Today’s study of the Gemara in Shabbat is dedicated by Benjamin Stavrash for a complete recovery. Amen. The daf is also being studied in memory of Shimon ben Julia. Amen.
We are at the top of the daf, discussing the laws of muktzeh. The Mishnah teaches that a hammer, whose primary function is ordinarily to build and perform forbidden labor, may not be moved for its own sake. However, we learned that a smith’s hammer may be moved for a permitted purpose. This was the statement of Rava: when the hammer is being used for a permitted function, such as cracking open a nut, it may be moved.
The Gemara challenges this from the opinion of Rabbi Nehemiah. Rabbi Nehemiah maintains that a utensil may be moved only for its designated function. According to him, even a utensil whose primary function is permitted may be moved only for that function. Certainly, a utensil whose primary function is forbidden may not be moved for another purpose. That is why, for example, a garlic grinder may be moved when garlic is inside it and it is being used for grinding, but not otherwise.
The Gemara then discusses an item that could be turned over and used as a seat. If its normal function is forbidden, Rabbi Nehemiah would still prohibit moving it for another purpose. But if one turns it over and sits on it, that use may be permitted, because sitting on it is itself a recognized function of the object.
The Mishnah teaches that both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that if meat was placed on an item that would normally be muktzeh, the item may be moved on Yom Tov for the purpose of cutting the meat. Beit Hillel is generally more lenient about using such an item for a Yom Tov need. Nevertheless, both schools agree that after the meat has been cut, the item may not be moved. The permission applies only to cutting meat on Yom Tov.
Why is it prohibited afterward? Because this is an item whose primary function is for a forbidden purpose. Therefore, according to the Gemara’s initial understanding, it should be permissible to move it only for the use of the object itself.
Rabbah cannot simply disagree with a Mishnah or a baraita. The Gemara therefore suggests that Rabbah accepted Rabbi Nehemiah’s position. That would be the simplest way to answer the difficulty: the ruling could be attributed to Rabbi Nehemiah, who places greater limitations on moving utensils. But the Gemara offers a different answer.
The Gemara distinguishes between two levels of muktzeh. One category is an object whose primary function is for a forbidden purpose, but which people sometimes use for other purposes as well. A hammer is an example. Its primary function is for forbidden labor, but a person might also use it to crack open a nut or break open a knot.
There is another category called an item that is set aside because of its monetary value. In that case, the owner is careful not to use the object for any other purpose, because doing so might damage it. For example, some tools are delicate and can bend or become warped if used improperly. Once damaged, they may no longer function well for their intended purpose. Such objects are not used for anything except their primary function.
Therefore, even if the primary function of one of these objects is for a permitted purpose, a person may still be very careful not to use it for anything else. That concern creates a stronger form of muktzeh. The same idea explains why, in the case of the item used to cut meat, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that it may be used for cutting meat on Yom Tov but may not be moved afterward. People are particular about such an object and reserve it for its specific use.
Rashi explains that this particular item was not primarily intended for cutting meat. Its primary function was to cut wheat into small pieces, which is a forbidden type of labor. Beit Hillel nevertheless permitted using it to cut meat on Yom Tov. Once that use was completed, however, it could not be moved for any other purpose, because the owner was particular about it.
The Gemara asks what kind of hammer is being discussed. Not all hammers are the same. One opinion says that the reference is to a goldsmith’s hammer. Rav Shimon ben Abba says that it may refer to a perfumer’s hammer, which was used to crush or shape spices and fragrant herbs.
The Gemara explains the disagreement. The one who says that the hammer is a perfumer’s hammer maintains that if such a sensitive hammer may be used to crack open a nut, then certainly a goldsmith’s hammer may be used for that purpose. The one who says that it is a goldsmith’s hammer maintains that a goldsmith is particular about the hammer’s smoothness, because it must strike the gold evenly. A perfumer is even more particular, since the hammer may absorb the smell or become soiled by the herbs. If the hammer is used to crack nuts, it may no longer be suitable for its original function.
There is also a broader possibility: perhaps the reference is not specifically to a goldsmith’s hammer but to any craftsman’s hammer, including those used by a blacksmith, tinsmith, or coppersmith. In the case of a metalworker’s hammer, a small roughness can often be corrected by striking the hammer against an anvil, after which it becomes smooth again. The craftsman therefore may not be as concerned about using it for another purpose. By contrast, the perfumer’s hammer can become dirty and acquire an unwanted smell, so the owner is more particular about it.
The Mishnah then continues with long sticks used in the weaving process. These are utensils whose primary function is for forbidden labor. Nevertheless, they may be used to spear a piece of food or a berry and give it to a child, because that is a permitted use of the object itself.
The general principle is that a utensil whose primary function is forbidden may be moved for use of the object itself or for the place it occupies, subject to the distinctions we are learning.
The Gemara next discusses an unripe fig that was placed in straw before Shabbat so that it would ripen. It also discusses a cake that was placed under coals so that it would bake properly. If part of the fig is exposed, one may pull the fig out. Although some straw will move as a result, the straw is not being moved directly; it is being displaced indirectly. The same applies to the cake. If the cake is exposed among the coals, one may pull it out even though the coals will shift as a result.
If the fig or cake is not exposed, however, one would ordinarily have to move the straw or the coals directly in order to reach it. The Gemara suggests using the long stick to reach underneath the fig or cake and pull it out. Rav Nachman rules in accordance with Rabbi Elazar ben Tadai that this is permitted. That is an appropriate use of the long weaving stick.
Rashi explains that when the fig is exposed, one pulls it from the exposed area. The straw is then pushed aside or falls away indirectly. One is not directly moving the straw; one is moving the permitted object and the muktzeh is displaced as a consequence.
The Gemara asks whether Rav Nachman’s ruling proves that indirect movement of muktzeh is permitted. If the fig is buried beneath the straw, then when one inserts the stick and pulls out the fig, some straw is lifted along with it. That appears to be a case in which muktzeh is being moved indirectly.
The Gemara challenges this from the case of a radish. A radish was pulled out before Shabbat and placed in the ground so that it could finish ripening. If the wide part of the radish is above the ground and the narrow part is below, it can be pulled out easily without moving any dirt. But if the wide part is below and the narrow part is above, pulling it out will also move dirt. The ruling appears to be that it may be removed only when the wide part is above. This would suggest that indirect movement of the dirt is not permitted.
The Gemara answers that Rav Nachman later retracted that ruling regarding the radish. The final position is that indirect movement is permitted. Therefore, regardless of which side of the radish is facing upward, it may be pulled out. The dirt is not being moved directly; it is being moved as a consequence of removing the radish.
The Gemara then turns to a hand needle. Its primary function is sewing, which is a forbidden use on Shabbat. Nevertheless, if one needs to remove a splinter, the needle may be used for that purpose.
A question was sent to Rav Yosef: What is the law if the needle loses its hole, the opening through which the thread is inserted, or if it loses its point? Is it still considered a utensil, or has it lost its status as a utensil and therefore become muktzeh?
The Gemara responds that this question appears in the Mishnah itself. A hand needle may be used to remove a thorn or splinter. Does the splinter care whether the needle has a hole? Whether or not there is a hole, the needle still has a use for removing a splinter. Thus, for the laws of Shabbat, it may still be regarded as a usable utensil.
The questioner responds that the issue may relate to the laws of ritual impurity rather than Shabbat. A utensil can receive ritual impurity only if it has the status of a utensil. If a needle loses its hole or its point and is considered pure, perhaps that indicates that it is no longer a utensil. If it is no longer a utensil for ritual impurity, perhaps it should also no longer be considered a utensil for Shabbat.
The Gemara rejects the comparison between ritual impurity and Shabbat. Each area has its own definition. Regarding ritual impurity, the object must have a recognized function as a utensil. The primary function of a needle is sewing. Once it loses its point or its hole, it may no longer perform that function, and it is therefore pure.
Regarding Shabbat, however, the question is whether the object still has a use. Since a needle with a point can still remove a splinter, it retains a practical function and may be moved for that purpose. Thus, the fact that it is pure with regard to ritual impurity does not necessarily prove that it is muktzeh with regard to Shabbat.
The Gemara then returns to the challenge. Perhaps the question from ritual impurity was a good one after all. If, for ritual impurity, a needle that has lost its hole is no longer considered a utensil, then perhaps it should likewise be muktzeh on Shabbat.
The Gemara answers that the baraita is discussing an unfinished utensil. When needles are first manufactured, the artisan may make the needle without yet putting a hole in it. Sometimes it is left in that state intentionally, because it may still be used to remove a splinter. Since it has not yet been completed, it is not a utensil for ritual impurity. Nevertheless, it may be set aside and used on Shabbat to remove a splinter.
Once a finished needle loses its hole or its point, however, it is different. Nobody preserves it for another use. It is thrown away. Therefore, it is not considered a utensil either for ritual impurity or for Shabbat. The distinction is between an unfinished needle that may still be used in another way and a finished needle that broke and is discarded.
The Gemara explains that this is the answer given by Abaye on behalf of Rava. With regard to an unfinished utensil, there can be a distinction between ritual impurity and Shabbat. It is not yet complete enough to receive ritual impurity, but it may still be used on Shabbat. With regard to a finished utensil that broke, however, there is no distinction: since it is discarded, it is no longer a utensil for either purpose.
The Gemara then discusses an item used to straighten a newborn child. When a child is born, the bones may be out of alignment from passing through the birth canal. The item was used to realign the child’s bones, similar to a chiropractic adjustment.
Rav Nachman prohibits using this item on Shabbat. The reason is that it resembles the act of repairing or fixing. One is placing the bones back into their proper sockets, much as one would reposition a dislocated shoulder. That is considered an act of correction.
Rav Nachman derives this principle from a teaching about a substance called a purge. People would drink it not as medicine but to empty their stomachs. For example, a person might want to eat the Shabbat meal, but his stomach would still be full from an earlier meal. He would drink this substance to clear his stomach so that he could eat again.
Although this was not medicine and was not prohibited as a medical treatment, it was still considered an act of fixing the body. The person’s body was not functioning in the manner he wanted, and he adjusted it so that he could eat. Rav Nachman therefore considers the treatment of the newborn’s bones to be an act of repair as well.
Rav Sheshet responds that one must distinguish between something that is customary and something that is unusual. Drinking the purge was an unusual procedure performed to achieve a particular result, and therefore it resembles an act of correction. Adjusting a newborn’s limbs, however, is a normal procedure. It is not perceived as an act of repair in the same way.
Rashi explains that a normal action is not automatically considered an act of repair. Eating on Shabbat is not called repairing the body merely because the food fills the stomach. Likewise, cracking one’s knuckles is not necessarily an act of repair. But if a person performs an unusual procedure in order to correct something in the body, that can be considered fixing.
Rav Sheshet then brings support from the case of the needle. A needle may be used to remove a thorn or splinter. If every act that adjusts the body were considered repair, removing a splinter should also be prohibited. Yet the Mishnah permits it.
Rav Nachman answers that the two cases are different. A splinter is not part of the body; it is merely lodged in the body and is being removed. The bones of the newborn, however, are part of the body itself and are being repositioned within their proper sockets. Removing an external object is not the same as correcting an internal part of the body.
The Gemara then discusses another utensil used in the production of oil. It resembles a small bowl or receptacle, and it was inserted into the oil so that a small amount could be collected and examined. This receptacle is significant for the laws of ritual impurity.
A simple wooden object without a receptacle is considered an unfinished wooden utensil and does not receive ritual impurity. Such an object is called a flat wooden utensil. Ordinary wood, such as a piece of bamboo used for a sukkah, is not automatically a utensil. But if the object has a function on Shabbat, it may still be moved according to the rules governing utensils whose primary function is forbidden.
The Gemara asks why a flat wooden utensil does not receive ritual impurity. The answer is that it must resemble a sack, the classic example of a receptacle that can receive impurity. A sack has a cavity that can contain something. Similarly, this wooden object receives impurity only if it has a small depression or receptacle at its top that can collect oil.
When olives are harvested, they are first placed in a container for some time so that they soften. They are then placed in a press to extract the oil. The wooden instrument was used to take a small amount of oil and examine it, in order to determine whether the olives had reached the proper stage. If it had a small receptacle at its top, it was a utensil that could receive ritual impurity. Without that receptacle, it was merely a hollow piece of wood and did not have the status of a utensil.
Thus, the important point is that the indentation at the top functions as a receptacle. It receives the oil, and that is what gives the object the status of a utensil for ritual impurity.
The Mishnah teaches that all utensils may be moved on Shabbat, with the exception of a large saw and the blade of a plow. These objects are not merely utensils whose primary function is for forbidden labor. They are objects set aside because of their monetary value. Since they are delicate and used exclusively for their specific functions, people are careful not to use them for anything else.
Rashi explains that the large saw is used to cut beams, while the blade of the plow is a large, sharp instrument used to make furrows in the ground. Their defining characteristic is that their owners designate them for one specific task. They have a fixed place and are not taken out for ordinary uses. By contrast, a hammer may be kept in a kitchen drawer and used for various purposes.
The Mishnah also mentions a number of specialized tools: a tool used by a craftsman to cut beams, a spoon used to remove foam from a cooked dish, and a knife kept on the table. The first two are needed for their particular functions, while the knife on the table is a normal utensil that is used freely.
We now reach the historical discussion of the laws of muktzeh. The Sages taught that originally they permitted only three utensils to be moved on Shabbat: a small knife used for cutting pressed foods, a spoon used to remove foam from a pot, and a knife that was already on the table.
Why did the Sages institute restrictions on moving objects on Shabbat when the Torah itself does not explicitly state that muktzeh may not be moved? The Rambam, as quoted by the Mishnah Berurah, explains that the Sages prohibited moving certain objects in the manner in which they were moved during the week.
They reasoned that if the prophets warned that a person’s walking and conversation on Shabbat should not be like those of the weekdays, then certainly his handling of objects should not be like his weekday handling. Otherwise, a person might spend the entire day moving objects around his house, working in the garage or shed, arranging items, and performing maintenance. He would technically avoid forbidden labor, but his Shabbat would look no different from a weekday.
The Sages therefore wanted Shabbat to be characterized by rest and a different pattern of activity. Without these restrictions, a person who could not work might look for other ways to occupy himself and spend the entire day moving things around. The restrictions on moving objects help preserve the character of Shabbat.
The Rambam gives another reason. If a person were permitted to move anything without restriction, he might eventually come to perform forbidden labor. He might pick up an object for an innocent purpose and then use it in a forbidden way. The restrictions serve as a protective fence.
A further reason is that certain people do not work during the week and are accustomed to spending their time doing nothing. If such a person could not move a particular item on Shabbat, it would be noticeable that Shabbat was different. The restriction would make the day a day of rest for everyone, and not merely a day of rest for people who normally work during the week.
Another explanation is that the restrictions on moving objects create a major safeguard against carrying. The fewer objects a person moves, the less likely he is to carry an object from one domain to another. The laws of muktzeh therefore serve as a fence around the prohibition of carrying as well.
Originally, the Sages permitted only those three utensils. Later, they saw that people were observing the restrictions and they expanded the permission. First, they permitted utensils whose primary function was permitted to be moved for use of the object itself. Later, they permitted such utensils to be moved for the sake of their place. Eventually, the permission was expanded further.
The Gemara asks what exactly was permitted at each stage. Rav Yehudah explains that the first expansion permitted an object whose primary function was permitted to be moved for use of the object itself. The next expansion permitted it to be moved for the sake of its place. In other words, one could move it not only because one needed the object, but also because one needed the space it occupied.
The Sages then permitted an object whose primary function was forbidden to be moved for use of the object itself. At that stage, however, the permission was limited to the size of an object that one person could carry. An object requiring two people to move remained prohibited.
Eventually, the restriction was narrowed to only a large saw and the blade of a plow. All other utensils could be moved according to the rules that had been established.
The Gemara asks how to understand the sequence. If the Sages permitted an object for use of the object itself, what difference is there between use of the object and use of its place? If the object may be moved, it would seem that both should be permitted together.
Rabbah therefore suggests a different reconstruction of the history. At the first stage, the Sages permitted both moving an object for use of the object itself and moving it for the sake of its place. At the next stage, they permitted moving it from the sun to the shade, or from the rain to a protected area, in order to prevent damage to the object. That is not movement for use of the object or for the sake of its place; it is movement to protect the object from harm.
Afterward, they permitted all utensils whose primary function was forbidden to be moved for use of the object itself or for the sake of their place. The only remaining limitation was that a very large object requiring two people to carry could not be moved. Later, even that limitation was removed, except for the large saw and the blade of the plow.
Abaye challenges this understanding from the case of the grinder. The Gemara says that a grinder may be moved when garlic is inside it, but not when it is empty. If the object may be moved from the sun to the shade to protect it, why may the grinder not be moved when there is no garlic inside it?
According to Abaye’s understanding, the answer is that the grinder may be moved for use of the object itself, but not merely for the sake of its place. According to Rabbah, however, the case would have to involve a further limitation: the grinder may not be moved merely to protect it from damage unless the circumstances fit the later stage of the enactment.
Abaye also challenges the explanation from the case of an item on which meat was placed on Yom Tov. The Mishnah says that the item may be moved for cutting the meat, but not afterward. Abaye explains that it may be moved for use of the object itself, but not for the sake of its place. Rabbah, who permits movement for the sake of the place, must explain that the restriction applies to moving the item merely to protect it from damage or when the specific conditions of the earlier enactment are absent.
Rav Hanina states that this entire Mishnah was formulated during the period of Nehemiah. In those days, people were pressing olives on Shabbat. They would operate the presses, load their animals, and bring the produce to Jerusalem. Because people were treating Shabbat lightly, Nehemiah strengthened the restrictions. He initially limited the number of utensils that could be moved, and the Sages gradually expanded the permission only as they saw that people were becoming more careful.
This is a general pattern in the enactments of the Sages. When people become lax, the Sages may strengthen a safeguard in order to restore proper observance. When people demonstrate greater care, the Sages may later relax the safeguard. The purpose is not simply to make things difficult, but to preserve awareness of Shabbat and prevent people from treating it like an ordinary weekday.
The Mishnah Berurah explains that when a later generation enacted a safeguard, it could sometimes include a condition that the enactment would remain in force only so long as the circumstances required it. If the original enactment included such a limitation, a later generation could respond to changed circumstances. Otherwise, the question arises how a later generation could simply undo an enactment of an earlier court.
The discussion of muktzeh also illustrates the importance of fences. In the book of Pirkei Avot, the first Mishnah describes the transmission of the Torah from Sinai and then teaches that the Sages made a safeguard around the Torah. The safeguard is presented as an integral part of the transmission of Torah itself.
The Yerushalmi, in Peah, asks why a snake lives near a fence. The snake answers that it was at the fence that it first succeeded. The commentators explain that when the snake approached Eve, it did not begin by persuading her to eat from the tree. It first attacked the safeguard.
Adam had added a safeguard by telling Eve not to touch the tree. The prohibition itself was eating, while touching was the protective fence. The snake pushed against the fence, and once the fence was removed, the actual prohibition became much easier to violate. The snake’s method was to break the safeguard first.
That is why the Gemara says that one who breaks through a fence will be bitten by a snake. This is measure for measure: the snake’s strategy was to break through a fence, and a person who deliberately breaks through safeguards follows the same pattern.
The lesson is that a safeguard cannot be treated lightly. Even when a person is capable of observing the underlying prohibition, removing the fence gives the inclination to do wrong an open path. And even when a fence is in place, one still needs Divine assistance to remain protected. Without the fence, the danger is much greater.
That is also why the first Mishnah in Pirkei Avot places the making of safeguards alongside the transmission of the Torah. The Torah was transmitted from Sinai, and the Sages taught that safeguards must be made around it. The laws of muktzeh are one example of how those safeguards preserve the character of Shabbat and protect its prohibitions.
May we merit to understand these laws and observe Shabbat with the awareness and rest that the Sages intended.