Shabbat

An article whose function is a forbidden labour is permitted when required for itself. Abaye raised an objection to Rabbah: A mortar,  if containing garlic, may be moved;  if not, it may not be moved?  — The author of this is R. Nehemiah, he replied, who maintains, A utensil may be handled only for the purpose of its [normal] use.  He objected to him: Yet both hold alike that if he has [already] cut meat upon it, it may not be handled?  — He thought of answering him that this agrees with R. Nehemiah, but when he heard R. Hinena b. Shalmia's dictum in Rab's name: All agree in respect of the dyer's pins, tubs, and beams:  since one is particular about them he appoints a [special] place for them; so here too one appoints a special place for it [the pestle]. It was stated, R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: We learnt [in our Mishnah] of a goldsmith's hammer; R. Shaman b. Abba said: We learnt of a spice hammer. He who says a spice [hammer], all the more so a goldsmith's [hammer].  He who says a goldsmith's, — but one is particular about a spice [hammer]. A REED OR A WHORL, etc. Our Rabbis taught: If an unripe fig was hidden in straw,  or a cake which was hidden in live coals,  and part thereof is uncovered, it may be handled;  but if not, it may not be handled. R. Eleazar b. Taddai said: One impales them on a reed or a whorl, and they [the straw or coals] are shaken off of their own accord. R. Nahman said: The halachah is as R. Eleazar b. Taddai. Shall we say that R. Nahman holds, Indirect  handling is not designated handling?  Surely R. Nahman said: 'A radish, if it is the right way up, is permitted; if it is reversed,  it is forbidden.  — R. Nahman retracted from that [ruling]. A SMALL NEEDLE TO REMOVE A THORN, etc. Raba son of Rabbah sent to R. Joseph: Let our Master teach us, What of a needle from which the eye or the point has been removed?  We have learnt it, he replied: A SMALL NEEDLE TO REMOVE A THORN: now, what does it matter to the thorn whether it has an eye or not? He [thereupon] put an objection to him: If the eye or the point of a needle is removed, it is clean?  — Said Abaye: You oppose defilement to the Sabbath! [For] defilement we require a working utensil,  [whereas] in respect to the Sabbath we require anything that is fit, and this too is fit for removing a splinter. Raba observed, He who raises the objection does so rightly: since it is not a utensil in respect to defilement, it is not a utensil in respect to the Sabbath. An objection is raised: A needle, whether with or without an eye, may be handled on the Sabbath, while one with an eye was specified only in respect to defilement?  — Abaye interpreted it on the view of Raba as referring to unfinished utensils, for sometimes he may decide to use it thus and make it rank as a utensil; but if the eye or point is removed one throws it away among the rubbish. Causing a new-born babe to vomit,  R. Nahman forbids, while R. Shesheth permits. R. Nahman said: Whence do I rule thus? Because we learnt: One must not use an emetic