Shabbat

why particularly a stone? the same applies to a denar! Why did Raba say: They learnt only a stone, but a denar is forbidden? — In the case of a stone, if it falls down the father will not come to fetch it, [but] with a denar, if it falls down the father will come to fetch it. It was taught in accordance with Raba: If one carries out his garments folded up and lying on his shoulder, or his sandals or his rings in his hands, he is liable; but if he was wearing them, he is not culpable. If one carries out a person with his garments' upon him, with his sandals on his feet and his rings on his hands,  he is not culpable. Hence if he carried them as they are  he would be culpable. A BASKET WITH A STONE IN IT: yet why? let the basket be [regarded as] a stand for a forbidden article?  — Said Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in R. Johanan's name: We treat here of a basket full of produce.  Then let the produce be thrown out, and let the stone be thrown out, and then we can collect [the produce] by hand?  — As R. Elai said [elsewhere] in Rab's name: The reference is to fruit which becomes soiled, so here too [we treat] of fruit which becomes soiled.  Then let one shake it [the basket] about?  — Said R. Hiyya b. Ashi in Raba's name: We treat here of a broken basket, so that the stone itself becomes a wall for the basket. [UNCLEAN] TERUMAH MAY BE HANDLED, etc. R. Hisda said: They learnt [this] only where the clean [terumah] is underneath and the unclean is on top; but if the clean [terumah] is on top and the unclean underneath, one must take the clean and leave the unclean.  But if the clean is underneath too, let him throw off [the unclean] and take it? — Said R. Elai in Rab's name: We treat of fruit which becomes soiled. An objection is raised: One may handle unclean terumah together with clean terumah or with hullin, whether the clean is on top and the unclean is below, or the unclean is on top and the clean is underneath; this refutes R. Hisda? — R. Hisda answers you: Our Mishnah [means that] it is required for itself;  the Baraitha is where its place is required.  What compels R. Hisda to interpret our Mishnah as meaning that it is required for itself?  — Said Raba, Our Mishnah, by deduction, supports him. For the second clause  states: If money is lying on a cushion, one shakes the cushion, and it falls off. Whereon Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: They learnt this only if it [the cushion] is required for itself; but if its place is required, one removes it while it [the money] is upon it. And since the second clause means that it is required for itself, the first clause too means that it is required for itself. R. JUDAH SAID: ONE MAY ALSO REMOVE, etc. Yet why? surely he makes it fit?  — R. Judah agrees with R. Eliezer, who maintains: The terumah lies as a [separate] entity.  For we learnt: If a se'ah of terumah falls into less than a hundred,  and thus they become a [forbidden] mixture, and then some of the mixture falls elsewhere,  R. Eliezer said: It creates a [forbidden] mixture as though it were certain terumah,  but the Sages maintain: The mixture creates a [forbidden] mixture only in proportion.  [But] say that you know him [to rule thus] with stringency; do you know him [to rule thus] with lenience?  — Rather [reply thus]: He [R. Judah] rules as R. Simeon, as we learnt: If a se'ah of terumah falls into a hundred,  and one has no time to remove [it] until another falls in, it is [all] forbidden;  but R. Simeon permits it.  Yet how [does this follow]? Perhaps there they differ in this: viz., the first Tanna holds: Though they fell in consecutively it is as though they fell in simultaneously, so that each falls into fifty; whereas R. Simeon holds: The first is neutralized in the hundred, and this one is neutralized in a hundred and one?  — Rather [reply thus]: He [R. Judah] rules as R. Simeon b. Eleazar. For it was taught, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: One may cast his eyes at one side and eat from the other.  Yet does he agree with him?