Daf 76

1) You're Chayiv for carrying out a quarter of a Revious of wine, which is the amount you need to dilute it by adding enough water to make it into a Revious, which is the amount needed for a Kos Shel Bracha. [Tosfos explains: a Revious means a Revious (i.e., quarter) of a Lug, and not of a Kav. Although you need to drink from the Kiddush wine as much as it fills your cheeks, and that's more than a Revious, (implying that you need more than a Revious Lug for a Kos Shel Bracha); we must say that it's not your complete cheeks full, but just to push the wine to fill one cheek, and make it look like both are filled, like we say about the Shiur of drinking on Yom Kippur. Alternatively, you only need to drink your cheeks' fill for Kiddush but not by other Kosos Shel Bracha.]

2) [From here, we see that you should dilute the wine for a Kos Shel Bracha. Although one of the ten things for a Kos Shel Bracha is Chai (lit. live, but in the context of wine, it's undiluted); you need to explain it like Rashi that you put the wine in the cup undiluted, and dilute it while it's in the cup. Alternatively, like R' Tam who says that you put it in the cup partially diluted, (which the Gemara, regarding Ben Sorer U'moreh, calls such partially diluted wine as 'Chai'). Therefore, when the Gemara says that you add to the cup by the Bracha about Eretz Yisrael, it means to add water until it's fully diluted (and not like Rashi there who explains that you add wine then to fill the cup). Alternatively, the Bnai Nervona answers: the 'Chai' there doesn't refer to the wine, but to the cup. That it must be complete and not broken. As we see the Gemara calls Chai a complete item in the case of eating one ant Chai and nine smashed ants, that the Chai ant could be dead, but just whole. Therefore, it fits in since the other nine things for a Kos Shel Bracha are about the cup, and are not about the wine, so we should explain this tenth one the same way.]

Daf 77

3) Rava brings a proof that you need it to be diluted to a Revious since the Shiur for all other drinks is a Revious. This is Rava consistent to his opinion that, when you dilute wine, it should be a quarter wine and three-quarters water. [Tosfos says: even though the Gemara in Sanhedrin says that you can't have less than a third of the Sanhedrin in the Lishkas Hagazis to remain (and have the others leave) since the Pasuk says "don't have less than the dilution," which is one part in three; it must only refer to the Sharuni wine that doesn't need as much dilution. The reason we say the Drasha is referring to that wine instead of regular wine; that's because, if we say it's for the dilution of the Sharuni wine, we'll still have twenty three judges left, which is at least like a small Sanhedrin. However, if you would Darshen it to have a quarter of the judges, that number doesn't have any significance.]

4) Abaya asks: first of all, we say that the color of Nida blood is like Sharuni wine that was diluted with one part wine to two parts water. Secondly, how can the water that's needed to dilute this wine (to become a Kos Shel Bracha) is still in a pitcher someplace, yet, it combines with the wine to make a Shiur of Revious. [Rashi says that Abaya doesn't hold that we need a quarter of a Reviuos since it's dilutable to a Revious, but it's the Shiur on its own. Tosfos explains: he holds that a Kos Shel Bracha doesn't need but a quarter of a Revious. Some make Kiddush on it as is, undiluted; and some add water to that quarter of a Revious to dilute it. Although we see Abaya later saying that a Kazayis of congealed wine is Chayiv since it comes from a Revious of wine, although Abaya here holds that he doesn't need a full Revious, but only a quarter; that's only for regular wine that could be drunk in a cup, but not congealed wine that can't be drunk.

However, Tosfos asks: later we say that a shrunken Grogeros is exempt since it's no longer the Shiur, so why should this Kazayis be Chayiv because it came from a Revious? Beis Efraim explains: Tosfos is aware of the Maginei Shlomo's answer that a Grogeros can't be reconstituted, but the congealed wine can; or else this question would be difficult to him too. However, he felt that Rashi didn't agree to that fact since he holds that you need a full Revious since it can't be drunk, and if you can reconstitute it, it should have the same Shiur as regular wine since it could be drunk after it's reconstituted.]

Therefore, Tosfos explains Abaya's position: he needs you to carry out a Revious of undiluted wine. Although the reason the Mishna gives is because it's stored for a Kos Shel Bracha, that's because people will store a Revious wine if they can use it for a few Kosos Shel Bracha. Therefore, if it's no longer fit for a Kos Shel Bracha, like, if someone drank from it, you're only Chayiv if you carry out more than a Revious that makes it worth enough to save. Although the Shiur of all drinks is a Revious, but this wine is worse since it's not drinkable as is like other drinks, but you need to dilute it first.

Although you can use a Revious of this drunk-from wine to use as the liquid to mix cement; but it doesn't count since wine is not usually saved for that reason. After all, we say that the Shiur of Klaf is bigger than paper, and you're not Chayiv if it's big enough to write a toll receipt on it even though Klaf is more valuable than paper. (This is because; Klaf is not usually saved to use, as a toll receipt.)]

5) Rava answers Abaya's questions: Sharuni wine is different than regular wine (that's diluted with only a quarter of the mixture being wine) since it's a lot weaker. Alternatively, they only diluted that way for the looks. [Rashi explains: to show how the blood of Nida should look. Tosfos asks: if so, (that it's never diluted this way to drink), then how can the Gemara in Sanhedrin Darshen "don't have less than the dilution," which is one part in three, and referring to the Sharuni wine? After all, they never practically diluted wine this way. Rather, Tosfos explains: some people will dilute it in this fashion (that it's not as diluted) in order to keep the appearance of the wine that the color shouldn't be diluted too much.] Regarding how can the water in the pitcher combine: it doesn't need to combine, because, by Shabbos, all you need is an important item, and the amount of undiluted wine that's important is the amount that you need for a Kos Shel Bracha.

6) R' Nosson holds: you're Chayiv for carrying a Kazayis of congealed wine, since it could become reconstituted to a Revious. We also see R' Yossi b. Yehuda's opinion regarding the blood of a Neveila, which Beis Hillel holds it to be Tamai (and Beis Shammai says it's not Tamai); you need a Revious to make items Tamai, since it can congeal to become a Kazayis (the Shiur that the meat of the Neveila is Tamai). We don't need to say that they hold the same opinion. After all, since wine is thinner and blood is thicker; wine will congeal to a smaller amount than blood will. (I.e., if a Revious of blood congeals to a Kazayis, you would need more wine to congeal to a Kazayis.)

7) You're Chayiv for carrying out enough milk that you can guzzle. [Tosfos asks from a future Gemara: we see that you're Chayiv for milking the amount of a Grogeres, which is smaller than the amount to guzzle. Tosfos answers: that's only when you decided to milk it to make cheese, then a Grogeres is important. However, regularly, milk is used to drink, so we follow the Shiur that's important by drinking, which is guzzling. We must say that the smaller Shiur is for the unusual use, for, if it was for the usual use, then you're Chayiv with that Shiur even if you're carrying for the unusual use that requires more. Like we say that; if you carry the amount of hay that could fill a cow's mouth for a camel, you're Chayiv.

However, if you want to say that the Gemara that says you're Chayiv for milking a Grogeres means that you milked enough to make a Grogeres of cheese, which the original milk's amount is more than guzzling; we need to say that the main use of milk is to make cheese, and therefore you're only Chayiv for the smaller Shiur of guzzling when you explicitly want it to drink.

However, you can't differentiate between milking and carrying out, that you need to milk more than carrying since someone doesn't bother to go milk the cow for less than what it takes to make a Grogeres of cheese, like we say that carrying water to make cement is more than the Shiur of carrying out cement, which is to put on an opening of the smelting pot, since someone won't bother to mix cement for that amount. After all, that's only when you're dealing with the water that you want to mix the cement with, which is not as important like the cement itself. However, by us, they're both dealing with the same material, milk, their Shiurim must be equal. As we see that carrying out leather is the same Shiur as tanning the leather.]

8) You're Chayiv for carrying out the amount of human's milk that you need to dissolve the eye medicine Kilaryon. You're Chayiv for carrying out enough Kilaryon as much as needed to dissolve in water. There's an unresolved inquiry if you need only as much to dissolve, or do you also need a little more that you hold, (and sticks somewhat to your fingers), when you put in in the water to dissolve.

9) You're Chayiv for carrying out the amount of honey needed to place on a wound (to sooth). We have an unresolved inquiry if you only need enough to put on the corner of the wound, or on the whole wound.

10) R' Shimon b. Elazar says: you're Chayiv for carrying out the amount of oil to smear on the smallest limb of a one day old child. R' Nosson says that you need enough to smear on the smallest limb of an adult, which is equivalent to a large limb of the baby.

Daf 78

11) The rule is: whenever you have two uses for this object, one common and one uncommon, we follow the Shiur of the common one even if it's lenient (i.e., a bigger Shiur). However if they're both common, then we follow the smaller, stringent Shiur. This, that we say the Shiur of water is stringent, that you only need the amount to dissolve the Kilaryon (although we also use wine for it, so it's not as common to use water to dissolve Kilaryon as you do to drink); we need to say that it refers to Galil; [Rashi explains: since they were poor, they didn't waste their wine to mix with Kilyaron, but they only drank it. Tosfos explains the opposite. They were rich, so they drank mostly wine and not water.] Alternatively, it refers to everyone, since people only use water to dissolve the Kilyaron since it doesn't cloudy up their eyesight like other liquids.

12) Tanna Kama says: you're Chayiv for carrying out a Revious of blood. R' Shimon b. Elazar says: for those bloods that may be medicinal, you're Chayiv if it's enough to shadow one eye with it.

13) A student is Chayiv for carrying out what his master stored (even if it's less than the regular Shiur). [Rashi explains that this is R' Shimon b. Elazar's opinion who holds that one is Chayiv for carrying out what another stored. However, Tosfos disagrees. After all, we already established that our Mishnayos don't follow R' Shimon b. Elazar's opinion. Also, why is it framed that a student carried out what his master stored more than any other person. Rather, we must say that. regularly, you're not Chayiv carrying out what someone else stored. You're just Chayiv here since a student follows what his master does. If his master shows that this amount is important to him, so the student follows his master's assessment of it.]

14) You're Chayiv for carrying out a Revious of used water (that's designated to be poured out, i.e., it's waste water). [Tosfos: even if it's disgusting like blood, and you can't use it even to wash dishes], it's still usable to mix cement with. Even though the Shiur of cement is less than that, to make an opening for the smelting pot, but someone won't bother mixing cement in the first place for that reason.

15) You're Chayiv for carrying out the amount of rope to make a handle for a basket. You're Chayiv for carrying out the amount of Gemmi grass to make a loop to hang up a sifter or a sieve. However you wouldn't use a rope for that since it will rub out the wood of that utensil. R' Yehuda says: enough to measure the foot of a young child to make him a shoe. You're Chayiv for carrying out the amount of palm leaves to make a handle for an Egyptian basket. You're Chayiv for carrying out the amount of bast (a vine growing around a palm) that can be used to strain wine from a small jug. You're Chayiv for carrying out the amount of Revav [Rashi says it's fats or oil. Tosfos says: it's only fats, but oil has a different Shiur], to smear under a wafer that's the size of the coin Selah, which is the amount of a Grogeres. [Tosfos says that it needs to be made in a certain shape like "the eye of an ox" to recognize that the wafer has meat in it (so that you won't eat it with milk), like any other bread made with meat.] You're Chayiv for carrying out the amount of soft material to make a small ball the size of a nut.

16) You're Chayiv for carrying out the amount of paper to write the two lettered toll-receipt on it, (which is bigger than paper that you can write two regular letters). R' Sheishes explains that they wrote in bigger letters. Rava says: they wrote in regular sized letters, but it requires an extra area to hold [Rashi explains: when you show it. Tosfos explains: to write it. However the opinion who holds that it doesn't need to have a place to hold must say that they could write it without holding onto it.] You're Chayiv for carrying out a paid loan-document (which has no use as a document anymore), if you can use it as a bottle stopper, or there is enough space in its unwritten area for a toll collecter to write a receipt on. (The Gemara concludes that this is difficult to the opinion that the toll collector's receipt were written with regular sized letters, but you need extra space to hold it so you can present it to any officer. After all, why do you need here the extra amount in the unwritten area to hold onto, since you can hold onto the written area.)

17) You're Chayiv for carrying a toll receipt until you show it to the toll officer. If you carry it afterwards; the Tanna Kama holds that you're exempt and R' Yehuda holds that you're Chayiv. Abaya explains the reason for R' Yehuda: he needs it still just in case someone accuses him of dodging the tax. The Tanna Kama says that you can always bring him back to the toll collector and he'll settle it that he paid. Rava explains R' Yehuda's opinion: you need the receipt to show to the junior tax collector on the other side of the bridge. The Tanna Kama says that this is not necessary since the toll collector could give him some signal to tell the junior officer for him to know that you paid. R' Ashi explains R' Yehuda: he always needs the toll receipts to show people who try to accuse him of avoiding the tolls, that you have a history of paying.

18) If you carry out a loan document before it's paid, you're Chayiv since you still need it. If you carry it out after it's paid: the Tanna Kama holds he's exempt and R' Yehuda holds that he's Chayiv. R' Yosef explains the argument: it depends on whether you can hold onto a paid loan-document. [See R' Akiva Eiger who asks why can't the Tanna Kama allow holding onto it ? After all, he can do so if he erases the document.] Abaya says: everyone holds that you can't hold onto a paid loan-document. We refer to a case where the lender claims that it wasn't paid yet and the borrower claimed that it was paid. The lender doesn't have witnesses to recognize the document's signature (to prove that it wasn't forged). Therefore, they argue whether he needs to have witnesses to the signatures if the borrower admits that it's not forged, (but it was paid). (When the Braisa says that it was paid, it means that the borrower claimed it to be paid.) Therefore, the Tanna Kama needs the witnesses on the signatures, and without them, the document is worthless; and R' Yehuda holds that they don't need these witnesses. [Tosfos says: that, which you're Chayiv even to the Tanna Kama before the borrower claimed it's paid, even though the document seems worthless without witnesses to the signatures, and you're at the mercy of the borrower to admit that he owes you; we must say that it has a use, to remind the borrower that he borrowed, which he might not remember without use of the document.]

19) [Tosfos asks: since the lender is convinced that the document isn't paid, why does he have a prohibition to keep it? Tosfos answers: since he already admitted that he has no other witnesses, at that point, we never accept any other witnesses even if they show up later. Therefore, if he keeps it, it may cause him to collect it against the Halacha when new witnesses show up, and he may collect it in a different Beis Din. However, you can't say that he might keep it until the borrower dies or sells his property, and he'll collect from the buyers or heirs without them knowing if it's been paid. After all, in these cases, where the new owners don't know what's going on; Beis Din claims for them that it may have been paid up.]

20) [However, you can't say the reason for R' Yehuda is that you can use it as a stopper for a utensil since there is no problem in this case to keep a paid document. After all, since the borrower claimed it's paid, and the lender needs witnesses on the signatures to collect, and there are none; so there is no way that it will ever be collected. The reason why we can't say this; since we still need to worry that, as a fluke, witnesses may show up.]

Daf 79

21) Rava says: everyone holds you need witnesses on the signatures to collect [Tosfos: and that's the Halacha. Also, we see that R' Nachman held that way in Kesuvos.] Here, we refer to having such witnesses. The Tanna Kama says that the lender doesn't need to return the actual document, but can write a receipt, so he doesn't need the document. [Rashi explains: after all, he can write a receipt instead. Tosfos disagrees since you need the document to avoid having to write a receipt. Rather, if he already has a receipt written, then he doesn't need the document.] R' Yehuda holds that the borrower doesn't need to accept a receipt (since we can't impose on him to guard the receipt forever to make sure that the lender doesn't come back to collect from the loan-document). Therefore, he always needs the document since he can't get paid without giving it to the borrower.

22) R' Ashi explains R' Yehuda: the borrower needs this loan document in order to show potential lenders that he pays back his loans. [Tosfos asks: the Tosefta writes explicitly this is his reason, so it's a question on the other Amaroim who give other reasons to explain R' Yehuda's opinion.]

23) You're Chayiv for carrying out tanned leather for the amount that it takes to make an amulet. It's also the amount to be Chayiv for carrying out untreated hides, since they stand to be tanned. Similarly we see this to be a Shiur by whitening, carding and dying; it's the same Shiur as spinning, that it's enough to make a thread that measures a double 'Sit' (i.e., one 'Sit' is the amount that you can spread one finger from another). After all, they all stand to be spun.

24) However, we see that you're Chayiv for carrying out enough soaked dye that you can dye a plug for the woof-thread shuttle (to keep the spool in the shuttle). Although the Shiur for unsoaked dye is to dye a small cloth that's attached to the hairnet; that's because people don't bother to soak the dye just to dye a plug. Similarly, we find a discrepancy between the Shiur of carrying seeds to plant, and the Shiur of carrying out fertilizer, which is to fertilize less plants; or between how much waste water you need to carry out to mix cement to the amount you need to carry out cement. After all, someone doesn't bother to start the process just for the smaller Shiur.

25) Although we find that you're only Chayiv for carrying out Matza (untreated hides, that's not salted or had the flour process) if it's large enough to wrap a weight of a quarter of a Pumbadisa litter, and you're only Chayiv for carrying out a hide that was salted, ( but without the flour process), if it's enough to make an amulet; that only refers to fresh hides that's not fit yet to treat. Although we see that the Shiur of leather for Medris is five Tefachim square, and it's also the Shiur for carrying it out on Shabbos; we must say that it refers to hides cooked in boiling water that became hard and are only fit to sit on.

26) You're Chayiv for carrying out Diftira, (which was hides treated with a salting and flour treatment), for the amount that you can write a Get on it. [Tosfos points out that this is only according to R' Eliezer who holds that the witnesses that see the giving over of the Get validates the Get. However, according to R' Meir who says the witnesses that sign on the Get validates the Get holds that a Get needs to be written on something that can't be forged. (After all, the witnesses of R' Eliezer can testify what was written on the Get when it was given over, even if it was forged afterwards; but, according to R' Meir, there is no way to know what was written in the document when it was signed unless you can't tamper with the writing without detection.

Rashi says: you must say that, since Diftira is more important than paper, this Shiur must be smaller than paper. Tosfos disagrees. After all, we see that Klaf is also more important than paper and its Shiur is larger. The reason is, the Shiur is based on what you'll store it for, and you won't store Klaf or Diftira for a toll-receipt.]

27) you're Chayiv for carrying out Klaf, [Tosfos explains: the outer half of the treated hide that would have been close to the animal's hair], if you can write on it the smallest Parsha of a Tefilin, which is the Parsha of Sh'ma. However, for Duchstustos [Tosfos explains: the inner half of the treated hide, that's closer to the animal's meat], the Shiur is the amount you can write Mezuzos on.

You need to write the Klaf on its inner side, the one closer to the meat, and the same by the Duchstustos, that you need to write it on its inner side, the one closer to the hair. If you write it on the other side, the Gemara, in one answer, Pasuls it.

28) [Tosfos says: our Klaf has the Halacha status of Klafs (and not like those who want to say that it has the status of Duchstustos since they only rub off a small layer by the side that's towards the meat, (and a good part of the inner half remains), or else it would be invalid to write Tefilin or a Sefer Torah on it. You also need to treat it with gallnuts or else it's invalid. (Even though we don't treat it with gallnuts), we need to say that our treatment gives it a status as if it was treated with gallnuts, as we see that it's not possible to be forged as if it was treated with gallnuts. Also, we see the Gemara in Menachos says that there are Sifrei Torah that's not treated with gallnuts. They are different than those treated with gallnuts (that the former, you can only stitch up a ripped parchment if the rip goes into two lines, and you can stitch up the latter even if the rip goes into the third line). So we must say that the one's not treated with gallnuts was treated with a solution like ours.]

29) (The Tanna Kama says that Tefilin can make hands Tamai (like other Sifrei Kodesh) even with its straps. R' Shimon says that only the boxes make your hands Tamai. R' Zacai says that only the Klaf with the Parshiyos make your hands Tamai.)

30) Tanna Kama Pasuls Tefilin on Duchstustos, and R' Achai permits. Rav Paskins that it's Pasul, However, Mezuzos are kosher on Klaf, like R' Meir's opinion. (However, the Tanna Kama Pasuls.) Therefore, we only prohibit taking a Sefer Torah or Tefilin that became worn out and use it for Mezuzos since we don't allow to lower its Kedusha, but It wouldn't be Pasul anyhow since it's written on Klaf, since you're allowed to have a Mezuzah on Klaf. [Tosfos explains: although the two Parshiyos of a Mezuzah is not together in the Torah, but you can have a case where the Parsha of Sh'ma is written on the last lines of that parchment, and you'll write V'haya Im Shamoah on the empty margin underneath. The same if V'ahavta was written on top of the page and you write Sh'ma in the margin above it. See Achronim why this is not a problem of writing the Mezuza out of order.]

You can write a Sefer Torah on Gevilin [Tosfos: that they use the whole hide and it was not split it in half. In Mesecta Sofrim, it implies that you can even write a Sefer Torah on paper that wasn't erased.]

Daf 80

31) You're Chayiv for carrying out enough ink that you can write two letters with it. It doesn't make a difference whether you carry it out as dried ink cubes, or in a pen or in an inkstand. [Tosfos explains: you're also Chayiv if you have that amount of ink in two pens, or in two inkstands, and each one has enough ink for one letter.] However, there's an unresolved inquiry whether you're Chayiv if you carry out one letter's worth in a pen, another one in an inkstand, and another one in a dried cube.

32) You're Chayiv if you carry out the ink in a pen and write it on the paper. Although you're still walking, (so you would think you're exempt at the moment since the ink never rested); since we say that the writing of the ink creates its resting place, (since it's placed on the surface that it will remain forever).

33) However, if you carry out ink that can only write one letter, and you write with it, and then carry out another letter's worth of ink and write it down, you're exempt. After all, after you wrote the first letter, it dries up and loses part of its Shiur, and you can't combine the second amount of ink to it to be Chayiv.

34) If you first carried out a half Grogeres of food, and then you go back and carry a second half of Grogeres of food after the first half Grogeres is no longer in the street, you can't combine them to be Chayiv.

35) If you carry a half of Grogeres into the Reshus Harabim, and then carry another half of Grogeres over it, you're Chayiv when the second half of Grogeres comes within three Tefachim of the first half of Grogeres. [Tosfos explains: anything within three Tefachim from the ground is considered as if it's at rest. However, here where it's carried over the first one, it's considered resting as long as it's within three from the first Grogeres, even if it's above three Tefachim from the ground.]

36) This is even according to Rava who usually needs the item to rest on something in order to be Chayiv; that's only by throwing the object, but not by carrying it. [Tosfos says: even though we see that the Rabanan and R' Akiva holds that you're Chayiv if you throw it within three Tefachim from the ground (and they only argue from three to ten Tefachim whether we say that being suspended over the ground is considered as if it's landed on the ground or not); we must say that Rava holds like R' Yehuda regarding a Sefer Torah that one side rolled off the roof, that you may roll it up as long as it's the slightest amount above the ground since it's not considered landed until it's on the ground. Although we see that R' Yehuda holds that it doesn't need to be resting on the ground to be considered at rest, since he holds that you're Chayiv when you throw an item from a Reshus Hayachid into a Reshus Harabim and it landed after four Amos; and even if he didn't want it to land there, like in a case where he said that he wants it to land as soon as it comes out; (and that's why the Rabanan hold he's exempt); but R' Yehuda holds that it's as if it landed as soon as it leaves the house; we must say that only refers to rolling it, but not by actually throwing it in the air.]

37) If you carry a half of Grogeres, and then carry out another half of Grogeres; the Tanna Kama says that you're Chayiv if you did this in one forgetting (but not if you remembered in the middle that it was forbidden). R' Yossi says that you're exempt if you take it out to a second Reshus Harabim, since you can't combine them. [R' Tam says that the real text should be "if you carry from two Reshuyos," but not "carrying into two Reshuyos." After all, we say that if someone writes one letter in Tzepori and another in Teveria, you're Chayiv, since it only needs to be moved together to combine them, and we don't consider "needing to be brought together' as missing that bringing (and we view them as if they're brought together). So, even though the two half Grogeres are in different Reshus Harabims, we shouldn't consider them as separate but as if they're brought together. However, the Ri argues. After all, since carrying is different than writing, since the whole Melacha is transporting the item. Therefore, we don't consider them brought together until they're actually brought together.]

38) In order to consider two Reshus Harabims as separate; Rabbah says that you need a Reshus Hayachid between them, since you need a Torah-obligated Reshus to separate them. Abaya says that even a Karmulas separates them. Rava says that the Reshus Shabbos is just like Gitten, that even a movable piece of wood separates them. [Tosfos says: in Gitten, we refer to a piece of wood that's high ten Tefachim but is not four Tefachim wide, or it's four Tefachim wide, but not ten Tefachim high. We need to say that it's nine Tefachim tall and the people traveling lean their burdens on it so it has a Halacha of a Reshus Harabim; (but since we consider it its own Reshus by Gitten, it separates). Otherwise, it would be a Karmulas, which Abaya would agree that it separates. Alternatively, Abaya differentiates between a moveable Karmulas or an unmovable Karmulas, (i.e., land). So, he wouldn't say a moveable block of wood can separate them.] (To explain a "different Reshus" regarding Gitten is as follows; if a wife borrowed a place to acquire a Get, it doesn't include the piece of wood that's in it. Therefore, if the Get lands on it, she's not divorced.)

39) You're Chayiv for carrying out enough eye shadow to paint one eye. After all, this is fit for the extra modest women who cover one eye. However, this is only in the big cities where you find frivolous behavior, so the modest women need to act extra modestly to counteract it. However, even the extra modest don't need to do this in the villages, so the Shiur is to paint two eyes. However, this is only if it's meant for beauty, but if it's for a medicinal purpose, then the Shiur is to paint one eye. [Tosfos explains that we're contrasting between those that are only made for beauty and those that have medicinal qualities. Alternatively, even if both have medicinal properties, but we're contrasting between a city that uses it for its medicinal qualities and a city that only uses it for the beauty. (However, if it's used for both, then you're Chayiv for the smaller Shiur, which is for one eye.)

However, you can't say like Rashbam that you're Chayiv for one eye if it was stored for a medicinal purpose even if you personally didn't store it, and it will be like R' Shimon b. Elazar who says that you're Chayiv for a smaller Shiur when someone else stores it. After all, if that would be the case, then you can be Chayiv for less than one eye's worth since you're Chayiv for carrying out stored items no matter how small they are.]

40) You're Chayiv for carrying out enough ground-up earthenware to make an opening for a smelting pot (to place the bellow in). [Tosfos points out: although you're not Chayiv for cement for that amount unless it was already mixed with water since someone won't bother mixing it just for this; you need to say that the ground up earthenware is more precious and people would bother for it. Alternatively, we refer to a case where it was already mixed.]

You're Chayiv for carrying out enough glue to put on top of a bird trap. You're Chayiv for carrying out enough hair to mix with cement (since it's beneficial to cement). You're Chayiv for carrying out enough lime to take off unsightly hairs of a young girl's small finger. R' Yehuda says: enough to put on the temple (to keep the hair in place). R' Nechemia says: enough to make marking lines on a measuring cup. Alternatively, to remove hair on the forehead and to make it shiny.

41) You're Chayiv for carrying out enough sand to place on a plasterer's trowel. This is not only to R' Yehuda's opinion who holds that it's intrinsically good for building, since it strengthens it. This is why he holds that it's not enough mixing sand into the plaster to remember the Churban, but you also need to mix in straw. However, this is even to the Rabanan who holds that sand is not intrinsically good for building, and that's why you can mix either the sand or straw into the plaster to remember the Churban; still, by ruining the building, you're really fixing it (that you may now build it since you fulfilled you're obligation to do this to remember the Churban).

42) You're Chayiv if you carry out a reed that can be made into a pen, i.e., that comes up to your knuckles. The Gemara was in doubt whether it's the lower or upper knuckles.

43) If the reed is broken, you're Chayiv if you carried enough of it to use as fuel to cook a Grogeres amount of a chicken egg, which is the food that cooks the fastest.

Daf 81

44) you're Chayiv if you carry out a bone big enough to make a [Tosfos: small] spoon out of it. R 'Yehuda says that it needs to be big enough to make a lock's 'teeth' (i.e., its ward).

45) A lock's 'teeth' (i.e., wards) are not susceptible to Tumah before it's attached to the lock [Rashi explains: since it's not fit yet for any use.] However, after you attach it to a lock, it's Tamai. However, if the lock is attached to the courtyard's gate, it's not susceptible to Tumah since it's attached to the ground, which has the Halacha status like the ground.

46) [Rashi explains: when it's attached to the lock, it has the status of a flat bone utensil (since it doesn't have a receptacle), which has the same Halacha as a flat metal utensil, like it says in Chulin. You can't say it shouldn't be susceptible since it's attached to the lock that's not susceptible; since the lock is truly susceptible to Tumah since it has a receptacle, since it has a place to put the key in. Tosfos disagrees. He says that the only comparison that the Gemara in Chulin makes is; just like an unfinished metal utensil is not susceptible to Tumah, so too an unfinished bone utensil is not susceptible to Tumah. However, our Gemara here in the first Perek of Shabbos holds that a flat bone utensil is not susceptible to Tumah. Another question: this Braisa of the lock is brought down in Mesechta Keilim in the section referring to metal utensils (and not bone utensils). Another question, it's simple that the 'teeth' before they're attached are not usable at all and is not susceptible to Tumah, so the Braisa doesn't need to teach us this. Another question: we shouldn't consider the lock to have a receptacle just because you place the key into it, since you don't carry the lock with the key inside. As we see that a false leg is not susceptible to Tumah (unless you put padding inside) despite having a receptacle for the stump because you don't carry the stump (with the person) with the false leg.

Rather, the Ri says: we refer to a metal tooth. Therefore, I might have thought that it should be Tamai as is, since you can (easily) place it into the lock, so we're taught otherwise that it's an unfinished utensil that's not susceptible until you finish making the utensil. However, when it's attached, then the whole lock is Tamai because of the tooth. As we'll establish the author as R' Nechemia that the utensil gets the status of the part that makes it work, which here is the tooth, so it gets a status of a metal utensil despite being mostly wooden.]

47) You're Chayiv for carrying out a stone to throw at a bird (to shu it off). R' Elazar b. Yaakov says that it needs to be big enough to throw at an animal (to shu it away) that it will feel it, which means that it must weigh ten Zuz.

48) When you bring in rocks for the bathroom (to wipe yourself); R' Yossi says to bring in three stones, one's the size of an olive, the second is the size of a nut and the third the size of an egg. However, Zonin disagrees because; does someone bring a scale with him to the bathroom? Rather, R' Yishmael b. R' Yossi quotes his father: the Shiur is a handful.

49) However, you can't bring in clumps of dirt since they don't do the job of wiping. Also, if you need to rub the stone into the rectum (to loosen the stool), you're allowed to so that he shouldn't be in danger (if he can't relieve himself), but he should do it in a backhanded strange way [Tosfos explains: because it will remove some hair in that area. We must say that it's inevitable, or else it would be permitted to be done normally since it's an unintended Melacha.]

50) That, which we allow bringing in a handful of stones to wipe yourself; that's only when he doesn't have a set aside place to use as a bathroom. However, if he has a place set aside, they only allowed as much as a [Tosfos: leg] of a small mortar. [However, Rashi explains that it's an in-between Shiur, i.e., the size of a nut, which is between an egg and an olive. Also a small mortar is forbidden to use since it's Muktza since its main use is for a prohibition.]

51) If there is still a mark on it (from the last time it was used), you may use it [Tosfos: even if it's more than an egg or a handful] since it's noticeable that it's designated for wiping. Although you're not supposed to wipe yourself with a rock that you're friend already wiped themselves with (since it would lead to stomach problems); that's only if it's still fresh, but here it's dried out. Alternatively, we refer to a rock that you wiped yourself earlier (and it wasn't from your friend). Alternatively, you can use the other side of the stone. If it rained on the rock, you can only use it if the mark is still noticeable.

52) You're allowed to carry these rocks onto the roof. [Rashi explains: that we're not worried that it's too much of a bother on Shabbos to drag them there. Tosfos disagrees. After all, we don't find that we're worried about too much bother in our whole Sugya. Rather, the Chiddush is that we don't say that it's so close to where you live, you should have prepared them before Shabbos. Until now, we may have only permitted it when you go to the bathroom in the field, since we don't require you to go all the way out there on Friday to prepare it. Also, someone might come there the next day before you and take them.]

This is not similar to a case of a toothpick (which we should also permit Muktza because of human dignity so that he shouldn't walk around with food stuck in his teeth), that R' Eliezer only allowed (on Yom Tov) to take from the wood that's before you [Tosfos: since those are the only ones that are designated for whatever you need, but you may take from the courtyard to use as fuel, since they're, at least, designated to be used for fuel.] The Chachumim say that you can only use something that's [fit] to be used in a trough (i.e., fit for fodder). [Tosfos explains: since they hold that regular wood is only not Muktza on Yom Tov to use for fuel, but not for any other use. However, you can't explain that it's only permitted from a trough, but you can't take it from the ground since it becomes like part of the ground. After all, they allowed gathering it from the ground to use as fuel.] After all, there is different since people prepare where they're going to eat on Shabbos, so you could have prepared the toothpicks on Friday. However, this is not the case by the bathroom, since there is usually no set place to use.

53) you cannot relieve yourself in a plowed field on Shabbos. After all, you might take a stone (to wipe yourself) from a higher ground, and return it to a lower ground, and you'll be Chayiv like Rabbah says. As Rabbah says; if you fill in a hole; if it's in a house, you're Chayiv for building. If it's in a field, you're Chayiv for plowing.

54) You're allowed to wipe yourself with a stone on Shabbos, even if grass is growing on it. However, you can't pull the grass off since you'll transgress "removing something from where it's growing." However, you can't move the rock for no reason (since it looks like you're uprooting it from the ground), therefore, you can't move a perforated flowerpot, (i.e., that has a hole on its bottom), on Shabbos.

55) If you place a perforated flowerpot on pegs on Shabbos, you're Chayiv for uprooting. If you take it off the pegs and place it on the ground, you're Chayiv for planting. [Rashi and Tosfos explain that you're Chayiv rabbinical lashing, but you're not Chayiv a Chatos since this is not true uprooting and planting, like we allowed to wipe yourself with a rock that has grass growing on it.]

56) R' Yochanan says that you can't wipe yourself with an earthenware shard since it will make you vulnerable to witchcraft, and it's dangerous (since it might wound you). Not only can't you use it during the week, but you can't even use it on Shabbos, and we don't say that it's a better alternative to wiping with a stone if it still can be classified as a utensil and is not Muktza. However, we don't forbid it on Shabbos since it might remove hairs from that area, since R' Yochanan agrees with R' Shimon that unintended Melachos are permitted.

Daf 82

57) R' Huna also holds to wipe with a stone instead of with earthenware, unless the earthenware is round, like by the rim of the utensil. However, R' Chisda holds you should wipe yourself with earthenware instead of a stone.

58) There is an argument between R' Chisda and R' Hamnuna whether it's better to wipe with a stone than with growing grass (since it doesn't make the area raw and doesn't have a problem that it may get detached), or is the grass better (since it's less Muktza since it's fit for livestock to eat, and also, they didn't forbid using vegetation (that's not wood) when it's attached to the ground.) However, this is only with fresh grass, but you can't wipe with dry grass since we say that your 'bottom teeth,' (i.e., some organ above the rectum), will fall out if you wipe yourself with something flammable.

59) R' Yehuda holds: you're Chayiv for carrying out an earthenware shard to place between planks (where they're not even) so that they won't warp. R' Meir holds: it needs to be big enough to stir a fireplace. R' Yossi says: it needs to be big enough that it can still hold a Revious.