why does the mishna refer specifically to moving a stone? The same should hold true even for a dinar, as well. Why, then, did Rava say: They only taught this in a case where the child has a stone in his hand; however, if the child has a dinar in his hand, it is prohibited to lift the child? The Gemara answers: Actually, lifting the child with a dinar should also be permitted. However, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting lifting the child with a dinar because with regard to a stone, if it falls, his father will not come to bring it. However, with regard to a dinar, if it falls, his father will come to bring it.

It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: On Shabbat, one who carries out his clothes to the public domain while they are folded and placed on his shoulder, and his sandals on his feet and his rings in his hand, not on his fingers, is liable. And if he was wearing them, he is exempt for all of them, as they are negated relative to him.

One who carries out a person with his garments on him, and his sandals on his feet, and his rings on the fingers of his hands, i.e., wearing all of his clothes and jewelry in the typical manner, is exempt, whereas if he carried them out as they are, i.e., the person was holding his clothes in his hands, he is liable for carrying out the clothes, just as Rava said.

We learned in the mishna: And it is permissible to take a basket with a stone inside it on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: And why may he do so? The basket should be a base for a prohibited object, and a base for a prohibited object is set-aside and may not be moved on Shabbat. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Here, we are dealing with a basket full of fruit. The basket is a base for permitted items as well, not only a base for the stone. The Gemara asks: Why may he move the basket and the stone? There is an alternative. And let him throw the fruit and throw the stone out of the basket, and take the fruit in his hands, and there will be no need to move the stone. The Gemara answers: As Rabbi Elai said that Rav said in a different context: It is referring to fruits that become soiled and ruined. Here, too, it is referring to fruits that become soiled and ruined if he throws them down.

The Gemara asks a question: And let him shake them until the stone is on one side of the basket, enabling him to throw the stone out of the basket. Rav Hiyya bar Ashi said that Rava said: Here, we are dealing with a broken basket with a hole, in which the stone serves as a side of the basket by sealing the hole. Therefore, he cannot throw it out of the basket.

We learned in the mishna: And one may move ritually impure teruma with ritually pure teruma. Rav Ḥisda said: They only taught this in a case where the pure teruma is on the bottom and the impure teruma is on the top. In that case, if one wants to reach the pure teruma, there is no alternative to taking the impure teruma as well. However, if the pure teruma is on the top and the impure teruma is on the bottom, he takes the pure teruma and leaves the impure teruma.

The Gemara asks a question: And when the pure teruma is on the bottom too, let him throw the impure fruit, and take the pure fruit. Rabbi Elai said that Rav said: It is referring to fruits that become soiled and ruined, which cannot be thrown from the basket.

The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rav Ḥisda: One may move impure teruma with the pure teruma and with the non-sacred produce, whether the pure is on the top and the impure is on the bottom, or whether the impure is on the top and the pure is on the bottom. This is a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rav Hisda.

The Gemara answers that Rav Ḥisda could have said to you: The mishna, which, according to Rav Ḥisda, permits moving the impure teruma with the pure teruma only when the pure teruma is on top, is referring to a case where he needs the basket for the purpose of utilizing the object itself, i.e., he wants to eat the fruit. The baraita is referring to a case where he needs the basket for the purpose of utilizing its place, i.e., he wants to move the basket in order to vacate its place, in which case he may move it even if it contains impure teruma exclusively.

The Gemara asks: What impelled Rav Ḥisda to establish the mishna as referring specifically to a case where he needs the basket for the purpose of utilizing the object itself? Why can’t he explain the mishna as referring to any case?

Rava said: The mishna is precise in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, as it is taught in the latter clause, the next mishna: With regard to coins that are on a cushion, he shakes the cushion and the coins fall. And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They only taught that he may shake the cushion in a case where it is for the purpose of utilizing the cushion itself. However, if he needs it for the purpose of utilizing its place, he may move it, even though the coins are still on it. And from the fact that the latter clause of the mishna is referring to a case where he needs the cushion for the purpose of utilizing the cushion itself, the first clause, too, is referring to a case where he needs the basket for the purpose of utilizing the basket itself.

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: One may even lift a measure of teruma that was nullified from a mixture of one hundred measures of non-sacred produce and one measure of teruma. The Gemara asks: And why is it permitted? Isn’t he rendering the produce fit for consumption? The Sages issued a decree prohibiting the performance of any action that renders an item fit for use on Shabbat.

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said: Teruma is considered as if it is placed in its pure unadulterated state. By lifting the measure of teruma, one does not render the rest of the mixture fit for consumption. It is considered as if the measure of teruma never intermingled with the rest of the produce and the measure that he lifted from the produce is the measure that fell into the produce.

As we learned in a mishna: A se’a of teruma that fell into less than one hundred se’a of non-sacred produce causes it to become a prohibited mixture. The teruma is not nullified by the non-sacred produce. And then, if a se’a from the mixture fell into a different place with non-sacred produce, Rabbi Eliezer says: The se’a from the original mixture renders it a prohibited mixture in the same way that definite teruma would. This is due to the concern that the same se’a of teruma that fell into the first mixture never intermingled with the produce and subsequently fell into the second mixture. Therefore, it requires nullification like unadulterated teruma.

And the Rabbis say: The se’a from the original prohibited mixture only renders the second one a prohibited mixture according to the proportion of teruma in the entire mixture. In other words, the percentage of teruma in each se’a of the original mixture is representative of the percentage of teruma in the entire mixture. Only that measure of teruma need be nullified. Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion that the teruma in the mixture is not considered mixed, and it is considered as if it was placed in its pure unadulterated state, corresponds to Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion that by lifting the measure of teruma, one does not render the rest of the mixture fit for consumption.

The Gemara rejects this: Say that you heard that Rabbi Eliezer expresses his opinion in this matter to rule stringently. Did you hear him express his opinion to rule leniently? He expressed concern lest the fallen teruma might not have intermingled with the non-sacred produce in the first mixture, and therefore, the second mixture is prohibited. However, he does not consider this a certainty.

Rather, Rabbi Yehuda stated his halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as we learned in a mishna: If a se’a of teruma fell into one hundred se’a of non-sacred produce, and he did not manage to lift that se’a from the mixture until another se’a of teruma fell into the mixture, this entire mixture is prohibited. This is because two se’a of teruma are mixed with one hundred se’a of non-sacred produce. And Rabbi Shimon permits the mixture. Rabbi Shimon holds that the first se’a that fell into the produce is not mixed with it; it is placed in its unadulterated state. When the second se’a falls, it is also placed in its unadulterated state, and the two se’a do not join together.

The Gemara rejects this comparison: And from what does that conclusion ensue? Perhaps there, they are disagreeing with regard to this: That the first tanna holds: Even though two se’a of teruma fell one after another, it is as though they fell at once, and this se’a of teruma fell into fifty se’a of non-sacred produce, and this se’a of teruma fell into fifty se’a of non-sacred produce, which are insufficient to nullify teruma. And Rabbi Shimon holds: The first se’a was nullified immediately when it fell into one hundred se’a, and this se’a will be nullified in one hundred and one se’a. There is no connection between this dispute and the opinion that by lifting the measure of teruma, one does not render the rest of the mixture fit for consumption.

Rather, Rabbi Yehuda stated his halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One need not lift a se’a from the mixture in order to render it permitted to eat. It is sufficient if he casts his eyes on this side of the mixture and decides to separate a se’a from the produce on that side, and he eats from a different side of the mixture and physically separates the se’a later. Lifting a se’a from the mixture does not render the mixture fit for consumption, as it is permitted to partake from the mixture even without removing a se’a. That is the rationale for Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion.

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar?