(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Shabbos 142



(a) The reason that the basket in our Mishnah is not Batel to the stone - is because we are speaking when the basket is also full of fruit - so the basket is a Basis le'Heter u'le'Isur.

(b) The reason that he is not obligated to empty the basket of all its contents, and return the fruit to the basket, to carry the fruit without the stone - is because we are speaking here about soft fruit that will become spoilt if it is thrown on the ground.

(c) Nor is it possible to shake the fruit to the side, and the stone from the basket - because it speaks when the stone is actually stopping up a gap in the basket, and is needed It is not Batel Batel to the basket because it is not tied there, as we learnt above in Perek Kol ha'Kelim (125a & b) .

(a) Rav Chisda explains our Mishnah, which permits carrying a container of Terumah Tehorah together with Terumah Temei'ah - when the Terumah Tehorah is underneath, and the Terumah Teme'ah on top. He needs to carry the Terumah Tehorah to the table, where he will empty the basket and take the Terumah Tehorah.

(b) We have to explain the Mishnah this way - because Rav Chisda established it by Tzorech Gufo (when he needs the actual fruit - and not le'Tzorech Mekomo). Consequently, if the Terumah Tehorah would have been on top, he would have been obligated to take the Terumah Tehorah and leave the Terumah Teme'ah).

(c) Otherwise, we would have established our Mishnah by Tzorech Mekomo (when he is moving the basket because he needs the place) in which case, he would be permitted to move the entire basket - even if the Tahor Terumah was on top?

(d) Rav Chisda establishes the Mishnah by Tzorech Gufo - from the Seifa, which rules that someone who forgot money on a cushion, should shake it off (rather than pick up the cushion). Now if he needed *the place* to sleep on, for example, he would be permitted to carry away the cushion together with the money. So just as the Seifa is speaking 'le'Tzorech Gufo, so too, is the Reisha.

(a) The problem with Rebbi Yehudah permitting the removal of one Sa'ah from a basket of a hundred Sa'ah of Chulin into which one Sa'ah of Terumah fell - is that this constitutes Tikun (since the mixture - known as 'Dimu'a' is forbidden until the Sa'ah has been removed).

(b) Rebbi Eliezer rules - that if a Sa'ah or more of the mixture then falls into another pile of Chulin, we consider as if it was the Sa'ah of Terumah that fell, and if there is less than a hundred Sa'ah of Chulin apart from it, the entire pile of Chulin will be forbidden. In other words, Rebbi Eliezer considers the Sa'ah of Terumah as if it was separate from the Chulin into which it fell. And that is also the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, who goes on to say that, for the same reason, one is permitted to eat the rest of the original mixture, even without separating the Sa'ah. That is why separating it is not considered a Tikun.

(c) The Chachamim hold - that if some of the first mixture falls into another mixture, it becomes forbidden proportionately - i.e. we only count as Terumah, the percentage of the mixture that fell into the first mixture (e.g. if one Sa'ah of Terumah fell into ninety Sa'ah of Chulin, then we reckon nine-tenths of whatever fell into the second mixture, as Chulin, and only one tenth as Terumah.

(d) The Gemara refutes the previous contention - on the grounds that Rebbi Eliezer considers the Sa'ah of Terumah to be separate only le'Chumra, but not le'Kula.

(a) Rebbi Shimon says that if a second Sa'ah falls into the mixture before he has removed the one Sa'ah, he is obligated to remove, it too, becomes Batel in the hundred (and we ignore the first Sa'ah of Terumah that fell into it - as if it was set aside). Rebbi Yehudah too, considers the Sa'ah Terumah as if it was set aside, and it does not therefore, need to be separated. Consequently, one may separate it on Shabbos.

(b) Perhaps, suggests the Gemara, Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan are arguing whether we consider the two Sa'ah as if they fell in simultaneously (the Rabbanan) - and are therefore not Batel, or one after the other (Rebbi Shimon) - so that the first Sa'ah is Batel in a hundred and one, the second in a hundred and two. And this has nothing whatsoever to do with Rebbi Yehudah permitting its separation on Shabbos.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah, concludes the Gemara, holds like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar - who permits one to eat from Meduma from one side, whilst looking at the other side without actually separating the Sa'ah that fell in. Consequently, taking out the Sa'ah is not a real Tikun.

(d) Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, because he is even more lenient than him; Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar permits eating Dimu'a from one side and eating from the other, but not to actually separate the Sa'ah that fell in; whereas Rebbi Yehudah argues that, since it is not necessary to separate them, separating them is not a Tikun, and is therefore permitted.




(a) If one has a barrel of wine with a stone on it - one must tilt the barrel for the stone to fall off, without lifting up the barrel.

(b) If one is afraid that he will break the neighboring barrels in the process - then he may carry the barrel to a spot away from the other barrels, and then shake the stone out.

(c) If someone who is going to bed finds money on his sheet - he may shake the sheet until the money falls off.

(d) Mud on a cloth sheet may be rubbed off with a rag (on no account may one pour water on it). One may however, pour water on a leather sheet.

(a) If a stone is deliberately placed on a barrel before Shabbos - the barrel becomes a Basis le'Davar ha'Asur, in which case, it is as much Muktzah as the stone, and there is no way that one may even tilt it. Consequently, our Mishnah, which permits tilting the barrel, must be speaking when he forgot the stone on the barrel.

(b) According to the Rabbanan of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - one would be permitted to remove the stone directly.

(c) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says - that, on Yom-Tov, when there are more bad beans than good ones, one is obligated to pick out the good ones from the bad ones, and not vice-versa.

(d) Our case is comparable to 'Pesoles Merubeh al ha'Ochel' - inasmuch as eventually, one will anyway have to pick up the barrel to get to the wine at the bottom of the barrel. Consequently, to remove the stone now will only result in excess bother - which is Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's reason for forbidden taking the bad from the good in the first place (according to Tosfos, DH 'she'Ochel', his reason is because of Muktzah).

(a) If one *deliberately* placed money on a sheet before Shabbos - there is no way that one may move the sheet on Shabbos.

(b) But if he *forgot* the money there before Shabbos - he will be permitted to move it directly, le'Tzorech Mekomo.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan permitted moving the purse in the street together with a loaf of bread or a baby - either less than four Amos at a time, or by means of walls made of people.

(b) Rav Ashi forbids using the Heter of 'Kikar' or 'Tinok' even where one forgot the Muktzah. According to him, Chazal only permitted 'Kikar' or 'Tinok' by a corpse, but nowhere else.

1. Abaye did not really need to place a ladle on the sheaves in order to move them - since sheaves are fit to sit on; he only did so 'le'Chumra', because, as an important person, people may learn from him and permit what is forbidden.
2. Nor did Rava need to place a knife on a young dove, which was fit to be eaten raw anyway. He too, only did so 'le'Hachmir', for the same reason as Abaye.
(b) According to Rebbi Shimon, who does not hold of most kinds of Muktzah, the intestines of a bird would not be Muktzah, since they are fit for feline consumption. According to Rebbi Yehudah, they are Muktzah because whatever is fit for humans one does not tend to designate for animals.

(c) Rava told his servant to throw the intestines of the duckling to a cat on Yom-Tov - because, since intestines tend to go bad quickly, and do not last until the next day, one has in mind, already from Erev Shabbos, to feed them to the cats.

(d) Rava said that a poker that broke on Yom-Tov may not be used as firewood, because, although one may light a fire on Yom-Tov using vessels, one may not light a fire using vessels that broke on Yom-Tov, because they are Nolad - like Rebbi Yehudah.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,