SHABBOS - 095a – המצניע – פרק עשירי – שבת, צה ע”א

She who paints her eyes is liable on account of dyeing;^[1]

she who braids or arranges her hair, on account of building.

But is this a manner of building?

Yes, as Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya expounded: (Bereishis 2) “And Hashem God built the rib” — this teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, braided Chavah’s hair and brought her to Adam; for in the coastal towns they call braiding “building.”^[2]

It was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: “She who braids, paints the eyes or arranges the hair — for herself she is exempt; for her friend she is liable.”

לעצמה פטורה - For [for herself] she cannot braid well, and the way of building is only a woman for her friend, who sees and does it.

And likewise Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar used to say in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: “A woman may not pass rouge over her face, because she is dyeing.”

וכן - Another matter concerning Shabbos, as a prohibition.

סרק - A red dye that comes in reeds, which they call tiponin (rouge, for painting the face).

The Rabbis taught: “One who milks, one who curdles, and one who makes cheese, the size of a dried fig;^[3] one who sweeps, one who sprinkles [the floor], and one who scrapes out honeycombs — if he did so unwittingly on Shabbos he is liable to a chatas; if deliberately on Yom Tov, he receives forty lashes;^[4] these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

המחבץ - One who sets the milk with rennet. Others say: the mechabetz makes a kind of vessel of reeds and puts the curdled milk into it, and the milk-water, which is whey, drips out; and in the vernacular they call these [vessels] ankeides.

המכבד - The house.

והמרבץ - With water, to settle the dust so that it does not rise.

חייב חטאת - Further on [the Gemara] explains the reason: one who scrapes out honeycombs is liable on account of detaching, (one who curdles is liable on account of selecting,) and one who sweeps or sprinkles, on account of building.

And the Sages say: both this and that are only on account of shevus.”^[5]

אחד זה ואחד זה - Both Shabbos and Yom Tov.

משום שבות - Lest, when he sweeps, the pits in the house become filled of themselves, and that is building.

Rav Nachman bar Guria happened to come to Nehardea.

They asked him: One who milks — on account of what is he liable?

He said to them: On account of milking.^[6]

One who curdles — on account of what is he liable?

He said to them: On account of curdling.

One who makes cheese — on account of what is he liable?

He said to them: On account of cheese-making.

They said to him: Your teacher must have been cutting reeds in the marsh!

קטיל קני באגמא - He was cutting reeds in the marsh — he did not know how to explain a Mishnah.

He came and asked in the study hall.

They said to him: One who milks is liable on account of mefarek (extracting); one who curdles is liable on account of borer (selecting); one who makes cheese is liable on account of boneh (building).^[7]

מפרק - Like unloading a burden: he unloads food from the place in which it was covered, and it is a toladah of threshing. Some say it is a toladah of reaping, but that is not so, for [the milk] is not attached; rather it is deposited and held, and stands in the udder like grain in its husk. Also, the term mefarek would not fit [reaping]; one would say tolesh (detaching).

בורר - [Separating] food from refuse.

“One who sweeps, one who sprinkles, and one who scrapes out honeycombs — if unwittingly on Shabbos he is liable to a chatas; if deliberately on Yom Tov, he receives forty lashes; these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer.”^[8]

Rabbi Elazar said: What is Rabbi Eliezer’s reason?

For it is written (Shmuel I 14): “And he dipped it in the forest of honey.”^[9]

Now what does a forest have to do with honey?

Rather, to tell you: just as with a forest, one who detaches from it on Shabbos is liable to a chatas, so too with honeycombs, one who scrapes [honey] from them on Shabbos is liable to a chatas.^[10]

Ameimar permitted sprinkling [the floor] in Mechoza.^[11]

זילחא - To sprinkle the house; and the whole city had stone floors.

He said: What is the reason the Rabbis said [it is forbidden]?

Lest one come to level pits.

Here there are no pits.

Rava Tosfa’ah found Ravina suffering from the stifling dust; and some say Mar Kashisha the son of Rava found Rav Ashi suffering from the stifling dust.

מהבלא - For dust was rising and making the air stifling.

He said to him: Does the master not hold of that which was taught: “One who wishes to sprinkle his house on Shabbos brings a basin full of water and washes his face in this corner, his hands in this corner, his feet in this corner, and the house is found sprinkled of itself”?

He said to him: It was not on my mind.

לאו אדעתאי - I did not remember. My teachers explained: I do not hold so.

It was taught: “A wise woman sprinkles her house on Shabbos.”

אשה חכמה - The wife of a Torah scholar, or the daughter of a Torah scholar who heard it from her father.

מרבצת ביתה - She washes jugs in this corner and cups in that corner.

And nowadays, since we hold like Rabbi Shimon,^[12] it is permitted even from the outset.

כרבי שמעון - That an unintended act is permitted; and one who sprinkles does not intend to press earth into the pits and level the house, only that the dust should not rise.

Mishnah

One who plucks from a perforated pot^[13] is liable; from one that is not perforated, he is exempt.

מתני' התולש מעציץ נקוב חייב - For it is like something attached, since it draws from the ground through the hole, for [the plant] senses the moisture of the ground — even if the hole is in its side.

And Rabbi Shimon exempts in both cases.

Gemara

Abaye pointed out a contradiction to Rava — and some say Rabbi Chiya bar Rav to Rav: We learned: “Rabbi Shimon exempts in both cases” — evidently Rabbi Shimon treats a perforated pot like an unperforated one.

But a contradiction was raised: “Rabbi Shimon says: There is no difference between a perforated and an unperforated pot…”^[14]

Tosfos

החולב משום דש הוא - As Rashi explained. And the beraisa follows Rabbi Yehudah, who said there is threshing even in what does not grow from the ground,^[15] as we explained above in perek Klal Gadol (above 73b). And so it seems to the Ri, that it surely follows Rabbi Yehudah, for the Sages forbid sprinkling on account of shevus, while according to Rabbi Shimon [the Gemara] below permits it even from the outset.

המכבד והמרבץ - It is puzzling: necessarily it speaks where it is not a pesik reishei that the pits will be leveled,^[16] for if it were a pesik reishei, how does Rabbi Shimon permit it below from the outset? Rabbi Shimon agrees in a case of “cut off its head and will it not die?” And since it is not a pesik reishei, why does Rabbi Eliezer obligate a chatas? Has it not been said in perek Amar Lahem HaMemuneh (Yoma 34b), regarding heating the iron lumps, that an unintended act is permitted by Torah law according to Rabbi Yehudah, since it is not a meleches machsheves (purposeful labor)? One may answer that this is their dispute: Rabbi Eliezer holds it is a pesik reishei, and the Rabbis hold it is not. And as for what it says, “And nowadays, since we hold like Rabbi Shimon, it is permitted from the outset” — although Rabbi Shimon may hold it is a pesik reishei, nevertheless the Gemara holds like the Rabbis that it is not a pesik reishei; therefore it is permitted from the outset, since we rule like Rabbi Shimon [see Tosfos Sanhedrin 85a s.v. ור"ש].

והרודה חלות דבש - The Ri finds it puzzling: why, according to Rabbi Eliezer, does one receive lashes on Yom Tov — and the Rabbis too disagree only because they do not consider it a melachah? Have we not learned in the first perek of Megillah (7b): “There is no difference between Yom Tov and Shabbos except food preparation alone; Rabbi Yehudah says: also the preparatory acts for food”?^[17] And the Gemara says: What is the reason of the Tanna Kamma? The verse says, “Only that may be done for you” — “that,” and not its preparations. And Rabbi Yehudah: it is written “that” and it is written “for you” — here with preparations that can be done before Yom Tov, and there with preparations that cannot, etc. This implies that food preparation itself Rabbi Yehudah permits even where it could have been done earlier; and the Rabbis too seem to argue only about preparatory acts, not about food preparation itself. Further, this beraisa follows Rabbi Yehudah, as I explained. Further, in perek Tolin (below 137b) we say that Rabbi Eliezer holds like Rabbi Yehudah and goes beyond Rabbi Yehudah, permitting even what could have been done before Yom Tov. And one cannot say it speaks of scraping for a weekday need, for in any event it would be difficult for the one who holds ho’il — “since guests might arrive”^[18] — in perek Elu Ovrin (Pesachim 46b); and Rabbi Eliezer himself holds ho’il there. And the Ri said that it can be set as scraping close to nightfall, when it is no longer fit for guests; or with honey that has spoiled, or that is forbidden for benefit, so that it is not fit to eat. However, the Ri finds it puzzling: since it is permitted to make cheese on Yom Tov by Torah law even where it could have been done earlier — even if by Rabbinic law it is permitted only where it could not — then if one’s house fell down on Yom Tov, it should be permitted to rebuild it on Yom Tov! For since building is permitted for a need — cheese-making being building, as is said shortly — it is permitted also not for a need, provided there is some need of the day, to eat inside it so that heat and sun should not strike him. One may answer that it is forbidden by Rabbinic law because it is a weekday activity, just as grinding and sifting are forbidden on Yom Tov.

שרא זילחא במחוזא - It is puzzling: for at the end of perek Tamid Nishchat (ibid. 64a) we learned: “As its procedure on a weekday, so is its procedure on Shabbos, except that the kohanim rinse the Courtyard, not with the consent of the Sages.” And the Gemara explains that “not with the consent of the Sages” means not with Rabbi Eliezer’s consent, for according to the Rabbis it is only a shevus, and there is no shevus in the Mikdash,^[19] as it was taught: “One who sweeps and one who sprinkles, etc.” Since it sets the Mishnah according to Rabbi Eliezer, this implies that he is liable by Torah law even in the Courtyard, which has a floor; while here it implies that with a floor there is no leveling of pits. One may answer that in rinsing there is more leveling of pits, for the pits between one paving stone and the next would fill up. Alternatively, in the Courtyard too Rabbi Eliezer forbids only on account of shevus, because of places with no floor, where there is liability to a chatas according to Rabbi Eliezer; this shevus is severe and applies even in the Mikdash — and we find several shevus prohibitions in the Mikdash in the last perek of Eruvin (102b). But according to the Rabbis this shevus is not severe, since even without a floor it is for them only a Rabbinic prohibition; therefore it does not apply in the Mikdash.

והאידנא דקי"ל כר"ש שרי אפי' לכתחלה - The Behag permits sweeping for this reason, even with [brooms of] palm fronds. But this does not seem right to the Ri, for in perek Kol HaKelim (below 124b) Rabbi Eliezer says: “Even palm-branch brooms may be moved,” and [the Gemara] asks: “If from sun to shade — would Rabbi Eliezer say this even of palm-branch ones?” This implies it is obvious to it that no one permits it, even according to Rabbi Shimon, because it is a vessel whose function is forbidden;^[20] yet if sweeping were permitted, its function would be permitted. Rather, sweeping is surely forbidden according to all, because it moves earth from its place, and here we permit according to Rabbi Shimon only sprinkling.

ורמינהו רבי שמעון אומר אין בין נקוב כו' - It is puzzling: what is the challenge? This beraisa too teaches, as in the Mishnah, that for all matters a perforated pot is like an unperforated one, except regarding hechsher of seeds alone.^[21] And if the difficulty is why Shabbos differs from hechsher of seeds, then even without the Mishnah the beraisa itself should be difficult: why, for hechsher of seeds, is a perforated pot considered attached, while for other matters it is considered detached? Rabbeinu Tam says the challenge is this: since regarding Shabbos a perforated pot is considered like an unperforated one, although this is a leniency and he is exempt — and likewise regarding kilayim, in tractate Kilayim (7:8) — all the more so regarding hechsher of seeds we should consider a perforated pot like an unperforated one, which is a stringency; yet the beraisa teaches that a perforated pot is like attached regarding hechsher of seeds, so that it does not make them susceptible. And the beraisa means this: there is no difference between perforated and unperforated — for all matters they are alike, and we follow the stringency: where detached is the stringency we consider both detached, and where attached is the stringency, as with Shabbos and kilayim, we consider both attached — except for hechsher of seeds, where they did not make the perforated stringent, as detached like the unperforated, but left it in its basic law, to be considered attached. And according to this, one must say that according to Rabbi Shimon one may not separate terumah from a perforated pot for produce growing in the ground, just as with an unperforated one, since we follow the stringency. And the Ri explained that the challenge is this: Rabbi Shimon says there is no difference between perforated and unperforated except hechsher of seeds alone; and since for hechsher of seeds a perforated pot is considered attached even though that is a leniency, for it does not become susceptible, we learn that by Torah law it is considered attached; for if by Torah law it were considered detached, how could we declare them tahor by Rabbinic law when tumah touched them, since they had become susceptible by Torah law? If so, what the first part of the beraisa teaches, “there is no difference between perforated and unperforated,” must be to make both like attached, not both like detached, since a perforated pot is attached by Torah law; and in all matters perforated and unperforated are like attached, except hechsher of seeds alone, where the Rabbis were stringent to make the unperforated susceptible to tumah. And now [the Gemara] answers well, “Tumah is different, etc.,” for there the Torah wrote explicitly that a perforated pot is considered attached, but for all other matters it is considered detached; therefore he exempts in the Mishnah. But these explanations are difficult, for it says “evidently Rabbi Shimon treats a perforated pot like an unperforated one,” implying that it wants to bring from the beraisa that he does not treat perforated like unperforated, and that is not so. One may explain that it means: “Evidently Rabbi Shimon treats a perforated pot like an unperforated one — and a contradiction was raised, etc.” — on the contrary, he treats an unperforated pot like a perforated one. And the Ri further explained that it means: there is no difference between perforated and unperforated regarding maaser, pe’ah and kilayim, for since “your field” and “your vineyard” are written regarding them, and regarding maaser it is written “that which comes forth from the field, year by year,” both perforated and unperforated are considered detached, and there is no distinction except regarding hechsher of seeds and whatever resembles it, such as Shabbos, which do not depend on something counting as a field but on detached versus attached; and in those, perforated is not like unperforated. According to this, the statement “evidently Rabbi Shimon treats a perforated pot like an unperforated one, and a contradiction was raised” — that he does not treat perforated like unperforated — works well.

Notes

1. 1. The Gemara is explaining a teaching from the end of 94b about a woman’s grooming on Shabbos. There are thirty-nine primary labors (avos melachah); an act that resembles one of them in its purpose is a toladah (derivative) and carries the same liability. Painting the eyes with kohl is a derivative of dyeing.
2. 2. Braiding is thus called “building,” and so braiding hair is a derivative of the labor of building.
3. 3. The size of a dried fig (kegrogeres) is the minimum quantity of food for liability in these labors.
4. 4. On Yom Tov only labor for preparing food is permitted. Other labor is a Torah prohibition (a lav), and one who does it deliberately, after warning, receives the forty lashes (malkus).
5. 5. Shevus is a Rabbinic prohibition on Shabbos or Yom Tov, made by the Sages for acts that resemble a melachah. Violating it carries no chatas and no Torah lashes.
6. 6. He named the act itself, and did not say which primary labor it derives from. Liability applies only to one of the thirty-nine labors or a derivative of one, so this was no answer.
7. 7. Mefarek, removing food from the place that covers it, is a derivative of threshing (as Rashi explains). Curdling separates the curds from the whey, like selecting. Pressing the curds into one solid cheese resembles building.
8. 8. In Rabbi Eliezer’s view these are full labors. Sweeping or sprinkling an earthen floor can fill in its pits, which is building. Scraping out honeycombs means taking the honey out of the wax combs in the hive. The Gemara now asks for the source of that last ruling.
9. 9. Shmuel I 14:27: Yonasan dipped the tip of his staff in the honeycomb. The verse calls the honeycomb ya’ras, related to ya’ar, a forest.
10. 10. Detaching anything from where it grows (tolesh) is a derivative of reaping. Rabbi Eliezer applies this to taking honey from the comb.
11. 11. Mechoza was a large town on the Tigris, home of Rava. Its floors were all paved with stone (Rashi), so sprinkling could not fill pits.
12. 12. Rabbi Shimon holds that an unintended act (davar she’eino miskaven) is permitted: one may do a permitted act even though a forbidden labor may result without intent, as long as that result is not certain.
13. 13. A perforated pot (atzitz nakuv) has a hole through which the plant draws from the ground, so it counts as attached. A plant in an unperforated pot counts as detached.
14. 14. The beraisa continues on 95b: “…except for hechsher of seeds alone,” as Tosfos quotes it here.
15. 15. Threshing normally applies to produce of the ground. Rabbi Yehudah holds it applies even to milk, which does not grow from the ground.
16. 16. Pesik reishei (“cutting off its head”): the forbidden result is certain to follow. Even Rabbi Shimon agrees this is forbidden.
17. 17. Food preparation itself (ochel nefesh) is permitted on Yom Tov. Preparatory acts (machshirei ochel nefesh) prepare the tools for food, such as fixing a spit; whether these are permitted is the dispute quoted.
18. 18. Ho’il (“since”): by this view one who bakes on Yom Tov for a weekday is not liable, since guests might come and the food would be fit for them.
19. 19. There is no shevus in the Mikdash: the Rabbinic Shabbos prohibitions were not applied to the Temple service.
20. 20. A vessel whose function is forbidden (kli shemelachto le’issur) is used mainly for a labor forbidden on Shabbos. It may be moved only for its own use or to free its place, not to protect it from the sun.
21. 21. Hechsher: produce can become tamei only after water has come on it once it has been detached. Seeds still attached to the ground cannot be made susceptible.