## Shabbat Daf 94b

###### Shabbat 94b:1
[Shabbat 94b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/94b:1)

אַף בְּמוֹצִיא אֶת הַמֵּת לְקוֹבְרוֹ. אָמַר רָבָא: וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּמָר לַחְפּוֹר בּוֹ וְסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה לִקְרוֹת בּוֹ — דְּחַיָּיב. פְּשִׁיטָא, דְּאִי הָא נָמֵי מְלָאכָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה לְגוּפָהּ הִיא, אֶלָּא מְלָאכָה שֶׁצְּרִיכָה לְגוּפָהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? מַהוּ דְתֵימָא, עַד דְּאִיכָּא לְגוּפוֹ וּלְגוּפָהּ, כְּגוֹן מָר לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ טַס וְלַחְפּוֹר, סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה לְהַגִּיהַּ וְלִקְרוֹת בּוֹ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**even** one who **carries out a corpse to bury it. Rava said: And Rabbi Shimon agrees** that one who carries out **a hoe** on Shabbat **with which to dig or a Torah scroll from which to read** is **liable.** The Gemara asks: This is **obvious, as if those** acts of carrying out **are also** in the category of **a prohibited labor not necessary for its own sake** because the carrier’s intention is to dig or to read, **if so, according to Rabbi Shimon, how can you find** an act of carrying that would be considered **a prohibited labor necessary for its own sake?** The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, there is a novel element in Rava’s statement. **Lest you say** that Rabbi Shimon deems one liable **only** in a case **where** one carries out an object **for the sake** of the one carrying it, **as well as for its own sake,** for example, in a case **where** one carried out **a hoe** for its own sake, in order **to sharpen its blade, and** for the sake of the one carrying it, in order **to dig** with it, or one carried out **a Torah scroll** for its own sake, in order **to emend** it, **and** for the sake of the one carrying it, in order **to read from it;** therefore, Rava **teaches us** that Rabbi Shimon deems one liable for carrying out an object even when it is carried only for his own sake and not for the sake of the object.


###### Shabbat 94b:2
[Shabbat 94b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/94b:2)

הָהוּא שָׁכְבָא דַּהֲוָה בִּדְרוֹקֶרֶת, שְׁרָא רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק לְאַפּוֹקֵיהּ לְכַרְמְלִית. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֲחוּהּ דְּמָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבְנָא לָרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: כְּמַאן, כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? אֵימַר דְּפָטַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מֵחִיּוּב חַטָּאת, אִיסּוּרָא דְרַבָּנַן מִיהָא אִיכָּא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָאֱלֹהִים, דְּעָיְילַתְּ בֵּיהּ אַתְּ? וַאֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה שְׁרֵי, דְּמִי קָאָמֵינָא לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים? לְכַרְמְלִית קָאָמֵינָא, גָּדוֹל כְּבוֹד הַבְּרִיּוֹת שֶׁדּוֹחֶה אֶת ״לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה״ שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: There was **a corpse in** the city of **Derokera** and **Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak permitted carrying it out into a *karmelit*** on Shabbat because, for some reason, it could not remain where it was. **Rabbi Yoḥanan, brother of Mar, son** of **Rabbana, said to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: In accordance with whose** opinion did you permit moving the corpse to the *karmelit*? If it was **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, say that** in that case **Rabbi Shimon exempted** one **from** the **obligation** to bring a **sin-offering.** However, **there** remains **a rabbinic prohibition.** Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak **said to him: By God, have you entered into** an understanding of the matter? **Even according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda it is permitted** to carry out the corpse, **as did I say** they may carry it out **to the public domain? I said** that it may be carried out **into a *karmelit*,** which is only prohibited by rabbinic law. With regard to prohibitions by rabbinic law, the principle states: **Great is human dignity, as it overrides a prohibition in the Torah:** “You shall not deviate from that which they tell you to the right or to the left” (Deuteronomy 17:11).


###### Shabbat 94b:3
[Shabbat 94b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/94b:3)

תְּנַן הָתָם: הַתּוֹלֵשׁ סִימָנֵי טוּמְאָה וְהַכֹּוֶה [אֶת] הַמִּחְיָה עוֹבֵר בְּ״לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה״. אִיתְּמַר: אַחַת מִשְּׁתַּיִם חַיָּיב, אַחַת מִשָּׁלֹשׁ — רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר חַיָּיב, רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר פָּטוּר. רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר חַיָּיב — אַהְנִי מַעֲשָׂיו, דְּאִי מִשְׁתַּקְלָא חֲדָא אַחֲרִיתִי אָזְלָה לַהּ טוּמְאָה. רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר פָּטוּר — הַשְׁתָּא מִיהַת הָא אִיתָא לְטוּמְאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We learned there** in a mishna discussing the *halakhot* of leprosy: **One who plucks** white hairs that are **signs of impurity, and** similarly **one who burned the unaffected skin** in the midst of a leprous sore in an attempt to purify himself, **violates a prohibition,** as it is stated: “Take heed [*hishamer*] in the plague of leprosy” (Deuteronomy 24:8). This ruling is based on the principle that the term *hishamer* indicates a prohibition. On this topic, **it was stated:** With regard to one who plucks **one of two** white hairs, everyone agrees that he is **liable** because a single hair remains, which is less than the measure that determines impurity, i.e., two hairs. It is with regard to one who plucks **one of three** white hairs that there is a dispute between the *amora’im*. **Rav Naḥman said:** He is **liable. Rav Sheshet said:** He is **exempt.** The Gemara elaborates. **Rav Naḥman said:** He is **liable** because **his actions were effective, as if another** hair **is removed,** the **impurity would cease.** He thereby hastened his purification and is in violation of the prohibition. **Rav Sheshet said:** He is **exempt** because his actions were ineffective, as **now, in any case, the impurity is** intact even after he removed one hair. His act is ineffective, and therefore he does not violate the prohibition.


###### Shabbat 94b:4
[Shabbat 94b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/94b:4)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ — דִּתְנַן: וְכֵן כְּזַיִת מִן הַמֵּת וּכְזַיִת מִן הַנְּבֵילָה — חַיָּיב, הָא חֲצִי זַיִת — פָּטוּר, וְהָתַנְיָא: ״חֲצִי זַיִת — חַיָּיב״! — מַאי לָאו, הָא דְּתַנְיָא ״חַיָּיב״ — דְּאַפֵּיק חֲצִי זַיִת מִכְּזַיִת, וְהָא דִּתְנַן ״פָּטוּר״ — דְּאַפֵּיק חֲצִי זַיִת מִכְּזַיִת וּמֶחֱצָה. וְרַב נַחְמָן: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי חַיָּיב, וְהָא דִּתְנַן ״פָּטוּר״, דְּאַפֵּיק חֲצִי זַיִת מִמֵּת גָּדוֹל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet said: From where do I** derive and **state** my opinion? I derive it **as we learned** in the mishna: **And similarly,** one who carries out **an olive-bulk of a corpse and an olive-bulk of an animal carcass is liable.** The Gemara elaborates: By inference, one who carries out **half an olive-bulk is exempt. What, is it not taught** in a *baraita*: One who carries out **half an olive-bulk** of a corpse **is liable? Is it not** that the contradiction is resolved as follows? That **which was taught** in the *baraita*: **He is liable,** is referring to a case where one **carried out half an olive-bulk from an olive-bulk.** Because less than an olive-bulk of the corpse remained, it is no longer a source of ritual impurity. **And** that **which we learned** in the mishna: **He is exempt,** is referring to a case where one **carried out half an olive-bulk from an olive-bulk and a half.** Since an entire olive-bulk remains, the source of impurity remains intact. **And Rav Naḥman** explains it differently. Both **this,** the one who carried out half an olive-bulk from an olive-bulk, **and that,** the one who carried out half an olive-bulk from an olive-bulk and a half, are **liable. And** that **which we learned** in the mishna: **He is exempt,** is referring to a case where one **carried out half an olive-bulk from a large corpse.** In that case, even Rav Naḥman agrees that his action was ineffective. Since he did not carry out a measure that determines liability, he is exempt.


###### Shabbat 94b:5
[Shabbat 94b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/94b:5)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַנּוֹטֵל צִפׇּרְנָיו זוֹ בָּזוֹ, אוֹ בְּשִׁינָּיו, וְכֵן שְׂעָרוֹ, וְכֵן שְׂפָמוֹ, וְכֵן זְקָנוֹ, וְכֵן הַגּוֹדֶלֶת, וְכֵן הַכּוֹחֶלֶת, וְכֵן הַפּוֹקֶסֶת — רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּיב, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **one who removes his fingernails with one another** on Shabbat without scissors, **or with his teeth, and the same** is true with regard to one who removes **his hair** with his hands, **and the same** is true with regard to **his mustache, and the same** is true with regard to **his beard, and the same** is true with regard to a woman **who braids her hair, and the same** is true with regard to one **who applies blue** eye shadow, **and the same** is true with regard to one **who applies blush, Rabbi Eliezer deems** them all **liable,** as they each performed a labor prohibited by Torah law. **And the Rabbis prohibited** performing all of these actions **due to rabbinic decree.** None of the actions constitute prohibited labors.


###### Shabbat 94b:6
[Shabbat 94b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/94b:6)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בַּיָּד, אֲבָל בִּכְלִי — חַיָּיב. פְּשִׁיטָא, ״זוֹ בָּזוֹ״ תְּנַן! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: רַבָּנַן בִּכְלִי נָמֵי פָּטְרִי, וְהָא דְּקָתָנֵי ״זוֹ בָּזוֹ״ — לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rabbi Elazar said:** The **dispute** is specifically with regard to a case where one removes his fingernails **by hand; however,** everyone agrees that one is **liable** if he removes them **with a utensil.** The Gemara asks: This is **obvious. We** explicitly **learned** the phrase: **With one another,** in the mishna. The Gemara answers: **Lest you say** that **the Rabbis also exempt** one who removes his fingernail **with a utensil,** i.e., because one is not interested in the removed nail, he did not perform the prohibited labor of shearing, **and that which was taught** in the mishna: **With one another,** is intended **to convey the far-reaching nature of Rabbi Eliezer’s** statement that one is liable even in a case where he removed his fingernails with one another; therefore, Rabbi Elazar **teaches us** that this is not so.


###### Shabbat 94b:7
[Shabbat 94b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/94b:7)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מַחֲלוֹקֶת לְעַצְמוֹ, אֲבָל לַחֲבֵירוֹ — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּטוּר. פְּשִׁיטָא, ״צִפׇּרְנָיו״, תְּנַן! מַהוּ דְתֵימָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לַחֲבֵירוֹ נָמֵי מְחַיַּיב, וְהָא דְּקָתָנֵי ״צִפׇּרְנָיו״ לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחָן דְּרַבָּנַן, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Elazar said:** The **dispute** is specifically with regard to one who removes fingernails **for himself; however,** with regard to one removing fingernails **for another, everyone agrees** that **he is exempt.** The Gemara asks: That is **obvious. We** explicitly **learned** the phrase: **His fingernails,** in the mishna. The Gemara answers: **Lest you say** that **Rabbi Eliezer deems** one **liable** for cutting **another’s** fingernails **as well, and that which was taught** in the mishna: **His fingernails,** is intended **to convey the far-reaching nature of the** statement of the **Rabbis** that one is exempt even in a case where he removes his own nails, and all the more so in a case where he removes another’s; therefore, Rabbi Elazar **teaches us** that everyone agrees that he is exempt when removing another’s nails.


###### Shabbat 94b:8
[Shabbat 94b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/94b:8)

וְכֵן שְׂעָרוֹ כּוּ׳. תָּנָא: הַנּוֹטֵל מְלֹא פִי הַזּוּג — חַיָּיב. וְכַמָּה מְלֹא פִי הַזּוּג? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: שְׁתַּיִם. וְהָתַנְיָא: וְלַקׇּרְחָה שְׁתַּיִם! אֵימָא: וְכֵן לַקׇּרְחָה שְׁתַּיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna: **And the same** is true with regard to one who removes **his hair** with his hands; Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable and the Rabbis deem him exempt. One of the Sages **taught** in the *Tosefta*: **One who removes** enough of his hair **to fill the opening of the scissors** on Shabbat **is liable. And how much** is enough **to fill the opening of the scissors? Rav Yehuda said: Two** hairs. The Gemara asks: **But was it not taught** later in that *baraita*: **And** with regard to the Torah prohibition against removing one’s hair and causing **baldness** as an expression of mourning the dead: “Nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead” (Deuteronomy 14:1), one who removes **two** hairs is **liable?** Apparently, enough to fill the opening of a scissors is a different amount of hairs. The Gemara answers: **Say** that these are not two different measures. The *baraita* is saying: **And the same** is true **for baldness, two** is the measure.


###### Shabbat 94b:9
[Shabbat 94b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/94b:9)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: הַנּוֹטֵל מְלֹא פִי הַזּוּג בְּשַׁבָּת — חַיָּיב. וְכַמָּה מְלֹא פִי הַזּוּג — שְׁתַּיִם. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אַחַת, וּמוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בִּמְלַקֵּט לְבָנוֹת מִתּוֹךְ שְׁחוֹרוֹת, שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ אַחַת חַיָּיב. וְדָבָר זֶה אַף בַּחוֹל אָסוּר, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא יִלְבַּשׁ גֶּבֶר שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**That was also taught** in a *baraita*: **One who removes** enough of his hair **to fill the opening of the scissors on Shabbat is liable. And how much** is enough **to fill the opening of the scissors?** It is **two** hairs. **Rabbi Eliezer says:** One is liable for removing even **one** hair. **And the Sages agree with Rabbi Eliezer** that **one** who **collects** and plucks **white** hairs **from among black** ones **is liable even** if he removed **a single** hair. His actions indicate that one hair is significant for him. **And this matter** of plucking white hairs **is prohibited** for men **even on weekdays, as it is stated:** “A woman shall not don a man’s clothes, **and a man shall not wear a woman’s garment”** (Deuteronomy 22:5). The Sages derive that any action typically performed by women for beautification is prohibited for men.


###### Shabbat 94b:10
[Shabbat 94b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/94b:10)

תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: צִפּוֹרֶן שֶׁפֵּירֵשׁ רוּבָּהּ, וְצִיצִין שֶׁפֵּרְשׁוּ רוּבָּן, בַּיָּד — מוּתָּר, בִּכְלִי — חַיָּיב חַטָּאת. מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּבִכְלִי חַיָּיב חַטָּאת, וּבַיָּד מוּתָּר לְכַתְּחִלָּה?! הָכִי קָאָמַר: פֵּירְשׁוּ רוּבָּן, בַּיָּד — מוּתָּר, בִּכְלִי — פָּטוּר אֲבָל אָסוּר. לֹא פֵּירְשׁוּ רוּבָּן, בַּיָּד — פָּטוּר אֲבָל אָסוּר, בִּכְלִי — חַיָּיב חַטָּאת. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְהוּא שֶׁפֵּרְשׁוּ כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה וּמְצַעֲרוֹת אוֹתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:** With regard to **a fingernail, the majority of which has been severed,** and it is only connected to the finger by a small piece; **and** with regard to **shreds** of skin, **the majority of which have been severed** from the body; **by hand,** one **is permitted** to completely remove them on Shabbat. If he removes them **with a utensil, he is liable** to bring **a sin-offering.** The Gemara wonders: **Is there any matter** where one who performs an action **with a utensil is liable** to bring **a sin-offering, and** if he performs that action **by hand, it is permitted *ab initio*,** and it is not even prohibited by rabbinic decree? The Gemara answers: **This is what** Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar meant **to say:** If **the majority has been severed,** removing the rest **by hand is permitted.** If he removes the rest **with a utensil** he is **exempt,** but **it is prohibited** to do so *ab initio*. And if the **majority has not** yet **been severed,** if he removes the rest **by hand** he is **exempt,** but **it is prohibited** to do so *ab initio*. If he did so **with a utensil,** he is **liable** to bring **a sin-offering. Rav Yehuda said: The *halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar** in this matter. **Rabba bar bar Ḥana said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And that is if the** partially severed portions of the fingernail **were severed facing upward** near the nail **and cause him pain;** in that case one may remove them *ab initio*.


###### Shabbat 94b:11
[Shabbat 94b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/94b:11)

וְכֵן הַגּוֹדֶלֶת כּוּ׳. גּוֹדֶלֶת, כּוֹחֶלֶת וּפוֹקֶסֶת מִשּׁוּם מַאי מְחַיְּיבָא? אָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: גּוֹדֶלֶת — מִשּׁוּם אוֹרֶגֶת, כּוֹחֶלֶת — מִשּׁוּם כּוֹתֶבֶת, פּוֹקֶסֶת — מִשּׁוּם טוֹוָה. אֲמַרוּ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: וְכִי דֶרֶךְ אֲרִיגָה בְּכָךְ, וְכִי דֶרֶךְ כְּתִיבָה בְּכָךְ, וְכִי דֶרֶךְ טְוִיָּה בְּכָךְ?! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: לְדִידִי מִפָּרְשָׁא לִי מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna: **And the same** is true with regard to a woman **who braids her hair,** and one who applies blue eye shadow, and one who applies blush; Rabbi Eliezer deems them liable by Torah law. The Gemara asks: **For** performance of **what** prohibited labor is a woman **who braids her hair,** or **who applies blue** eye shadow, **or who** applies **blush** on Shabbat **liable? Rabbi Avin said** that **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said:** A woman **who braids her hair** is liable **due to weaving,** as braiding and weaving are similar actions. A woman **who applies blue** eye shadow is liable **due to writing.** A woman **who applies blush** is liable **due to spinning.** Women would make a string from a doughy substance and pass it over their faces to redden their complexion. **The Rabbis said before Rabbi Abbahu: And is that the** typical **manner of weaving, and is that the** typical **manner of writing, and is that the** typical **manner of spinning?** Rabbi Eliezer would certainly agree that one who performs a prohibited labor in an atypical manner is exempt. **Rather, Rabbi Abbahu said:** This matter was **explained to me** by **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina,** himself.