Daf 90

1) If someone stores seeds for planting, or for a sample or for medicine, he's Chayiv for carrying it out even if it's the smallest amount. Even if he forgets afterwards why he stored an item, he's Chayiv on it since he's relying on that there was a reason why he stored it in the first place, and carries with that intent.

Daf 91

2) This is not similar to what we say that someone who wants to carry out all the contents of his house that he's Chayiv even if he didn't finish carrying out all the contents. [Rashi and Tosfos say that this would seem to contradict what we say here that he's Chayiv for the amount that he originally thought.] After all, there his intentions are nul against what the world thinks [Tosfos: and they hold that carrying out individual items are important even if it doesn't empty your house.]

3) if you originally carried out a Grogeres of seeds to eat, and then you changed your mind in the middle to plant them, you're Chayiv and you don't need to have a consistent intent from the beginning of the carrying until the end.

4) There are a few unresolved inquiries: if someone carries out less than a Grogeres seeds to plant, and then they plump up to a Grogeres and he changes his mind to eat it and then finishes carrying; do we say since it didn't have a Shiur for eating when it was carried out, he's exempt. Or, do we say; if he would have been quiet and finished the carrying for planting, he would be Chayiv, he's still Chayiv.

If you say that he's Chayiv; what would be if he carried out a Grogeres of the seeds to eat, and then it shrunk to less than a Grogeres, and then he changed his mind that he wants them to plant. Do we say that if he would have kept quiet and finished with the original intent he would be exempt, so he remains exempt. Or do you say that since it has the Shiur at the end, he's Chayiv.

If you say that he's still Chayiv; what would be in a case where he intends to eat it for the whole carrying, however, it was a Grogeres when he started carrying out, it shrunk in the middle to less than a Grogeres, and then it plumped up at the end of the carrying to its original size? Do we say that carrying on Shabbos could become pushed off (by having the item less than the Shiur for some time in middle of the carrying), or not. [Tosfos points out: although we didn't say this in the second case where it shrunk while you still intended to eat it and we don't say that it was pushed off since there was a moment that it was less than the Shiur of the current intent; that's because that was the eventual Shiur for the item for the time that he stopped carrying (since he changed his mind and wanted it for planting.]

5) There is an unresolved inquiry if someone throws a Kazayis of Trumah into a Tamai house (i.e., that has a corpse in it), which lands next to less than a Kabeitza of food, and they now combine to a Kabeitza so that they are susceptible to Tumah and become Tamai, does the fact that it now can combine to Tumah make it special that it's considered carrying regarding Shabbos (even though it's less than a Grogeres), or not. [Tosfos points out; it seems from here that you can't make food Tamai from the Torah if it's less than a Kabeitza. Although Rashi in Pesachim brings that food can become Tamai with any amount because of a Drasha in Toras Kohanim, it must be an Asmachta. This is also the implications from the Gemara in Pesachim that asks how can Trumah spices in a stew become Tamai if they're less than a Kabeitza.]

6) [Tosfos says: the Gemara purposely used the case of throwing, and not carrying in. After all, you're only Chayiv when you throw when it lands, so the combination to Tumah and the end of the throwing comes simultaneously. However, if you carry over, then it's considered landed as soon as it's within three Tefachim from the ground, and only afterwards they combine when it's placed on the floor together with the other food, so they're not simultaneous.

It's only applicable to Trumah, but not to regular Chulin, since you need to create a prohibition to eat through the Tumah. It's also only if it's in a Tamai house, but not if it's thrown in a Tahor house, despite that they can now combine to become Tamai if they come into contact with Tumah. After all, it doesn't create any prohibition, since this Tahor Trumah is permitted to a Kohain, and was already forbidden to a non-Kohain before you threw it in. So this throwing doesn't create a prohibition.

Even though you can ask: there is no Malkus by eating Tamai Trumah, and there's a Torah prohibition anyway to eat even less than a Kazayis, since half-Shiurim are Torah-prohibited; (thus, a Kazayis shouldn't have any special importance here, so why are you Chayiv for throwing a Kazayis?) We can answer: you're exempt if it's not a Kazayis since it's usually not an important amount since, in all other prohibitions, you don't get Malkus unless it's a Kazayis.]

7) [Tosfos adds: (since the whole idea is that you're making this Kazayis able to become Tamai, and not that you're making the food that's already in the house Tamai), it didn't need to say that it was less than a Kabeitza, but we can inquire this even if it was a Kabeitza since it makes the Kazayis able to be Tamai. Alternatively, it exactly used the case of less than a Kabeitza, for if it would be a Kebeitza and already Tamai, it couldn't combine to the Kazayis to make it Tamai if its already full with Tumah (and can't conduct any more Tumah). As the Gemara in Menachos has this as an unresolved inquiry; if you have Tahor and Tamai food in a utensil (in a case where we say that the utensil combines them all to become Tamai) even when a Tamai person only touches one of the items in the utensil. However, if he touches one of the Tamai foods, do we say that the Tumah spreads to all the items in the utensil, or do we say that those Tamai foods are full of Tumah, and they can't conduct anymore Tumah, so the non-Tamai food remain Tahor.]

8) Although you need a Grogeres to be Chayiv for carrying out Lechem Hapanim, even though the carrying out creates a prohibition to eat a Kazayis of the Lechem (since it left the Beis Hamikdash); that's because the prohibition doesn't come simultaneously with the prohibition of carrying. After all, you're Chayiv for eating the Lechem when it leaves the walls of the Azara, and you're not Chayiv for carrying until you stop walking.

9) If you stored less than the amount, and it was already carried out, but it was brought back in; you're exempt if you carry it out again. Even if (you didn't explicitly denounce it's original reason to store it) and even in a case where you threw it back in the storehouse and can still recognize the exact original pieces (and you may say that they're still considered stored by themselves); still, we say that you canceled your original storage of a smaller Shiur and you're only Chayiv for carrying out the regular Shiur.

10) If you place the item on your way out on a Karmulas threshold, you're exempt even if you afterwards complete the carrying out into the street. However, you're Chayiv if you carried it out without placing it on the threshhold, not like b. Azai who holds that every step is a new stopping and it's like you placed it down on the threshhold.

11) This is true even if most of the basket of fruit is outside in the street, as long as a little bit is on the Karmulas threshhold. Chizkiya says that this is only true if it's long fruit like cucumbers and gourds, and some of the fruit is on top of the threshhold. However, if the fruit is small like mustard seeds (where a lot of the seeds will be completely in the street), or even if the long fruit is completely out in the street, he's Chayiv since he carried out the complete fruit and we don't consider all the objects in the basket is considered as tied together like one object so that you'll be exempt until you take out the full basket. However, R' Yochanan holds that he's exempt since he views the whole utensil with all its contents as tied together and is viewed as one object.

12) We see that you're exempt for paying if you stole a purse on Shabbos by dragging the purse out of the owner's property since you're Chayiv for transgressing Shabbos, so we can't be Chayiv a second punishment, payment, since the Halacha is that you only give the harsher punishment. (However, if he picked it up and carried it out, he's Chayiv since he stole it when he lifts it, and he's not Chayiv for Shabbos until afterwards, when he leaves the property.) Now, according to R' Yochanan, why isn't he Chayiv for stealing before carrying? After all, the money is already dragged outside before the whole purse is, so he should be Chayiv for stealing before he's Chayiv on carrying out, and he should pay. We must answer that we're referring to a case where the purse's opening was facing inside, so you're not Chayiv in stealing until you carried out the whole purse, since you can't access the money from the outside yet. Although you can rip through the purse's seam from the outside to access the money [Tosfos; we must say that it wasn't tightly sewn, for, if it was tightly sewn, it's no better than the rest of the purse, and the Gemara doesn't seem to have a problem that you can access the money by ripping the purse]; we must say that we're referring to stealing a metal bar that you can't pull out of the ripped seam. We must also say that it doesn't have straps, or the straps were wrapped around the purse. However, if it would have loose straps, he would be able to access the metal bar, and be Chayiv for stealing when he pulled out the opening of the purse, but wouldn't be Chayiv for carrying until he carried out the straps.

Daf 92

13) If someone sticks out his hand with an item in it, Abaya holds he's Chayiv and Rava holds he's Patur. Although the first Mishna in the Mesechta says that the house owner standing inside is exempt if he sticks his hand out (with an object) into the street (and the object was taken from his hand); Abaya will hold that's only if it's above three Tefachim, but not if it's below three Tefachim [Tosfos points out: even according to Rabbah there who wants to establish the author of the Mishna as R' Akiva who holds an object that's suspended above the street is as if it landed in the street, he'll agree that if it's suspended in someone's hand, it's not considered as if it's resting on the ground, since it's considered attached to his body and is still resting on his body, like Rava. Alternatively, he at least holds that it's attached to his body if it's above three Tefachim from the ground.]

14) Someone is only Chayiv if he carries out normally, but not if he carries it out in a strange way.

15) If someone carries out in his mouth, he's exempt since it's strange. [Tosfos explains: this refers to non-foods. However, it's normal to carry out food in your mouth.]

16) If someone carries a burden above ten Tefachim from the ground, he's Chayiv, since the Leviyim carried the Ahron and Mizbeach above ten Tefachim from the ground.

17) If someone carries an object on his head, he's exempt since it's strange, even if he does it in the city of Hutzel where its citizens carry it that way, since their ways are nul regarding the ways of the rest of the world who consider it not normal to carry it that way. [Tosfos explains; this is only true here where there is no reason why one city should carry it on their heads more than any other city. However, we see that they're Chayiv in Arabia for keeping thorns in their vineyard since they raise thorns, and we don't say that they're intent to raise thorns are nul regarding the rest of the world, since everyone else would also raise thorns if they had so many camels like they had in Arabia. We only say that an individual, like the house of Menasya who squeezed pomegranates, that their intent are nul (and we don't consider the squeezed juice as 'liquid') even if everyone would squeeze pomegranates if they had as many of them as Menasya had.]

18) If someone intends to carry an object (hanging on his body) before him, and it swings and is now hanging behind him, he's exempt unless it's normal for that burden to switch behind him, like by a woman's belt.

19) However, if he intended to carry behind him and it remained behind him, he's Chayiv. He's even Chayiv if it didn't do what he intended when he wanted it to be behind him and it swung in front of him, since it was an upgrade. After all, he originally wanted to carry it in a way where it's not as guarded, and ended up carrying in a way that it's more guarded.

20) If you carry something in your money belt, and the openning is upside down; the Rabanan hold that you're exempt, since it's more similar to carrying on the back of your hand (which is strange). However, R' Yehuda says that you're Chayiv since it's similar to intending to carry something behind you and it remains behind you.

21) If two people carry out an item together; if they both can carry it by themselves, R' Meir holds they're Chayiv and R' Yehuda and R' Shimon hold they're exempt. However, if both of them can't carry it themselves, then R' Meir and R' Yehuda holds they're Chayiv and R' Shimon holds they're exempt. [Tosfos explains: even if someone is very strong, but he's carrying the item in a way that he wouldn't be able to lift it by himself, like he's holding onto it by his finger, he's considered as someone who can't lift it himself regarding this aspect.]

Daf 93

22) If one can carry it himself and the other can't, the one who can carry it himself is Chayiv, and the other one who can't is exempt. Although he's helping, but we don't consider helping as doing anything substantial.

23) A proof to this is from the following: a Zav that lays on a bed that has a Talis under each of its four legs, then each Talis is Tamai, since a bed can't stand on only three legs (so it's definitely leaning on each leg and Talis). R' Shimon holds they're Tahor. [Rashi says that this is R' Shimon being consistent to his opinion that two people are exempt when they carry together even if each one can't do it themselves, so too here, each leg can't hold the Zav itself, so, we don't say that each one is holding up the Zav. Tosfos disagrees. After all, the reason why R' Shimon holds that they're exempt by Shabbos is because of a Gezeiras Hakasuv. Rather, the reason for R' Shimon is that he has a special Drasha by Zav that he can only make one sitting object Tamai by having most of its weight leaning on it, but not if he leans on multiple sitting objects. Thus, here, the Taleisim share the leaning duties, so he doesn't make Tamai these multiple Taleisim like he doesn't make any multiple sitting items Tamai. This is like the case where the Zav is on one side of a scale, and two sitting objects are on the second side of the scale, and the sitting objects are heavier and lifts the Zav; the Tanna Kama holds that the sitting objects are Tamai Medris, and R'' Shimon holds that they're Tahor, since it's only Tamai if it's only one sitting object.] However, if he's on an animal, and there's a Talis below each of the animal's feet, then they're Tahor since the animal can stand on three feet. [Tosfos points out that the animal must be currently standing on all fours. After all, as soon as it lifts a foot, then all Taleisim under his three settled feet are Tamai since it can't stand on only two.] This proves that 'helping' is not substantial. [Tosfos explains: since each foot can't support the animal by itself, however, the other three together could hold the animal. So, each foot is just helping the animal to stand, but is not considered as lifting it that the Talis underneath will become Tamai.]

24) However, you can't say that the reason they're not Tamai is because we're in doubt which foot will be lifted (and we won't consider one that's about to be lifted as even helping) since we should say it's Tamai even from a Safeik [Tosfos adds: even if it's in the street where we're usually lenient by a Safeik Tumah]; like we see from the case of five benches that are placed next to each other, if a Zav is laying on the length (and is on an individual bench) and he's rolling over, all the benches are Tamai (even if we're not sure that he laid on all of them). However, if he was laying to they're width, they're Tahor [Tosfos explains; this is like R' Shimon who says that a Zav can only make one sitting object Tamai, and not if he's sitting across a few of them. However, Ri says that it may even be like the Rabanan, since the Zav won't fall down if any one bench is removed, each bench is just 'helping' to hold the Zav and is not substantial.] However, if the Zav was sleeping, then the benches are Tamai since he might have turned around during his sleep and was sleeping to the length of the benches.

25) Another proof (that helping is not substantial): R' Yossi says: a horse [Tosfos: that has a Talis under every foot] that has a Zav on it, the Taleisim under the hind legs are Tamai. It's the opposite by a donkey; that the Taliesim under its forelegs are Tamai. However, the other Taleisim are Tahor. After all a horse mainly leans on its hind legs and a donkey on its forelegs. [Tosfos adds: R' Yossi would admit that if you have one Talis under both forelegs of a horse, or under both hind legs of a donkey, they're Tamai since they can't stand without one out of the two on the ground.] (Since the Talis under one of the legs that it doesn't mainly lean on are Tahor) shows that helping is not substantial. [Tosfos explains: this is a better proof than what we brought before from the Tanna Kama since you can't have a thought to push off the proof by saying that the real reason is because you don't know which foot may be picked up. After all, then he should say that those under the horse's hind legs and the donkey's forelegs are also Tahor since the animal may lift them next.]

26) Another proof is from a Kohain that has one foot on the Azara's floor and one foot on a stone or utensil; if you would remove the stone or utensil and the Kohain can still stand on the floor, the Avoda is Kosher (since we consider him standing on the floor) even though the second foot is helping him stand when placed on the stone or the utensil, since the helping is not substantial.

27) [Tosfos says: this doesn't solve the Gemara's inquiry in Yuma if the same type, or if different types, make a Chatzitza. Although we see that a stone is Chotzetz here despite being the same type as the floor, and a utensil is a different type than the floor an is Chotzetz; that's because they're not secondary to the floor since they don't belong there since someone can trip over them. This is not comparable to the case there, where you lined the inside of a utensil with blast (some kind of vine that grows around a palm) where it could become secondary to the utensil.]

28) Another proof is: if a Kohain catches the Korban's blood with his right hand, and his left hand helps it hold the vessel, the Avoda is valid since the helping of the left hand is not substantial.

29) In a case where two people do one Melacha together and they're Chayiv, you don't need a Shiur for each individual, but one Shiur suffices for both of them.

30) If you carry food out in a vessel, you're Chayiv on the food and not on the vessel. If the food doesn't have a Shiur, you're exempt on the vessel too. However, if you also need the vessel independently from the food, you're Chayiv for the vessel too. Although you shouldn't be Chayiv any more for the vessel since you carried them in one forgetting, still, you can be Chayiv to R' Yochanan if you remembered about one of them before you remembered about the other, so you're Chayiv two Chatos. [Tosfos adds: you'll be Chayiv even to Reish Lakish twice if you already separated your Chatos for one of them before you remembered about the other one.]

Daf 94

31) If the person forgetfully carried the food and purposely carried the vessel [Tosfos explains: it can't be that he's Chayiv a Chatos for the food, since he won't have any regret over his actions when he finds out. Rather, the case is that they warned him for carrying the vessel. if he doesn't need the vessel independently, he's exempt from any punishment, but if he needed the vessel by itself, he receives the punishment for carrying out the vessel.]

32) If you carry out a living person in a bed, you're exempt even for the bed since it's secondary to the person. You're exempt for the person since we say that the living carry themselves. This is true even to the Rabanan who argue with R' Nosson and say that the living don't carry themselves. After all, they only hold that way by animals since they make themselves heavy and put their whole weight on the carrier. However, they would agree that humans carry themselves.

33) [Tosfos explains; we can't say the reason that you're exempt for carrying a person is because the human makes himself lighter since you're Chayiv for carrying light items on Shabbos. It can't be because the human helps in the carrying, since the human can't carry himself, and the carrier could, so everyone holds the one who could carry by himself is Chayiv. Rather, it's because it's not similar to what they carried in the Mikdash. After all, they didn't carry any animal, as the rams and Tachashim walked themselves to the Mikdash area. They punctured the Chalazon right away at the river's edge and didn't carry it alive, since extracting the blood after it died clouds the dye.]

34) [Tosfos explains: it only applies to a person that doesn't make himself heavier, as we see that we allow you to help any child walk in the street and we're not afraid that you'll lift him (since you'll be exempt anyhow if you carry him). However, they forbade this by an animal, since you'll be Chayiv if you lift it. Also, you're Chayiv if you carry a day-old child since it also puts on all its weight, and is Chayiv like an animal according to the Rabanan.]

35) R' Nosson admits that you're Chayiv if you carry a tied up animal (since it doesn't carry its weight).

36) We see that b. Beseira allowed selling a horse to a non-Jew (and he didn't forbid like we usually forbid selling them animals since we might end up testing them Bein Hashmashes by Shabbos and transgress having your animal do work on Shabbos) since they don't do any true Melachos since the living carry themselves and he holds like R' Nosson. Although we said that the Rabanan agree when carrying humans; we must establish the case by b. Beseira that the horse was designated to carry birds. [Tosfos explains; we must refer to carrying the trained hunting bird (like a falcon) but not the captured birds since R' Nosson agrees by tied up animals. Although the Rabanan forbid all horses, even those designated to carry people; we must say that they forbade all horses since you might permit horses designated to carry birds.]

37) Even though he allows selling horses to Persians despite that they don't carry themselves (since they never walk themselves), that's because they're not considered as if they're tied up, but they really have the ability to walk if necessary. They're just haughty that they wouldn't walk themselves regularly (but are transported by others).

38) If someone carries out a corpse, even to bury (since the intent is to remove it from your presence); R' Yehuda holds he's Chayiv since he's Chayiv for a Melacha Shein Tzricha L'gufo and R' Shimon holds he's exempt since he exempts a Melacha Shein Tzricha L'gufo [Rashi explains: you don't want the object in the first place and you only want to remove it from your presence. Tosfos asks: why isn't demolishing on condition to build is a Melacha Shein Tzricha L'gufo? After all, you like the fact that this building was there in the first place (since you have the materials to rebuild it). Also, R' Shimon exempts for ripping an item to scare his household since it's a Melacha Shein Tzricha L'gufo even though you want the ripping. You can't say the reason you're exempt since you didn't want to have a situation that your household needs to have your fear installed in them. After all, then you should be exempt for ripping a cloth that was eaten by worms (to be able to fix it up) since it's a Melacha Shein Tzricha L'gufo because you didn't want the worms to get into the clothes in the first place.

Rather, Tosfos explains Melacha Shein Tzricha L'gufo; you did a Melacha for a different reason than they did in the Mishkon. Like they carried out items because they needed them, so you also must carry out out items because you need them to be Chayiv on Shabbos. Therefore, you also need to make openings to take things in and out (and not just for bringing items one way) to be Chayiv just like they made them in the Mishkon. The same we find when a Zav who wears out his pouch to catch the emissions is only a Melacha Shein Tzricha L'gufo since you don't need to carry it out per se, since it works if you sit in the house as when you go out with it.]

39) However, R' Shimon agrees that you're Chayiv by carrying out a shovel to dig with, or a Sefer Torah to read with, because you need only to carry it out to facilitate yourself, and you don't also need to carry out the object for the object's use (i.e., to fix it) [Tosfos: as they did in the Mishkon, that they carried the donations to the craftsmen to make utensils.]

40) R' Nachman permits to carry out a corpse to a Karmulas, even though R' Shimon didn't allow L'chatchila to do any Melacha Shein Tzricha L'gufo, even so, it's permitted. Not only that, but it's permitted even to R' Yehuda since you only carry it out to a Karmulas. Since it's only a rabbinical prohibition, they allowed it when it came to human dignity. As we see that human dignity supersedes the Lav of Lo Soser (don't undo the words of the Chachumim, i.e., don't do rabbinical prohibitions). [Tosfos explains; although they didn't allow moving the corpse without having a child or bread on it, and we don't say that it supersedes the rabbinical prohibition of Muktza; that's because we can move it without transgressing the prohibition by carrying it with a non-Muktza item, like a child or a loaf of bread. R' Akiva Eiger asks; but we said earlier in the Mesechta that we don't allow carrying a corpse if you don't have a child or bread unless we're afraid it will be burnt and the relative might be anxious and put out the fire, and that's only permitted by moving indirectly, like flipping it from one bed to another.]]

41) You transgress a Lav if you do an action to make your Tzaras Tahor, like cutting it out. As the Pasuk warns you "guard from Tzaras" i.e., guard it so it won't be destroyed. Therefore, if you have the two white hairs that makes you Tamai, and you pluck them out, you're Chayiv. If you have three of those hairs and you remove one of them; R' Nachman holds that you're Chayiv since you made it almost ready to be Tahor if another hair falls out. However, R' Sheishes holds that you're exempt since you're not Tahor yet.

42) There is a contradiction whether you're Chayiv if you carry out a half Kazayis of a corpse from a house. We can reconcile it well according to R' Sheishes. After all, it's only considered doing something when you make it completely Tahor. Thus, you're Chayiv if you take a half Kazayis out of a house that only has a Kazayis in it, since you accomplished by making the Tamai house Tahor. However, he's Patur when there was originally a Kazayis and a half in the house since the house is still Tamai, since there remains a Kazayis in the house. However, this is difficult to R' Nachman since there only remains an exact Kazayis in the house and it's almost ready to become Tahor, which R' Nachman holds is an accomplishment too. We must answer: the Braisa that says he's Patur is when he removed a half of Kazayis from a house that has a complete corpse in it. [Tosfos points out that we're not exact to say that there is a whole corpse since it would be suffice to answer that there was two Kazaysim in the house. After all, R' Nachman only says you're Chayiv if you pluck one hair from three, not if you pluck one from four hairs.]

43) [Tosfos explains; however, you're Chayiv if you take out a Kazayis even though there is still a complete corpse in the house. After all, it accomplishes that the house will be Tahor when you remove the corpse. After all, since this Kazayis is no longer attached to the corpse, it wouldn't be dragged out by itself when you remove the corpse, so your effort now accomplishes removing it.]

44) Both the Rabanan and R' Eliezer hold that you're Chayiv if you cut your nails with a cutting utensil, and we shouldn't say that the Rabanan even exempt by a utensil [Rashi explains; since you may think they hold that the Melacha of sheering is not applicable by humans, but only on wool. Tosfos asks; we see that it applies to all living creatures since you're Chayiv for it if you pluck feathers from a chicken. Rather, I might say that he holds like R' Shimon who exempts a Melacha Shein Tzricha L'gufo (and here you don't need to keep the nails), so we teach that they both agree with R' Yehuda that a Melacha Shein Tzricha L'gufo is Chayiv.] However, if you remove the nail by hand; R' Eliezer holds he's Chayiv and the Chachumim exempt (since it's a strange way to remove it). However, R' Eliezer agrees that if you take it off someone else, you're exempt.

45) Regarding the Shiur to be Chayiv for removing hair; the Rabanan say that it's two hairs, which is the same Shiur to be Chayiv for pulling out hair because of grief over a dead body. R' Eliezer says that you're Chayiv for one hair. However, the Rabanan agree that you're Chayiv for removing one white hair among black hairs, and it's even forbidden to do during the week since it's the way of women, and you'll transgress "Lo Yilbosh."

46) If your partial hanging nail or cuticle is not mostly cut off, it's considered still attached to the body and you're Chayiv if you remove it with a utensil; and is exempt, but forbidden, if removed by hand. However, if it's mostly cut off, it's considered detached from the Torah. Therefore, you're exempt if you cut it with a utensil, but it's rabbinically forbidden. However, it would be permitted to remove it with your hand if it's pointing upwards and it pains you. [Rashi explains "pointing upwards" as towards the top of your fingers when you lift it up. However, Tosfos says the opposite, that it's towards the rest of the body, as we see this expression used (that you can't touch your male organ) from above the 'crown' (i.e., from there until your body.]

Daf 95

47) If you braid hair or Pokeses [Rashi: either combing hair, or women who press dough against their face, and it reddens the skin when removed. Tosfos agrees to the second explanation, or else the Mishna should have written 'Sorek,' combing. Also, the Gemara says it may have to do with spinning (like you would roll the dough into strips to apply), and combing has nothing to do with spinning.] R' Eliezer holds you're Chayiv for building, as the Pasuk says "Hashem build Chava and brought her before Adam" and we explain "He braid her hair" since the people on the other side of the sea call 'braiding' as 'building.' You're Chayiv if you apply an eye makeup because its dying. R' Shimon b. Elazar quoting R' Eliezer that you're Chayiv for putting rouge on your face. However, the Rabanan exempt, and only forbid because of a rabbinical prohibition.

48) R' Shimon b. Elazar says that R' Eliezer only holds that you're Chayiv for these actions if you do it for another person, but it's not normal to do it to yourself, so, you're exempt.

49) You're Chayiv if you milk because it's like threshing [Tosfos: like R' Yehuda who holds you can be Chayiv for threshing from items that don't grow from the ground.] You're Chayiv for Mechabeitz [Rashi putting whole milk in a woven grass material which strains the whey] because it's separating. You're Chayiv for making cheese because it's like building.

50) R' Eliezer holds that you're Chayiv for sweeping the floor and dripping water on the dirt floor to keep down the dirt [Tosfos; even though it's an unintended Melacha, he feels that it's a P'sik Reisha, inevitable that you'll end up filling a hole, so you're Chayiv.] The Rabanan exempt, but prohibit [Tosfos explains: they hold it's not inevitable, but they hold like R' Yehuda that unintended Melachos are rabbinically forbidden on Shabbos.] Ameimar permitted to do these in Mechuza, since they had tiled floors. [Although R' Eliezer didn't allow rinsing the Beis Hamikdash's floor even though it was tiled, that's because there's a lot of water by rinsing down, and that would inevitably fill the cracks between the stone tiles. Alternatively, R' Eliezer agrees that it's only rabbinacally forbidden because it's tiled, but they felt to decree this one even in the Mikdash since it's easy to be Chayiv, if you would do it without a floor. However, the Rabanan allow such a rabbinical prohibition in the Mikdash, since you wouldn't be Chayiv even if you would do it on a dirt floor.] Even so, it's permitted for a woman to wash her face in different areas in the house so that some splashed over water should keep the dirt down.

However, according to Halacha, we Paskin like R' Shimon that completely permits this since he permits unintended Melachos [Tosfos; and he holds like the Chachumim that it's not a P'sik Reisha, i.e., inevitable, that it will fill a hole. However, we're only allowed to drip water on the dirt floor, but you can't sweep (and not like the Bahag who permits both). As we see the Gemara later in the Mesechta says that a broom is a utensil that's main use is prohibited on Shabbos according to all, as we ask simply "how can he permit carrying it from the sun to the shade," (and we don't answer that he holds like R' Shimon). The reason why R' Shimon forbids it (even though it's an unintended Melacha) because of Muktza, that you're moving the dirt.]

51) R' Eliezer holds you're Chayiv a Chatos if you take down a honeycomb from a hive on Shabbos, and you get Malkos for taking it down on Yom Tov. After all, there's a Hekish between it and a forest, so the Torah considers it attached to the ground like a tree (and taking it is like harvesting). [Tosfos says: although it's a Melacha needed for food preparation which is permitted on Yom Tov even in cases where you could do it from Erev Yom Tov; (and you can't answer that he took it off to use it for the weekdays, since R' Eliezer holds that he's exempt since he can feed it to guests if they happen to visit); we must establish the case that he took it down right before sunset that he doesn't have any time to feed it to anyone even if guests would show up and he would need to feed them. Alternatively, we refer to a case where the honey is spoiled and is not edible. Alternatively, we refer to a case where the honey is forbidden to partake in it.] However, the Chachumim say that he's exempt.

52) [Tosfos says; if making cheese is building, and you can make cheeses on Yom Tov from the Torah (though the rabbis forbade it), then you can rebuild a fallen house on Yom Tov, like all Melachos that can be used for food preparations, you could do them for other needs; still, the rabbis forbade it since it's a weekday type of job, and it's similar to what the rabbis decreed to forbid grinding and sifting on Yom Tov.]

53) The Tanna Kama holds that you're Chayiv for detaching something growing in a flowerpot with a hole in it (and is open to the ground), but is exempt if it didn't have a hole. However, R' Shimon holds that you're exempt by either flowerpot, since they're considered detached even with a hole. The exception is regarding whether the fruit can be susceptible to Tumah (i.e., if liquid falls on it), then it's considered attached with a hole (and can't become susceptible) since we have an extra Pasuk to include it.

54) R' Shimon agrees that the hole makes it considered attached if the hole is big enough to make the flowerpot no longer susceptible to Tumah. [Tosfos explains; this refers to having a hole big enough for a Kazayis to come out. However, if the hole is smaller, even if this particular utensil has a smaller Shiur for a hole to make it no longer susceptible, it's not considered attached. After all, even the Rabanan hold that a utensil that's designated to hold liquids are not susceptible to Tumah after it has a hole that liquid could enter from the outside, and it's not big enough to make it considered attached to the ground.] This is only if the utensil can't hold a Revious below the hole (or else it's still considered a utensil). Of course, it's considered attached if the roots are growing by the hole.

55) There are five levels of earthenware utensils. If it leaks water, then it can't be susceptible to Tumah by being a broken utensil that its use is to plug up a different utensil with a small hole. After all, we won't say to bring another broken utensil to plug up the hole in the first broken utensil that's plugging a hole. If the water can penetrate from the outside (which is a little more larger than just leaking from the inside) it can no longer be a utensil to draw the water for the Parah Aduma ashes. [Tosfos says that it also is not susceptible to Tumah if it's designated to hold liquids.] If it has a hole large enough for a small root to come out, whatever's growing in it can't be Muchshur to be susceptible to Tumah. [Tosfos infers from here that a earthenware utensil needs a hole to be considered as attached to the ground, and this is not like Rashi in Gitten who holds that it's considered attached without a hole since it's made from earth.] If it gets a hole the size that an olive can fall out, it's Tahor regarding holding olives, but is susceptible regarding pomegranates (if you designate it to hold them). However, if it gets a hole big enough for pomegranates, it's completely not susceptible to any Tumah. [Tosfos says: the reason we don't say this can become the next level, that it could be susceptible if you designate it as a plug; since it can only become a plug if it's broken to little pieces that you can place the piece under another utensil's hole, however, if it still has a basic form of a utensil, it doesn't work well as a plug, and if someone does designate it as a plug, his intent is nul contrasting to what all other people think. However, Rashi seems to say that it's susceptible if you designate it as a plug. If so, the reason why it's not a sixth category is because; in order to use it as a plug, you would need to put it on its side, and we're only counting cases where you're using it regularly.]

56) There are two levels of holes regarding an earthenware utensil with a fastened cover (if it will still protect in a tent with a corpse). One is if it gets a hole that covers the majority of the utensil, and the other is the size of a pomegranate. One is by a big utensil and the other by a small utensil. [Rashi explains that a large utensil can't protect if it's mostly open and the small utensil can't protect if the hole is the size of a pomegranate. However, Tosfos disagrees, since we wouldn't be able to define how big does it have to be to allow it with a minority of the utensil missing even if it's bigger than a pomegranate. (Mahrsha says that he doesn't want to say that the Shiur of a pomegranate is if it's more than half the utensil. After all, once we see that a big utensil loses its status of being a utensil when it's mostly gone, it's not logical to say that a small utensil will still have its status even when most of it is gone.) Rather, Tosfos explains; the majority of a small utensil doesn't protect even if its less than a pomegranate, and a big utensil doesn't protect if it has a hole the size of a pomegranate even if it's less than its majority.]

Daf 96

57) [Rashi explains; even though the utensil is open by the hole on its side, the Tumah doesn't enter there, but only through the regular openning for the utensil (that's currently covered). As the Pasuk says "all open utensils," it needs to go through its openning. Tosfos adds: although we say in Mesechtas Keilim that it doesn't protect if there is a hole that makes it no longer susceptible to Tumah, that's only if there is no bottom to it that can hold a Revious underneath the hole. However, if there remains that bottom, it doesn't stop protecting until the hole is the majority of the utensil or the size of a pomegranate. When the Gemara in Bava Kama says that the hole needs to be plugged up with sediment, or if you smear mud over vines that are stuffed in the hole; that's only when the holes are bigger than a pomegranate or the majority of the utensil.

However, R' Tam explains: of course you need to stuff up the side hole with cement/mud when it gets larger that it wouldn't be susceptible anymore to Tumah. However, if the hole is the majority of the utensil or the size of a pomegranate, then it's no longer a utensil and it's as if you covered a fruit with mud, and, of course, it doesn't protect like a fastened covered utensil.]

58) R' Elazar says that the Shiur of the hole is always the size that an olive can fall out. [Tosfos explains: even if you designate it for pomegranates, and he argues with all the earlier opinions who hold it to be susceptible to Tumah.]