך את רגלו שמן והוא בתוך המנעל או בתוך הסנדל אבל סך את רגלו שמן ומניח בתוך המנעל או בתוך הסנדל וסך כל גופו שמן ומתעגל ע"ג קטבליא ואינו חושש

but one may rub his foot with oil and place it in his shoe or sandal; he may also oil his whole body and roll himself on a leather spread without fear.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of transgression. ');">²</span>

אמר רב חסדא לא שנו אלא לצחצחו אבל לעבדו אסור

R. Hisda said: They learnt this only [if his intention is] to polish it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he puts his oiled foot in the shoe or sandal his purpose is to polish the leather. ');">³</span>

לעבדו פשיטא ותו לצחצחו מי איכא מאן דשרי

but [if it is] to dress it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To soften the leather or make it more pliable. ');">⁴</span>

אלא אי איתמר הכי איתמר אמר רב חסדא לא שנו אלא שיעור לצחצחו אבל שיעור לעבדו אסור

it is forbidden. 'To dress it'? surely that is obvious? Moreover, does any one permit it [if he desires] to polish it? — Rather if stated, It was thus stated: R. Hisda said: They learnt this only of a quantity [sufficient merely] to polish it; but [if] the quantity<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of oil rubbed on to the foot. ');">⁵</span>

ת"ר לא יצא קטן במנעל גדול אבל יוצא הוא בחלוק גדול

[is sufficient] to dress it, it is forbidden.

ולא תצא אשה במנעל מרופט ולא תחלוץ בו ואם חלצה חליצתה כשרה

Our Rabbis taught: A small[-footed] man must not go out with the shoe of a large[-footed] man,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lest it fall off, and he come to carry it. ');">⁶</span>

ואין יוצאין במנעל חדש באיזה מנעל אמרו במנעל של אשה

but he may go out with [too] large a shirt. A woman must not go out with a gaping shoe,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi. Jast.: 'a flappy (outworn) shoe' — either because she may be laughed at and so she will take it off' (Rashi), or it fall off, and she come to carry it. ');">⁷</span>

תני בר קפרא ל"ש אלא שלא יצאה בו שעה אחת מבעוד יום אבל יצאה בו מע"ש מותר

nor may she perform <i>halizah</i> therewith; yet if she does perform <i>halizah</i> therewith, the <i>halizah</i> is valid. And one must not go out with a new shoe: of what shoe did they rule this? Of a woman's shoe.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She is particular about the fit, and if it is not exact, she may remove and carry it. 'New' means never worn at all. ');">⁸</span>

תני חדא שומטין מנעל מעל גבי אימוס ותניא אידך אין שומטין לא קשיא הא ר' אליעזר הא רבנן

Bar Kappara taught: They learnt [this] only where she had not gone out therein one hour before nightfall;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'while it was yet day Friday.' ');">⁹</span>

דתנן מנעל שעל גבי אימוס רבי אליעזר מטהר וחכמים מטמאים

but if she went out therein on the eve of the Sabbath, it is permitted.

הניחא לרבא דאמר דבר שמלאכתו לאיסור בין לצורך גופו בין לצורך מקומו מותר שפיר

One [Baraitha] taught: A shoe may be removed from its last; while another taught: It may not be removed. There is no difficulty: one is [according to] R. Eliezer, the other [according to] the Rabbis. For we learnt: If a shoe is on the last, — R. Eliezer declares it clean, while the Sages declare it is unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Clean' and 'unclean' mean not susceptible and susceptible to uncleanness respectively. R. Eliezer holds that as long as it is on the last it is not a completely finished article, whereas only such can become unclean. Since it is not a finished article, it may not be handled on the Sabbath. The view of the Rabbis is the reverse. ');">¹⁰</span>

אלא לאביי דאמר לצורך גופו מותר לצורך מקומו אסור מאי איכא למימר

This is well according to Raba, who maintained: It is permitted [to handle] an article whose function is for a forbidden purpose, whether it is required itself or for its place: then it is correct. But on Abaye's view that it may be [handled] for itself, but it is forbidden [to handle it] when its place is required,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. notes supra 123b. ');">¹¹</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן ברפוי דתניא רבי יהודה אומר אם היה רפוי מותר

what can be said?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the function of the last is a forbidden one, and in removing the shoe one must necessarily handle the last, though he does not require the use of the last itself, and according to Abaye that is forbidden. ');">¹²</span>

טעמא דרפוי הא לא רפוי לא הניחא לאביי דאמר דבר שמלאכתו לאיסור לצורך גופו מותר לצורך מקומו אסור שפיר

— We treat here of one [a shoe] that is loose [on the last].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the last is not handled at all. ');">¹³</span>

אלא לרבא דאמר בין לצורך גופו בין לצורך מקומו מותר מאי איריא רפוי אפי' לא רפוי נמי

For it was taught, R. Judah said: If it is loose. it is permitted [to remove it]. The reason [then why it is permitted] is because it is loose. But if it is not loose it is not [permitted]? This is well on Abaye's view that an article whose function is for a forbidden purpose may be [handled] when required for itself, but not when its place [only] is required: then it is correct. But according to Raba, who maintains, it is permitted [to handle it] both when required for itself or when its place is required, what can be said: [for] why particularly a loose [shoe], — even if not loose too it is thus? That<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha which makes a distinction between where it is loose or not ');">¹⁴</span>

ההיא דרבי יהודה משום דרבי אליעזר הוא דתניא ר' יהודה אומר משום רבי אליעזר אם היה רפוי מותר:

represents R. Judah's view in R. Eliezer's name. For it was taught: R. Judah said in R. Eliezer's name: If it is loose, it is permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though R. Eliezer holds that as long as it is on the last it is not completely finished (v. supra) and therefore may not be handled, that is only if it is tightly fitted on it, so that there is some difficulty in removing it. But if it is loose and comes off easily he admits that it is finished; hence it ranks as an article, is susceptible to defilement, and may be handled on the Sabbath. ');">¹⁵</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך תולין</strong></big><br><br>

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. A MAN MAY TAKE UP HIS SON WHILE HE HAS A STONE IN HIS HAND OR A BASKET WITH A STONE IN IT; AND UNCLEAN <i>TERUMAH</i> MAY BE HANDLED TOGETHER WITH CLEAN [<i>TERUMAH</i>] OR WITH HULLIN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although the stone or the unclean terumah by itself may not be handled as mukzeh. ');">¹⁶</span>

מתני׳ <big><strong>נוטל</strong></big> אדם את בנו והאבן בידו וכלכלה והאבן בתוכה ומטלטלין תרומה טמאה עם הטהורה ועם החולין

R. JUDAH SAID: ONE MAY ALSO REMOVE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'take up'. ');">¹⁷</span>

רבי יהודה אומר אף מעלין את המדומע באחד ומאה:

THE ADMIXTURE [OF <i>TERUMAH</i> IN HULLIN] WHEN ONE [PART IS NEUTRALIZED] IN A HUNDRED [PARTS].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one part of terumah is accidentally mixed with a hundred parts of hullin it is neutralized and the mixture is permitted to non-priests. Nevertheless, since it does contain some terumah, though it cannot be distinguished from the rest, one part must be removed, and R. Judah permits this on the Sabbath. ');">¹⁸</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רבא הוציא תינוק חי וכיס תלוי בצוארו חייב משום כיס תינוק מת וכיס תלוי לו בצוארו פטור

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Raba said: If one carries out<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From a private into a public domain. ');">¹⁹</span>

תינוק חי וכיס תלוי לו בצוארו חייב משום כיס וליחייב נמי משום תינוק

a live child with a purse hanging around its neck, he is culpable on account of the purse; a dead child with a purse hanging around its neck, he is not culpable. 'A live child with a purse hanging around its neck, he is culpable on account of the purse. But let him be culpable on account of the child? — Raba agrees with R. Nathan, who maintained, A living [person] carries himself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 94a. ');">²⁰</span>

רבא כרבי נתן סבירא ליה דאמר חי נושא את עצמו

But let the purse be counted as nought in relation to the child? Did we not learn, [If one carries out] a living person in a bed, he is not culpable, even in respect of the bed, because the bed is subsidiary to him? — A bed is accounted as nought in relation to a living person,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the bed is required for him. ');">²¹</span>

וליבטל כיס לגבי תינוק מי לא תנן את החי במטה פטור אף על המטה שהמטה טפילה לו

but a purse is not accounted as nought in relation to the child.

מטה לגבי חי מבטלי ליה כיס לגבי תינוק לא מבטלי ליה

'A dead child with a purse hanging around its neck, he is not culpable.' But let him be culpable on account of the child? Raba agrees with R. Simeon, who maintained: One is not culpable on account of a labour unrequired per se.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 30a; carrying out a dead child comes under this category, supra 94b. ');">²²</span>

תינוק מת וכיס תלוי לו בצוארו פטור וליחייב משום תינוק רבא כר"ש ס"ל דאמר כל מלאכה שא"צ לגופה פטור עליה

We learnt: A MAN MAY TAKE UP HIS SON WHILE HE HAS A STONE IN HIS HAND?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This proves that the man is not regarded as himself holding the stone, which would be forbidden. Hence by analogy he does not carry out the purse suspended around the child's neck; why then is he culpable on its account? ');">²³</span>

תנן נוטל אדם את בנו והאבן בידו אמרי דבי רבי ינאי בתינוק שיש לו גיעגועין על אביו

— The School of R. Jannai said: This refers to a child who pines for his father.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he does not take him up he may sicken with pining, though it will not actually endanger him: hence since the father does not actually handle the stone himself he is permitted to take him up. ');">²⁴</span>

אי הכי

If so,