וְשֶׁל מַה בְּכָךְ – מוּתָּר לְחוֹשְׁבָן.

and of: What significance does it have, it is permitted to calculate them.

וּרְמִינְהוּ: חוֹשְׁבִין חֶשְׁבּוֹנוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן צְרִיכִין, וְאֵין מְחַשְּׁבִין חֶשְׁבּוֹנוֹת שֶׁצְּרִיכִין בַּשַּׁבָּת. כֵּיצַד, אוֹמֵר אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ: כָּךְ וְכָךְ פּוֹעֲלִים הוֹצֵאתִי עַל שָׂדֶה זוֹ, כָּךְ וְכָךְ דִּינָרִין הוֹצֵאתִי עַל דִּירָה זוֹ. אֲבָל לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ: כָּךְ וְכָךְ הוֹצֵאתִי, וְכָךְ וְכָךְ אֲנִי עָתִיד לְהוֹצִיא

The Gemara raises a contradiction based on what was taught in another baraita : One may make calculations that are unnecessary, but one may not make calculations that are necessary on Shabbat. How so? One may say to another: I sent out such and such number of workers to this field, and I spent such and such number of dinar for this home. But he may not say to him: I spent such and such amount of money, and I am going to spend such and such amount in the future. Apparently, one is permitted to calculate one’s previous expenditures on Shabbat.

. וּלְטַעְמִיךְ, קַשְׁיָא לְךָ הִיא גּוּפָא. אֶלָּא, הָא דְּאִיכָּא אַגְרָא דַּאֲגִירָא גַּבֵּיהּ, הָא – דְּלֵיכָּא אַגְרָא דַּאֲגִירָא גַּבֵּיהּ.

The Gemara responds: And according to your reasoning, it itself, the Tosefta quoted previously, is difficult for you, for it prohibits calculating past expenditures while allowing one to make calculations that do not have practical significance. Rather, it must be explained in the following manner: This Tosefta , which taught that it is prohibited to calculate past expenses, is referring to a case in which he has payment with him that he still owes his workers. Therefore, although his calculation pertains to projects that have already been completed, it is still relevant in a practical manner. And this baraita , which taught that it is permitted to calculate past expenses, is referring to a case in which he does not have payment with him that he must still pay his workers, and therefore his calculation does not have practical significance.

“אֵין מַחְשִׁיכִין״. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּחָסִיד אֶחָד שֶׁנִּפְרְצָה לוֹ פֶּרֶץ בְּתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ, וְנִמְלַךְ עָלֶיהָ לְגוֹדְרָהּ, וְנִזְכַּר שֶׁשַּׁבָּת הוּא, וְנִמְנַע אוֹתוֹ חָסִיד וְלֹא גְּדָרָהּ. וְנַעֲשָׂה לוֹ נֵס, וְעָלְתָה בּוֹ צְלָף וּמִמֶּנָּה הָיְתָה פַּרְנָסָתוֹ וּפַרְנָסַת אַנְשֵׁי בֵּיתוֹ.

We learned in the mishna that one may not wait for nightfall at the edge of the Shabbat boundary in order to hire workers or bring produce from outside of the boundary immediately after Shabbat. The Sages taught: There was an incident with a pious man in which a breach was made in the fence around his field, and when he saw it he decided to fence it in. And then he remembered that it was Shabbat. And that pious man refrained from fixing the fence forever because he had thought about fixing it on Shabbat. And a miracle was done for him, and a caper bush grew in the breach, thereby closing it up. And from it and its produce he then received his livelihood and the livelihood of the members of his household.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מוּתָּר לְאָדָם לוֹמַר לַחֲבֵירוֹ “לִכְרַךְ פְּלוֹנִי אֲנִי הוֹלֵךְ לְמָחָר״, שֶׁאִם יֵשׁ בּוּרְגָּנִין – הוֹלֵךְ.

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: A person is permitted to say to another on Shabbat: I am going to such and such city tomorrow, for if there were small guardhouses [ burganin ] one would be permitted to walk. If small guardhouses, from which the surrounding area and fields could be watched, were located along the way one needs to travel, the entire area would attain the status of a single city, and walking from one part to the other on Shabbat would be permitted ab initio . Since it would be permitted to traverse this area on Shabbat with burganin present, it is permitted to talk about such a journey on Shabbat, even when these guardhouses are not present. This is because it is permitted to speak about or prepare for something that can be done in a permitted fashion on Shabbat, even in the absence of the conditions that make it permitted.

תְּנַן: אֵין מַחְשִׁיכִין עַל הַתְּחוּם לִשְׂכּוֹר פּוֹעֲלִים וּלְהָבִיא פֵּירוֹת. בִּשְׁלָמָא לִשְׂכּוֹר פּוֹעֲלִים – דִּבְשַׁבָּת לָא מָצֵי אָגַר, אֶלָּא לְהָבִיא פֵּירוֹת – לֵימָא: שֶׁאִם יֵשׁ שָׁם מְחִיצּוֹת – מֵבִיא. מַשְׁכַּחַת לָהּ בְּפֵירוֹת הַמְחוּבָּרִים.

We learned in the mishna: One may not wait for nightfall at the edge of the Shabbat boundary in order to hire workers or bring produce after Shabbat from the other side of the boundary. Granted, it makes sense that it is prohibited to wait at the Shabbat boundary in order to hire workers, as one may not hire workers under any circumstances on Shabbat. But if one waits there in order to bring produce, why is it prohibited? Let us say that since one would be permitted to bring produce at the edge of the boundary on Shabbat ab initio if there were partitions there, one may wait for nightfall at the border to bring produce even when there are not partitions present, in accordance with Rav Yehuda’s ruling mentioned above. The Gemara answers: You find a case where bringing produce is not permitted under any circumstances; that is when the produce is still attached to the ground, as there is no permitted way to pick produce on Shabbat.

וְהָתָנֵי רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעֲיָא: אֵין מַחְשִׁיכִין עַל הַתְּחוּם לְהָבִיא תֶּבֶן וָקַשׁ; בִּשְׁלָמָא קַשׁ – מַשְׁכַּחַת לָהּ בִּמְחוּבָּר. אֶלָּא תֶּבֶן, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַת לָהּ? בְּתִיבְנָא סַרְיָא.

The Gemara again questions Rav Yehuda’s ruling: But Rabbi Oshaya taught: One may not wait for nightfall at the edge of the Shabbat boundary in order to bring in hay and straw after Shabbat. Granted, Rabbi Oshaya taught that it is prohibited in the case of straw; you find the case of straw that is still attached to the ground, which it is clearly prohibited to pick under any circumstances. But hay, which has already been detached from the ground, how do you find a case in which it would be prohibited to carry it on Shabbat, even with partitions present? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Oshaya’s ruling referred to rotten straw, which may not be carried on Shabbat because it is considered set-aside [ muktze ].

תָּא שְׁמַע: מַחְשִׁיכִין עַל הַתְּחוּם לְפַקֵּחַ עַל עִסְקֵי כַּלָּה וְעַל עִסְקֵי הַמֵּת. עַל עִסְקֵי כַּלָּה וּמֵת – אִין, עַל עִסְקֵי אַחֵר – לָא.

Come and hear a proof with regard to this matter based on what was taught elsewhere: One may wait for nightfall at the edge of the Shabbat boundary in order to attend to the needs of a bride or the needs of a corpse. The Gemara infers from this that for the needs of a bride or a corpse, yes, one is permitted to wait for nightfall at the edge of the Shabbat boundary, but for the needs of another person, no, it is not permitted.

בִּשְׁלָמָא אַחֵר דּוּמְיָא דְּכַלָּה מַשְׁכַּחַת לָהּ: לְמִיגְזָא לֵיהּ אָסָא. אֶלָּא מֵת מַאי נִיהוּ? לְהָבִיא לוֹ אָרוֹן וְתַכְרִיכִין – וְקָתָנֵי: מֵת – אִין, אֲבָל אַחֵר – לָא.

Granted, with regard to attending to the needs of another in a manner similar to attending to the needs of a bride, you find a case where it is prohibited to cut him a myrtle branch But with regard to a corpse, what is it that one might do which would be prohibited to do for others? To bring for it a coffin and shrouds. And it teaches that for a corpse, yes, it is permitted, but for another it is not.

וְאַמַּאי? לֵימָא: שֶׁאִם יֵשׁ שָׁם מְחִיצּוֹת – מֵבִיא. מֵת נַמִי מַשְׁכַּחַת לָהּ – לְמִיגְזָא לֵיהּ גְּלִימָא.

And why is it prohibited to do so for others? Let us say that since one would be permitted to bring these items on Shabbat if there were partitions there, one may wait for nightfall at the edge of the border to bring these items after Shabbat, in accordance with the ruling of Rav Yehuda. The Gemara answers: In the case of a corpse, you also find a case where bringing an item is prohibited under any circumstance, e.g., if one is waiting to cut a garment for the corpse to use as shrouds. There is no permissible way to do that on Shabbat. In that case, it would be prohibited to wait at the edge of the Shabbat boundary for this purpose if not for the fact that it is for the sake of a corpse, as it is a mitzva to attend to the needs of a corpse.

“אֲבָל מַחְשִׁיכִין״. וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא אַבְדִּיל? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב: אָסוּר לוֹ לְאָדָם שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה חֲפָצָיו קוֹדֶם שֶׁיַּבְדִּיל. וְכִי תֵּימָא – דְּאַבְדִיל בַּתְּפִלָּה, וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַמַּבְדִּיל בַּתְּפִלָּה צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּבְדִּיל עַל הַכּוֹס. וְכִי תֵּימָא – דְּאַבְדִיל עַל הַכּוֹס, כּוֹס בַּשָּׂדֶה מִי אִיכָּא? תַּרְגְּמָא רַבִּי נָתָן בַּר אַמִי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא: בֵּין הַגִּיתּוֹת שָׁנוּ.

We learned in the mishna: But one may wait for nightfall at the Shabbat boundary in order to guard one’s produce. The Gemara asks: And is this the case even if he has not recited the blessing of distinction [ havdala ] marking the end of Shabbat? But didn’t Rabbi Elazar ben Antigonos say in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov that it is prohibited for a person to tend to his weekday affairs after Shabbat before he recites havdala ? And if you say that this is referring to a case in which one already recited havdala during prayer, as formulated by the Sages in the blessing of: Who graciously grants knowledge, didn’t Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel said that one who recites havdala in prayer must still recite havdala over a cup of wine? And if you say that this is an instance in which one already recited havdala over a cup of wine, does one have a cup of wine in the field? Rabbi Natan bar Ami explained this before Rava: They taught this halakha with regard to a unique case in which the edge of the Shabbat boundary was situated among wine presses, and one took wine from the wine press and recited havdala over it.

אָמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְרַב אַשִׁי: בְּמַעַרְבָא אָמְרִינַן הָכִי: “הַמַּבְדִּיל בֵּין קוֹדֶשׁ לְחוֹל״, וְעָבְדִינַן צוֹרְכִין. אָמַר רַב אַשִׁי: כִּי הָוֵינָא בֵּי רַב כָּהֲנָא הֲוָה אָמַר “הַמַּבְדִּיל בֵּין קוֹדֶשׁ לְחוֹל״ וּמְסַלְּתִינַן סִילְתֵי.

Rabbi Abba said another explanation to Rav Ashi: In the West, in Eretz Yisrael, we say this at the end of Shabbat: The One who distinguishes between the sacred and the mundane, and then we attend to our needs, as reciting havdala over a cup is unnecessary in order to begin doing labor after Shabbat. It is therefore possible that the mishna addressed a similar case. Similarly, Rav Ashi said: When I was in the house of Rav Kahana, he would say: The One who distinguishes between the sacred and the mundane, at the end of Shabbat, and we would cut wood to burn for light and heat.

כְּלָל אָמַר אַבָּא שָׁאוּל כֹּל שֶׁאֲנִי וכו׳. (אִיבַּעֲיָא לְהוּ): אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אַהַיָּיא? אִילֵימָא אַרֵישָׁא קָאֵי “אֵין מַחְשִׁיכִין עַל הַתְּחוּם לִשְׂכּוֹר פּוֹעֲלִים לְהָבִיא פֵּירוֹת״,

We learned in the mishna: Abba Shaul stated a general principle: With regard to anything that I am permitted to discuss on Shabbat, I am permitted to wait for nightfall at the edge of the Shabbat boundary for its sake. The Gemara raises a dilemma: To which part of the mishna did Abba Shaul’s statement refer? If you say that it relates to the first clause of the mishna, which taught: One may not wait for nightfall at the edge of the Shabbat boundary in order to hire workers or to bring produce,