A woman who applies eye shadow is liable due to dyeing; one who braids her hair and applies blush is liable due to the prohibition against building. The Gemara asks about this: And is that the typical manner of building? The Gemara answers: Yes, braiding one’s hair is considered building, as Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya taught that the verse states: “And the Lord God built the side that He took from Adam into a woman” (Genesis 2:22), which teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, braided Eve’s hair and brought her to Adam. From where is it derived that this is the meaning of built? It is because in the islands of the sea they call braiding building. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: With regard to a woman who braids her hair and who applies eye shadow or blush on Shabbat, if she did it for herself, she is exempt; if she did it for another, she is liable. This is because a woman cannot perform these actions for herself in as complete a fashion as she can for someone else. And, so too, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: A woman may not apply rouge to her face on Shabbat because by doing so she is dyeing, which is one of the prohibited labors on Shabbat.

The Sages taught in a baraita: One who milks an animal, and one who sets milk to curdle, and one who makes cheese, in the measure of a dried fig-bulk, and one who sweeps the house, and one who sprinkles water on the floor, and one who removes honeycombs, if he did so unwittingly on Shabbat, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. If he did so intentionally on a Festival, he receives forty lashes; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say: Both this, on Shabbat and that, on a Festival, these actions are only prohibited due to a rabbinic decree, not by Torah law. Therefore, one is neither liable to bring a sin-offering nor to receive lashes for performing those actions.

The Gemara relates: Rav Naḥman bar Gurya happened to come to Neharde’a. The students asked him: For what prohibited labor is one who milks liable? He said to them: For milking. For what prohibited labor is one who sets milk to curdle liable? He said to them: For setting milk to curdle. For what is a person who makes cheese liable? He said to them: For making cheese. They said to him: Your teacher was a reed cutter in a swamp who did not know how to explain the mishna to his students. He came and asked those questions in the study hall. They said to him: One who milks is liable for performing the prohibited labor of extracting, which is a subcategory of threshing, on Shabbat. This is because when one extracts milk from a cow it is similar to the act of threshing, where one removes the desired content from its covering. One who sets milk is liable for the prohibited labor of selecting because part of the milk is separated and made into congealed milk. And one who makes cheese is liable for building because the cheese within the milk assumes a solid form, which is similar to the process of building.

The baraita cited above taught: With regard to one who sweeps the house, and one who sprinkles water on the floor, and one who removes honeycombs, if he did so unwittingly on Shabbat, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. If he did so intentionally on a Festival, he receives forty lashes; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Elazar said: What is the rationale for the statement of Rabbi Eliezer? His rationale is as it is written: “And he put forth the end of the rod that was in his hand and dipped it in the honeycomb [yarat hadevash]” (i Samuel 14:27). The Gemara wonders: What does a forest [ya’ar] have to do with honey [devash]? Rather, it comes to tell you: Just as with regard to a forest, one who picks from a tree on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering, so too, with regard to a honeycomb, one who removes honey from it on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering.

The Gemara relates: Ameimar permitted sprinkling water in the city of Meḥoza. He said: What is the reason that the Rabbis said it is prohibited to sprinkle water? It was due to concern lest one come to smooth out holes in an unpaved floor. Here, in Meḥoza, there are no holes in the floor because all the houses have stone floors. The Gemara also relates: Rava Tosfa’a, an expert on the Tosefta, found that Ravina was suffering on Shabbat from the dusty hot air in the house. And some say that Mar Kashisha, son of Rava, found that Rav Ashi was suffering from the dusty hot air. Mar Kashisha said to Rav Ashi: And does my Master not hold in accordance with this halakha that was taught in a baraita: One who wishes to sprinkle water on the floor of his house on Shabbat, where it is otherwise prohibited, brings a large basin full of water, and washes his face in this corner, then moves the basin and washes his hands in this corner, his feet in this corner, and it will eventuate that the floor of the entire house is sprinkled by itself from the water that splashed in a backhanded manner? Rav Ashi said to him: It did not enter my mind to employ that method.

One of the Sages taught: A wise woman sprinkles water on the floor of her house on Shabbat by washing different vessels in different parts of the house. And now that we hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that it is permitted to perform an unintentional act on Shabbat, it is permitted to sweep and sprinkle water on the floor of a house on Shabbat even ab initio, because one’s intention is not to smooth the holes in the floor.

MISHNA: One who severs a leaf or a fruit from a plant growing in a perforated flowerpot on Shabbat is liable, as a plant in a flowerpot with holes in it has the legal status of a plant connected to the ground. Picking from it is prohibited due to reaping. And one who picks from an imperforated pot is exempt, but it is prohibited to do so ab initio. And Rabbi Shimon deems one who does so exempt in both this, the case of the perforated flowerpot, and that, the case of the imperforated flowerpot.

GEMARA: Abaye raised a contradiction before Rava, and some say it was Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rav who raised the contradiction before Rav: On the one hand, we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Shimon deems one exempt in both this case and that case. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon equates a perforated pot with an imperforated pot. And they raised a contradiction: Rabbi Shimon says: The only difference between a perforated pot and an imperforated pot