Shabbat 122

אמר ליה כאותן של בית אביך

Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said to him: They are like those from your father’s house, which are large (Tosafot).

ואמר רבי אבא בר כהנא אמר רבי חנינא קרונות של בית רבי מותר לטלטלן בשבת אמר ליה רבי זירא בניטלין באדם אחד או בשני בני אדם אמר ליה כאותן של בית אביך

And Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: The sedan chairs of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi may be moved on Shabbat. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Abba bar Kahana: Are you referring to sedan chairs that can be moved by one person or those that can be only moved by two people? He said to him: They are like those from your father’s house.

ואמר רבי אבא בר כהנא התיר להם רבי חנינא לבית רבי לשתות יין בקרונות של גוי בחותם אחד ולא ידענא אי משום דסבר לה כרבי אליעזר אי משום אימתא דבי נשיאה:

And Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: Rabbi Ḥanina permitted the members of the household of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi to drink wine transported in a gentile’s wagons even though the wine was sealed only with one seal. He was not concerned that perhaps the gentile may have opened the barrel and poured wine libations to idolatry from it or touched it, which would prohibit drinking it. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana adds: And I do not know if that is because Rabbi Ḥanina holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who permits drinking wine from a gentile that was protected by a single seal, or if it was because the gentile would not dare to open these specific casks due fear of the household of the Nasi, but in general Rabbi Ḥanina prohibited drinking wine protected by a single seal.

מתני׳ גוי שהדליק את הנר משתמש לאורו ישראל ואם בשביל ישראל אסור מילא מים להשקות בהמתו משקה אחריו ישראל ואם בשביל ישראל אסור עשה גוי כבש לירד בו יורד אחריו ישראל ואם בשביל ישראל אסור מעשה ברבן גמליאל וזקנים שהיו באין בספינה ועשה גוי כבש לירד בו וירדו בו רבן גמליאל וזקנים:

MISHNA: If a gentile kindled a lamp on Shabbat for his own purposes, a Jew also uses its light; and if the gentile kindled it for a Jew, the Sages prohibited to utilize its light. Similarly, if a gentile drew water from a well in the public domain to give his animal to drink, a Jew gives his own animal to drink after him from the same water; and if he drew the water initially for the benefit of a Jew, it is prohibited for a Jew to give his animal to drink from that water. Similarly, if a gentile made a ramp on Shabbat to disembark from a ship, a Jew disembarks after him; and if he made the ramp for a Jew, it is prohibited. There was an incident in which Rabban Gamliel and the Elders were traveling on a ship and a gentile made a ramp on Shabbat in order to disembark from the ship on it; and Rabban Gamliel and the Elders disembarked on it as well.

גמ׳ וצריכא דאי אשמעינן נר משום דנר לאחד נר למאה אבל מים ליגזר דילמא אתי לאפושי בשביל ישראל וכבש למה לי מעשה דרבן גמליאל וזקנים קא משמע לן

GEMARA: The Gemara comments: And it was necessary to teach this halakha in all these cases. As, had it taught us only the halakha with regard to a lamp, I would have said that this is the halakha because the light of a lamp for one is the light of a lamp for one hundred people. There is no need to kindle multiple lamps for multiple people; the light of one candle suffices for many. Therefore, it is permitted to use the light of a lamp kindled by a gentile. However, with regard to water, there is room to issue a decree against benefitting from the gentile’s efforts, lest one come to increase the amount of water he draws for a Jew, even without stating that intention. The Gemara asks: And why do I need the mishna to mention that it is permitted to use the ramp? The Gemara answers: It taught us the case of the ramp to cite the incident involving Rabban Gamliel and the Elders to indicate that they followed this ruling in practice.

תנו רבנן גוי שליקט עשבים מאכיל אחריו ישראל ואם בשביל ישראל אסור מילא מים להשקות בהמתו משקה אחריו ישראל ואם בשביל ישראל אסור במה דברים אמורים שאין מכירו אבל מכירו אסור

The Sages taught: If a gentile collected grass on Shabbat for himself, in order to feed his animal, a Jew may feed his own animal after him, and if he collected it for the benefit of a Jew, it is prohibited. If he drew water to give his animal to drink, a Jew may give water to his own animal to drink after him, and if he drew it for the benefit of a Jew it is prohibited. In what case is this statement, that if the gentile acted for himself it is permitted for a Jew to benefit, said? When the gentile does not know him; however, if the gentile knows him, it is prohibited, as in that case, he certainly intended to benefit his Jewish acquaintance as well.

איני והאמר רב הונא אמר רבי חנינא מעמיד אדם בהמתו על גבי עשבים בשבת אבל לא על גבי מוקצה בשבת דקאים לה באפה ואזלא היא ואכלה

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Rav Huna say that Rabbi Ḥanina said: One may position his animal over grass on Shabbat, even grass that is growing in the ground, and there is no concern lest he detach the grass and feed the animal; however, he may not position the animal over an item that is set aside on Shabbat, since there is concern lest one lift the item with his hand. The grass that the gentile collects for himself is certainly set aside, so why may the Jew feed it to his animal? The Gemara answers: Indeed, a Jew may not position his animal over the grass that a gentile picked; he may only position it in before the grass at a distance, and the animal goes on its own and eats.

אמר מר במה דברים אמורים שאין מכירו אבל מכירו אסור הא רבן גמליאל מכירו הוה אמר אביי שלא בפניו הוה רבא אמר אפילו תימא בפניו נר לאחד נר למאה

We learned above that the Master said: In what case is this statement, that if the gentile acted for himself it is permitted for a Jew to benefit, said? When the gentile does not know him; however, if the gentile knows him, it is prohibited. The Gemara asks: However, in the incident involving Rabban Gamliel and the ship, it is a case where the gentile knows him as they traveled together on the ship. Abaye said: The action was not performed in Rabban Gamliel’s presence, and since the gentile had not seen him he intended to make it only for himself. Rava said: Even if you say that the gentile made the ramp in his presence, that is irrelevant because a lamp for one is a lamp for one hundred; similarly, with regard to a ramp, once the gentile constructs it for his own use it can be used by others with no further adjustments.

מיתיבי אמר להן רבן גמליאל הואיל ושלא בפנינו עשאו נרד בו אימא הואיל ועשאו נרד בו

The Gemara raises an objection to Rava’s statement based on the Tosefta: Rabban Gamliel said to them: Since he made it not in our presence, we will disembark on it. Rabban Gamliel made use of the ramp only for this reason, contrary to Rava’s explanation. The Gemara rejects this: Say the Tosefta in an emended form: Rabban Gamliel said to them: Since he made it, we will disembark on it.

תא שמע עיר שישראל וגוים דרין בתוכה והיתה בה מרחץ המרחצת בשבת אם רוב גוים מותר לרחוץ בה מיד אם רוב ישראל ימתין בכדי שיחמו חמין התם כי מחממי אדעתא דרובא מחממי

Come and hear proof from another baraita with regard to the dispute between Abaye and Rava: With regard to a city where both Jews and gentiles live and there was a bathhouse in it in which there is bathing on Shabbat, if the majority of the city’s residents are gentiles, it is permitted to bathe in the bathhouse immediately after Shabbat because the bathhouse was heated on Shabbat to serve the gentiles. However, if there is a majority of Jews in the city, one waits after Shabbat for a period of time sufficient for them to heat the hot water so as not to benefit from prohibited labor performed on Shabbat. Apparently, even when an action is not performed in the presence of a Jew, there is concern that it may have been performed for the benefit of Jews. The Gemara rejects this proof: There, in the case of the baraita, when they heat the water, they heat it with the majority of the city’s inhabitants in mind, and the owner of the bathhouse sets the heating schedule to service the majority.

תא שמע נר הדלוק במסיבה אם רוב גוים מותר להשתמש לאורה אם רוב ישראל אסור מחצה על מחצה אסור התם נמי כי מדלקי

Come and hear a proof from the following baraita: With regard to a lamp kindled at a banquet in which several people are participating, if the majority of those present are gentiles it is permitted for a Jew to utilize its light, and if the majority of those present are Jews it is prohibited, as in that case, the lamp was certainly lit for the Jews’ benefit. If those present are half Jews and half gentiles, it is prohibited. Since they are participating in the same banquet, the gentile certainly knows the Jew. Why, then, is it permitted for a Jew to utilize the light of the lamp even when the majority of those present are gentiles? The Gemara rejects this proof: There, too, when they kindle the lamp,

אדעתא דרובא מדלקי

they kindle it with the majority of the those present at the banquet in mind. When the majority of those present are gentiles, it is permitted.

שמואל איקלע לבי אבין תורן אתא ההוא גוי אדליק שרגא אהדרינהו שמואל לאפיה כיון דחזא דאייתי שטר וקא קרי אמר אדעתא דנפשיה הוא דאדליק אהדרינהו איהו לאפיה גבי שרגא:

The Gemara relates that Shmuel happened to come to the house of Avin Toran. A certain gentile came and kindled a lamp. Shmuel turned his face back away from the lamp in order to avoid benefitting from the light. When Shmuel saw that the gentile brought a document and was reading it, he said: He kindled it with his own benefit in mind. He turned his face back toward the lamp.

הדרן עלך כל כתבי

מתני׳ כל הכלים ניטלין בשבת ודלתותיהן עמהן אף על פי שנתפרקו בשבת שאינן דומין לדלתות הבית לפי שאינן מן המוכן

MISHNA: All vessels may be moved on Shabbat, and their doors, which are part of these vessels, along with them, even if they were dismantled on Shabbat, as the doors of these vessels are unlike the doors of the house. It is prohibited to make use of the doors of a house on Shabbat, even if they were removed from the entrance, because they are not prepared from before Shabbat.

נוטל אדם קורנס לפצע בו את האגוזין קרדום לחתוך בו את הדבילה מגירה לגור בה את הגבינה מגריפה לגרוף בה את הגרוגרות

Likewise a person may move a mallet, which is generally used for labor prohibited on Shabbat, to crack nuts with it. Likewise, one may move an axe, a tool generally used to chop wood, to cut a cake of figs with it. So too, one may move a saw to cut cheese with it. Similarly, one may move a spade to scoop dried figs with it.

את הרחת ואת המלגז לתת עליו לקטן את הכוש ואת הכרכר לתחוב בו מחט של יד ליטול בו את הקוץ ושל סקאים לפתוח בו את הדלת

One may also move a winnowing shovel and a pitchfork, both of which are designated for use with crops in a barn, to place food on it for a child. One is likewise permitted to take a reed or a shuttle from a spindle, ordinarily used for weaving, in order to insert it into food like a fork. One is permitted to move an ordinary hand needle used for sewing clothes to extract a thorn with it, and one may move a sack maker’s needle to open the door with it.

גמ׳ כל הכלים ניטלין ואף על פי שנתפרקו בשבת ולא מיבעיא בחול

GEMARA: The mishna states: All vessels may be moved, and even if they were dismantled on Shabbat. Should we learn from here that there is only a question with regard to vessels which were dismantled on Shabbat, and that there is no need to mention vessels detached during the week, as it is certainly permitted to carry them on Shabbat?

אדרבה בשבת מוכנין על גבי אביהן בחול אין מוכנין על גבי אביהן

On the contrary, if they were dismantled on Shabbat it can be said that the parts of the vessel were prepared for use at the onset of Shabbat, due to their being attached to their original vessels from which they were removed. However, if they were detached during the week, at the onset of Shabbat they would not have been prepared for use, due to their being detached from their original vessels from which they were removed.

אמר אביי הכי קאמר כל הכלים ניטלין בשבת ודלתותיהן עמהן אף על פי שנתפרקו בחול ניטלין בשבת

Abaye said that this is what the mishna is saying: All vessels may be moved on Shabbat along with their doors. And even if they came apart during the week, they may be moved on Shabbat.

תנו רבנן דלת של שידה ושל תיבה ושל מגדל נוטלין אבל לא מחזירין ושל לול של תרנגולים לא נוטלין ולא מחזירין

The Sages taught: With regard to the door of a chest, or of a box, or of a closet, one may remove them from their hinges on Shabbat, but he may not restore them to their original places. And with regard to the door of a chicken coop, one may neither move it nor restore it to its place.

בשלמא של לול של תרנגולים קסבר כיון דמחברי בארעא יש בנין בקרקע יש סתירה בקרקע אלא של שידה ושל תיבה ושל מגדל מאי קסבר

Granted, in the case of a chicken coop the tanna holds: Since the coop is attached to the ground, there is a prohibition against building on the ground and there is a prohibition against dismantling on the ground. Consequently, when one dismantles or restores the door he has performed the prohibited labor of building. However, in the case of the door of a chest, or a box, or a closet, what does he hold?

אי קסבר יש בנין בכלים יש סתירה בכלים ואי אין סתירה בכלים אין בנין בכלים

If the tanna holds that there is a prohibition against building with regard to vessels, then there is also a prohibition against dismantling with regard to vessels and it should be prohibited to remove the door. And if there is no prohibition against dismantling with regard to vessels and it is permitted to remove the door, then there should also be no prohibition against building with regard to vessels. Why, then, is it prohibited to restore a door to its original place?

אמר אביי לעולם קסבר יש בנין בכלים ויש סתירה בכלים ושניטלו קאמר

Abaye said: Actually, he holds that there is a prohibition against building with regard to vessels and there is also a prohibition against dismantling with regard to vessels. To resolve the difficulty, emend the text. Rather than saying: One may remove them, it is saying: The doors of a chest, or a box, or a closet that were already removed may not be restored.

אמר ליה רבא [שתי תשובות בדבר] חדא דניטלין קתני ועוד מאי אבל לא מחזירין אלא אמר רבא קסבר אין בנין בכלים ואין סתירה בכלים וגזירה שמא יתקע:

Rava said to him: There are two possible responses with which your statement can be rejected. One is that it is taught in the baraita: One may remove them, ab initio. And furthermore, what is the meaning of: But one may not restore them? According to your emendation, what is the meaning of the word, but, in this context? Rather, Rava said: The tanna holds that there is no prohibition against building with regard to vessels and there is no prohibition against dismantling with regard to vessels, and so why did the tanna rule one may not restore the door? It is due to a decree lest one fix it firmly in place in the manner of a full-fledged prohibited labor, completing the production process of a vessel.

נוטל אדם קורנס כו׳: אמר רב יהודה קורנס של אגוזין לפצע בו את האגוזין אבל של נפחין לא

The mishna states: A person may take a mallet on Shabbat in order to crack nuts with it. Rav Yehuda said: The type of hammer in this case is a hammer designated for nuts to crack nuts with it, but blacksmiths’ hammers, no, they may not be used.

קסבר דבר שמלאכתו לאיסור אפילו לצורך גופו אסור

That tanna holds that using an object whose primary function is for a prohibited use, even for the purpose of utilizing the object itself to perform a permitted action, is prohibited.

אמר ליה רבה אלא מעתה סיפא דקתני ואת הרחת ואת המלגז לתת עליו לקטן רחת ומלגז מי מייחדי ליה לקטן אלא אמר רבה קורנס של נפחין לפצע בו האגוזין

Rabba said to him: But if what you say is so, how do you reconcile this with the latter clause of the mishna in which it is taught: And a winnowing shovel or a pitchfork in order to place food for a child on it; are a winnowing shovel and a pitchfork designated for use by a child? Rather, Rabba said: The mishna should be interpreted as follows: One may use a blacksmiths’ hammer on Shabbat to crack nuts with it.

קסבר

The tanna holds: