Shabbat

With what does one scrape it? — Said R. Abbahu: With the back of a knife. A certain old man said to him, Delete your [teaching] on account of what R. Hiyya taught: One must not scrape either a new shoe or all old one, nor must he rub his foot with oil while it is in the shoe or sandal;  but one may rub his foot with oil and place it in his shoe or sandal; he may also oil his whole body and roll himself on a leather spread without fear.  R. Hisda said: They learnt this only [if his intention is] to polish it;  but [if it is] to dress it,  it is forbidden. 'To dress it'? surely that is obvious? Moreover, does any one permit it [if he desires] to polish it? — Rather if stated, It was thus stated: R. Hisda said: They learnt this only of a quantity [sufficient merely] to polish it; but [if] the quantity  [is sufficient] to dress it, it is forbidden. Our Rabbis taught: A small[-footed] man must not go out with the shoe of a large[-footed] man,  but he may go out with [too] large a shirt. A woman must not go out with a gaping shoe,  nor may she perform halizah therewith; yet if she does perform halizah therewith, the halizah is valid. And one must not go out with a new shoe: of what shoe did they rule this? Of a woman's shoe.  Bar Kappara taught: They learnt [this] only where she had not gone out therein one hour before nightfall;  but if she went out therein on the eve of the Sabbath, it is permitted. One [Baraitha] taught: A shoe may be removed from its last; while another taught: It may not be removed. There is no difficulty: one is [according to] R. Eliezer, the other [according to] the Rabbis. For we learnt: If a shoe is on the last, — R. Eliezer declares it clean, while the Sages declare it is unclean.  This is well according to Raba, who maintained: It is permitted [to handle] an article whose function is for a forbidden purpose, whether it is required itself or for its place: then it is correct. But on Abaye's view that it may be [handled] for itself, but it is forbidden [to handle it] when its place is required,  what can be said?  — We treat here of one [a shoe] that is loose [on the last].  For it was taught, R. Judah said: If it is loose. it is permitted [to remove it]. The reason [then why it is permitted] is because it is loose. But if it is not loose it is not [permitted]? This is well on Abaye's view that an article whose function is for a forbidden purpose may be [handled] when required for itself, but not when its place [only] is required: then it is correct. But according to Raba, who maintains, it is permitted [to handle it] both when required for itself or when its place is required, what can be said: [for] why particularly a loose [shoe], — even if not loose too it is thus? That  represents R. Judah's view in R. Eliezer's name. For it was taught: R. Judah said in R. Eliezer's name: If it is loose, it is permitted. MISHNAH. A MAN MAY TAKE UP HIS SON WHILE HE HAS A STONE IN HIS HAND OR A BASKET WITH A STONE IN IT; AND UNCLEAN TERUMAH MAY BE HANDLED TOGETHER WITH CLEAN [TERUMAH] OR WITH HULLIN.  R. JUDAH SAID: ONE MAY ALSO REMOVE  THE ADMIXTURE [OF TERUMAH IN HULLIN] WHEN ONE [PART IS NEUTRALIZED] IN A HUNDRED [PARTS]. GEMARA. Raba said: If one carries out  a live child with a purse hanging around its neck, he is culpable on account of the purse; a dead child with a purse hanging around its neck, he is not culpable. 'A live child with a purse hanging around its neck, he is culpable on account of the purse. But let him be culpable on account of the child? — Raba agrees with R. Nathan, who maintained, A living [person] carries himself.  But let the purse be counted as nought in relation to the child? Did we not learn, [If one carries out] a living person in a bed, he is not culpable, even in respect of the bed, because the bed is subsidiary to him? — A bed is accounted as nought in relation to a living person,  but a purse is not accounted as nought in relation to the child. 'A dead child with a purse hanging around its neck, he is not culpable.' But let him be culpable on account of the child? Raba agrees with R. Simeon, who maintained: One is not culpable on account of a labour unrequired per se. We learnt: A MAN MAY TAKE UP HIS SON WHILE HE HAS A STONE IN HIS HAND?  — The School of R. Jannai said: This refers to a child who pines for his father.  If so,