Daf 187-193 (Shabbat 124a-130b)
Daf 187 (Shabbat 124a-124b)
The gemara wonders if several Tannaic teachings forbidding moving utensils on Shabbes date from before such movements were permitted.
Mishnah. Here is the rule that utensils may be “taken.” R’Nechemiah says only “out of necessity.”
Gemara. The gemara asks, “What is the meaning of ‘out of necessity’?” The text considers three possibilities– (1) for a permitted use, (2) to clear a space for a permitted activity, and (3) to protect the utensil.
Mishnah. Here are rules for the handling of broken utensils on Shabbes. Some say fragments may be taken if they have a use; others say they must still be useful to perform a part of their original task.
Gemara. The gemara wonders if the mishnah is meant to apply to utensils that broke before Shabbes.
Daf 188 (Shabbat 125a-125b)
The gemara seeks to understnd a dispute on permitted use of shards of an oven on Shabbes. The dispute may be between those who believe that an undamaged oven is a utensil and those who do not believe it is a utensil, or it may be between those who understand the shards as suitable for use but not for its “former task” and those who consider them unsuitable for any use.
Mishnah. Here are rules for handling objects that one would not normally be allowed to handle on Shabbes when they are attached to objects that may be handled.
Gemara. The rules of the mishnah may depend on whether the “attachment” was made inadvertently or deliberately; or it may depend on whether or not a “significant act” is required to make the “utensil” permitted on Shabbes.
Daf 189 (Shabbat 126a-126b)
An opinion by R’Yochanan related to an unattended rod used as a bolt apparently contradicts a ruling also attributed to him that handles may be taken only if they can “function as utensils.”
Mishnah. “All vessel-covers that have handles may be taken on the Sabbath.”
Gemara. R’Yochanan’s ruling to the contrary (noted in the previous gemara) is cited as a possible qualification of this mishnah.
Perek 18. Mishnah. Here are rules concerning what acts are permitted on Shabbes even though they require substantial effort.
Gemara. The gemara seeks to determine why the mishnah says “four or five” boxes may be moved rather than “even five” boxes.
Daf 190 (Shabbat 127a-127b)
The gemara speculates that even five is not meant as an upper limit but that the unusually informal language employed by the mishnah is meant to suggest that one may take what one needs and no more. There is a dispute regarding whether it is better to move fewer, heavier boxes or more, lighter boxes. The question is raised whether the limit may be based on the number of guests one has. The “virtue of welcoming guests” is expounded.
Daf 191 (Shabbat 128a-128b)
Food for elephants may be moved on Shabbes, but R’Nassan objects in the case of a person who does not actually have elephants.
Mishnah. “A woman may help her young child walk . . . but if he was dragging his feet . . . it is forbidden.”
Gemara. There is a dispute over whether one may aid an animal that falls into a stream.
Mishnah. It is permissible to “desecrate” the Sabbath on account of a woman in labor; or to perform a circumcision on an eight-day old male.
Gemara. The gemara inquires if one may assist an animal in labor on Shabbes.
Daf 192 (Shabbat 129a-129b)
The period during which it is permitted to “desecrate” the Sabbath to aid a woman in labor includes the stages of recovery– a period of days. The rabbis argue over whether this interval consists of three days, seven days, or thirty days.
Several incidents are related to establish the proper care of a patient following bloodletting.
Daf 193 (Shabbat 130a-130b)
Perek 19. Mishnah. Here are rules regarding what preparations are permissible for a circumcision on Shabbes.
Gemara. The gemara wonders why the knife should be carried unconcealed on Shabbes. Aggadic teachings illustrate that circumcision (“for which the Jewish people gave themselves over to death”) is observed more faithfully than other mitzvot (e.g., tefillin).