Shabbat 283

מאי איריא אבן אפילו דינר נמי אלמה אמר רבא לא שנו אלא אבן אבל דינר אסור אבן אי נפלה לה לא אתי אבוה לאיתויי דינר אי נפיל אתי אבוה לאתויי

why particularly a stone? the same applies to a <i>denar</i>! Why did Raba say: They learnt only a stone, but a <i>denar</i> is forbidden? — In the case of a stone, if it falls down the father will not come to fetch it, [but] with a <i>denar</i>, if it falls down the father will come to fetch it. It was taught in accordance with Raba: If one carries out his garments folded up and lying on his shoulder, or his sandals or his rings in his hands, he is liable; but if he was wearing them, he is not culpable. If one carries out a person with his garments' upon him, with his sandals on his feet and his rings on his hands,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the man is wearing them. ');">¹</span>

תניא כוותיה דרבא המוציא כליו מקופלים ומונחים על כתפו וסנדליו וטבעותיו בידו חייב ואם היה מלובש בהן פטור

he is not culpable. Hence if he carried them as they are<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the person carried were holding, not wearing them. ');">²</span>

המוציא אדם וכליו עליו וסנדליו ברגליו וטבעותיו בידיו פטור ואילו הוציאן כמות שהן חייב:

he would be culpable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is analogous to Raba's dictum, for a purse 'suspended from a child's neck is not in the position of being worn. ');">³</span>

כלכלה והאבן בתוכה: ואמאי תיהוי כלכלה בסיס לדבר האסור אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר' יוחנן הכא בכלכלה מלאה פירות עסקינן ולישדינהו לפירי ונישדי לאבן ונינקטינהו בידים כדרבי אלעי אמר רב בפירות המיטנפין ה"נ בפירות המיטנפין

A BASKET WITH A STONE IN IT: yet why? let the basket be [regarded as] a stand for a forbidden article?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 213, n. 4. ');">⁴</span>

ולינערינהו נעורי אמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר רבא הכא בכלכלה פחותה עסקינן דאבן גופה נעשית דופן לכלכלה:

— Said Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in R. Johanan's name: We treat here of a basket full of produce.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'So that the basket serves as a stand for a permitted thing. ');">⁵</span>

מטלטלין תרומה וכו': אמר רב חסדא לא שנו אלא שטהורה למטה וטמאה למעלה אבל טהורה למעלה וטמאה למטה שקיל ליה לטהורה ושביק ליה לטמאה

Then let the produce be thrown out, and let the stone be thrown out, and then we can collect [the produce] by hand?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And replace it in the basket. Why did they permit to carry the stone? ');">⁶</span>

וכי טהורה למטה נמי לישדינהו ולינקטינהו אמר רבי אלעי אמר רב בפירות המיטנפין עסקינן

— As R. Elai said [elsewhere] in Rab's name: The reference is to fruit which becomes soiled, so here too [we treat] of fruit which becomes soiled.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If thrown on the ground, e.g., figs and grapes. ');">⁷</span>

מיתיבי מטלטלין תרומה טמאה עם הטהורה ועם החולין בין שטהורה למעלה וטמאה למטה בין שטמאה למעלה וטהורה למטה תיובתא דרב חסדא

Then let one shake it [the basket] about?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Until the stone lies at a side, when it can be thrown out without affecting the produce. ');">⁸</span>

אמר לך רב חסדא מתניתין לצורך גופו ברייתא לצורך מקומו

— Said R. Hiyya b. Ashi in Raba's name: We treat here of a broken basket, so that the stone itself becomes a wall for the basket.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By filling up the gap. ');">⁹</span>

מאי דוחקיה דרב חסדא לאוקמי מתניתין לצורך גופו

[UNCLEAN] <i>TERUMAH</i> MAY BE HANDLED, etc. R. Hisda said: They learnt [this] only where the clean [<i>terumah</i>] is underneath and the unclean is on top; but if the clean [<i>terumah</i>] is on top and the unclean underneath, one must take the clean and leave the unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And there is no reason for handling the unclean. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר רבא מתני' כוותיה דייקא דקתני סיפא מעות שעל הכר מנער את הכר והן נופלות ואמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן לא שנו אלא לצורך גופו אבל לצורך מקומו מטלטלו ועודן עליו ומדסיפא לצורך גופו רישא נמי לצורך גופו:

But if the clean is underneath too, let him throw off [the unclean] and take it? — Said R. Elai in Rab's name: We treat of fruit which becomes soiled. An objection is raised: One may handle unclean <i>terumah</i> together with clean <i>terumah</i> or with hullin, whether the clean is on top and the unclean is below, or the unclean is on top and the clean is underneath; this refutes R. Hisda? — R. Hisda answers you: Our Mishnah [means that] it is required for itself;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he wishes to eat the terumah. Therefore if the clean terumah is on top he can simply take it and leave the rest. ');">¹¹</span>

רבי יהודה אומר אף מעלין וכו': ואמאי הא קא מתקן

the Baraitha is where its place is required.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He needs the place where the utensil containing it is standing: therefore he must remove them — Sc. the clean and the unclean — together, whatever their position. ');">¹²</span>

רבי יהודה כר' אליעזר סבירא ליה דאמר תרומה בעינא מחתא

What compels R. Hisda to interpret our Mishnah as meaning that it is required for itself?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that he has to explain the Mishnah as referring to when the unclean terumah is on top. ');">¹³</span>

דתנן סאה תרומה שנפלה לפחות ממאה ונדמעו ונפל מן המדומע למקום אחר רבי אליעזר אומר מדמעת כתרומת ודאי

— Said Raba, Our Mishnah, by deduction, supports him. For the second clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the Mishnah infra b. ');">¹⁴</span>

וחכמים אומרים אין המדומע מדמע אלא לפי חשבון

states: If money is lying on a cushion, one shakes the cushion, and it falls off. Whereon Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: They learnt this only if it [the cushion] is required for itself; but if its place is required, one removes it while it [the money] is upon it. And since the second clause means that it is required for itself, the first clause too means that it is required for itself.

אימר דשמעת ליה לחומרא לקולא מי שמעת ליה

R. JUDAH SAID: ONE MAY ALSO REMOVE, etc. Yet why? surely he makes it fit?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For use. This should be preventively forbidden out of consideration for that which is made fit by means of labour. ');">¹⁵</span>

אלא הוא דאמר כר"ש כדתנן סאה תרומה שנפלה למאה ולא הספיק להגביה עד שנפלה אחרת הרי זו אסורה ור"ש מתיר

— R. Judah agrees with R. Eliezer, who maintains: The <i>terumah</i> lies as a [separate] entity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since one part is to be removed, it is as though the terumah therein lay separate and distinct, and therefore the whole mixture is fit for use in any case. ');">¹⁶</span>

וממאי דילמא התם בהא קמיפלגי דתנא קמא סבר אע"ג דנפלו בזה אחר זה כמאן דנפל בבת אחת דמי והא לחמשין נפלה והא לחמשין נפלה ור"ש סבר קמייתא בטיל במאה והא תיבטיל במאה וחד

For we learnt: If a <i>se'ah</i> of <i>terumah</i> falls into less than a hundred,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Se'ahs of hullin. ');">¹⁷</span>

אלא הוא דאמר כרבי שמעון בן אלעזר דתניא ר' שמעון בן אלעזר אומר נותן עיניו בצד זה ואוכל מצד אחר

and thus they become a [forbidden] mixture, and then some of the mixture falls elsewhere,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., into another pile of produce. ');">¹⁸</span>

ומי סבר ליה כוותיה

R. Eliezer said: It creates a [forbidden] mixture as though it were certain <i>terumah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. as though it were all terumah and therefore it can only be neutralized by a hundred times its quantity. Thus he regards the terumah as distinct. ');">¹⁹</span> but the Sages maintain: The mixture creates a [forbidden] mixture only in proportion.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if a se'ah of terumah falls into nine se'ahs of hullin in the first place, and then a se'ah of the mixture falls into another heap of produce, this second se'ah is regarded as containing one tenth of a se'ah of terumah only, and if the second pile contains ten se'ahs it neutralizes it. ');">²⁰</span> [But] say that you know him [to rule thus] with stringency; do you know him [to rule thus] with lenience?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in our Mishnah, where this view would result in greater lenience. ');">²¹</span> — Rather [reply thus]: He [R. Judah] rules as R. Simeon, as we learnt: If a <i>se'ah</i> of <i>terumah</i> falls into a hundred,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it is neutralized, but that one se'ah of the whole must be removed. ');">²²</span> and one has no time to remove [it] until another falls in, it is [all] forbidden;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since here are now two se'ahs of terumah in one hundred of hullin. ');">²³</span> but R. Simeon permits it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is now assumed that his reason is because he regards the first se'ah as lying distinct and apart, and therefore the second se'ah alone is counted, and that too is neutralized. ');">²⁴</span> Yet how [does this follow]? Perhaps there they differ in this: viz., the first Tanna holds: Though they fell in consecutively it is as though they fell in simultaneously, so that each falls into fifty; whereas R. Simeon holds: The first is neutralized in the hundred, and this one is neutralized in a hundred and one?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence on the contrary, instead of regarding the terumah as a thing apart, he maintains that it becomes entirely one with the hullin. ');">²⁵</span> — Rather [reply thus]: He [R. Judah] rules as R. Simeon b. Eleazar. For it was taught, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: One may cast his eyes at one side and eat from the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he may decide to remove a se'ah from one side of the pile and then, without actually removing it, eat from the other. Thus the removing is not essential. ');">²⁶</span> Yet does he agree with him?