## Shabbat Daf 11b

###### Shabbat 11b:1
[Shabbat 11b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/11b:1)

וְכֵן בַּגַּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and the same is true in the wine press.**


###### Shabbat 11b:2
[Shabbat 11b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/11b:2)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: כַּרְמְלִית מַאי? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הִיא הִיא. רָבָא אָמַר: הִיא גוּפָהּ גְּזֵירָה, וַאֲנַן נֵיקוּם וְנִגְזוֹר גְּזֵירָה לִגְזֵירָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In light of the *halakha* that was taught in this mishna **a dilemma was raised** before the Sages: **What is** the legal status of **a *karmelit*** in this matter? Is it permissible to stand in one domain and drink from a *karmelit* or not? **Abaye said: That** case **is** equal to **that** case, i.e., the same way that the Sages prohibited drinking from the private domain to the public domain and vice versa, so too, they prohibited drinking from the *karmelit* to another domain. **Rava said:** It is not prohibited. **It,** the prohibition to carry between a *karmelit* and another domain, **itself is** merely **a** rabbinic **decree. And will we arise and issue** one **decree to** prevent violation of another **decree?** Although the Sages prohibited doing so in one of the domains by Torah law, i.e., the public and the private domains, a similar decree was not issued in a *karmelit,* which is a domain by rabbinic law.


###### Shabbat 11b:3
[Shabbat 11b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/11b:3)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ — דְּקָתָנֵי: ״וְכֵן בַּגַּת״. מַאי גַּת? אִי רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד — תְּנֵינָא! אִי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים — תְּנֵינָא. אֶלָּא לָאו כַּרְמְלִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: From where do I say that** *halakha,* i.e., that the decree applies to a *karmelit*? From that **which we learned** at the end of the mishna in tractate *Eiruvin*: **And the same is true in the wine press.** The question arises: **What is** the status of the **wine press** in terms of the domains of Shabbat? **If** you say that **it is the private domain, we** already **learned** that in the mishna. **If** it is **the public domain, we** already **learned** that as well. **Rather, isn’t** this press **a *karmelit*?** Apparently, a *karmelit* was also prohibited in the mishna.


###### Shabbat 11b:4
[Shabbat 11b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/11b:4)

רָבָא אָמַר: ״וְכֵן בַּגַּת״, לְעִנְיַן מַעֲשֵׂר. וְכֵן אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: ״וְכֵן בַּגַּת״ — לְעִנְיַן מַעֲשֵׂר. דִּתְנַן: שׁוֹתִין עַל הַגַּת, בֵּין עַל הַחַמִּין, בֵּין עַל הַצּוֹנֵן, וּפָטוּר. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק מְחַיֵּיב. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עַל הַחַמִּין, חַיָּיב. עַל הַצּוֹנֵן — פָּטוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַחֲזִיר אֶת הַמּוֹתָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** That which we learned in the mishna: **And the same is true in the wine press,** is not relevant to the *halakhot* of Shabbat. It refers **to the matter of** the *halakhot* of **tithes. And Rav Sheshet also said:** That which we learned in the mishna: **And the same is true in the wine press,** refers **to the matter of tithes, as we learned** in a mishna: **One may** *ab initio* **drink** grape juice directly **on the press** without tithing, **whether** the juice was diluted **with hot** water, even though he will then be unable to return the leftover wine to the press, as it would ruin all the wine in the press, **or whether** the juice was diluted **with cold** water, in which case he could return the leftover wine without ruining the rest, **and he is exempt.** Drinking that way is considered incidental drinking, and anything that is not a fixed meal is exempt from tithing. That is the **statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, obligates** one to separate the tithe in both cases. **And the Rabbis say:** There is a distinction between these two cases; when the wine was diluted **with hot** water, since he cannot return what is left of the wine to the press, **he is obligated** to tithe, as it is like fixed drinking for which one is obligated to tithe. However, when the wine was diluted **with cold** water, **he is exempt, because he returns the leftover** wine to the press, and it is incidental drinking, which is exempt from tithing. Our mishna, which says: And the same is true in the press, means that only if his head and most of his body was in the press is he permitted to drink without separating the tithe, and that *halakha* is not at all related to matters of Shabbat (Rabbeinu Ḥananel).


###### Shabbat 11b:5
[Shabbat 11b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/11b:5)

תְּנַן: לֹא יֵצֵא הַחַיָּיט בְּמַחֲטוֹ סָמוּךְ לַחֲשֵׁיכָה שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁכַּח וְיֵצֵא. מַאי לָאו דִּתְחוּבָה לוֹ בְּבִגְדוֹ? לָא, דְּנָקֵיט לֵיהּ בִּידֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
As proof for Abaye’s opinion, the Gemara states that which **we learned** in our mishna: **The tailor may not go out** with **his needle adjacent to nightfall** on Shabbat eve, **lest he forget** that he is carrying the needle **and go out** with it to the public domain even after Shabbat begins. **Is it not** speaking here in a case where the needle was **stuck in his clothing?** In that case, even if he was to go out into the public domain with the needle, he would not be liable by Torah law, since that is not the typical manner of carrying out; carrying out an object in that manner is prohibited only by rabbinic decree [*shevut*]. Nevertheless, not only did the Rabbis issue a decree to prohibit going out with the needle on Shabbat, they issued a decree to prevent violation of another decree and prohibited the tailor from going out with his needle adjacent to nightfall. Apparently, the Sages institute a decree to prevent violation of another decree with regard to the *halakhot* of carrying out on Shabbat (*Tosafot*). Consequently, with regard to the *halakhot* of *karmelit*, the Sages issued a decree as well, and this is proof for Abaye’s opinion. The Gemara rejects this: **No,** the mishna is referring to a case **where he is holding** the needle **in his hand,** which constitutes performance of the full-fledged prohibited labor of carrying out.


###### Shabbat 11b:6
[Shabbat 11b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/11b:6)

תָּא שְׁמַע: לֹא יֵצֵא הַחַיָּיט בְּמַחֲטוֹ הַתְּחוּבָה לוֹ בְּבִגְדוֹ. מַאי לָאו בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת? לָא, כִּי תַּנְיָא הַהִיא בְּשַׁבָּת. וְהָתַנְיָא: לֹא יֵצֵא הַחַיָּיט בְּמַחֲטוֹ הַתְּחוּבָה בְּבִגְדוֹ בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת עִם חֲשֵׁיכָה. הָא מַנִּי? — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר אוּמָּן דֶּרֶךְ אוּמָּנֻתוֹ, חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** another proof from that which was taught explicitly in the *baraita*: **The tailor may not go out with his needle stuck in his clothing. Is it not** speaking of a case where he goes out **on Shabbat eve,** and the Sages issued a decree to prevent violation of another decree, just as Abaye said? The Gemara rejects this: **No, when that was taught** in the *baraita*, it was only with regard to carrying out **on Shabbat** itself. The Gemara asks further: **Wasn’t it taught** explicitly in a *baraita*: **The tailor may not go out with his needle stuck in his clothing on Shabbat eve at nightfall,** and the Sages issued a decree to prevent violation of another decree, just as Abaye said? The Gemara rejects this: **Whose** opinion **is** cited in **this** *baraita*? **It is** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, who said: A craftsman** who carries out an object in **the manner** common to **his craft,** even if others do not generally carry it out in that manner, the craftsman **is liable,** because he carried the object out in a manner standard for him.


###### Shabbat 11b:7
[Shabbat 11b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/11b:7)

דְּתַנְיָא: לֹא יֵצֵא הַחַיָּיט בְּמַחֲטוֹ הַתְּחוּבָה לוֹ בְּבִגְדוֹ, וְלֹא נַגָּר בְּקֵיסָם שֶׁבְּאׇזְנוֹ, וְלֹא סוֹרֵק בִּמְשִׁיחָה שֶׁבְּאׇזְנוֹ וְלֹא גַּרְדִּי בְּאִירָא שֶׁבְּאׇזְנוֹ, וְלֹא צַבָּע בְּדוּגְמָא שֶׁבְּצַוָּארוֹ, וְלֹא שׁוּלְחָנִי בְּדִינָר שֶׁבְּאׇזְנוֹ. וְאִם יָצָא — פָּטוּר אֲבָל אָסוּר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אוּמָּן דֶּרֶךְ אוּמָּנֻתוֹ — חַיָּיב, וּשְׁאָר כׇּל אָדָם — פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it was taught** in a *baraita*: **The tailor may not go out with his needle that is stuck in his clothing, and a carpenter** may **not** go out **with the wood chip that is** behind **his ear** for use as a measuring stick, **and a comber** of wool may **not** go out **with** a **cord** with which he ties bundles of wool and which is usually placed that is **on his ear, and a weaver** [***gardi*]** may **not** go out **with a bit of wool [*ira*] that is on his ear** which he uses for the purpose of his work, **and the painter** may **not** go out **with the sample** of dyed wool **that is on his neck, and a money changer** may **not** go out **with the dinar that is in his ear.** In all of these cases the *halakha* is that **if he went out, he is exempt** by Torah law, but it is **prohibited** for him to do so by rabbinic decree. This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: A craftsman** who carries out an object in **the manner** common to **his craft** on Shabbat **is liable** by Torah law; **any other person** who carries it out in that manner **is exempt,** but it is prohibited for him to do so.


###### Shabbat 11b:8
[Shabbat 11b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/11b:8)

תָּנֵי חֲדָא: לֹא יֵצֵא הַזָּב בְּכִיסוֹ, וְאִם יָצָא — פָּטוּר אֲבָל אָסוּר. וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: לֹא יֵצֵא, וְאִם יָצָא — חַיָּיב חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Since the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the legal status of one who carries out an object in an atypical manner was mentioned, the Gemara discusses a contradiction between two related *baraitot*. **It was taught** in **one** *baraita*: **The *zav* may not go out** on Shabbat **with his pouch** that he ties to his organ in order to absorb his emission. **And if he went out, he is exempt** by Torah law **but** it is **prohibited** for him to do so by rabbinic law. **And it was taught** in **another** *baraita*: The *zav* **may not go out** on Shabbat with his pouch. **And if he went out** unwittingly, **he is liable to bring a sin-offering.**


###### Shabbat 11b:9
[Shabbat 11b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/11b:9)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, הָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said:** This is **not difficult.** There is no contradiction between the *baraitot*, as **this** *baraita*, which deems him exempt, **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir; that,** the other *baraita*, which deems him liable, **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda.**


###### Shabbat 11b:10
[Shabbat 11b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/11b:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֵימוֹר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּמִידֵּי דְּלָאו הַיְינוּ אוֹרְחֵיהּ, בְּמִידֵּי דְּהַיְינוּ אוֹרְחֵיהּ מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ? דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁחָקַק קַב בִּבְקַעַת בְּשַׁבָּת לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא מְחַיַּיב?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rav Yosef: **Say** that **you heard** that **Rabbi Meir** deems him exempt **with regard to an object that is not** carried out in **its** typical **manner.** However, **with regard to a matter that is** carried out in **its** typical **manner, did you hear** that **he** deems him exempt? In general, one carries out a needle in his hand. Rabbi Meir exempts one who carries it out in his clothing, even if he is a craftsman. However, this pouch of a *zav*, even though it is not held in his hand, is always carried out in that manner, and, even according to Rabbi Meir, that constitutes a bona fide act of carrying out. **As, if you do not say so,** that the specifics of various prohibited labors can be performed in different manners, in the case of **a layman [*hedyot***], **who carved out a** vessel the size of a ***kav*** in a **piece of wood on Shabbat,** would you say that **Rabbi Meir also does not deem him liable** for performing a prohibited labor on Shabbat because he is not a craftsman and he did not craft the vessel according to the standards of a craftsman? Certainly, the layman performed a full-fledged labor to the best of his ability and he is liable.


###### Shabbat 11b:11
[Shabbat 11b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/11b:11)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא, לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּזָב בַּעַל שְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת, כָּאן בְּזָב בַּעַל שָׁלֹשׁ רְאִיּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Hamnuna said:** This is **not difficult,** as the two *baraitot* are referring to two different cases. **Here,** in the *baraita* that deemed him liable by Torah law, it is referring **to a *zav* who** experienced **two sightings** of an emission. Liability to bring an offering as part of the purification process is only after he sees three emissions. Therefore, the *zav* requires the pouch in order to ascertain whether or not he experienced a third emission. However, **there,** in the *baraita* that deems him exempt, it is referring **to a *zav* who** already experienced **three sightings.** For him there is no significance whether or not he experiences an additional emission. Therefore, the pouch is insignificant and he has no interest in carrying it out.


###### Shabbat 11b:12
[Shabbat 11b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/11b:12)

מַאי שְׁנָא זָב בַּעַל שְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת דְּחַיָּיב, דְּמִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לִבְדִיקָה, זָב בַּעַל שָׁלֹשׁ נָמֵי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לִסְפִירָה? לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְבוֹ בַּיּוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is different** about **a *zav* who had two sightings,** who **is liable, as he requires** the pouch **for** the purpose of **examination** to ascertain whether or not he experienced a third sighting, and **a *zav* who** already experienced **three** sightings and **requires** the pouch **for** the purpose of **counting** clean days? In order to become ritually pure, he must count seven clean days without experiencing an emission. If so, even a *zav* who had three sightings requires the pouch, in order to ascertain whether or not he experienced another emission. The Gemara answers: That *baraita* **was only needed for that day** when he already saw his third emission. In any case, that day will not be a clean day.


###### Shabbat 11b:13
[Shabbat 11b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/11b:13)

וְהָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִטַּנְּפוּ כֵּלָיו! אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: הַאי תַּנָּא הוּא דְּאָמַר כׇּל אַצּוֹלֵי טִינּוּף לָא קָא חָשֵׁיב. דִּתְנַן: הַכּוֹפֶה קְעָרָה עַל הַכּוֹתֶל, אִם בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁתּוּדַח הַקְּעָרָה, הֲרֵי זֶה בְּ״כִי יוּתַּן״. אִם בִּשְׁבִיל

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Doesn’t** even that *zav* **need** the pouch **so that his clothes will not get soiled** by the emission? Although he does not need the pouch for a halakhic determination, he needs it for practical considerations. **Rabbi Zeira said: This *tanna* is** the **one who said that any** usage intended **to prevent filth is not considered** a special purpose that will render a certain object an actual vessel. **As we learned** in a mishna: **One who places a bowl on the wall** while it is raining, **if** he did that **so that the bowl would be rinsed** with the rainwater, **that is under** the rubric of the verse: **“If** water **be placed.”** The water has the legal status of a liquid that he poured of his own volition on fruit and seeds. It renders them liable to become ritually impure, as it is written: “If water be placed upon seed and any of their carcass fell on it, it is impure to you” (Leviticus 11:38). However, **if** he placed the bowl **so**